Would any cop today feel an advantage with a .357 Magnum revolver?

In my 28th year as a cop. 20 in Harlem NYC with a model 10 Smith. Now in Florida with a Glock 23. Never needed to shoot someone but a revolver could never replace my Glock, on patrol. For duty a semi auto ( Glock for me ) is the only handgun for patrol, and off duty, Glock 27. I will always love revolvers, just not for work.

I carried a 6 inch .357 for my first 10 years on the job, usually with the Magnum loading of my choice. I had great instructors at the academy and later training I attended on my own dime, and felt quite comfortable with the revolver, due to the stopping power of the cartridge and the mechanical reliability.

The department then transitioned to autopistols, and we could furnish our own from a fairly broad list. I chose, and still carry, a 1911 with 7 shot mags (have been more reliable, for me, than the 8 shooters). I thought at the time that the 9mm was no better than the .38 Special and I would have much rather stuck with my 6 shot .357 than any 15-18 shot 9mm ever made.

I spent a few years in robbery-homicide after that. Bullet development has given us bullets in all of the fighting handgun rounds that work pretty well. 9mm +P+ isn't too far behind the 125 grain .357 in real world performance.

That said, the most important round you shoot in a gunfight is the first round. Second round is the next most important. In most circumstances, round number 15 is a whole lot less critical.

If you examine police shootings, most of the time when an officer empties a high capacity pistol, it is because he isn't getting any hits, or empties it just because things go so fast. You can easily shoot a .40 Glock dry in under 2 seconds.

For a person who can shoot well, 6 shots of .357 should be more than enough.

For a person who shoots badly, 18 shots of 9mm may not be enough.

I am still trying to find a gunfight where a party needed more rounds after getting 3, 4 or 5 good hits out of the first 6 fired, using a reasonably effective cartridge. People who haven't solved the problem with 6 rounds aren't very likely to solve it with 15 or 20 rounds.

All that said, psychology is a huge factor in conflict. If you know you can shoot your handgun well, because you have in the past, and you know your handgun to be reliable, and you know your cartridge is generally an effective round from the experiences of others, I don't think it really matters what gun you have, revolver or autopistol.

I am happy with my .45 ACP. It is easier to carry all the time than my old 6 inch .357, lighter, flatter, shorter, probably as good (or bad) a stopper. But if I had to go back to a good .357 revolver, especially in uniform, I wouldn't loose much sleep over it. I just don't see any reason to do it.

Real Cops carry revolvers

I was LE from 1974 - 94. When I first started I was issued a Model 15, that was shortly relplaced by Model 28s, (I still have mine, I was allowed to keep it when I retired).

They then desided we could carry semis' and I carried a 1911A1 for a while but went back to my Model 28. We had critters that often needed to put down and I found the 357 and its penitration was a bit better suited for the task.

I'll start by pointing out I own more .357 sixguns than any other kind of gun, including autoloading pistols.
That said, I also spend a lot of my shooting time in "action" competitions like USPSA and to a lesser extent, IDPA and ICORE. I finished fourth overall in an eight-stage, 96-round "carry gun" match behind three Glocks and ahead of thirty other shooters, and I'm "B-Revolver" in USPSA. So I do have a some minimal level of handiness with the revolver.
No, cardboard sports are not related to gunfighting. The only things they can provide are:
A level of stress in shooting nearly all of us can't get practically anywhere else;
And a hard-numbers, real-world answer to how fast you really can place bullets in specific target areas, under that certain amount of pressure, and in certain varying degrees of physical limitations such as awkward angles and in motion.
I don't shoot .357 in competition because after that first shot, it's not a good fighting caliber. Don't take my word for it. Go to a cardboard match with a .357 and see for yourself. I did, a number of times. My scores drop like a rock. Not just for a 26-round course; for a six-round stage, too.
As a result, a .45ACP revolver is about the only sixgun I'd say is good for fighting with.
I have an excellent Detective Special filled with Buffalo Bore semi-wadcutters that I shoot a lot, have some decent skill with, and it might be okay against a lone opponent, and is sure more practical than a Mountain Gun or New Service. So it gets used when I leave my home state sometimes.
But the .357's blast and recoil are a big problem when you're in a hurry.
I've been to an LEO training officer-friend's office and looked through his large real-world video collection of active shootings.
I can't say, after having seen all this mayhem, that six rounds is a comfortable number. Especially nowadays in this era of drug-addled attackers who feel little or no shock or pain from a good hit.
Another good friend of mine watched as his partner put six high-performance .357 slugs into the torso of a drug-crazed lunatic attempting to behead my friend. They never even slowed the guy down and my friend nearly died. Several officers were injured taking down the guy with the six slugs in his guts and chest.
Both my friend and his partner went out and bought hi-cap autos as soon thereafter as they could. Bobby never carried a sixgun again in the line of duty.
I must reject any suggestion that limiting one's ammunition capacity is tied to better training or marksmanship.
I love my sixguns and shoot the dickens out of them, but I have no illusion that I'm better off with six .38s than nine .45s on board.
I will defer on one point to kraigwy- in certain rural applications, I, too, would want a Model 28 for its penetration and possibly greater effective range over the .45ACP.
Close up, fast, adrenaline going, it's a 1911 for me.
The timer and targets tell the tale.

BUFF said:

For a person who can shoot well, 6 shots of .357 should be more than enough.

Click to expand...

For the person who shoots .357s well, 6 shots of .357 should be more than enough. That's why I never understood the training rationale of the Model 19. When it was discovered that the K frame simply could not withstand the constant pounding of full-house .357 loads, LE simply started shooting .38s in practice and training and carrying the gun with .357. A firefight is perhaps the most critical time for you to be absolutely familiar with your weapon and the ammo in it. That means carry what you practice with--your life may depend on it.

For concealed carry, that means if your .38 snub nose is rated for +P, then do a fair amount of your practice shooting the +P rounds you intend to carry. If's it's a .357, the same is true. Don't practice with .38 wad cutters and then carry the darn thing with full-house .357 loads in the cylinder. What good is all that power if you can't hit anything?

Gary7 said:

I don't see how a handgun "stinks" in self-defense situation.

Click to expand...

Handguns are ~very~ underpowered compared to other firearms. You give up power for a convenient package. I would rather go into a gunfight with a full power rifle than a handgun any day of the week but I can't fit a rifle in my pocket. It's all relative.

BE Mike said:

I would not feel under-gunned with a .357 magnum revolver. I've talked to a lot of dinosaurs who started out with revolvers, say the same thing. In my experience, when we went to autos, the agency marksmanship requirements and individual marksmanship abilities took a nose-dive. I'm not against training to shoot close and fast, but I believe the fundamentals of marksmanship should be ingrained first.

Click to expand...

I am one of those "Dinosaurs) In mid 1960s the Dept. issue was the mdl. 10 .38 spl. Did we feel "under gunned = YES, But Many of us switched to .357 mag.s ASAP Mine was a 4" 19 ( also carried a 6" in the "outback")

In the mid 60s,the Dept. started looking @ Semi Autos. They settled on "testing out the S&W 39 ( 9mm) They had a few of us "instructors" put them through the "paces" Our "conclutions:
1. As a Duty gun = NO
a. Not as "reliable" as a Revolver
b. 9mm rnd. = no better than the .38 spl. & def. not as good as the .357 mag.
2. Off duty ( we we req'd to carry 24/7) ok
3. Plain Clothes = ????

The Dept. did go to semis in the late 70s, but Many, (esp. the "old timers) got "waivers" & stayed with their .357 mag.s

Did we ever "feel" under gunned ?? Depends
1. In respect to a "hand gun" situation ( where we could not access our "long guns" (12ga. shoot guns or our rifles) = NO

BTW, I still most often carry a .357 mag ( occasionally a .45 ACP 1911)
Do I feel "out gunned with my .357s ?? + NO But then again I was "trained" to "put rounds on target" & NOT "s\Spray & Pray"

The Proffesor

Photoman44 said:

Handguns are ~very~ underpowered compared to other firearms. You give up power for a convenient package. I would rather go into a gunfight with a full power rifle than a handgun any day of the week but I can't fit a rifle in my pocket. It's all relative.

Click to expand...

Until I can figure out how to comfortably carry an 870 pump concealed, I guess I'm just stuck with an underpowered handgun.

An advantage? No. At a disadvantage, no unless at I was a shooting competition that stacked the deck in favor of high capacity autos. When working cases where a vehicle take down is likely I usually have a 4" .357 in addition to everything else. Please don't beat up the rifle/ shotgun / thermo nuke is better argument, I know. I also know shootouts are very fluid and unfold rapidly. I might not get to my long gun and I prefer the penetration of a .357 on auto bodies over my.45's. I wear both when working.

This is better than a bear thread

Semi's are much better bear guns because they usually have smaller front sights. Less pain when the bear shoves the gun up your "other" holster.

You have to be able to shoot under duress. If you can't do that it doesn't matter what you are armed with. At close range a .22 is just as dangerous as a .44 magnum. IF you are a shooter.
DW

The Proffesor said:

I am one of those "Dinosaurs) In mid 1960s the Dept. issue was the mdl. 10 .38 spl. Did we feel "under gunned = YES, But Many of us switched to .357 mag.s ASAP Mine was a 4" 19 ( also carried a 6" in the "outback")

In the mid 60s,the Dept. started looking @ Semi Autos. They settled on "testing out the S&W 39 ( 9mm) They had a few of us "instructors" put them through the "paces" Our "conclutions:
1. As a Duty gun = NO
a. Not as "reliable" as a Revolver
b. 9mm rnd. = no better than the .38 spl. & def. not as good as the .357 mag.
2. Off duty ( we we req'd to carry 24/7) ok
3. Plain Clothes = ????

The Dept. did go to semis in the late 70s, but Many, (esp. the "old timers) got "waivers" & stayed with their .357 mag.s

Did we ever "feel" under gunned ?? Depends
1. In respect to a "hand gun" situation ( where we could not access our "long guns" (12ga. shoot guns or our rifles) = NO

BTW, I still most often carry a .357 mag ( occasionally a .45 ACP 1911)
Do I feel "out gunned with my .357s ?? + NO But then again I was "trained" to "put rounds on target" & NOT "s\Spray & Pray"

The Proffesor

Click to expand...

I are a dinosaur too!

My point of relaxed agency marksmanship requirements and individual marksmanship abilities weren't intended to mean that limiting an officer to six shots improved his level of proficiency. For some reason, when my agency went to all autos the scoring rings got bigger and the distances shot were decreased significantly. The new recruits from the academy had difficulty qualifying with this easier course. The dinosaurs didn't have that problem. I shot the old course with revolver and auto (both with service issued duty ammo) and my scores were within 1 point, so lack of accuracy from the auto wasn't the problem. I just think that the fundamentals of marksmanship were never instilled in the trainees when autos were introduced. There was a new philosophy, to which I still don't subscribe.

I always liked the shotgun when going into a known "situation". In my first agency, the shotgun was handy in the car. As a general rule, in the agency where I retired, long guns weren't readily available. When I found myself in a scrape, I only had a handgun.

I do feel lucky that I received so much top notch firearms training and tactical training throughout my career. It was sometimes a pain, but we always seemed to be able to qualify with all weapons every three months. Many aren't nearly as fortunate.

While never feeling under-gunned with the .357 magnum revolver, I felt equally comfortable with a .40 S&W auto.

I started policing in 1963-1967 in the USAF Air Police. I retired from active law enforcement in 1992 and transfered to our unpaid reserve unit, where I still serve. During my career I carried S&W model 10, 38, 19, 65, 66, 4046, SW99 40, and now an M&P 40. I was proficent with all. The only time I have felt at a disadvantage was when I didn't have my model 37 on my ankle.

old bear said:

As for the F.B.I. gun battle in Miami.
4- Matix was shot once in the right arm early in the fight that wound along with the fact by firing his Mini 14 directly in front of Matix; Platt took him out of the fight.

Click to expand...

Actually, Matix was discovered to have taken a round in the head during autopsy. It's theorised that concussion from that wound took him out of the fight. (Right arm???????)

Very interesting, I never have been in a gun fight,so I really cant say much.I have always liked the 357magnum,but I like the size hole a 45 acp makes,so I hope a 41 Magnum will fit the bill.! What do you think of that.

Marshall 357 said:

Very interesting, I never have been in a gun fight,so I really cant say much.I have always liked the 357magnum,but I like the size hole a 45 acp makes,so I hope a 41 Magnum will fit the bill.! What do you think of that.

Click to expand...

I personaly do not like the .41 mag. ( noise & recoil) IMHO, either step"down" to the .357 or up to the .44 mag.

The Proffesor

Kraigwy makes the point that not all law enforcement takes place in the concrete jungle. The additional range and energy of a .357 might still be a deciding factor for rural law enforcement. That is also an environment in which an officer could literally wait the rest of his life for backup and so could benefit from having a full box of ammo on his Sam Browne. The decision has to be based on what is more likely to happen HERE, not what could possibly happen. (I suppose its possible to imagine multiple assailants driving vehicles at you simultaneously, thereby requiring the penetration of a .357 and the capacity of a high-cap auto, but likely?)

Would ANY cop today? Yes, I suspect some would, and with justification. Is it ever likely to make as much sense as it did 30 years ago for urban/suburban law enforcement? Not hardly. Too many advances in the reliability of autos and the effectiveness of their ammo, and too many whackos who are either ready to die or don't think they can.

I worked in the day of the straight stick and the revolver with a NY reload. Most of us don't live in that world anymore.

CAJUNLAWYER said:

This is better than a bear thread

Click to expand...

Hey! I resent that. My bear thread was much more interesting!

Buford57 said:

The additional range and energy of a .357 might still be a deciding factor for rural law enforcement.

Click to expand...

The OP and the post above touch on the main advantage a max power .357 has over other commonly used pistol calibers, more penetration (assuming suitable slugs), more energy at all ranges with the advantage increasing with range and a flatter trajectory (probably not significant in 98% of LE engagements).

Having said that, I think most LE would be better served with today's semi autos. There certainly are those who master revolvers but doing well under stress shooting DA with a revolver I think is far harder than getting good hits with a Glock, 1911, Sig, etc. Don