Why did Police use the 38 Special instead of 45 Long Colt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree 100% with pubilus and gyvel

The "military mindset" is a scary and sometimes ridiculous thing. Campus cops in SWAT pants? My question is can they hit a barn door with birdshot?
In small town America if they to want make law enforcement better require monthly handgun qualification and regular drug testing (drug test all public employees and elected officials for that matter).
The truth is many law enforcement presonel don't make me feel any safer and while on the subject, few of the TSA folks either.
The history of caliber selection in a deep subject, one worthy of a good book.
Often politics and political correctness get into the issue. And ammo selection is a critical part of caliber effectiveness.

Pray and Shoot Daily.
Lee Jones(Celtgun


It never seems to occur to people in procurement offices that if you cannot shoot, gadgetry will not help, and that if you can shoot, gadgetry is unnecessary.
Col. Jeff Cooper
 
"I wonder when good DA revolvers chambered in something larger than a .38 special showed up."

The 1880s.

Smith & Wesson introduced the .44 Russian First Model Double Action in 1881. There were several other models of double actions prior to 1900, as well, with additional chamberings in .38-40 and .44-40.

The Colt 1878 Frontier model was an improvement on the Lightning (but still not as robust as later models, or the S&Ws) and was chambered in a number of big-bore cartridges all the way up to .476 Eley.

The 1889 Navy was Colt's first truly modern and reliable revolver. It was chambered for .38 Short and Long Colt and .41 Short and Long Colt. The .41 Long Colt still wasn't as powerful as the .45 Long Colt or the .44-40, but it was a marked improvement over the .38 Long.

The Colt New Service was introduced in 1898. It's the largest of the Colt double actions, and I believe was the largest DA made by any company until S&W came out with the X frames a few years ago.


As for the .357 Magnum, despite the apparent timing of its introduction, it was thought of as primarily a sportsmen's gun/round, not a combination for law enforcement because it was so expensive and, until WW II stopped production, essentially hand made.

S&W considered the .38-44 HD cartridge to be more than adequate to the needs of Law Enforcement in the 1930s.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the .357 Magnum truly became a law enforcement cartridge. And even then, most times police forces that carried .357s carried .38 Special +P or +P+ cartridges.
 
For example, Mike Venturino once asserted in an article that he knows "for certain it is about the largest cartridge non-enthusiast people can be taught to shoot with any degree of proficiency."
Click to expand...

That does not surprise me. I'm pretty good with .40 S&W and .357 Mag but I'll tell you, slap some +P's in my Speed Six and I can keep every shot in one ragged hole all day long, without even trying. I think I really get the most satisfaction out of .38 Special. Of course every gun is different (I can barely hit the paper with my .40 Cougar while my .40 RAMI and 40B are right on target) but the .38 Special seems to be consistently accurate in every firearm I have tried.
 
Gyvel nailed it.

My Grandfather was a Philadelphia policeman, then later detective for the same bureau from WWI 1918 or so into the 1950's. I have all his pistols. All are S&W revolvers. His first was in .32 and is a small, almost laughable break top revolver. It looks like a toy. He later carried a larger frame S&W revolver stil in .32, then later in his career still larger one on .38 Special.

Oh yeah, in over 40 years as a Philly cop, he NEVER had to draw his weapon. NEVER, and told me he was treated with utmost respect. Very different picture today. The bigger question is, why did this change? But that is for another forum.
 
Celtgun brought up an interesting point. People view the average police officer (rightfully) as less trained than the military, especially in weapons. Most people in the US would not like the idea of a beat cop's primary weapon being a SBR or SMG. It is intimidating to people. (IMHO it maybe a good idea to deter crime in specific scenarios.)

Public View: Police are around to help deter crime and serve the citizens. Soldiers are around to fight wars and protect the country. Different tools for different roles. Americans are not fans of well-armed soldiers walking around the streets. It makes them think things are unsafe because of the level of weaponry required by those there to maintain order. Police have always carried less powerful guns than the military. It makes sense. A patrolman in a cruiser is less likely to need his weapon than a soldier on patrol. Accordingly, it is different threat level, too.

Regarding .38 vs. .45 for police duty, the .38 was simply the right tool for the job. It worked well and was the best suited cartridge for the job. There always has been/always will be times when LEO's (or soldiers, too) are going to be under-armed for a particular situation. You have to go by 'the law of averages' when determing needs for standard equipment.
 
I forgot about something - a technical issue.

The 45LC has an abnormally small rim. And in the early 20th century they were still using "balloon head" brass which meant that the rim wasn't solid, it was a folded sheet of two layers of thin brass. This meant that while you COULD build a DA wheelgun in 45LC, ejection with a star extractor was "iffy" - unreliable. That very likely turned the police agencies off, and with good reason.

Any law enforcement agency that wanted to go big-bore circa 1920ish would have looked to the 44Special...but few did.
 
<thread drift> As an aside, thank you, Jim. I have read the term "balloon head case" many times and always wondered what that meant. Mystery solved!</thread drift>
 
To back up a bit,
+1 to Jim March, I heard that cops used trouble with the recoil of hot 125 grainers and that k frames wore out rather fast because of the full house 357.
Click to expand...
But the K-frame .357 magnum wasn't developed until in the late 1950s, IIRC. So, the erosion issue wasn't a factor in the choice of .38 spl over .45 LC.

As to the public being more polite and respective of police a hundred years ago or more -- I'm not so sure that is universally true here in the U.S. Besides all the "Old West" stories one hears, I've read a fair amount of old case law about people resisting arrest and even killing the officers and then getting off later if it was an illegal arrest (no warrant, etc.).

I really think the main reason for not going with a larger caliber is that it meant a larger and heavier gun when the .38 spl was (and still mostly is) an adequate caliber.
 
I think Celtgun is in the ballpark on the answer. The powers to be in both the military and LE departments having the responsibility of weapon & caliber selection are normally cut from the same cloth and have none to very little firearm experience and for those few that possess some knowledge – they were never in the field day in and day out where they depended on their weapon for comfort & security. Our Warriors go into battle possessing equipment from whatever firm submitted the lowest bid – that in itself says volumes about members of congress who “support” our Warriors, especially after reading different battle reports citing performance deficiencies on some of our issued weapons & accessories. Politics, sweetheart deals and greed have always ruled the day and it doesn’t look like it’ll change anytime soon.
 
Generally speaking, cavalrymen and mounted rangers preferred .44 and.45 revolvers, both in this country and abroad, starting in the cap and ball era and continuing into the era of revolvers that used metallic cartridges. For others, the .36 Navy, and later, .38, revolvers were very popular.

After trying the ill-fated .38 Long Colt. the U. S. Army reverted to using .45 pistols; remember that the Model 1911 was a originally a cavalry arm.

People who did not ride horses often found the .38 Special to be a more than adequate replacement for the earlier .38 revolvers. Both the guns and the ammunition were lighter and easier to carry on foot than those of larger caliber, and there was no need to shoot a horse out from under an enemy combatant. Also, in urban and suburban areas, one was not likely to encounter a dangerous animal. The .38 was more than adequate, and as been mentioned, many people and police department personnel felt well served with .32 revolvers.

Proficiency undoubtedly entered into the choice. before WWII, the British decided to replace their .455 Webley revolvers with smaller .38-200 Enfields, reportedly because they were easier to shoot well. Later, the U.S. Air Force adopted the S&W Combat Masterpiece in .38 Special for much the same reason.
 
Some more points to consider....

Several good, valid, and accurate points have been raised, but some questions and assumtions, have been based (understandably, but inaccurately) on modern attitudes. When considering why people in the past did things the way they did, you have to take into account the way they thought about things.

The Army chose the .45 caliber because they had a need for something that would put down a horse! They got the Colt SAA and the S&W. They used S&W Schofield ammo in both guns. This is the era when the .45 Colt came to be called the "Long Colt", because it was longer than the .45 S&W round.

In 1892, the Army, realizing that they probably weren't going to be facing any enemy cavalry for a while decided to go with the new .38 cartridge and guns. This is the round that got blamed for such miserable performance during the Moro campaign in the Phillipines, and resulted in the military going back to a .45 caliber handgun.

The police, on the other hand, didn't have a big need for shooting horses. And for many years, patrol officers had not even been armed with firearms! A billy club, a whistle, the respect of the badge, and the fact that only (reasonably) big tough men were chosen as officers (beat cops), did the job. The social concept of police brutality didn't exist. And, cops walked. They walked alot. So when things got to the point of officers being armed, big heavy guns were not popular. In metro areas, especially. Sheriffs, and rangers, guys who covered a lot of ground (rural and especially out west), rode horses, and bigger guns stayed in favor.

When the Army went to the .38 Colt, metro police were carrying a .32. If that. And, (as mentioned) remember that in those days, getting shot at all was much, much more often fatal than it became later, medicine being what it was back then.

Also, look at the general size of the population. Compared to later generations, people were smaller. Still tough, but smaller. A big burly street cop of 1910 might not make today's high school football team. As a reciever!

Move up to the 1920s, things are changing, but not everthing. Automobiles are the thing, for cops, and robbers. Cops have often moved up to the .38 Spl, but the dislike for big heavy guns still exists, and .45 revolvers and the 1911 are considered to be big heavy guns!

The level of what police could manage was also a belief that weighted against more powerful rounds. .38 Spl was thought to be the max an average guy could handle well. Look at the early ads for the .357! "recommended for big men of exceptional physique", and the like.

Add in the fact that even though the Army used the 1911, autoloaders were not felt to be relable enough for general police work. And they were "complicated". Police never had a concern about firepower, but they did have a big one about portability. Even by the 30s, lots and lots of beat cops still walked everywhere, in big cities. Patrol cars were making inroads on this, but hadn't yet come to dominate. So a big, heavy gun, shooting a powerful round (that wasn't needed) was something the beat cop didn't want.

Officer safety was not the issue it has become since. It was the attitude of the times, cops got hurt and killed on the job. That was the price of doing the job. Today, we put so much emphasis on officer safety, a turn of the century cop would be flat amazed.

We look at things today, with all we have learned over a hundred years, as part of our baseline, and think, "why didn't they do ...?" but back then, they thought different, felt differently about what was more important, and often, just didn't know, or didn't have the technology available.
 
Post #31

Good additions.

Gosh, when I was young, one had buy books to get this kind of information.

Matter of fact, that input from 44 AMP is consistent with all of those good books I used to have.

I remember seeing catalogs listing a Smith and Wesson revolver as the .32 Regulation Police. I have one now. The revolver that is now known as the S&W Model 10 was known as the Military and Police.

Someone riding horseback on the range might well have seen the need for a .44 or a .45, and someone driving highway parol car might have agreed or have wanted a ".38-44", but around town things were different in those days.

If I had been given the choice in the days of the police revolver, I believe would have selected a .38 over a .44 or .45.

Things have changed. The police where I live have .40 caliber semi automatic pistols on their belts and shotguns and AR-15 rifles in their cars. It's almost as if they are planning to go after Mr. Barrow and Ms. Parker.
 
My not-too-educated guess:

A 38spl revolver is much smaller, lighter, and easier to handle than a 45lc revolver. Add the fact that 38 snubs are pocket size for plain clothes work, and I imagine the deal is done.
 
I think Bill DeShivs and 44AMP have hit on it... Sheer Size of the platform.

I'm a big .45 Colt fan, and own several, including single and double actions. While they're fun to shoot, when it comes time to carry something all day long, it's my J-frame that goes with me.

If you get a chance, handle a Colt New Service or an S&W N-Frame sometime. These are large guns, not something you want to carry on your hip all day unless the odds are very good you're going to use it on a regular basis, which is not the case with the average police sidearm, then or now.
 
Old New York had plenty of rough neighborhoods-Hell's Kitchen, e.g. , and tough ethnic gangs that would put their modern counterparts to shame. For
whatever reasons gunplay was not part of those gangs' ethos, and the policeman's authority was maintained more by his baton than his sidearm. Also concepts such as stopping power-and comfortable grips-were just beginning to be explored. I have an S&W M1917 and a Colt M1917, neither has comfortable grips IMHO.
 
As for the .357 Magnum, despite the apparent timing of its introduction, it was thought of as primarily a sportsmen's gun/round, not a combination for law enforcement because it was so expensive and, until WW II stopped production, essentially hand made
Click to expand...
.

Not entirely true. The Utah Highway Patrol issued Colt Shooting Masters in .357 Magnum (with 4" barrels no less!) in the 30s. I had one and studiply let it go some years ago.
 
Not entirely true. The Utah Highway Patrol issued Colt Shooting Masters in .357 Magnum (with 4" barrels no less!) in the 30s.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in the prewar days, police with .357s were the exception, not the rule.

Some highway patrol agencies adopted the .357Mag relatively early because it is better than .38Spl, .45LC, and .45ACP at penetrating heavy steel car bodies.* Furthermore, the emergence of highly mobile, organized, and heavily armed criminal gangs in the early 1930s prompted some of the newly-formed highway patrol agencies* to adopt equipment and tactics appropriate for fighting such gangs. Access to state coffers also helped, given the very high cost of .357Mag revolvers at the time. Most local governments weren't willing to expend this kind of money. Some still expected the police to purchase their own sidearms!

Footnotes:
  1. Car bodies were made out of much heavier steel in the 1930s than today. FWIW in 1933, two Dallas County sheriff's deputies armed with Thompson SMGs ambushed Clyde Barrow driving a '32 Ford. Barrow escaped and the car was later found abandoned; almost none of the .45ACP rounds had penetrated the body! (The deputies had obtained the guns and ammo from the National Guard, so they were presumably firing military 230gr FMJ hardball.)
  2. Prior to the era when automobiles became commonplace, crime was mostly seen as a local problem; many states either didn't have a state police force at all, or only had a small agency mainly geared towards investigating state-regulated commercial matters.
 
IIRC the 38 Super was touted for its ability to penetrate car bodies.
What was police marksmanship training like back then? From what I was read it was basically target style, no two handed holds, Weaver stance, what have you.
 
Great question. I think, like a lot of the folks here, that the size and heft of the firearm was probably the reason. I carry a five inch barrel N frame eight shot on duty and am not concerned about the weight, but I am not a foot patrolman either like so many of the officers from that era. However, I would have at least expected that when the 44 special became available in 1908, more would consider that a better choice than the .38 special even though it weighed more. From everything that I have read, including Sixguns by Keith, the .38 special was woefully ineffective in the cartridges available at that time (through the 1960's). I think it is a solid round now, especially when a smaller gun is more appropriate such as concealed carry.

As far as the 1911 platform, I believe that the general thoughts were at the time, that it was unsafe to carry the pistol cocked and locked like everyone does now. It seems a mystery to me since I carried one that way for quite a few years. But, I remember Bill Jordan talking about this in his book and I also noted that the unchambered condition was the chosen method by the very active Shanghai police during the British days in the early 20th century. The double action revolver was faster in those regards. And, of course the revolver was seen as more reliable for the majority of the 20th century.

Again, good question, one that we can ponder on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top