Nope, you are going too far. First, I have nothing against going back to the "Good aiming, Good thinking" type of mentality -- I really don't think spray and pray is appropriate at all. But I'll not go so far as to advocate decreasing the firepower capability of the line officers. Far from it. Let them keep their higher capacity autoloaders because there may be situations where that extra capacity will be necessary. No point in hamstringing them. After all, there are no such restrictions on their adversaries. Unless, of course, your real aim is to make sure that the LEO's are outgunned by the BG's, which would be the anarchist's standpoint. I find that sort of mindset to be tantamount to murderous, as you would be knowingly sending the LEO's into harm's way against better armed BG's, all the while knowing that more suitable arms were not only available but were taken away from them. You would be sending them into the fray essentially having one arm tied behind their backs.
Cops should be forced to return to revolvers
- Thread starter MasterPieceArms.com
- Start date
- Status
Sir,
I would be interested to know if you have ever walked the streets on late watch or had someone attempt to end your life in a sudden and violent way. If you have, I would certainly love to hear how your training and experience have influenced your though process. If you have not, I suggest you sign up for a ride along with your local P.D. or S.O. and spend the night with one of these irresponsible, overgunned LEO's for whom you are making this decision.
As for my one such encounter, I put five of six rounds in the A zone of a man who was attempting to cave my head in with a hammer. Had I been working for you, that would have left me one round with which to deal with additional BG's that could have been on scene prior to attempting to use a speedloader to recharge my near empty firearm. Fortunately I had no further adversaries and a 2/3 loaded semi auto to reholster when the scene was secure.
I take offense to your comments, because I take all of my training very seriously and work hard to not end up in the sort of situation you describe. I am not an abberation, as all of the men and women I go to work with every night are well trained and professional law enforcement officers. I look forward to your response and hope you will take the time to educate yourself. You are welcome in my passenger seat as long as you wear body armor and bring an open mind.
I would be interested to know if you have ever walked the streets on late watch or had someone attempt to end your life in a sudden and violent way. If you have, I would certainly love to hear how your training and experience have influenced your though process. If you have not, I suggest you sign up for a ride along with your local P.D. or S.O. and spend the night with one of these irresponsible, overgunned LEO's for whom you are making this decision.
As for my one such encounter, I put five of six rounds in the A zone of a man who was attempting to cave my head in with a hammer. Had I been working for you, that would have left me one round with which to deal with additional BG's that could have been on scene prior to attempting to use a speedloader to recharge my near empty firearm. Fortunately I had no further adversaries and a 2/3 loaded semi auto to reholster when the scene was secure.
I take offense to your comments, because I take all of my training very seriously and work hard to not end up in the sort of situation you describe. I am not an abberation, as all of the men and women I go to work with every night are well trained and professional law enforcement officers. I look forward to your response and hope you will take the time to educate yourself. You are welcome in my passenger seat as long as you wear body armor and bring an open mind.
MasterPieceArms.com
Moderator
Several presuppose that the "best equipment" must mean hi capacity semi auto.
Well that's a flawed question because no one has the authority to do that to you or me, but the citizens and their elected officials have every right in the world to do that to their employees.
In an ideal world sure, but the sad reality is that they are NOT held accountable for every shot they fire once the floodgates open up. Most police departments are amazingly allowed to police themselves and "internal affairs" is billed as something so perfect it couldn't/shouldn't be questioned.
You're making my point for me. If you got the A zone four times, a fifth was necessary why? And where did the 6th end up? If you had been working for me and carrying a .357, since your aiming skills clearly aren't bad, you probably wouldn't have needed the 2nd, and definitely not the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th shots. Since you have forgotten that the above Taurus I would issue you with holds seven, you would have had as many as six rounds of the potent .357 to deal with his buddies. You mentioned body armor. The bad guys sometimes wear it, and the .357 will penetrate that just fine. As you can see, telling me to "educate myself" doesn't fit and comes off sounding typical of government employees.
There it is again, presupposing that a 7 shot .357 is a "decrease in firepower."
More of this false assumption that a skilled user of a .357 magnum with 7 shots available and a speedloader is somehow "hamstrung" and/or "outgunned." Sheesh, where is this tunnel vision assumption coming from? The bad guys with their 9mms (and their complete lack of aiming skills) won't be able to penetrate the LEO's vests but the LEO will if the bad guys got 'em. Now rethink that and tell me again why the LEO and his .357 are outgunned!
Thank you, very well reasoned
.Ok -- I only had to rethink about .1 second, and I still come to the same conclusion. You make the mistaken assumption that ALL BG's practice spray and pray and will thus deplete their ammo supply in a hurry. Not all of them are that stupid. The false assumption is yours, not mine. Fact is, BG's can get body armor as well, and have it already. And guess what? A .357 Mag won't penetrate "standard" body armor -- it isn't a rifle, it isn't a "Death Ray", and nobody makes AP ammo for it anymore anyway. They would be loaded with pretty conventional JHP ammo instead. Fact is, when the LEO is shot out he will have to do a slower reload than the BG, and will have to do so more often (on a per-round basis) than the BG who is armed with a double stack autoloader. With that in mind, I just don't see how you can claim that limiting your LEO's to a .357 Mag (which isn't a bad sidearm, just not a viable modern LEO primary weapon) is somehow not hamstringing that same LEO. Artificially limiting the capacity of the sidearm is certainly not enabling to the LEO, it is in fact a potentially fatal hinderance. This is why I consider your viewpoint to be tantamount to murderous -- you are suggesting putting LEO's in lifethreatening situations needlessly.
You make the fundamental error of underestimating the adversary. Always err on the side of caution.
You also have made the implied assumption that the LEO's will be facing lone BG's. This is an unwarranted assumption, and is yet another reason for the LEO's to be armed with the higher capacity autoloaders.
Facts are:
BG's can be just as well trained and proficient, if not more so, that a LEO.
BG's can be just as well armed, if not better, than a LEO, and that is as it is now -- further limiting ammo capacity and reload speed only makes the situation worse.
BG's can acquire body armor, and have done so in the past.
LEO's can be trained to not "spray and pray" even if they are armed with a double stack autoloader. Reduced capacity is not the answer. Training and marksmanship are.
A 7 shot revolver has only 7 shots, and that is much less than what a double stack 9mm or .40 S&W will carry. Not only that, the reload is normally slower than with an autoloader. With that in mind, a similarly trained LEO that is armed with a revolver will be out of ammo, facing a more difficult reload situation, much faster than a LEO that is armed with a double stack autoloader when both are exercising proper fire control in a prolonged firefight -- which can happen. This can be a life or death determining factor in the firefight.
What the hell does good aiming or good thinking have to do with whether you use a semiauto or a revolver? I thought a person might make competent doubletaps and shoot nice groups with either one.MasterPieceArms.com said:
Yes, I'm sure being able to shoot a bunch of rounds before reloading has no tactical advantage whatsoever.MasterPieceArms.com said:
Quite right. It has nothing to do with anything. Training and marksmanship are what counts, limiting the officer to 7 rounds in the gun just means that the gun empties that much faster in a prolonged fight -- which can be life threatening.
Not that I don't like revolvers, because I do. I think they are good SD solutions for civilians. But my opinion is that they are not really suitable for sustained firefights of the sort that law enforcement and military can face -- at least not as primary duty sidearms.
Here again, you make the erroneous assumption that a .357 Mag is some sort of "Death Ray" that immediately drops a BG in his tracks. Well, it ain't so, unless a direct CNS hit is made which would drop the BG in his tracks even with that double stack autoloader. Yes, a .357 Mag is a hard hitter as far as handguns go, but it is still a handgun, not a rifle/shotgun. What I'm sure that he did was to shoot until the threat was eliminated, as he should have done. What makes you so sure that 1 shot -- just 1 shot -- from a .357 Mag would for absolutely positively sure and real drop the BG dead right there? It just don't work that way. You would still have to keep on shooting until the threat is eliminated. That means a 2nd, 3rd, and so forth shots just like with that autoloader. Because, like it or not, 9mm Para and .40 S&W are both effective (as a handgun can be, anyway) when properly fed and properly placed, there isn't that much more edge to the .357 Mag against humans. Even less when compared against the 10mm and .357 Sig.
BTW -- it sounds to me like he did a pretty good job of real life combat marksmanship. 4 in the kill zone, 5th on target, 1 flier? That's a pretty darned good hit ratio he cites, no matter who you are or what your training has been.
Also BTW -- chances are, the BG would have gone down with just 1 of the kill zone hits -- if given time. But that's not the way it happens in a real SD situation. COM kill zone hits do not necessarily drop a perp immediately, no matter what you hit them with. Yes, that means .357 Mags as well. The only sure dropper is a CNS hit. In reality, you keep shooting even if you score a COM hit, because usually the BG will NOT go down immediately -- they have to bleed out first. Even if you have used the mighty .357 Mag.
threefivesevenmag
New member
Ridiculous.
I believe LEOs have a hard enough and dangerous job as it is.
Revolvers are fine weapons. I enjoy shooting them and I, as a civilian, do not feel undergunned most of the time while carrying one.
Any shooting is a traumatic experience, as a previous poster has shared his story. Without backup and without an unlimited space for speedloaders (which are still not as fast as reloading a mag) a double stack, high quality auto is best for law enforcement officers. They will encounter situations where extra ammo, speed of reloading, and ability to place multiple shots on multiple BGs is a possibility.
LEOs deserve the best equipment they can get. A firearm is just part of the equation. They need well maintained vehicles, radios, body armor, flashlights, medical supplies, and nonlethal de-escalation tools. A revolver can be a great weapon, but as stated by many others it is the SOFTWARE that makes the officer, not the HARDWARE. With proper training, "spray and pray" becomes less liable. Still, having the best hardware is not a bad thing.
I have never been in a gunfight. It is probable that a LEO will have at least one or close to one armed encounter. If we as taxpayers and citizens deny them the best sidearm for their needs we might as well deny them the best vehicles, body armor, radio/communications devices, computers, databases, and nonlethal tools.
And yes, I think LEOs should carry revolvers, at least sometimes. Probably a 642, 640, or SP101 as a backup on their ankle or in a ballistic vest. That is, unless they want to match their primary sidearm's magazines to their more compact backup.
I believe LEOs have a hard enough and dangerous job as it is.
Revolvers are fine weapons. I enjoy shooting them and I, as a civilian, do not feel undergunned most of the time while carrying one.
Any shooting is a traumatic experience, as a previous poster has shared his story. Without backup and without an unlimited space for speedloaders (which are still not as fast as reloading a mag) a double stack, high quality auto is best for law enforcement officers. They will encounter situations where extra ammo, speed of reloading, and ability to place multiple shots on multiple BGs is a possibility.
LEOs deserve the best equipment they can get. A firearm is just part of the equation. They need well maintained vehicles, radios, body armor, flashlights, medical supplies, and nonlethal de-escalation tools. A revolver can be a great weapon, but as stated by many others it is the SOFTWARE that makes the officer, not the HARDWARE. With proper training, "spray and pray" becomes less liable. Still, having the best hardware is not a bad thing.
I have never been in a gunfight. It is probable that a LEO will have at least one or close to one armed encounter. If we as taxpayers and citizens deny them the best sidearm for their needs we might as well deny them the best vehicles, body armor, radio/communications devices, computers, databases, and nonlethal tools.
And yes, I think LEOs should carry revolvers, at least sometimes. Probably a 642, 640, or SP101 as a backup on their ankle or in a ballistic vest. That is, unless they want to match their primary sidearm's magazines to their more compact backup.
Sir,
I will answer your question and again advise that you spend a little time on the street. It was round # 1 that went off into the sagebrush. If you knew a little about gunfights, you would know that people often target the weapon of their adversary when engaging a threat. My first round was targeted at the hammer the BG was swinging at my head. As for rounds 2-6 they were all on target and I ceased firing when the subject crumpled to the ground at my feet. He running toward me and still a threat when the last round was triggered.
The other Officer on scene was incapacitated by the BG with a can of pepper spray. I was the first one to respond to his call for assistance and the next unit was on scene 8 minutes after the "Shots Fired" call went out over the radio. I worked in a large rural county at the time and that was a very fast response!
I suppose by your logic, I should have fired a round or two from my .357 and let the BG punch holes in my head or run away when the first hit failed to stop his aggression. I am sure you would have done a much better job than I making decisions the the second and a half between when the subject presented a lethal threat and the shooting was over.
I will answer your question and again advise that you spend a little time on the street. It was round # 1 that went off into the sagebrush. If you knew a little about gunfights, you would know that people often target the weapon of their adversary when engaging a threat. My first round was targeted at the hammer the BG was swinging at my head. As for rounds 2-6 they were all on target and I ceased firing when the subject crumpled to the ground at my feet. He running toward me and still a threat when the last round was triggered.
The other Officer on scene was incapacitated by the BG with a can of pepper spray. I was the first one to respond to his call for assistance and the next unit was on scene 8 minutes after the "Shots Fired" call went out over the radio. I worked in a large rural county at the time and that was a very fast response!
I suppose by your logic, I should have fired a round or two from my .357 and let the BG punch holes in my head or run away when the first hit failed to stop his aggression. I am sure you would have done a much better job than I making decisions the the second and a half between when the subject presented a lethal threat and the shooting was over.
tomgow29,
Like yourself I've worn the shoes, badge, been fired upon and returned fire. The member who started this thread has never "been there done that". I'm speaking about him alone. He'll never understand. My suggestion to you is to continue to protect and serve your community. One day he'll wake up. Maybe. Stay safe.
Like yourself I've worn the shoes, badge, been fired upon and returned fire. The member who started this thread has never "been there done that". I'm speaking about him alone. He'll never understand. My suggestion to you is to continue to protect and serve your community. One day he'll wake up. Maybe. Stay safe.
..the bottom line is that both the auto and the revolver are a tube for the bullet to zip through...there is no advantage in one over the other if your round strikes an opponet....actually if there is ANY comparison, it would have to be one cartridge pitted against another...I am going to guess that the beforehand mentioned incident occured with a 9mm..lets not start a cartridge debate...but if four rounds struck in a torso did not drop the adversary..I would have looked at the cartridge in question...more ammo...more ammo is not the answer but maybe a stronger round is...most anyone who knows ballistics must agree that one or two solid hits with a 357 will drop virtually anyone...the same could be said with a 45 Colt or ACP...the fact is that the ever-popular 9 has some element of uncertainy to it...I think the adoption of the auto was in some degree a product of fashion-trend in guns...and departments start talking to each other and so most follow suit....any department who uses a revolver for a service sidearm is in no way 'behind' the times compared to those that issue autos...except in the minds of trend-followers...those who may have once used a 357 revolver and turned to the 9mm auto may have took steps backwards by increasing their gun's capacity and reducing their cartridge's effectiveness...thank heaven my mind is not locked in the tunnel of 'only just today' thinking...
...I just notice another thread about a police officer who was shot and killed while investigating a possible burglary...according to the report , he was struck with one 357 round (which was going sideways into his upper body)..he did manage to fire at least 5 rounds before dropping( I don't know but think the proximaty was close)...hitting one crook 4 times and the other 1 time..both criminals survived the encounter..and like always today..the who or what can we blame gang is all over it...this may be an unexpected addition as to if the 9mm can be relied upon to drop an adversay quick enough or not...and most departments carry 9mm autos...
First, I was about to link to a thread in the Tactics & training forum on this.
Second, you provide evidence as to the inaccuracy of your earlier assertion that a solid hit or 2 with a .357 Mag will reliably drop someone right there. As you point out, it ain't necessarily so. He still got off 6 shots after taking that 1 .357 Mag COM hit -- hitting 1 perp 4 times and the other 2 times. So much for the vaunted stopping power of the .357 Mag. Yes, a solid COM hit or 2 with a .357 Mag will usually be fatal, as it was in this case -- but when? As we see right here, it doesn't always happen immediately. The person who was so hit still remains a deadly threat for several seconds while bleeding out, able to attack and return fire as this LEO did.
Fact is, a properly fed 9mm or .40 S&W is not appreciably less effective than a similarly fed .38 Spl or .357 Mag, shot placement being the same. Same thing for a .45 ACP. None of the above are "Death Rays". Real life just isn't like the movies. Handguns are not Star Trek Phasers -- they don't just magically drop perps in their tracks short of a CNS hit. It is always a mistake when using a handgun in SD to make the error of only shooting once under the assumption that the lone shot will be sufficient to stop an attack -- no matter what caliber.
A> What happens in most peoples' minds is irrelevant. What happens to the perp is.
B> Yes, 4 hits are better than 1, the bg bleeds out that much faster. Still not instantaneous unless there's a CNS hit among them.
C> In the cited incident, it took 4 solid COM hits to put a timely stop to the perp in question. 1 hit MAY have done the job, but in reality it took 4 to do the job reliably. That's just the way it is with handguns in the real world.
MasterPieceArms.com said:
Excuse me? I've seen quite a bit of soft body armor that will stop .357 Mag rounds. And I'm not talking about something with ceramic or metal insert trauma plates either.
I suggest you start looking at the ballistic vest sites and look at their performance against most handgun rounds.
I'm also of the opinion that an officer's duty weapon should be something in a major caliber that he can shoot accurately. If that means a wheelgun, fine. If that means a self-shucker that's fine too.
Just rememeber that when SHTF, officers need to shoot NOW and FAST to save their own hides or the lives of those around them. People move, run and shoot back - things your average training silhoutte doesn't do.
Several years ago, up in the higher elevations of the mountains, a sheriff's deputy shot a man with a .357 mag because he was shaking a drink machine (and was from a notoriously dangerous and violent area of the mountains). No kidding. He pulled up behind him at night, put the brights on him, got out of his cruiser, drew, waited for the guy to turn around and put 4 357mag slugs in his upper body.
The guy fell down, stood back up, and followed the creek some 6 miles back to his family's land where he healed up.
I know the guy, and I've seen his wounds. He looks like someone grabbed 4 chunks of meat out of him everywhere he was wounded. He's still alive and doing fine. And one of the nicest guys I've ever met. He's about 6'2" and 275 lbs.
The .357 mag is not a death ray.
Police officers have to be prepared for myriad contingencies that go from rescuing cats to apprehending guys that would make you soil you shorts just to be around.
Go to the county jail and check out some of the inmates whose arms are as big around as your waist and ask yourself if you'd like to be sent to apprehend these guys with only a single .357 (yes, you can have moon clips...)
I'll either carry 2 .45 long colt (bite me, I'll call it long colt if I wanna) wheelguns with buffalo bore type loads, or I'll carry a high cap auto with a hard hitting round like .45 ACP and a smaller BUG for my personal defense, and I'd want no less for a LEO, if not more.
While a wheelgun may, in your estimation, make LEOs aim better and more carefully, they face a much different situation than something so black and white. Any issue with improperly placed rounds is a training issue and not one of weapon choice, anyway. So, the point is really moot.
BTW, I love wheelguns. I like the idea of LEOs carrying wheelguns because it would be much more PC friendly for the Anti's. Wheelguns look quaint in their eyes. But, LEOs have to be diplomatic and convey a sense of instant and lethal force. With our McDonald's culture that learns from movies and video games, that means a double stack full sized auto, and not a wheelgun.
Of course, I'll continue to carry my wheelguns for personal defense until I can attend an IDPA event and not see Pistols malfunctioning regularly.
The guy fell down, stood back up, and followed the creek some 6 miles back to his family's land where he healed up.
I know the guy, and I've seen his wounds. He looks like someone grabbed 4 chunks of meat out of him everywhere he was wounded. He's still alive and doing fine. And one of the nicest guys I've ever met. He's about 6'2" and 275 lbs.
The .357 mag is not a death ray.
Police officers have to be prepared for myriad contingencies that go from rescuing cats to apprehending guys that would make you soil you shorts just to be around.
Go to the county jail and check out some of the inmates whose arms are as big around as your waist and ask yourself if you'd like to be sent to apprehend these guys with only a single .357 (yes, you can have moon clips...)
I'll either carry 2 .45 long colt (bite me, I'll call it long colt if I wanna) wheelguns with buffalo bore type loads, or I'll carry a high cap auto with a hard hitting round like .45 ACP and a smaller BUG for my personal defense, and I'd want no less for a LEO, if not more.
While a wheelgun may, in your estimation, make LEOs aim better and more carefully, they face a much different situation than something so black and white. Any issue with improperly placed rounds is a training issue and not one of weapon choice, anyway. So, the point is really moot.
BTW, I love wheelguns. I like the idea of LEOs carrying wheelguns because it would be much more PC friendly for the Anti's. Wheelguns look quaint in their eyes. But, LEOs have to be diplomatic and convey a sense of instant and lethal force. With our McDonald's culture that learns from movies and video games, that means a double stack full sized auto, and not a wheelgun.
Of course, I'll continue to carry my wheelguns for personal defense until I can attend an IDPA event and not see Pistols malfunctioning regularly.
When will we stop trying to dispute a man who knows everything? The part that you missed was his addition of changing the ROEs to prevent use of deadly force until some PHYSICAL requirement was met.
There was a recent shooting in a mall. The off-duty LEO sent his children and wife outside, then found the perp, identified himself, and was met with gunfire. He dropped the BG after he had gotten off two shots. Good job. The bad thing was that one of the two shots had killed a little girl. His dilemma was that he had been taught to identify himself, and to allow the perp to respond before using lethal force. Had he just identified the man positively as the bad guy, then shot him without warning, the little girl would have lived.
I have no idea why someone would wish to force a particular choice of weapons on the LEOs. His reasoning is specious, and attempts to use a hardware solution to a software problem. The fact that he allows himself the option of carrying the exact same weaponry he would preclude LEOs from using says a lot about a sense of superiority, or arrogance. His disparaging comments about government workers also hints to the fringe element, where the government is to blame for everything, and if only the people would adhere strictly to his interpretations we would all be saved.
With the average gun fight still using three or less rounds, there must be a huge pool of one-shot fights. If that is so, then the dump your magazine battles he harps on would be few and far between.
Why would civilians, many of whom have markedly less training than even the LEOs, be allowed to possess 17 round weapons? It would seem to me to present an even more dangerous situation. Then again, that wouldn't fit into the rant.
There was a recent shooting in a mall. The off-duty LEO sent his children and wife outside, then found the perp, identified himself, and was met with gunfire. He dropped the BG after he had gotten off two shots. Good job. The bad thing was that one of the two shots had killed a little girl. His dilemma was that he had been taught to identify himself, and to allow the perp to respond before using lethal force. Had he just identified the man positively as the bad guy, then shot him without warning, the little girl would have lived.
I have no idea why someone would wish to force a particular choice of weapons on the LEOs. His reasoning is specious, and attempts to use a hardware solution to a software problem. The fact that he allows himself the option of carrying the exact same weaponry he would preclude LEOs from using says a lot about a sense of superiority, or arrogance. His disparaging comments about government workers also hints to the fringe element, where the government is to blame for everything, and if only the people would adhere strictly to his interpretations we would all be saved.
With the average gun fight still using three or less rounds, there must be a huge pool of one-shot fights. If that is so, then the dump your magazine battles he harps on would be few and far between.
Why would civilians, many of whom have markedly less training than even the LEOs, be allowed to possess 17 round weapons? It would seem to me to present an even more dangerous situation. Then again, that wouldn't fit into the rant.
- Status