testtest

Why revolvers?

PAGunGuy

PAGunGuy

Custom
So I start by prefacing this with two statement.

I have never really been a revolver guy and I love 1911s

I have been watching some older moves lately - just watched The Untouchables...not really that great of a movie, honestly, but that's another subject.

But it got me wondering, why, why, why, did police carry revolvers well into the 80s and even 90s when the 1911 was an option?

Again, I might be biased, but I would prefer 8 rounds of 45ACP in a 1911 over any revolver with only 5 or 6 rounds.
 
The 38 Special ammo was cheap compared to quality 45acp. Also, the guns were more cost effective. A police force is a business 1st.
I think, may be wrong but, only detectives were really allowed a choice in carry. The LEOs on here can correct me if I am wrong.
 
I was not in law enforcement, so this is my observation only.
I have traveled through Midway airport in Chicago and I have seen both, some officers carry semi-automatics and some still carry Smith&Wesson model 66's.
I don't know if they are allowed to carry what they are comfortable with or maybe inside an airport they feel a high cap magazine is not needed.
Next time I go there I'll look for a friendly officer and I will ask them.
 
I’m a devoted fan of both the 1911 and the revolver.

I am also smitten with revolver’s method of operation: straightforward, uncluttered, and rugged.

It’s arguably the most reliable repeating handgun design ever made, capable of defying conditions that force many semi-automatics and 1911s to surrender. Notice I said arguably - because if you’ve been around revolvers (and 1911s!) long enough you will experience some issues. No man made machine is infallible.

That simplicity is easy to overlook today with all the newfangled stuff that is introduced almost monthly.
 
If you were on military bases in the 60's-70's, outside armories there was a clearing barrel where you inserted the muzzle of your weapon when loading or unloading. The clearing barrel usually had a coffee can sunk into a barrel of sand. Many of these coffee cans had bullet holes in them, which validated the need for a clearing barrel. 1911's by policy were carried in condition 2 or 3. Many of those unintentional discharges occured when attempting to put the pistol in condition 2. It wasn't until Jeff Cooper came along that carrying locked and cocked caught on. Anyway, training on the 1911 was meager and the 1911 and semi autos in general were thought by many administrators to be unsafe. I can recount several occasions where officers had unintentional discharges with 1911's because they were not properly trained. Revolvers were simpler and thought to be safer. It wasn't until DA/SA semi autos entered the scene that semi autos came into common use.
 
I obviously cant speak for every department; but everyone Ive had contact with ISSUED a sidearm and unless yiu were assigned to a very special unit, you carried THAT gun. When my former department issued the Sig P226 the detectives were issued the P225 (and later the P228). Prior to the Sig they carried revolvers; but I suspect like every other department they bought from the lowest bidder (and sometimes from who courted the selection group the best)

Revolvers, like has been said are a reasonably safe from liability gun, for much the same reason as departments like NYC mandate a 12lb trigger. Its "easier" for a department to make the gun harder to shoot, then train new recruits to shoot well. The no course there are the recruits that should never be cops but who are pushed along thru the process.....but thats another story

I have NO problems with revolvers; but in todays world I do see the advantage of a quality high capacity firearm and a common handgun with his other officers.
 
The auto pistols of the time were still very finicky. The 1911 magazines needed to be tuned to the pistol. The military 1911’s had very loose tolerances and that effected accuracy. The revolver was easier to teach someone how to use. Recoil of the 38spl was a lot less that the 45acp and people just did not shoot or practice as much as we do today.
 
Going back into the 70's we had an armed robber working the area who would rob convenience stores at knifepoint during the midnight shift. One of our officer's wife worked mids in a Stop N Go and he was worried about her, so off duty he staked her store out from across the street when she was working. Sure enough the robber shows up and forces said officer's wife into the back cooler. He calls the cavalry on the radio and it's decided to stay concealed and wait for the crook to come out, to avoid a hostage situation. When he comes out he is greeted with a half dozen shotguns and decides his best course of action is to lay down on the sidewalk as instructed. The sergeant on scene gives our hero officer the privilege of cuffing the suspect. He approaches with his unauthorized 1911 in hand and decides to lower the hammer before holstering and reacking for cuffs. The hammer slips and he has an ND, which strikes the concrete between the miscreant's legs so close it tore his pant leg. I thought of him every time I went into the store because the divot remained in the concrete sidewalk. The chief said no.more 1911's after that. The officer's wife was shaken but unharmed, but the suspect is probably still having nightmares
 
HayesGreener said:
The chief said no.more 1911's after that.
Click to expand...
Yep typical of the blame the tool rather than train the user mentality

When I was a young MP males carried 1911s and females carried 38 revolvers. Yes the military 1911s were loose but they worked. We had a saying "If it dont rattle it dont go to battle" At one duty station I was issued one with a WW1 date, it had been upgraded to A1 mods at some point; but it was a WW1 gun.

They may have been loose but they still were capable of decent accuracy, maybe not Sig P210 match grade but I was still able to qualify expert (admittedly the standards werent exactly hard)


If I were a young Cop today knowing what I know now and worked for a PD where I wouldnt be scrutinized for head shots, I might consider something like a finely tuned Python or 686 with a 6 inch barrel. The longer barrel would be a pain to holster (seated in the car); but it might be worth the hassle for the power of 357 and accuracy and trigger. Yep Id be that guy..........That being said I was the Cop that carried 3 spare mags (one was a 20 rounder) and a few move in my bag in my car
 
Last edited:
PieterCoetzee said:
I have NO problems with revolvers; but in todays world I do see the advantage of a quality high capacity firearm and a common handgun with his other officers.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer:
I have never been involved in a shooting, and never even had to draw my concealed weapon.

I am a civilian. Pure and simple. My needs and daily activities are far different from those of a deputy sheriff in my semi-rural county.

Now hear me out on this. I know a lot of guys on this site are law enforcement, active or retired, or military, active or retired.

I think capacity is less important a factor than proficiency in the platform. I think we all agree on this.

Being familiar with your equipment and being able to perform at a higher level, to include making precise hits with it, are far more important. I would much rather take equipment that am familiar with and can handle under stress, than taking items that I do not know well, or shoot often.

For EDC, a revolver makes sense for me … it’s the original point and click interface.
 
"WE have always done it that way". "If it ain't broke don't fix it".
I remember when the biggest police force in this area switched to autos. I talked with a few officers and they all, off the record, stated they would rather have the revolver back. I don't recall what they switched to. When I started at the prison armed officers were issued S&W M65's then 3-4 years later we switched to S&W 4006. Then a whole slew of different handguns/calibers over the next 21 years. For the job we did, the biggest advantage of an auto, with a mag. disconnect, was that the hands-on transport officer could be armed and by removing the mag. didn't have to worry about his gun being snatched. Yes, I know retention holsters & training and all that... never forget not all I/M's are Professor Moriarty (no matter what they think) nor are they all dumb as a sack of cat food.
 
Anchorite said:
I think capacity is less important a factor than proficiency in the platform.
Click to expand...
100% agree.

I think part of the problem is "covering fire" has become an unofficial mindset AND multiple adversaries.

I once asked a SRO (School Resource Officer) how long the longest hallway was in his school. He looked at me like I had two heads and asked "Why?". I said because I was wondering if he practiced shooting at that distance. He called my boss to complain about me. (He also didnt know where the valves were to turn of the flammable gas in the science rooms OR where the pool chemicals were stored because they can be used to make toxic gas...) Having a weapon capable of hallway distance shots seems like a good idea for a SRO, so if they arent going to issue something like a FLUX then a 6" revolver seems like a good plan
 
I should point out that a number of agencies DID carry the 1911 throughout and some still do. I knew sheriff deputies, sheriffs, detectives, SWAT guys, and Texas Rangers and others who carried 1911's. For some it was optional. What I noted is many who carried 1911's opted for the Colt Gold Cup with adjustable sights or some custom. For the most part those were not surplus G.I. guns In many agencies in the day officers bought their own service pistol, some agencies gave an allowance.
 
While “change” is the only constant in the universe in many organizations change can be slow to materialize. Often the old guys running things want to stick with whatever was in vogue when they came along. During the Civil War Union soldiers could have been issued more modern breech loading rifles, but the generals in charge wanted to stick with muzzle loaders. During WWII the Germans stuck with bolt action rifles because Hitler had used one in the First World War and saw no reason to make a change. But for you old timers that were issued revolvers back in the day do you remember how you had to reload your empty cylinder during qualifying before speed loaders were allowed? Old ideas are probably the worst enemy of change.
 
Recusant said:
While “change” is the only constant in the universe in many organizations change can be slow to materialize. Often the old guys running things want to stick with whatever was in vogue when they came along. During the Civil War Union soldiers could have been issued more modern breech loading rifles, but the generals in charge wanted to stick with muzzle loaders. During WWII the Germans stuck with bolt action rifles because Hitler had used one in the First World War and saw no reason to make a change. But for you old timers that were issued revolvers back in the day do you remember how you had to reload your empty cylinder during qualifying before speed loaders were allowed? Old ideas are probably the worst enemy of change.
Click to expand...
Dump pouches were awful. Pants pockets were worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top