Should Police be made to carry Revolvers, Semi-Automatics or Their Choice
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
I think the argument that policemen would be better shots because they only have 6 shots is absolutely insane. High capacity causes inaccuracy like guns cause crime.
For primary police use, revolvers offer no advantages. Freedom of choice is nice, but it would suck to have to rely on some guy for back-up who only has 6 rounds at a time and tedious reloads.
For primary police use, revolvers offer no advantages. Freedom of choice is nice, but it would suck to have to rely on some guy for back-up who only has 6 rounds at a time and tedious reloads.
The problem with choice, is fitting limited training time and resources to cover revolvers, autos, the manipulation and malfunction drills of each to a group of recruits of which the majority barely know which end to point down range.
For smaller departments and experienced officers this may not be an issue. However, for instance Alaska has two academies plus Anchorage which is specific to their deparment, about 90% of the agencies or better in AK issue Glocks.
The firearms training curriculum for all three academies is based on the Glock.
For agencies that don't issue Glocks likely require their officer to supply their own guns. Most noobs are going to purchase what they are familiar with.
The only officers I've seen departing from what the large agencies issue are guys that have been on some years and were originally trained on revolvers or S&W autos and they work for smaller departments.
I don't know anyone carrying a revolver any more. The non-Glock guns are S&W, Sig, and Beretta with thed 1911 thrown in occassionally.
For smaller departments and experienced officers this may not be an issue. However, for instance Alaska has two academies plus Anchorage which is specific to their deparment, about 90% of the agencies or better in AK issue Glocks.
The firearms training curriculum for all three academies is based on the Glock.
For agencies that don't issue Glocks likely require their officer to supply their own guns. Most noobs are going to purchase what they are familiar with.
The only officers I've seen departing from what the large agencies issue are guys that have been on some years and were originally trained on revolvers or S&W autos and they work for smaller departments.
I don't know anyone carrying a revolver any more. The non-Glock guns are S&W, Sig, and Beretta with thed 1911 thrown in occassionally.
Long-time LEO firearms trainer here. I have seen the best results when the individual officer received competent training in the sidearm of his or her choice.
Confidence in your personal weapons is a significant factor in winning fights. It's not the only one, but it definitely matters.
Confidence in your personal weapons is a significant factor in winning fights. It's not the only one, but it definitely matters.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The real issue is competent training. That is not always the case. Guns should be chosen to be ergonomically sound for the officer and then much training should be mandated with refreshers.
In the abstract, letting the officer pick something sounds great.
So, they pick something cheap and crappy. They pick a 22 LR as it is easy to shoot on the crappy qualification exam.
The premise is that officers are well trained knowledgeable types that will pick a superb gun. Yeah, right.
Some control is needed based on legitimate standards.
In the abstract, letting the officer pick something sounds great.
So, they pick something cheap and crappy. They pick a 22 LR as it is easy to shoot on the crappy qualification exam.
The premise is that officers are well trained knowledgeable types that will pick a superb gun. Yeah, right.
Some control is needed based on legitimate standards.
I think it should be choice because people have different sized hands and shoot many pistols differently. Same thing with caliber selection. I think that it is not a likely scenario for one LEO to run out of ammo or mags and really need more (and the other LEO has a dif. gun and caliber). I think it all has to do with personal pref. Just my opinion. -pops
casingpoint
Moderator
A California Highway Patrol officer was shot in the head at point blank range while on his knees attempting to reload his service revolver in the infamous Newhall Incident in 1970:
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/newhall.html
A semi automatic pistol might well have fostered a different outcome for James Pence and the three other CHP officers who died with him in a shootout with two ex-cons.
In fact, had the four had fully automatic weapons at their disposal, there probably would not have been an incident at Newhall, CA of any consequence to report except for two dead perps who didn't want to give it up.
Today, all LEO's should be required to carry full autos, either machine guns or machine pistols. A semi automatic is a half baked answer to the question posed here.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/newhall.html
A semi automatic pistol might well have fostered a different outcome for James Pence and the three other CHP officers who died with him in a shootout with two ex-cons.
In fact, had the four had fully automatic weapons at their disposal, there probably would not have been an incident at Newhall, CA of any consequence to report except for two dead perps who didn't want to give it up.
Today, all LEO's should be required to carry full autos, either machine guns or machine pistols. A semi automatic is a half baked answer to the question posed here.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Cops should carry whatever the hell they think is needed for the job*...they're on the street every day, I'm not. Therefore, they're in a better position to judge their requirements than I am.
* ...as long as I am not denied a right to the same hardware while being forced to pay for theirs. Fair's fair.
* ...as long as I am not denied a right to the same hardware while being forced to pay for theirs. Fair's fair.
Coupla points....
Most cops are proficient with at least one gun, or they wouldn't have graduated the academy and been handed a badge in the first place.
It's after the academy that their skills start to fade, if their department doesn't take firearms proficiency seriously. That is an administrative decision, and right or wrong, the brass makes it. All too often politics and budgetary axe-weilding play a part in that decision. Sad but true.
Competent instruction? That's up to the individual FTO, within their department's constraints. I have been fortunate to have been the FTO for a couple of departments with very liberal firearms policies. I have also written firearms policy for a department, and my basic guidelines were "revolver or semi-auto of quality construction. .38 caliber or larger, capable of being fully reloaded via speedloader or spare loaded magazine. The standard qualification course will be used regardless of barrel length."
That last one made them think a little, because my standard marksmanship proficiency course requires that you be able to hit well at 25 yards if you want to qualify. If you don't quailfy- hocus-pocus, you're a jailer, desk clerk etc. That's called 'incentive'
Handgunning has been serious business for me since I was in my teens, and I have experience with about any action type you can name. It was no great leap to deal with shooters with a menagerie of calibers and action types. I have run exercises with 10 shooters on the line, with revolvers & autos, ranging in caliber from .380 ACP to .44 magnum. It worked out fine, and we turned out some excellent marksmen and combat shooters. Probably my biggest headache was keeping ammo on hand, to feed the various duty guns.
I didn't mind. It was worth it to send them out with a gun that they wanted to shoot, and were likely to take out and shoot on their own, between qualifications. Some of them got to be regular weekend shooters- this is the kind of response we were looking for, and the scores improved soon- and significantly.
Most cops who carry something other than the issue sidearm, buy it, the duty leather, spare mags/speedloaders etc. out of their own pocket.
Full auto? Can't comment on that other than to say that most people can be trained to run one OK, and that exceptional people can be trained to run one extremely well. I don't know that I would replace the shotgun with them, though. 00 buck or an ounce slug at 1600+ fps is pretty hard to beat, in my experience.
Most cops are proficient with at least one gun, or they wouldn't have graduated the academy and been handed a badge in the first place.
It's after the academy that their skills start to fade, if their department doesn't take firearms proficiency seriously. That is an administrative decision, and right or wrong, the brass makes it. All too often politics and budgetary axe-weilding play a part in that decision. Sad but true.
Competent instruction? That's up to the individual FTO, within their department's constraints. I have been fortunate to have been the FTO for a couple of departments with very liberal firearms policies. I have also written firearms policy for a department, and my basic guidelines were "revolver or semi-auto of quality construction. .38 caliber or larger, capable of being fully reloaded via speedloader or spare loaded magazine. The standard qualification course will be used regardless of barrel length."
That last one made them think a little, because my standard marksmanship proficiency course requires that you be able to hit well at 25 yards if you want to qualify. If you don't quailfy- hocus-pocus, you're a jailer, desk clerk etc. That's called 'incentive'
Handgunning has been serious business for me since I was in my teens, and I have experience with about any action type you can name. It was no great leap to deal with shooters with a menagerie of calibers and action types. I have run exercises with 10 shooters on the line, with revolvers & autos, ranging in caliber from .380 ACP to .44 magnum. It worked out fine, and we turned out some excellent marksmen and combat shooters. Probably my biggest headache was keeping ammo on hand, to feed the various duty guns.
I didn't mind. It was worth it to send them out with a gun that they wanted to shoot, and were likely to take out and shoot on their own, between qualifications. Some of them got to be regular weekend shooters- this is the kind of response we were looking for, and the scores improved soon- and significantly.
Most cops who carry something other than the issue sidearm, buy it, the duty leather, spare mags/speedloaders etc. out of their own pocket.
Full auto? Can't comment on that other than to say that most people can be trained to run one OK, and that exceptional people can be trained to run one extremely well. I don't know that I would replace the shotgun with them, though. 00 buck or an ounce slug at 1600+ fps is pretty hard to beat, in my experience.
There is an underlying myth here that needs to be dispelled: Guns are not like shoes with a perfect fit necessary to function. 95% of service pistols, revolver or automatic, can be shot competently by anyone if trained to.
While I agree with Marko that WE shouldn't be picking a cop's revolver, a competent police firearms authority should. That way the chief can be sure that his people aren't carrying junk, guns that are inappropriate to police situations or guns that serve poorly when multiple officers are protecting each other.
That may mean everybody gets the same gun, a choice of a few guns, or any gun that is approved. But somebody at the top needs to have some control over what his people are carrying, or he's letting down the smart ones when they are backed up by guys carrying Filipino 1911s.
The auto vs. revolver thing has little to do with the above, except that I think a competent authority would want his officers to be able to cover each other without running out of shots.
The argument for low capacity guns = accuracy is stupid, though.
While I agree with Marko that WE shouldn't be picking a cop's revolver, a competent police firearms authority should. That way the chief can be sure that his people aren't carrying junk, guns that are inappropriate to police situations or guns that serve poorly when multiple officers are protecting each other.
That may mean everybody gets the same gun, a choice of a few guns, or any gun that is approved. But somebody at the top needs to have some control over what his people are carrying, or he's letting down the smart ones when they are backed up by guys carrying Filipino 1911s.
The auto vs. revolver thing has little to do with the above, except that I think a competent authority would want his officers to be able to cover each other without running out of shots.
The argument for low capacity guns = accuracy is stupid, though.
leadcounsel
Moderator
I voted for chosing his/her own, but could be persuaded otherwise...
Seems like the arguments for a standard is:
1) More economical for the department
2) A one style of gun approach is similar to any other equipment. Each cop doesn't get to drive the car s/he qualifies best, uniform that looks best, etc. with or any other equipment for that matter. I don't know if police can choose their own footware, but that might be a counter argument
3) We don't issue different guns for our soldiers, who will likely be called upon more frequently to use them.
4) Woman vs. Man hand size aside, seems that any officer could be trained to effectively employ any common sidearm as chosen by the deparment based on standards including minimum caliber, capacity, reliability and performance.
Seems like arguments for individual choice is:
1) Confidence in the officer
2) Comfort and ergonimics
3) Allow the officer to purchase his own gun provided it meets the department standards and is from a pre-approved list
After furhter consideration I think I'd change my vote to requiring a standard.
As far as providing every day police with machine pistols or fully auto rifles, I think that is a very bad idea. Accuracy decreases rapidly with full auto and, if the argument is against reloads, fully auto weapons would have worse shot placement and more reloads than semi-auto counterparts. Most cities aren't war zones or jungles and every shot has to be accounted for. Those areas that are particularly dangerous have SWAT (who are much more competant with weapons and have a larger arsenal available) available on an immediate basis.
Seems like the arguments for a standard is:
1) More economical for the department
2) A one style of gun approach is similar to any other equipment. Each cop doesn't get to drive the car s/he qualifies best, uniform that looks best, etc. with or any other equipment for that matter. I don't know if police can choose their own footware, but that might be a counter argument
3) We don't issue different guns for our soldiers, who will likely be called upon more frequently to use them.
4) Woman vs. Man hand size aside, seems that any officer could be trained to effectively employ any common sidearm as chosen by the deparment based on standards including minimum caliber, capacity, reliability and performance.
Seems like arguments for individual choice is:
1) Confidence in the officer
2) Comfort and ergonimics
3) Allow the officer to purchase his own gun provided it meets the department standards and is from a pre-approved list
After furhter consideration I think I'd change my vote to requiring a standard.
As far as providing every day police with machine pistols or fully auto rifles, I think that is a very bad idea. Accuracy decreases rapidly with full auto and, if the argument is against reloads, fully auto weapons would have worse shot placement and more reloads than semi-auto counterparts. Most cities aren't war zones or jungles and every shot has to be accounted for. Those areas that are particularly dangerous have SWAT (who are much more competant with weapons and have a larger arsenal available) available on an immediate basis.
BonnieBlue
New member
I am. Are you a shut-in?
BonnieBlue
New member
they're on the street every day, I'm not
I am.
I am.
stephen426
New member
I think the officer should be allowed to choose from a selection of good quality firarms. That way, fit and preference will always meet the quality requirements for the department. That way you don't have some dodo choosing a .22 LR as a carry gun. I think there should be a choice in caliber as well... as long as it is 9mm and up. It seems that most departments have gone to the .40 S&W though.
As for making full autos mandatory... you are out of your mind. How many officers do you think will spend the time to become proficient with a full auto... especially a hard to control auto pistol? Do you want someone who only touches their gun when the need to requalify to be spraying hot lead all over the place? I'm sure most officers don't have time to be sure of whats behind their target and full autos in the hands of non-swat officers is a huge liability. Besides, who is going to pay for all those full auto guns?
As for making full autos mandatory... you are out of your mind. How many officers do you think will spend the time to become proficient with a full auto... especially a hard to control auto pistol? Do you want someone who only touches their gun when the need to requalify to be spraying hot lead all over the place? I'm sure most officers don't have time to be sure of whats behind their target and full autos in the hands of non-swat officers is a huge liability. Besides, who is going to pay for all those full auto guns?
at my last department, officers carried what they wanted to and qualification scores were really high. they decided to issue pistols for uniformity. qualification scores went down and several had remedial for failure to qualify. after a couple of years, they went back to choice of issue or personal purchase. qualification scores went up.
personally, when it's my own gun, i take better care of it. when i had an issued gun, it stayed in the holster in my locker at work. i didn't bring it home because i had my own guns that i shot better with, and felt more comfortable carrying.
personally, when it's my own gun, i take better care of it. when i had an issued gun, it stayed in the holster in my locker at work. i didn't bring it home because i had my own guns that i shot better with, and felt more comfortable carrying.
firespec35
New member
I think there should be a standard but there should be some choice too. My great uncle was Detroit PD untill he retired about 8 years ago. He is also a retired Marine. In the 60's and 70's he went with the flow and carried a .38 revolver untill one incident. He was off duty and picking up my mom at beauty school. Well he observed some guys stealing a car. As he attempted to intervine they started driving the car right at him. He put all 6 into the windshield and not one of them penetrated(May have been better to get out of the way but it was 1977 and hindsight is 20/20). Well the next day he busted out his Colt 1911 and qualified with it. He carried that till he retired. He was in one more shooting about 4 years before he retired. He did not have any penetration problems that time.
As far as no chrome/nickel/stainless guns I think that is a little petty. I work with cops on a weekly basis and they carry stainless and blued/plastic guns and it really doesn't look bad. Personally I like stainless better.
As far as no chrome/nickel/stainless guns I think that is a little petty. I work with cops on a weekly basis and they carry stainless and blued/plastic guns and it really doesn't look bad. Personally I like stainless better.