Why police used Revolvers while military used 1911's "back in the day"?

[cleetus03]

Prior to the 1980ish time period, I always wondered why the majority of American law enforcement adopted the revolver instead of the then current military M1911 service pistol........With that said;



1. What were the attributes of the "SERVICE REVOLVER" that made it more favorable to LE over the semiautomatic M1911 pistol in service with the military?



2. What were the attributes of the "M1911 pistol" that made it more favorable to military personnel over the revolver in service with LE?




I appreciate all the help and info yall can give me on this one!

 

[kwelz]

Unlike with the military the firearm is not the most important tool for police. The revolver worked fine for most applications they had and there was no reason to upgrade to something else.

 

[rainbowbob]

...there was no reason to upgrade to something else.

That may be part of the answer - but it doesn't answer why one or the other would have been chosen in the first place.

 

[General Geoff]

I'd wager a guess that the M1911 was more easily serviceable and had more easily swappable parts, and was easier to clean mud and grime out of, compared to revolvers. These are not usually concerns with police duty sidearms.

 

[rcmodel]

.38 Revolver = Simple, safe, utterly reliable, and almost anyone could qualify with one with little training.

1911 - Increased firepower, increased training to reach the same level of accuracy & safety, and a major distrust of auto pistols by the guys that made the decisions and signed the checks for new equipment.
The cops didn't need increased firepower, and the budget didn't need all new guns, leather to carry them in, and increased ammo costs in training.

And unlike the military, cops couldn't carry 1911's empty until they needed to shoot somebody. A general knows when the troops are going into battle, issues them ammo, and tells them to lock & load.
A cop never has advance warning until the shooting has already started.

There was always the public perception of cops carrying cocked & locked autos that just plain looked bad to the uninformed civilian!

Were it not for the S&W DA 9mm pistol that allowed hammer-down carry, and later the Beretta, SIG and Glock, most cops would still be carrying revolvers.

rc

 

[makarovnik]

The military needs more firepower.

 

[ArmedBear]

it doesn't answer why one or the other would have been chosen in the first place.

Sure it does.

The police and the military had both been using similar .38 Long Colt revolvers. The military found that they didn't work against drugged-up adversaries, whereas the old 1873 did, but they wanted a less-bulky, easier-to-manage .45 caliber sidearm than a single action revolver.

The police never faced the Moro uprising, so the .38 revolver remained the standard issue gun, with improvements over the years, culminating in the .357 Magnum.

Revolvers have some advantages, like DA shooting. Modern semiautos have variations on that theme, but these have emerged much more recently than the 1911. The cops don't tend to arrest a petty criminal with a cocked hammer. Another advantage for years was the predecessor to the modern Taser: the revolver butt. Yes, pistol-whipping was the "less lethal" choice when it was that or shooting the guy -- more recently than you may think.

 

[SalchaketJoe]

The changing role of police in our society.

 

[Slamfire]

1. What were the attributes of the "SERVICE REVOLVER" that made it more favorable to LE over the semiautomatic M1911 pistol in service with the military?

Revolvers had acceptance decades before decent automatic pistols came on the market. The British carried revolvers into battle into WWII. It was not like the autopistols of the era were that much better of a weapon than a revolver. High capacity magazines really changed attitudes towards autopistols.

Early autopistols required more training, and they also were carried with one in the chamber. You have to force Cops to shoot, few are interested in their weapons. I have Cop friends, some of the guys on the force have let their shotguns rust shut. You could not issue a safer weapon than a revolver, there are no flippers or levers to play with, the things are dead nuts reliable, and they are not maintenance heavy.


I also think there are less accidental discharges with revolvers. I have seen databases, there are a lot of accidental discharges in the military with semi automatic pistols.


Perception is important. The public reacts negatively to killer Robo Cops. Cops carrying fully automatic belt fed weapons, dressed in body armor and helmets, gives the public chills. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, a semiautomatic pistol would have given the same reaction.

 

[Quoheleth]

The military needs more firepower.

..and able to reload that firepower in a hurry.

Seriously, the revolver had been the stable of American law enforcement since the Civil War - even before in some areas. It was classic Americana. Too, by the late 1800s, even the military was downsizing in caliber - by the Spanish-American War, the Army had gone from .45 down to .38. As eastern jurisdictions were looking for guns for their constabulary, the .38 was a natural choice - even the army was using it! - and revolvers were a known entity. Colt, Smith, et. al., were the cream de la cream and cops armed with these guns were sufficiently loaded.

But, in the S-A War, it was discovered that the .38 slug was insufficient for the purpose. It was a poor manstopper. The Army rushed old .45 Colt revolvers through rehab and started sending the old thumbbusters to the battle lines.

As the military was upgrading to the automatic pistol and Browning packaged the .45ACP and 1911 together (skipping the history of the 1903 Colt, etc.), the military decided the power of the .45, plus the quick reloading characteristics of the automatic, plus the relative ease of servicing the 1911 all made it a wise decision.

Many western law enforcement agencies - including the Texas Rangers - adopted the 1911 after WWII, partly out of plenty of guns being available, partly because they worked well, especially for officers where backup might be MILES away. But in New York City, heavy firepower wasn't needed. The .38 Special was sufficient unto the day thereof.

Many agencies liked the revolver because it was a relatively easy tool to be trained on. A bucket of .38 wadcutters was a lot cheaper than .45ACP. A revolver's gentle roll was easier to handle than the 1911's rattling and sliding around in the hand. A .45ACP has almost 2x the felt recoil compared to a Smith M&P/model 10. For officers not used to "big guns" - both size and recoil - and civilians not used to seeing cops with cocked (and locked) guns, it was too much. Politics were a big part of government life back then, too!

Q

 

[P-35/53]

When I attended Police School in 1979 we were shown lots of pictures taken at shootings the Captain that ran the school pointed out how many jammed guns were laying near corpses. Rightly or wrongly the powers that be decided six for sure was better than any auto pistol. The department that I worked for authorized the Goverment Model , the S&W Models 39 and 59 and Colt or S&W rervolvers . Another officer and I were the only odd balls with 1911's and we took a lot of ribbing about it.

 

[Jim K]

One point is that the military was more influenced by the adoption of the auto pistol by other nations. After the Spanish-American War, it became obvious to the military (though not to everyone else) that the U.S. was a world power and sooner or later would come into conflict with other European or Asiatic nations, most of whom either had adopted auto pistols or were about to do so.

The police, of course, had no need for such competitiveness, and stuck to their tried and true revolvers. Some individual officers, and a few departments, mainly in the Southwest where .45 handguns were a tradition, went to the Model 1911, but it was generally seen as an "Army gun", needlessly powerful and complicated for a police firearm. Remember also, that in the 1920-1930 era, many police still carried their guns concealed under long coats, slit so they could reach a holster. Slow on the draw, but the policy was not to alarm the public with the sight of a gun. Only in the gangster era of the 1930's did most police begin to display guns openly - first with motorcycle officers, then with police in general. In that situation, a revolver was preferable to an auto pistol.

Jim

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Because only in the last couple decades have police turned into paramilitary forces. The .38 and .357 revolvers did the job just fine.

 

[lexjj]

Police didn't used to be a paramilitary force in this country. Thanks War on Drugs!

 

[Jim K]

One big factor in going to auto pistols was that the LEAA provides cheap 9mm ammo procured under military contract. They don't do that with .38 Special or .357 Magnum.

Jim

 

[MedWheeler]

Not too many soldiers went into battle armed with only the M1911 pistol; they had some sort of rifle as their "first line" gun. Cops didn't, due to the fact that the job simply wasn't looked at as "going into battle." A soldier's weapon(s) were used both in offensive and defensive roles; the cop's was largely defensive-only. The cop's adversaries were also less likely to be armed the way a foreign military force might be.
The trusty wheelgun, especially in .357 Magnum, served American cops well for many decades, and was only phased out when the bad guys did more often start "arming up". Regardless, the service weapon carried by a cop still remains a defensive-only tool, even more so than in years past due to more restrictions on the use of deadly force to prevent a crime or apprehend a fleeing felon (shooting at a suspect fleeing the scene of a just-committed forcible felony was permitted prior to 1984.)
Fortunately, more agencies are adopting the use of patrol rifles.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Unlike with the military the firearm is not the most important tool for police.

it was the exact opposite, the military's primary weapon is not their sidearm...it is their longgun. for the police their sidearm was their only weapon.

1. What were the attributes of the "SERVICE REVOLVER" that made it more favorable to LE over the semiautomatic M1911 pistol in service with the military?

as stated before, the police needed a weapon that was instantly usable (no need to chamber around)...unless they were Barney Fife with his one bullet in his pocket.

remember that the revolver was also chambered for more powerful rounds (.357Mag and 38-40) which could be used effectively against vehicles. revolvers had historically been chambered for more powerful rounds...since the Walker Dragoon, which was only matched by a semi-auto round with the advent of the .44 AutoMag and the 10mm.

2. What were the attributes of the "M1911 pistol" that made it more favorable to military personnel over the revolver in service with LE?

the military were not unhappy with their revolvers, they went with the 1911 to keep pace with Germany and be viewed as a "modern fighting force"

 

[ArmedBear]

the military were not unhappy with their revolvers, they went with the 1911 to keep pace with Germany and be viewed as a "modern fighting force"

They were not overly happy with the .38 Long Colt, though.

A .45 DA revolver is a pretty bulky thing, and the 1911, while it seems heavy now, back then was a great improvement in carry comfort and convenience, vs. a .45 revolver.

 

[Martyk]

Cost = Revolvers were on hand. LE used municipal funds and not federal taxpayer dollars so their budgets were tighter. As such, their weapons were used for a much longer time frame and frequent and rapid up grading was not always feasible. Plus, as mentiond above, revolvers were (and still are) reliable, simple, and accurate enough for the job.

Semi-Auto's = more firepower, faster to reload in battle. Easier to rebuild.

 

[rainbowbob]

The military found that they didn't work against drugged-up adversaries...The police never faced the Moro uprising.

Perhaps the police didn't face the Moro uprising - but that doesn't mean they didn't face drugged-upped adversaries even then.

I think the whole story of the "drugged up" Moros resistance to .38s is kind of a myth. Either a .38 is as good as stopping someone as a .45 - or it isn't.

It probably isn't.

It would seem the police, even then, would be just as interested in stopping power as the military.

 

[stealth]

If it is all about shot-placement shot-placement shot-placement, How can two relatively similar (We are talking about handgun rounds here) be so dissimilar in performance. I'm not sure I buy into the much circulated Moro uprising story. (Not to mention the ".30Carbine rounds bouncing off thick clothing" in Korea, Apparently if you dress up your poodle dog in a thick sweater it can survive a direct carbine hit .. in a warzone)

 

[KJS]

Interesting to read all the replies. I'd wondered the same thing.

 

[bpsig]

revolvers were cheaper. most departments were out to save $, 45 ammo goes faster in auto's. remember be cheaper save $ despite paying out 3-4 x later to retro fix problems

 

[P-35/53]

My reasons for carrying a 1911 over a 357 back then were - controlability , and muzzle flash.

 

[GRIZ22]

1. What were the attributes of the "SERVICE REVOLVER" that made it more favorable to LE over the semiautomatic M1911 pistol in service with the military?


Revolvers were around for over 70 years when the 1911 made it's appearance. They worked and there was no need to fix something that wasn't broken. Many police departments used 32 revolvers into the 50s. Reliability was an issue with semi-autos even in the 1970s. Most semi autos required a break in period from new. Cocked and locked was always viewed as dangerous despite all the explanations on why it wasn't. There is more training time required to competently carry a 1911. Although revolvers are available in more powerful rounds even the 357 Magnum failed the political correctness test in many jurisdictions. Semi autos started to significantly make their way into LE in the 1980s. Many agencies bought S&W DA semi autos. The issue wasn't one of function but one of capacity. The BG could have a 15 shot S&W M59 vs the 6 shooter carried by police. The DA auto could be carried with the hammer down, ready to fire the same as a revolver. 1911s were never a popular police sidearms.

2. What were the attributes of the "M1911 pistol" that made it more favorable to military personnel over the revolver in service with LE?


Any history of the 1911 will tell you that.