Times, they do change. I am no longer associated with law enforcement, but I still shoot and train with LEO's and I shoot their courses of fire from time to time. Through the years I have worked with many PPC shooters who needed a coach and wanted to move up a class. I have also worked with several LEOs who needed help to qualify when their jobs were at stake.
At one time, our Game and Fish, Highway Patrol and most municipal agencies all packed K-Frame Smiths (usually 4 inch 66's) with a few N-Frames and an occasional Python thrown in. Since that time, all state agencies and the municipal and county agencies where I live have gone to the semi-auto. The county and municipal guys have gone to Glocks and the state guys shoot Berettas.
I have had many auto vs. revolver conversations with older trainers who, just like me, love revolvers, cherish the wood and steel of the 1911 style pistol and abhor anything made of polymer or chambered in 9mm or .40 caliber. Still most of these trainers admit that it is easier, less expensive and quicker to get a new shooter "qualified" with a Glock than with a revolver. They also tell me the average scores within their agencies actually raised at distances under 25 yards when they switched to pistols. However, the scores at 25 yards and beyond fell dramatically.
My personal belief is that anyone (LEO or not) who takes a serious approach to their firearms training can become competent with either a revolver or a pistol in a short time. Those who don't take a serious approach will be marginal no matter what they carry.
Furthermore, any trainer who is worth a damn will be well versed with both the revolver and the pistol and he will do what it takes to see his students be successful. All too often I see firearms trainers who are "stuck" with "newbies in fatigues" who are all packing "plastic" pistols. The jaded attitude and resistance to change exhibited by the trainer is all too apparent to the trainees and nothing good ever comes from that.