Revolver or tupper ware

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!
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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. :D
 
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.

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 ???





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?
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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...

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...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top