Should Police be made to carry Revolvers, Semi-Automatics or Their Choice

[Handy]

Trip,

I believe the aforementioned "competent authority" is the one to make the call on the type of weapon(s) offered. But I do think, barring unusual circumstances, autos, especially double column ones, are a much better choice than revolvers for police. That may not be true for a deputy in bear country, but any other cop who would be well served by a .38 or .357 revolver would be better served by 9mm, .40, 10mm or .45 auto.

A revolver is a perfectly good defense weapon. But being called on to stop a bank robbery is not a defensive situation. The patrol rifle is not always nearby, and there is no good reason to limit police to a very few shots followed by a long, slow reload.

Revolvers make great backup and off-duty weapons. 15 round autos make acceptable duty weapons. If you feel, like Steelheart, that autos have a safety issue, than use a DAO with a revolver type trigger and the two guns are functionally identical.

 

[Sarge]

Reality check...

Except here in 'debate world', the Joe Cop USA is not gonna have to sling his M4, to head into the donut shop. That ALONE would be reason enough for me to avoid them

We never, never, NEVER go undergunned, when we have the means to do otherwise. The LA Bank robbery was the classic answer to the question of "Why?".

We may however be caught undergunned, trying to win a fight that somebody else started, on their own terms. It comes with the turf. The way we deal with this, provided we survive the initial onslaught, is to fall back to cover, get a rest, and shoot really well with whatever we have. This means we might have to hit a somebody in the schnozz at 50-75 yards wih our service pistol. I have been teaching this, hammering this concept for 15 years now. This is not a popular concept, and is is slightly contrary to what LE have been taught for the last 15-20 years.

It has met with occasonal resistance from the brass, and from the rank & file alike. The resistance from the brass is usually because you can't train 20 cops up to this level, in one afternoon with 100 rounds apeice. It requires a significant investment in time and duty ammo, just to get the guns regulated. It takes still more, along with individual attenion for specific shooters and guns, to get the cops trained.

The resistance from the ground-pounders is usually rooted in the fact that they think they can't DO it. Oh, but you should see the 'light come on' when they start hitting at distance. It's like you gave Popeye a can of spinach.

The same applies to the duty shotgun (I guess you can't call it a 'riot gun' anymore) when they finally figure out that they can reliably plant a 1 oz. slug on somebody at 75-100 yards. I have spend some time on full-autos, but for a hallway or alley fight? If you offer an MP5 and a buck or slug-loaded 590A1 and said "pick one"- I'll take the 590, especially with slugs. You get nine holes with the 00, and one great big nasty one with the slug.

Overpenetration? Two holes (in and out) are better than one, and a slug that shoots through but finishes the fight is a whole lot better than 12-14 that miss altogether. Missed shots are more dangerous to the public at large.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming....

 

[ChrisTx]

Also, for profesionalism finishes should be kept black.

i've carried a ton of black guns. i now have a bright stainless springfield GI that i carry. it has resolved conflicts all on its own. it's amazing how someone who's ready to fight will suddenly calm down and start gawking at your pistol making idle chat about guns.

so i can't agree about the whole "black guns are for cops" thing.

 

[Doug.38PR]

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.

He could have just as easily been on his knees trying to unjam his semi automatic. You could then say "if he had had a plain simple revolver, the outcome would have been different."

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.

Very true. However, question was more geared towards revolvers and semi autos in general not necessarily a specific caliber. On the other hand officers are indeed suppossed to be trained and knowledgeable in general. Most of us in here who are non police have the sense enough not to trust their lives with a 22lr I suspect policemen would have the same sense.
I was told by a policeman on HPD a few years ago that he said he wished he didn't have to carry a gun. Suprised I ask why. He said he could probably do more with his mouth than he could with a gun. Nice good man, but frankly, I'd rather not have on the police force if he felt that way. Might not be willing to use a gun if needed. In most cases you can do more with you mouth than gun, but the gun makes a handy backup if need be. On the other hand, he apparently did change from revolver to glock at some point (since he was on the force for something like 30+ years) which does indicate that he was conscientious to some degree of what kind of gun he was carrying.

 

[Handy]

That's kind of a strange way to look at it, Doug. Both autos and revolvers CAN randomly jam, but both do so at a pretty low rate. But guns run out of ammunition at a very predictable rate.

There are some cases where the capacity of the gun is completely immaterial. And there are cases, like the one quoted, where it MAY have been the difference between life and death. A high capacity auto covers both situations, but the revolver only the first.

If the size, weight, reliability and accuracy are about equal, what possible reason would there be to favor the lower capacity revolver for police work?



As for policemen having sense, I've heard of all sorts of miserable choices officers made about guns and ammunition when given free reign. They might not have been as extreme as using a .22, but they were still foolish. A policeman choosing a 6 shot .38 in a gang area is a similar type of foolish.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Newhall incident

Newhall shooting at J's Cofffe Shop, that was a sad situation, came about by bad training and terrible circumstances.
Was used by many Dept's. for training, WHAT NOT TO DO.
The CHP have one of the highest Mortality rates regarding this kind of stuff.

Just prior to that shooting CHP came into L.A. taking over the freeway's, Interstates and all the highways they felt they needed to write tickets on and bring in the big bucks for the state.

There was a lot of conflict between them and the various Dept's, mostly on the street. They had a bad attitude toward Law Enforcement. They were and still are traffic stop oriented and lackadazical. It goes with the territory I guess.

Many of the officers I knew at the time kept telling them to be more careful and their training was not good. Some listened.

I know that it was a terrible incident, it did wake them up, but it is still one of the hardest way's to learn.

Both riots in LA were because of stops and back up from the officers help calls that went out and the way things went down.
I am not blaming them, just mentioning the similar circumstances 2 decades apart. "Officers need help" calls bring out the best and worst in some cases.

Many of the deaths that are related to LEO's are because of this call. Traffic accidents, death for the officer and the person they are involed with, sad deal.

To be honest they never shot the ammo they were issued. They shot wad cutters in 38 and were issued 357. It was a complete breakdown in training.

I would say because of the incident the officers today are much better trained and gunned. Sad for the 4 officers but it probably saved lives in the long run.

The 357 is a gun that has a specific use, I don't believe it is the one I would have chosen for the CHP.
Semi-Auto pistols have come along way since then and most Depts have them. If they would have been issued the 45 semi auto 1911-a1 back then I don't believe it would have mattered, still bad training.

I knew several officers who felt they would rather not carry a gun, for some strange reason the "true criminal" can read that. They take advantage of the officers weakness. Several of the officer's I knew, got into shooting's and ended up pensioned off.

Tough Job. You guys that have no profile's are not one's I would listen to.
Any one posting should look at the profiles if N/A. I would write them off for any good information.
Someone who will not at least give some information isn't worth reading. IMO.

HQ

 

[Doug.38PR]

That's kind of a strange way to look at it, Doug. Both autos and revolvers CAN randomly jam, but both do so at a pretty low rate. But guns run out of ammunition at a very predictable rate.

There are some cases where the capacity of the gun is completely immaterial. And there are cases, like the one quoted, where it MAY have been the difference between life and death. A high capacity auto covers both situations, but the revolver only the first.

If the size, weight, reliability and accuracy are about equal, what possible reason would there be to favor the lower capacity revolver for police work?



As for policemen having sense, I've heard of all sorts of miserable choices officers made about guns and ammunition when given free reign. They might not have been as extreme as using a .22, but they were still foolish. A policeman choosing a 6 shot .38 in a gang area is a similar type of foolish.

The revolver is a far more simple device and is far less likely to jam than an automatic. In a nutshell for everything that can go wrong with a revolver, 9 things can go wrong with an automatic. Another instance is that if the revolver misfires, you just pull the trigger again and it fires the next chamber. If an automatic misfires, you have to pull the magazine out and pull back the slide to get the bad round out. Automatics (some far more than others) can be ammunition sensitive. On the other hand, as you indicated, automatics do have a higher capacity. The downside to this is that it makes you more likely to spray more shots in a panic than with a revolver. Another downside is that it is harder to keep track of how many shots you fired with a high capacity gun. With an automatic, depending on your ability, you are slightly more likely to have a problem reloading a revolver quickly with a speedloader than with an automatic magazine.
There are tradeoffs for both. Also most gunfights are ended within the 5 or 6 shots that a revolver takes.

As for approaching a gang situation with a .38 special, not so foolish. I would say that if you are that outnumbered and outgunned then you are going to die from being overwhelmed regardless of whether you are depending on a revolver or automatic. The key is mob psychology, or better yet the desire to survive. What is going to happen with the first shot fired? The mob will disperse and/or run for cover. If they don't you are going to die. You can depend on having to have a bullet for everyone there. You need to depend and wait for backup or if none available, your wits.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The revolver is a far more simple device and is far less likely to jam than an automatic. In a nutshell for everything that can go wrong with a revolver, 9 things can go wrong with an automatic. Another instance is that if the revolver misfires, you just pull the trigger again and it fires the next chamber.

--------- However, if a revolver doesn't go bad because of ammo, the malfunction is much harder to fix.

If an automatic misfires, you have to pull the magazine out and pull back the slide to get the bad round out. Automatics (some far more than others) can be ammunition sensitive.

----- That's why one tests one's ammo before hand. Also quality semis are amazing reliable. My 4 Glocks are so. I've had one parts malfunction in 10000s of rounds with them. I've two revolvers that bellied up with a far smaller round count.

On the other hand, as you indicated, automatics do have a higher capacity. The downside to this is that it makes you more likely to spray more shots in a panic than with a revolver.

---------- Please cite your evidence for that with trained shooters? Which are you? Did that influence your choice of guns.

Another downside is that it is harder to keep track of how many shots you fired with a high capacity gun.

----------- It is well known that in gun fights and simulations, people have very little idea of how many shots they fire. Of course, with a revolver, you do know when you run out. I guess it is benefit to know that you are about to run out ammo as compared to knowing that you probably have 10 more rounds.

With an automatic, depending on your ability, you are slightly more likely to have a problem reloading a revolver quickly with a speedloader than with an automatic magazine.

There are tradeoffs for both. Also most gunfights are ended within the 5 or 6 shots that a revolver takes.

That again is the dreaded gun list people don't know squat about statistics fallacy. I truly wish gun folks go to the college and take Stat 101. If the average is 5, depending on the distribution - half could take more than five - Duh. Also, do you carry for the mean or out to a 95% confidence interval - a typical statistical standard. I'll be blunt - anybody who bases a decision on the average alone is very stupid.

As for approaching a gang situation with a .38 special, not so foolish. I would say that if you are that outnumbered and outgunned then you are going to die from being overwhelmed regardless of whether you are depending on a revolver or automatic.

---------- And your evidence for this besides being an internet commando is? In FOF, I've faced 4 opponents with a hicap gun. Sometimes I carried the day and sometimes I didn't.

The key is mob psychology, or better yet the desire to survive. What is going to happen with the first shot fired? The mob will disperse and/or run for cover. If they don't you are going to die. You can depend on having to have a bullet for everyone there. You need to depend and wait for backup or if none available, your wits

-------- You have no idea what will happen besides conjecture. Arguing against having more ammo based on your ill conceived view of a group attack is silly.


So - Doug - you like revolvers. Good for you. They probably will handle the typical single mugger scenario with no shots fired. That's fine - lots of us carry J frames based on a reasonable analysis of the probabilities. However, that analysis of the probablilities is tempered by us knowing the risks. It doesn't negate that carrying a Glock 27 or 26 on your belt with an extra mag is better than a 686 and speed loader if you get towards the ends of the threat intensity distribution and stop misinterpreting the use of the average.

 

[casingpoint]

<He could have just as easily been on his knees trying to unjam his semi automatic. You could then say "if he had had a plain simple revolver, the outcome would have been different.">

I suspect that Pence was not carrying a backup weapon on his person. Or he got lost in the task of reloading and failed to maintain situational awareness. Whatever actually went down at Newhall, a few Uzis on the part of CHP would have changed history.

 

[Handy]

The downside to this is that it makes you more likely to spray more shots in a panic than with a revolver.

This attitude is just insulting. You know what is even more panic inducing? An empty gun.

Also most gunfights are ended within the 5 or 6 shots that a revolver takes.

And the ones that aren't? Too bad, officer?

A well trained shooter who keeps a grip on his fear can perform seeming miracles against untrained people. The only real limit in those cases is his equipment. Putting a capacity limit on a cop is like making him fight with only one arm.



As to your analysis of revolver vs. auto reliability, Doug, I don't know where you're coming from. Revolvers are actually more complex and work under much tighter clearances than autos. Most auto malfunctions (which are extremely rare with police grade equipment) can be cleared in half the time of a revolver reload. And revolver failures of almost any type require a gunsmith. The chance of a malfunction is absurdly low compared to the chance of running out of ammo in a multiple perp situation.

I just saw another example of this on some cop reality show the other day. A policewoman was shot in a garage and managed to fend off attackers coming from opposite directions with the rounds in one magazine. Her last few shots killed one perp and allowed her backup to get close enough to stop the other one. There is no doubt that she was hurt and frightened, but was still able to shoot accurately enough to kill well past the 8 round capacity of a revolver - and it saved her life. If she or her chief had been foolish enough to insist on a revolver she would have been killed while reloading and her partner might have died, too.

I'll bet you can find a lot more of those kind of real stories involving handgun capacity than examples of officers dying with jammed autos.

 

[biglabsrule]

I have to say, as much as i dont like the police all that much, they should be carrying semis, hich capacity clips are called for in that line of work, fast reloading is easily obtained. its like asking "would you use a double barreld shoty or a pump when defending yourself against someone shooting at you" it just makes no sence, the revolver(not saying theyre outdated) were made in a time when semis were not around, they were the first semi.... the cops need every edge they can get....

 

[casingpoint]

Handy,

Do you think Jack Bauer carries a backup piece?

 

[Doug.38PR]

the revolver(not saying theyre outdated) were made in a time when semis were not around, they were the first semi.

Actually that's not true. The 1911 and other type semi-automatics have been around for 100 years. The Browning high power was a high capacity semi auto made in (I think) 1935.
Police used revolvers well into the 1980s

 

[Marko Kloos]

Actually, right up into the 1980s, most serious gunfighters, police and citizen alike, wouldn't trust their lives to anything but a good revolver. The issue revolver for the FBI from the early 1970s right up into the 1980s was the 3" M13, and most PDs issued wheelguns until the mid-to late 1980s.

What has changed for the worse? Certainly not the crime rate, which has been dropping steadily ever since the 1970s and 1980s. Perception is the issue here...most LE agencies did not switch to high capacity wheelguns until the advent of Miami Vice and movies like Lethal Weapon, which gave the public the impression that most drugdealers routinely tote full-auto Mac-10s and UZIs.

 

[Doug.38PR]

yes, I feel kinda outgunned with my 6 shot Detective Special snubbie when looking at Keanu Reeves and his girlfriend in black trench coats on the big screen spraying Glocks and uzzies all over the place while bouncing off the walls killing off two dozen policemen.

 

[Handy]

Marko,

Lethal Weapon and Miami Vice were both made AFTER cops started switching - Gibson's 92F was issue by that time in LA. The movie noted the trend, not the other way around.

BHPs, 1911s and S&W 59s did not make an impact because they were not as refined or offer the features police wanted.

The big switch to autos came shortly after the introduction of what are still considered to be "current" autos - the late '70s Beretta 92SB, Sig 226, P7M8 and S&W 2nd Gen autos. The Glock was something of a latecomer, but helped put the nails in the coffin, as did the even more improved 3rd Gen S&Ws that you used to see almost everywhere before Glock sales went through the ceiling.


These were all VERY reliable guns, and no large department ever switched back to a revolver after issuing them. Apparently, reliability wasn't much of an issue in 1980, despite the inherent distrust of autos.


Another major factor retarding the change to autos was that in the FBI, autos were traditionally looked down upon, because Hoover said they were the weapons of criminals. This stigma affected the FBI (and by extension, all LE) until this same time period. So you can't say that US LE was just being rational holding off on autos. They were being backwards compared to nearly all world police and militaries.


Casingpoint,

I'll comment on fictional Jack Bauer's thought process if you can tell me if Pinnochio ever played with matches.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Handy,
I think Hoover and the early FBI would at times issue 1911s along with the standard issue .38 Official Police Revolver. In fact Melvin Purvis I believe gunned down John Dillinger with a 1911. The Military used 1911s from 1915.

Besides, I don't know why Europe or "the rest of the world" is considered the standard for what kind of weapon should be carried, especially since we as a society have lead the world in nearly every area for most of the 20th century (when cops carried revolvers). Why are we considered backwards if we aren't doing what "the rest of the world" does (they use FMJ in their guns).

You are one of the few people I have heard claim that an auto is less complicated than a revolver. The revolver is notoriously simple and recommended for people who are just starting out with guns. Fewer things can go wrong with it. I'm not even sure that taking it to a gunsmith is more or less likely with a revolver than an auto. Very few things can jam a revolver. A gum wrapper or powder under the ratchet. But those things almost never happen and if they do can be solved by keeping the gun clean and not carelessly leaving things lying around.

As far as Lethal Weapon movie goes, notice every other cop (of all ages despite Gibson's "old timer" statement) in the movie was carrying a .38 or .357 revolver. Gibson was the only one I noticed carrying an auto.

Finally, since I voted for option 3 (their choice), if you feel more confident and comfortable with a semiautomatic, do it.

 

[Handy]

Doug,

Look at a parts diagram sometime. You seem to be confusing "simple to use" with "simple in construction". When discussing reliability, construction simplicity is relevent, not ease of use.
Revolvers are very straightforward to learn, but the mechanism that turns and aligns the cylinders is complex and precise. It is also intolerant of bullet creep and sand. For example: A S&W 19 has 57 parts, and a GP100 over 70, while many autos have barely more than 30 parts.


That said, I will restate my position that reliability is no longer a factor. The failure rate of both modern revolvers AND autos is so low that is not a concern for PDs, and hasn't been for 25 years. While both are capable of failing, in actual practice neither platform is problematic. So the decision really hinges on other factors; like accuracy, effectiveness, size, weight and capacity.



I think you're also missing the point about Lethal Weapon. I was just stating that the movie came AFTER the general issue of the Beretta 92F by the LAPD - so it was not the trend starter as Marko stated. The actual content of the film is immaterial; it is fiction. LAPD made the switch in 1986, the film came out in 1987.


The Hoover's legacy policy regarding automatics is well documented and even resulted in disciplinary action against agents using autos in the late '70s. It may not have been policy in 1934, but it was in the period we're discussing.

 

[jimpeel]

Accidental shootings have increased since the allowance of the semi-auto as police gear.

Back in the late sixties there was a shooting of a man named Detwyler (sp) by the LAPD. The reason the firearm went off was due to the fact that the officer cocked his revolver. A fraction of an inch of trigger creep later, Detwyler was dead.

After that incident, the LAPD changed policy and officers were disallowed from cocking their revolvers. They had to shoot and qualify by shooting double action only. This worked well in the reduction of accidental shootings.

Enter the semi-auto ...

Now the issue of trigger creep is back on the table. There are those of you who will preach to me about fingers on triggers, rabbits in holes, and poor firearms practices but the fact remains that there are those who simply cannot keep their finger off of that trigger or out of the trigger guard.

Unless an officer is willing to shoot DAO or use a firearm that is DA/SA the issue of trigger creep as a factor in accidental shootings will continue unabated.

Now that there are large frame revolvers which have 6, 7, or 8 shots -- and speed loaders therefore -- there is no reason that officers should not return to the revolver as the primary sidearm. Semi-autos as a backup firearm should be no problem as going to the secondary firearm indicates that the situation has already deteriorated far beyond any accidental shooting scenario.

 

[Handy]

Jim,

The current standard for a police firearm is 14 rounds of .40. How do you figure that a reduction to 8 and slower reloads is not "an issue"?