Which do you think that Police should carry? I have built guns for LE for matches, One worked in DC and was in 6 shoot-outs and never empty his model 10. Now they carry up to 100 rounds on their belt, I think some are GUN-HO. To many games and TV shows with shoot-outs. New LE should have to carry a revolver for so many years, then they can go to the auto. I didn't write this to start a fuss, or out right WAR. Read this and think about it - Please. When I was a part time LE in a small town I had my 686 in the car and when I got out I took the old 94 Remington with me. Go to a Bar fight and just work the action on that old gun and everyone stopped.

I think these days LEO's weighed down with so much gear and extreme threats need to carry the lightest high capacity handgun available. My retired LEO cousin never shot anyone even guns drawn on him. He told me he carried a M28 sold it for a 686 and then issued Glock 17 with SWAT carried M9. He still owns 686 , Glock and last time I seen him had bought a new M&P 15.

Never having been a law enforcement officer, I can't give any practical experience, but here's my two cents worth.

I think we all have to admit that times are much, much different than when most of us were growing up. Respect for law enforcement, respect for parents, and overall respect for society's basic norms has pretty much gone out the proverbial window for not only the criminal element but for many of the millennials as well.

That being said, our LEO's are facing a whole different breed of cat than they were twenty years ago. As a result, it's probably in their best interest to be prepared for the worst. Sure, maybe they'll only need a few rounds, but on the other hand, they may not.

Like I said, just my two cents worth...and it probably isn't worth even that.

__________________
Pack light and cinch tight.

Respectfully, here's my opinion:

Today's police officers carry polymer semi-autos because it's the best option.

Easier to shoot well.

Faster to reload.

Higher capacity of ammo.

More high retention holster availability.

Less expensive.

Going from revolver to semi would be a waste of overall training time. Training is a precious commodity and there's no sense in a plan to change weapons that much mid career without a better reason.

The days of presenting a firearm at a bar fight or other scene to persuade people to stop are long over, unless there is a known good reason to believe deadly force is needed.

*Now there are some reasons why a revolver is better than a semi. The debate between the two will never be resolved on an internet forum. But for professional law enforcement, semi-auto has the definite advantage.

Polymer!

I am not a cop but in today's climate, if I had to go amongst the great unwashed, I would want as many rounds as a pistol's bomb bay would hold.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

I personally think they should carry whatever they shoot and manipulate better under stress. I LOVE revolvers but they wouldn’t be my first choice. Is a skilled person with a revolver at a disadvantage? Probably not. When I got in to law enforcement in 92, 95% of my department were carrying a variety of semi autos. I carried a Glock 17 with a total of 52 rounds. I don’t think that was excessive at all. Having too much ammo never occurred to me. In these days, you couldn’t pay me enough to wear a badge!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you hunt tree rats, who will come back with more ammo and more rats? Someone that uses a single shot or the one with a auto?

Single shot wins every time, when you have more on you the less you worry about it. When the man got shot the other day the LEO shot three times - hit the man 2 times and a car with a family in it one time. Poor trainning. I get fired up myself by myself to easy, what I wrote was food for though.

Neanderthal that I am, I think it's the shooter and not the gun that count. Charlie Askins, Jim Cirillo, Bill Jordan and many others whose names are unknown to us dispatched many a bad guy with revolvers-and in 38 Special no less. I read a number of articles in the gun magazines where LEO firearm instructors said large capacity magazines encouraged a "spray and pray" mentality and one emphasized that he forced new trainees to group.
And I firmly believe that if you feel the weight when you are "packing iron" then you need to start "pumping iron."

I don't think having the LEOs with the least experience, mandated to be under armed in comparison to their peers, would be a good idea.

__________________
No baby we aint

I would rather see cops spending more time training and less time shooting......When you read some of the news stories about 30 rounds being fired at a single subject who may or may not have been armed, you have to wonder what in the hell is going on. Perhaps carrying a revolver with only six rounds would provide a better incentive to use what they had more wisely. While a vast majority of cops are good, level headed people, their ranks also attract a lot of maniacs.

Many LEO's are not gun guys. The needs of a department in rural areas and urban are very different. I believe that each department should have the personnel on hand to determine their needs. I believe in an ideal world that those folks are rarely management. In a wonderful world management would form a committee and listen to their findings. I think such a committee would rarely find for a revolver in today's world due to costs, firepower, training ex military and wanting to be seen as modern.

I own revolvers three to one over autos and if I went to work as a Police Officer I would happily carry Tupperware.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

__________________
Sure you did

These days I'd be thinking belt fed.

I have considered myself a wheel gun guy since I was a small kid shagging brass at IPSC matches for my dad and a few "notable" shooters just hoping to use my father's Model 36 in a steel plate side shoot as a reward... dad was busy putting a Model 66 thru it's paces...

Barney Fife made it thru his entire career with just 1 round... but that was fantasy in Mayberry... today... plastic fantastic with the most ammo that could be carried reasonably is the proper way to go...
just make training a major priority... both shooting and not shooting...

I think Leo's should pick & buy their own weapons. In the 70's the county I lived in new deputies were given a gun allowance w/ only a stipulation of .38 special or larger. One older deputy carried a .45 Colt SA. He usually scored highest on qualification day. He was in shoot outs twice & sent 3 who were trying to kill him to their graves... the last shoot out 2 idiots came after him w/ auto pistols & put a lot of lead in the air & hit nothing, he fired once @ each. DRT.

There is no turning back the clock. Doesn't matter which is better. What matters to government, big and small, is cost. Cheap plastic will continue to win until someone comes along and figures out a way to make a service pistol out of something even cheaper.

If you don't trust them to carry a semi-auto why would you swear them in as a LEO?

I'm not a LEO. I am an armed security officer. The light weight polymer with advantages in weather do sound nice to me. I'm a huge fan of the M&P-10/64, and I have a nice 64. (Personal / Not my duty weapon) I get where the OP is coming from; but, as they say, "Situation dictates tactics". Things have changed so much. What's normal now? Do officers really need 45 rounds on their belt? There is so much hostility toward officers right now. May God bless and protect everyone with a badge. At this time in current-events. My vote goes to a M&P9, of what ever caliber you like.

__________________
Hillbilly

A culture of violent resistance has been created by a collection of factors, likely starting with the Garner (Tenn. v. Garner) decision, which came out when I was in law school. It was an unintended consequence, but that does not make it not a consequence.

As such, the training and equipping of officers has had to change. Remember first and foremost that a handgun is a secondary weapon, carried for convenience, not effectiveness. Those old time gunfighters did not use handguns when they expected a problem - they used rifles and shotguns if they could. Same here.

The complexities of societal expectations have resulted in a lowering of the standards for shooting, both decision making and physical skill. According to research by the USMC referred to by Pat Rogers when teaching, shooting skill shows deterioration at 7 days. What we see with better judgment training is that officers shoot sooner and more, even with better precision. That result scares the typical manager (as opposed to leader).

Policing is regional. If NYC, backup is often flooding in at 15 seconds or not much more. I've worked in place where 10-30 minutes was foreseeable, and there are places that are even worse. In addition, as we learn more about the performance improvements from mounted lights and red dots, which are made to work more easily with pistols, they are less and less optional.

Would I carry a revolver under some circumstances? Yes. When I started, I did - because that's what I had. Is a good G17 or M&P 9mm a far better choice almost all the time? Yes.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

What's a 94 Remington?

Gentlemen and ladies, I think that this is a reasonable question, and very poignant. I will try to present my opinion without intentionally violating forum rules.

Whether the police are equipped with revolvers or Tupperware is a secondary issue. Officers must be trained from the start to make each and every round count, then encouraged to maintain that proficiency! In my humble opinion, the two greatest moves to decrease an officer's proficiency was the introduction of the Q target and the move to make police officers social workers. A return to the decimal target will either weed-out incapable officers, or force officers to become more proficient with their duty weapons.

Before you decide whether the officers should be issued revolvers or Tupperware, look at the ammunition and the mission it must serve! My apologies to the 45 ACP, but there is no wonder cartridge that comes close to performing all of the requisite chores of all police work. While the 9mm may be appropriate for the urban street cop, it may fall very short for the open highway trooper or rural sheriff's deputy!

Which should be issued, the revolver or Tupperware? It really depends. On my way home from a match yesterday, I was passing through the suburbs of a city that could reach a flashpoint faster than the time it takes to blink. The question I started to think about was, if I suddenly encountered a flash mob of "non-violent protesters" practicing the fine art of "peaceful violence", what would I do if I couldn't turn and run? Regardless of where I was, because my home state limits me to 10 rounds, I was extremely limited in my options. I was left to potentially three options:
1) do nothing, get my a** kicked, and risk my target gear falling into the wrong hands,
2) engage the threat in the hopes that the threat diminishes like roaches when the lights come on, or
3) engage the threat until my reloads run out, and take as many threats with me before I'm killed or get my a** kicked and my target gear and my EDC fall into the wrong hands.

Honestly, I don't envision being able to de-escalate the situation by talking. In the event that the situation can't be avoided, I fear that the only recourse is a plan of brutal force, and to pray for a successful outcome.

Now, which is the better weapon to issue a LEO? It can't be a single, pat answer, but the weapon that best meets the individual needs and demands of the department for the majority of the staff in order to accomplish the stated mission! Maybe it isn't what should be issued to the officers, but maybe a more realistic approach in selecting who becomes the officer!

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

As far as I know, every state has a set of standards that officers must meet at least yearly. As long as the officer meets those standards, let them carry what they shoot the best, as long as each sidearm is checked by a qualified armorer.

When I retired in 2001, I was carrying a 3" M625 in .45 ACP. I could reload as fast as and sometimes faster than other officers who were using semi autos. My scores were in the upper 80s to low 90s.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

0 LE experience, but I think the good guys should be as well armed as the bad guys. This may be overly simplistic, but I thought this was why LE organizations were moving toward the higher capacity tupperware.

The incidents I have been in two things happened:
1. I wished for something belt fed
2. I wished I had listened to my Mother and became a Firefighter

I’ve not squirrel hunted with a single shot ever since I could afford something better. Single shot does not win every time. Cops no longer use revolvers and lever guns for the same reason, because there are better tools available.

Poor training? The officer was just in a physical altercation, was engaged in a foot pursuit, dodging a taser shot, then fired on a running subject in subdued lighting and hit him 2 out of 3 shots fired. I think I’d just as soon hold my opinion until all the evidence has been presented to a court of law instead of the court according to CNN.

__________________
Live long and prosper

In my opinion, having worked with police officers and trainers in the past, the capacity of the firearm determines how an officer responds to a deadly force encounter. If you have a revolver with six or seven rounds, the officer tends to be cautious in firing rounds and makes sure each is as effective as possible. With a semi-auto plastic firearm with 15 to 17 rounds you tend to get a spray and pray response. Much less judicious. I knew a police officer who carried a revolver for 15 years when his department switched semi-autos. He practiced a lot so he would qualify with the firearm. The day for qualifying came and he showed up with a couple dozen officers. When it came his turn, he completed the first course with six rounds. The other officers had used entire magazines to complete the course. The officer running the qualifications called everyone over to him. He asked what type of firearm had he carried before the semi-auto? The officer said a Smith & Wesson Model 10. The qualification officer said: "Every shot had to count, right?" Still, if there are multiple suspects with firearms, the officer should have the option of as many rounds he can carry. A semi-auto can be a life-saver.

__________________
That's gonna leave a mark.

I meant a 94 Winchester

Firearms are tools. You use the best tool for the job. Before there were nail guns, power drills and chain saws, you had to do everything by hand. Building a house took a lot longer, but some might say the quality was better. Time does not stand still. What was when we were kids is completely different now. Back then, a revolver might have been enough. Since then we have seen CHP in Newhall, FBI in Miami and the bank robbery with LAPD. All of these agencies were outgunned and out trained. Things had to change, weapons had to evolve. Police are still accountable for every round that leaves the muzzle. Taking away modern tools does not make sense. I agree there are a number of officers who have no business carrying a badge, let alone a gun. This is also "progress" as standards have been loosened and physical fitness is almost nonexistent. Remember, your elected government officials whether federal, state or local are the ones changing the standards for law enforcement. Not the other way around. A lot of good cops will leave or retire in the current "defund the police" climate. If the good ones leave, and very few are willing to become cops, who is left to pickup the badge and gun?

While I understand your reasoning I have to disagree. Cops need modern auto-loaders to be on the same level as the evil doers. Also, I ran out of ammo w/my .38 in the middle of a 1974 gunfight and was lucky to get out w/o being hurt or killed.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

The revolver vs. modern semi auto pistol ended long ago as far as I am concerned. I love my wheel guns but I would not even consider carrying one for self defense. Simply too many profound advantages to a good semi auto.

After years of trial and error I concluded the best choice for me is a compact (single stack) 9mm. Similar guns are made by several manufacturers but I settled on the Ruger EC9s. Works in a pocket holster in right front pocket of my jeans and I shoot it much more accurately than I do a 380. And it has a lot more power. Plastic won't corrode. Strictly a working gun with no emotional investment. Retail is $250 so if lost, damaged or impounded as evidence I don't cry over it. I already have an identical back up ready to replace it.

I know some guys vigorously defend packing a revolver. If a revolver feels better to you then carry it. But you'd be better off practicing with a semi auto until it felt as good. I think it's often the mystique of the revolver that many find appealing.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

I also pocket carry a EC9s. I had carried a 2" Colt Agent .38 special for years, but I shoot the little Ruger better. I carry an extra mag filled with hollow points, even when I go to the mail box. And if I'm going to be outside on my property, I also have an extra mag filled with Speer 9mm shotshells. Amazingly, that EC9s feeds them as well. I'm sure the Speers will handle Mr No Shoulders adequately if I run into him.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I think "less expensive" says it all. If the administrators could give their police water pistols, most of them would.

It is my understanding that after the LA Bank Robbery the LAPD authorized .45acp pistols as the thinking was the .45 would have been better for the officers to combat the BGs than the 9mm pistols they had ???

Not sure about the 45 ACP info. I would guess the SWAT guys were already carrying them. I was referring to the fact that LAPD had to go to local gun shops and borrow rifles because their 9mm pistols were ineffective against the bad guy's body armor. On the original video you can hear the dispatcher advising officers to take head shots due to the armor. That was what I meant about weapons and training evolving. My bigger concern is that there will not be enough "good guys and gals" (not politically correct I know but oh well) to take up the badge and gun. Agencies are already having a tough time recruiting. If the local governments want to cut funding and equip 21st century cops with 20th century equipment, no one will raise their hand and step up to become a law enforcement officer. The cities are already burning and crime is rampant. The citizens will eventually either move out or demand law and order. Not unrestrained thugs, but properly selected, trained and equipped professional police officers. It's going to be a while though.....

There was a guy who left some gatling guns behind awhile back and ended up being outgunned. We all know how that worked out.

That LA bank robbery changed LE forever as have the numerous active shooter events of the recent past. LE should be armed and prepared for the worst case scenario as they see fit. I don't care if they look military or scare jane q public.

being an avid golfer , the phrase "Its not the arrow , its the Indian" , is constantly used.

Using that analogy and being pursuant to the OP topic, Id prefer to have as many arrows as possible.

"That guy" was essentially outnumbered. Not outgunned. The gatlings would have not saved him. Unless you consider they would delay him so much he wouldn't have had the chance to engage.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

People complain that cops are too militarized. Well.....The bad guys started it. There are many documented incidents where cops were out gunned and lost their lives. Law enforcement simply upped their game so they could go home at the end of the day.

Can you blame them? And if you’ve never been in a situation where you had to defend yourself, how can you second guess them? How do you know it’s a training issue? Because they’re cops, they should automatically be experts with guns? Be braver than everyone else? Not make mistakes?

If you haven’t been in their shoes, you need to stop criticizing them. Oh, and tree rats don’t shoot back.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Years ago, my engine responded to a police-involved shooting, to standby for paramedics. The scene was a busy intersection, at a highway on-ramp, at afternoon rush-hour.

Our patient was a big guy, well over 6' feet tall, about 300 pounds. He had two 9mm bullet wounds: one to the heel of his right hand, the other in his face. (The 147-grain bullet was deflected downward through his neck and into his lung; he was still alive when we got him to the hospital.)

The patient had hit a car at the intersection, got back in his own car...and fired up a crack pipe. When cops arrived and demanded he get out of his car, he complied...with a large mallet in his hand. He immediately ran toward a young officer, who unholstered his Glock 17 and fired 12 rounds while running backward.

Where did the other 10 rounds go? Well, one of them went through the windshield of a passing SUV, barely missing the driver. She was quaking and sobbing. The other 9...who knows?

I was shaking my head, and relieved we had only one patient...

I used to tell people I became a firefighter instead of a cop because police cars aren't big enough to hold all the ammo I'd want to carry!

Okay, fine. I'm with you. I don't want to see any dead cops. But the next logical question is: How much militarization of the police is appropriate... i.e., how much is enough? How much is too much? Is there a logical limit or is the sky the limit, meaning no limit at all?

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I certainly don't mind them carrying plastic wonder guns with hi-cap mags. But I've seen a few cases (I won't say where) that approached extreme and definitely raised an eyebrow... and I am a guy very comfortable being around heavy artillery.

I only wish that us licensed civilians could also own and carry modern hi-caps mags 'cause I still don't understand why a cop's life is somehow more important than mine.

I don’t know what the answer is either. But if cops don’t use greater force, some of them don’t go home. We ask them to do a dangerous job with one hand tied behind their back. Maybe more or better training is needed?

And bad guys don’t care. A cops life means nothing to them. They don’t have to play by the rules.

You and I? Our lives are no more or less important. But we are not tasked with protecting the public.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

*
They are not hi-cap. They are standard capacity. Your state legislature has engaged in pretty clear misconduct in passing such garbage, which is based on intentional fabrications by the moonbats. There have been attempts here; I work very hard to communicate the truth about it. Fortunately, most of the LE and prosecution has taken a sound stance on what garbage this is.

"Militarization" is a fabrication from known crazies like Radley Balko, who is well on the wrong side of Dunning-Kruger. He has completely ignored the reality of policing 100 or so years ago, which was a LOT more militarized. I have pictures and some discussion somewhere of large urban police agencies that had squads of motorcycles with sidecars, trikes, and cars with mounted water cooled Browning 30 caliber machine guns. What the average window licker and moonbat calls "militarized" is purely cosmetic.

LE also does not have "rules of engagement" - is has constitutional use of force pursuant to the 4th amendment. (Undoing the training scars for most military personnel who come into LE is a major issue. Pat Rogers wrote about this several times.) SCOTUS has generally come down completely on the correct side of the priority of life assessment. Offender safety is and must be the lowest priority. Compliance is not a discretionary choice, but a mandate of both Constitutional and statutory law. The Courts of Appeals, especially the 9th Circuit, do get it wrong, but the overall picture is pretty solid.

One has to remember that the development of modern SWAT came about directly as a result of the actions of the violent terrorists of the late 60s and early 70s, who are the foundation of those inflicted their conduct on us now. Go find the book "Days of Rage" and give it a good read. SWAT and patrol tactics have had to evolve to address the criminal violence of offenders. American LE kills a tiny percentage of those who present risks of death or great bodily harm to cops (and innocent parties), and need to be a LOT more aggressive. The entire set of assertions about "de-escalation" is based on a mix of knowing falsehoods about the law and the nature of offenders, and some pretty great ignorance.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I agree with the above. I started in LE in 1969 carrying a S&W 38/44 then progressed to a Mod 27 and then made Sgt. Inv. and carried a Mod 19 until I retired in 1998. I saw the beginning of Swat and how they progressed over the years. At first they were seldom used and only for very few incidents but over the years the progressed to being used for everything from a barricaded suspect to serving felony warrants. With the current climate of hate and lawlessness I foresee them being utilized a lot more.

__________________
Dogs are better than people.

We can’t?

__________________
Sure you did

To the OPs question, and the majority of responses; I don't like plastic guns, but agree with the need for a hi-capacity auto in todays climate. So I stay true to the Belgian ( Browning et-al)
Hi-Power design. Blued steel, wood, and hi-capacity

__________________
John

Hi cap whether plastic or steel.
I like that saying “ Nobody in a gun fight ever complained about having too much ammo”

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”

+1 Agree.

That ship has sailed.

As the great Al Gore said, "The debate is over."

You might as well suggest that the military should go back to revolvers.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Not in my loony moonbat state... ... and it seems that more states want to join us.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about old pre-1994 "pre-ban" magazines, which are still marginally legal here as of this writing. I'm talking about magazines for today's modern plastic wonder guns, ones designed and in production since the Federal AWB ended. Totally illegal in MA... and a felony, of course.

That's great if you are talking about ARs & AKs. I agree with you. But what is "standard capacity" for a pistol?

That's right! It's different for each and every pistol. Standard capacity for some modern pistols are as few as 5 or 6 rounds. Those magazines are still legal here.

So in order to differentiate between what's legal and illegal in my loony moonbat state... and so that people will understand me... I choose to use the shortcut term "hi-cap" because those are the ones that the moonbats made illegal and most folks usually know what I mean.

Yes, I could say "post-ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds" are the illegal ones here, but that's kind of wordy.