What if Military and LE still used revolvers?
- Thread starter mellow_c
- Start date
aarondhgraham
New member
Chaz 88 nailed it,,,
So I'll add my opinion to the mix.
For many years the standard issue for the USAF,,,
Was the S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece.
Well designed, easily maintained, solid as a rock,,,
In my not-so-humble opinion it's the finest .38 revolver ever made.
Some will say the .38 is too wimpy for a combat handgun,,,
But with modern +P ammo it's hot enough.
Aarond
So I'll add my opinion to the mix.
For many years the standard issue for the USAF,,,
Was the S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece.
Well designed, easily maintained, solid as a rock,,,
In my not-so-humble opinion it's the finest .38 revolver ever made.
Some will say the .38 is too wimpy for a combat handgun,,,
But with modern +P ammo it's hot enough.
Aarond
In the mid 1970's my first Police Revolver was a 28 S&W. A very accurate handgun, and I was totally happy with it at the time. Not the best choice today due to available speed loaders & speed loader carriers for it. Pretty much limited to HKS with not a great choice of duty belt carriers.
For 15 years as a Reserve Deputy, and most of another 2 years as Police Chief while in uniform I carried a 4" S&W model 610 with Full Power 10mm ammo in moon clips. I carried 4 spare Moon Clips on the belt in a Black Basket Weave Quad Carrier . Two up and two down. Also more spare moon clips in the car, and my jacket pockets in the winter months.
My last qualification a year ago I shot a 4 Inch 686-5, and reloaded with Safariland Comp III speed loaders. I had no problem staying up with the Glocks on a practical qualification course shot tactically using cover. I did hear some comments from the younger officers that they had no idea you could reload a revolver that quickly.
My vote would be for the 4 inch 686 Smith & Wesson in a 6 Shot version. Safariland still makes the 333 Speed Loader Carrier in a 2.25 inch model for police duty belts. It holds 3 Safariland Comp III spring driven speed loaders, which only come for the 6 shot models of K and L Frame's. You have a total of 24 rounds on the belt. More than enough ammunition 99% of the time, unless you get into it with Bonnie and Clyde. If you fire more than 24 rounds of handgun ammunition, you will be on the National News.
Keep in mind the handgun is for use when you get caught with your pants down. If you have any idea things will go bad, get out an AR15 or the 870.
I liked a revolver for the knock down power. I live just down the road from Mayberry, most of my gunfights were with deer hit by cars. Where I live we have an armed robbery in the County about once every 10 years or so.
Bob
ICORE MO2908
For 15 years as a Reserve Deputy, and most of another 2 years as Police Chief while in uniform I carried a 4" S&W model 610 with Full Power 10mm ammo in moon clips. I carried 4 spare Moon Clips on the belt in a Black Basket Weave Quad Carrier . Two up and two down. Also more spare moon clips in the car, and my jacket pockets in the winter months.
My last qualification a year ago I shot a 4 Inch 686-5, and reloaded with Safariland Comp III speed loaders. I had no problem staying up with the Glocks on a practical qualification course shot tactically using cover. I did hear some comments from the younger officers that they had no idea you could reload a revolver that quickly.
My vote would be for the 4 inch 686 Smith & Wesson in a 6 Shot version. Safariland still makes the 333 Speed Loader Carrier in a 2.25 inch model for police duty belts. It holds 3 Safariland Comp III spring driven speed loaders, which only come for the 6 shot models of K and L Frame's. You have a total of 24 rounds on the belt. More than enough ammunition 99% of the time, unless you get into it with Bonnie and Clyde. If you fire more than 24 rounds of handgun ammunition, you will be on the National News.
Keep in mind the handgun is for use when you get caught with your pants down. If you have any idea things will go bad, get out an AR15 or the 870.
I liked a revolver for the knock down power. I live just down the road from Mayberry, most of my gunfights were with deer hit by cars. Where I live we have an armed robbery in the County about once every 10 years or so.
Bob
ICORE MO2908
Last edited:
You know, you are hitting on or around a point I like to bring up in every class I teach.
I was a sheriff's deputy many years ago when autos were rare and most cope carried revolvers.
I have a few friends who are recently retired SWAT cops and one good friend who is still with the FBI, and with their help, (and the help of several of their friends) I have been able to come up with some very interesting statistics.
Back in the 60s and early 70s the average police shooting in the "Western District" ( Seven western states, not including Alaska or Hawaii) was an engagement from the officer of 2.8 shots per hit. In 2007 that number is up to 17 rounds per hit.
What does this prove?
I am not sure it “proves” anything but it strongly suggests that in the west, the sport of shooting is not as strongly practiced in the adolescent years and teen years as it used to be.
Most cops that get into shoot-outs do so in the first half of their careers. That means in their 20s and 30s. As shooting becomes less and less of a practice the overall skill level is dropping. For a long time 6 shots was considered fine. Now everyone seems to think a cop with a revolver is almost unarmed.
Yet cops are firing more and hitting less with guns that are no less accurate, but will allow the “7th miss” faster than the old guns.
What is really interesting, according to my FBI friend, is the same kind of statistics from the same period of time in the “Eastern Distract”
On the eastern seaboard gunfights between cops and “bad guys” have always been more numerous than in the western states as an average, and in the 60s and 70s the cops there were also largely armed with revolvers, but their shots to hits ratio was MUCH worse than the western cops.
Why?
We think it’s because for the last 80-90 years sport shooting has been discouraged in that area far more than in the west.
When you grow up shooting a revolver you have a much deeper ingrained set of motor-skills than you do if you start shooting when you are 20-24 years old, and you only get to fire when and where you are allowed.
What does this have to do with revolvers?
Nothing directly, but it may be an insight that needs to be examined.
As autos have become more and more reliable and more and more prolific they sell more. But at the same time shooting as a way of life is becoming less and less common.
So in my opinion the reason most cops do not carry revolvers these days is not actually because they need to shoot more shots in “street wars”. With only very few exceptions “street wars” happen more on TV than they do on the streets.
Cops feel more confident with more ammo, and the autos DO CARRY easier.
But I am 100% convinced that a good shooter who can keep his or her head under stress is about as well armed with a high powered revolver as they are with a good auto.
The fight most often goes to the best fighter, not the best gun.
Good luck and bad luck are factors in winning and loosing, but we can’t do anything about them. So we train to improve ourselves in the area we can have some control over.
Guns are simply tools. A good workman is someone that is an expert with his tools.
Only hits matter. Misses are worthless at best, and often harmful or deadly to innocent people at worst. More misses are worse than less.
So that is an argument in favor of the revolver. My friend in the FBI and one of my cop friends both have told me that if they were in charge they would go back to revolvers for that reason.
I would not embrace that stand personally, but hard to counter. I have to see their point.
Both of them (and myself too, on this issue) say they would requite a LOT more training of their officers if they were in charge.
Both of my dissenting friends know the value of dry-fire drills and my friend Ed says he’d make every office practice for 3 minutes in dry-fire every day before they went out on shift. Not a bad idea really.
Ok….my rant is over
I was a sheriff's deputy many years ago when autos were rare and most cope carried revolvers.
I have a few friends who are recently retired SWAT cops and one good friend who is still with the FBI, and with their help, (and the help of several of their friends) I have been able to come up with some very interesting statistics.
Back in the 60s and early 70s the average police shooting in the "Western District" ( Seven western states, not including Alaska or Hawaii) was an engagement from the officer of 2.8 shots per hit. In 2007 that number is up to 17 rounds per hit.
What does this prove?
I am not sure it “proves” anything but it strongly suggests that in the west, the sport of shooting is not as strongly practiced in the adolescent years and teen years as it used to be.
Most cops that get into shoot-outs do so in the first half of their careers. That means in their 20s and 30s. As shooting becomes less and less of a practice the overall skill level is dropping. For a long time 6 shots was considered fine. Now everyone seems to think a cop with a revolver is almost unarmed.
Yet cops are firing more and hitting less with guns that are no less accurate, but will allow the “7th miss” faster than the old guns.
What is really interesting, according to my FBI friend, is the same kind of statistics from the same period of time in the “Eastern Distract”
On the eastern seaboard gunfights between cops and “bad guys” have always been more numerous than in the western states as an average, and in the 60s and 70s the cops there were also largely armed with revolvers, but their shots to hits ratio was MUCH worse than the western cops.
Why?
We think it’s because for the last 80-90 years sport shooting has been discouraged in that area far more than in the west.
When you grow up shooting a revolver you have a much deeper ingrained set of motor-skills than you do if you start shooting when you are 20-24 years old, and you only get to fire when and where you are allowed.
What does this have to do with revolvers?
Nothing directly, but it may be an insight that needs to be examined.
As autos have become more and more reliable and more and more prolific they sell more. But at the same time shooting as a way of life is becoming less and less common.
So in my opinion the reason most cops do not carry revolvers these days is not actually because they need to shoot more shots in “street wars”. With only very few exceptions “street wars” happen more on TV than they do on the streets.
Cops feel more confident with more ammo, and the autos DO CARRY easier.
But I am 100% convinced that a good shooter who can keep his or her head under stress is about as well armed with a high powered revolver as they are with a good auto.
The fight most often goes to the best fighter, not the best gun.
Good luck and bad luck are factors in winning and loosing, but we can’t do anything about them. So we train to improve ourselves in the area we can have some control over.
Guns are simply tools. A good workman is someone that is an expert with his tools.
Only hits matter. Misses are worthless at best, and often harmful or deadly to innocent people at worst. More misses are worse than less.
So that is an argument in favor of the revolver. My friend in the FBI and one of my cop friends both have told me that if they were in charge they would go back to revolvers for that reason.
I would not embrace that stand personally, but hard to counter. I have to see their point.
Both of them (and myself too, on this issue) say they would requite a LOT more training of their officers if they were in charge.
Both of my dissenting friends know the value of dry-fire drills and my friend Ed says he’d make every office practice for 3 minutes in dry-fire every day before they went out on shift. Not a bad idea really.
Ok….my rant is over
Last edited:
Wyo- While an interesting ramble from a LE perspective the military is mostly convinced that the profligate expenditure of ammunition is the best way of doing business. This is correct in many some ways for a variety of reasons for military operations.
Handguns are not really worthwhile in combat due in part to this line of rationale so just about any quality revolver in .357 or better would fill the roll nicely for the intended military purpose of handgun. Back up defensive weapon, the min requirement to carry a gun.
Handguns are not really worthwhile in combat due in part to this line of rationale so just about any quality revolver in .357 or better would fill the roll nicely for the intended military purpose of handgun. Back up defensive weapon, the min requirement to carry a gun.
Deaf Smith
New member
If they used revolvers they would use a GP-100 designed to hold 7 shots and 1/2 of the grip frame would be polymer to lesson the weight.
Deaf
Deaf
breakingcontact
Moderator
I think S&W just made a model for entry teams. Something about using whilst holding a shield.
For a Duty Gun ....where a little more weight is not a big deal / good solid holsters....concealment is not a factor.... the S&W model 27's or 28's...N frames ..( I'd want the 27 - nicer finish - in a 4" ).....they're .357 Mag...and great guns, great triggers in both SA and DA.
N frame makes them easy to shoot ...well balanced...
N frame makes them easy to shoot ...well balanced...