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

[Az. revolver fan]

I agree with the last post that a magnum revolver is a superior handgun at longer ranges. If I had to come out of retirement and was told I had to use a 686, I sure wouldn't feel undergunned. But that said, I think revolvers in the real world of 2011 police work are only suitable for officers who mostly work alone (Like some Border patrolmen, Narcotics officers, inspectors, investigators, etc...) and make a personal choice to use them. Officers who work with other officers on a regular basis where team tactics are used need high-cap .40 & .45 cal. semi-autos. That is why I finally gave in and started carrying the Glock 22 towards the end of my career. The other officers, particularly the younger ones, don't feel you have their back very well with the limited sustained cover fire one can provide with the revolver when the SHTF. Plus the "team" thing about being able to use each other's mags, etc...

 

[357 guy]

This has been quite an interesting post! I started off with a revolver. I had shot revolvers a lot and at that time an avid reloader. I loved full .357 magnums (Ha! my name). I jumped on the 1911 bandwagon but quickly realized three things; 1) I wasn't familiar with it 2) The Sheriff did not like the cocked and locked look as he was just as unfamiliar and 3) we didn't have training or qualifiication back then. Later at on a state force I shot the 686. I never felt under gunned then as I was a good shot and confident with my revolver skills. However, I did see way too many guys who weren't hobby shooters struggle. We transitioned to a 10mm and I became a believer in it. Some of the previous magnum shooters shot better with the 10. Next we went to the .40 Glock. Given a choice I will take my revolver out to shoot or for a walk in the woods. For police work give me that black ugly Glock. I definitely do not feel that I am under gunned with a 35 riding on my hip.

And for a side thought, Newhall exposed so much. From what I have read some of those guys had empty brass in their pockets. You will react as you train. Back then you were taught to "police" the range picking up brass. This comment is not made in anyway judging those great troopers.
Next many of today's thugs grow up with video shooting games. They have awesome hand eye coordination and from kids on up learn to shoot to kill because you win the game.

 

[CookE]

Police Officer (REVOLVER V SEMI-AUTO)...

I have been a police officer since 1969. I retired in 2005 and a year later went back to work for the SHERIFF'S DEPT.. Most of my entire career I carried a .357 S&W REVOLVER. There were a couple of times in the 2 departments that I worked for changed "Chiefs". With that change also came a mandate that we MUST carry an auto. I have been a rangemaster for about 35 years and I went into the Chiefs with my argument between the revolver & the auto. When I was done they then came out with a mandate that IF WE WANTED TO CARRY A REVOLVER WE COULD, BUT WE HAD TO BUY IT, ALONG WITH ALL THE AMMO FOR SHOOTS AND WHAT WE CARRIED. I am still carrying a S&W 586 with a Crimson Laser Sight on it. Back in the day when all the Officers were carrying REVOLVERS if there was a shootout the average rounds fired were something like 1.4 rounds. TODAY with the AUTOS the average rounds fired in a shootout is, I believe between 3 & 4 rounds. In other words, instead of teaching the Officers how to shoot, the Dept. gives them an AUTO and they expect the Officer to go out and SPRAY & PRAY. Departments still don't get it, they spend all their budgets on stuff we don't need, but they don't have any money to buy ammo for practice and make the Officers go to the range and learn how to shoot and hit what they are shooting at. In my opinion, POLICE OFFICERS ARE SOME OF THE WORST SHOTS AROUND. THE ONLY TIME THEY TAKE THEIR GUN FROM THE HOLSTER IS WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE RANGE AND SHOOT THE MANDATORY QUALIFICATION SHOOT. It was like that in 1969 and it is still like that in 2011. That Officer is responsible for EVERY ROUND THAT LEAVES THAT BARREL. GOD FORBID HE HITS AN INNOCENT BY-STANDER. HE IS THEN ON HIS OWN. THANK GOD FOR THE FOP...................I APOLIGIZE IF I OFFENDED ANYONE, I DIDN'T MEAN TO IF I DID...........CookE

 

[DHart]

Interesting thread to read everyone's thoughts.

I'm not a police office nor have I been one, but I believe this post sums it all up quite well, in support for greater capacity:

It is one thing to shoot at moving targets. It is another to shoot while moving. It is exponentially more complicated to shoot at moving targets while moving. Throw in the stress of the target shooting back. Dynamic situations make it harder to get hits, and increasing the distance of the participants makes it even more difficult. Then throw in multiple assailants as an additional variable. For people whose job it is to fight under those conditions, I do not see the advantage of the .357 revolver.

Also, I think the viewpoint that automatically equates "high capacity" to "poor marksmanship" and "low capacity" to high "hit rates"... is absurd.

We all can agree that the first premise of any armed engagement is to NOT GET SHOT, closely followed by the second premise, which is to hit as well as one can hit, under the circumstances that prevail, regardless of the capacity or the design of the weapon.

Those premises established, high capacity simply equates to being able to stay in the fight longer. It does not equate to foolishly "spraying and praying". In the dynamic circumstance of today's armed engagements, it is likely that even the best of shooters may well expend a number of rounds, perhaps six or more, without achieving the goal of ending the threat. Having more rounds, rather than fewer, on tap before the need for a reload is a very advantageous element.

As many here have mentioned, I will echo that I absolutely love my S&W revolvers, most of which are .357 magnum. And my S&W revos outnumber my 1911s, Hi-Powers, and Glocks. But when it comes to choosing a handgun for serious social situations, for me it's my Glocks first, my Hi-Powers in .40 second, my 1911s third, and my revolvers last. That said, if all I had was a .357 revolver, S&W or Ruger, I'd be dang glad to have it and I'd trust in what it could offer.

 

[fyimo]

I stayed away for this thread for a few days because I thought is was subject that has been discussed many times and in nearly all gun forums. Today I did take the time to read the responses and it has been and intersting read. I've never been in law enforcement so my only actual experience was a year in Vietnam as a combat soldier in the 4th infantry. I saw lots of action and I would have never wanted a bolt action rifle or revolver over there as reloading is a major problem when in any kind of combat and when time really matters and your life is on the line. That's why the Military uses semi handguns and rifles today.

I love S&W revolvers and own 3x of them over my 10+ semi autos and I shoot some of them on every range trip. However on each range trip I also shoot my Sig P226 40 S&W home defense gun and my Sig P228 9mm carry gun to stay sharp with them.

 

[Az. revolver fan]

As a side note, when my agency transitioned from the revolver to the Glock 22 as the "issue" handgun, the average qualification scores were almost exactly the same and stayed at that level. I will also repeat an earlier statement. And this from someone who prefers revolvers. Officers who have to work in "team" situations with other officers do need to carry high-cap .40-.45 cal. semi-auto handguns. The youngsters coming up into the ranks today that just got back from Iraq and Afghanistan have zero tolerance for our romantic notions and confidence in the sixgun. They are believers in superior firepower. They want to see 45 rounds on that duty belt backing them up, not 18. Carrying a revolver would make you seen as not a team player and a possible weak link to them not getting home that night. I direct these comments especially at CERT, CRASH, ERT, SWAT, etc... members and other team type officers. If I was a homicide inspector or similar, I would still carry my 686 and not think twice.

 

[badge]

XTroopers post pretty much says it all. I love and carried a revolver for many years and thankfully I am retired so it is no longer an issue. However. It aint the good ole days anymore. You have many more instances of multiple offenders and their weapons have upgunned considerable from the cheap RG's and Ravens we used to see in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I swear by Glocks now and my carry piece is a 32 with two spares and a 5 shot as a backup. I try and steer clear of problems and my philosophy is simple,.. stay away from me, my family and my friends and all will be well. I dont have the vigilanti complex and only carry for self preservation. Revolvers are great but when you have fired your 6, or 7, or 8 you have to reload and autoloaders are generally quicker. Note I said generally as I could out reload an autoloader with moon clips as well. You have more rounds in reserve with the autopistol and in a shooting I think you would be comforted by that. Trust me.

 

[CookE]

I forgot to mention one other thing when I was writing about Police Officers not being the best shots in the world and most of them not practicing on their own or the department not having the money so they can have the necessary shoots per year to stay sharp. They only shoot at the qualifications. Being a Rangemaster for 35 years and talking to the Officers, I feel like they don't take it seriously enough that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ROUND THAT LEAVES THE BARREL OF THEIR FIREARMS. There was a study done one time that stated, if an Officer that is ONE OF THE TOP SHOOTERS ON THE DEPARTMENT GETS INTO A GUNFIGHT, THEY ONLY "SCORE HITS ABOUT 25 TO 30% OF THE SHOTS FIRED AT THE CROOK. NOW REMEMBER, THATS THE TOP SHOOTERS ON THE DEPARTMENT THAT DO ALOT OF SHOOTING AND PRACTICING ON THEIR OWN. If you look at that, you can just imagine what the percentage is FOR THE OFFICER THAT NEVER GOES TO THE RANGE ON HIS/HER OWN TO PRACTICE....Stay tuned I may be back with more, I take this subject very serious, BUT IT IS VERY HARD TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE CHIEFS/SHERIFFS. SEEMS TO ME IF THEY WANT SOMETHING (A NEW LEATHER CHAIR FOR THEIR OFFICE) THEY ALWAYS FIND THE MONEY, BUT AMMUNITION & OVERTIME PAY FOR THE OFFICERS TO GO TO THE RANGE THEY SAY THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY...................THANKS..................CookE

 

[crofoot629]

No.
Would any soldier feel an today advantage armed with an 03?

Emory

 

[Maximumbob54]

No.
Would any soldier feel an today advantage armed with an 03?

Emory

No, but there sure is noise to break out and buy more M14's...

 

[spearcrow]

I like a few others here don't have any practical experience, but I would tend to think that it would have a lot more to do with weapon familiarity than anything else. A lot of my generation has come up shooting hi cap semi autos like Glock and Sig, etc... a lot more than wheelguns. Now, this was not the case with me, I'm just speaking generally.

A younger person..cop..whatever, that has always shot hi cap semi autos would probably not feel comfortable if they were suddenly given a revolver. They feel different, shoot different, and most of the time hold less ammo. I feel like that, more than the caliber of a given arm, would be more apt to leave someone feeling inadequate. Just my opinion...and not worth much unfortunately.

 

[roaddog28]

Hi,
I am going to stir up the thread with this question. I would like to post a question for thoses who are currently in LE and also retired LE members. Alot of the responses pointed out that some officers don't train and practice much and the only time they really use their weapon is for qualification sessions. My question is this. Most agencies issue Glocks. Pass news or internet reports have indicated accidental discharges by officers with their Glocks. Sense there is a difference in skill level on handguns by officers why does agencies issue Glocks instead of another type of semi-auto? Personally I have handled Glocks and the "safe trigger" is not as safe as a double action revolver. When LE went to semi-autos they first issued Sigs, Berettas and S&W second or third generation semi-autos. Most of these semi-autos are the traditional DA/SA type pistols. To me these are among the safest weapons to use next to a double action revolver. My number one semi-auto and one of the safest semi-autos is a 5903. Am I wrong on this? Or could this really be about Gaston Glock buying his way into the LE market?
I know I am stirring up the pot but its a question I have always wanted to ask.
Howard

 

[luangtom]

Sorry, cannot comment on why agencies went to Glock. Our agencies, both local PD and Sheriff, went to either the S&W 4053TSW or 4003TSW.
Both are DAO and were chosen for the liability factor. Now, I do not know what they carry, as they were contemplating a change when I retired and left the state.

 

[wnr700]

If I were a LEO... I would choose just about any Glock over a revolver... capacity

As a civilian... I rely on a lowly 442 and 649.

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

I am not in law enforcemnt. thank goodness! but, I would prefer a 357 over any autoloader but a 1911 in 45acp.

 

[kbm6893]

Hi,
I am going to stir up the thread with this question. I would like to post a question for thoses who are currently in LE and also retired LE members. Alot of the responses pointed out that some officers don't train and practice much and the only time they really use their weapon is for qualification sessions. My question is this. Most agencies issue Glocks. Pass news or internet reports have indicated accidental discharges by officers with their Glocks. Sense there is a difference in skill level on handguns by officers why does agencies issue Glocks instead of another type of semi-auto? Personally I have handled Glocks and the "safe trigger" is not as safe as a double action revolver. When LE went to semi-autos they first issued Sigs, Berettas and S&W second or third generation semi-autos. Most of these semi-autos are the traditional DA/SA type pistols. To me these are among the safest weapons to use next to a double action revolver. My number one semi-auto and one of the safest semi-autos is a 5903. Am I wrong on this? Or could this really be about Gaston Glock buying his way into the LE market?
I know I am stirring up the pot but its a question I have always wanted to ask.
Howard

Price. Glock has been known to GIVE new Glocks to agencies and take their older guns in trade. My old job traded their 5946's for Glocks, and total cost was 75 bucks a pop, and that included three mags. I've owned two Glocks, and they work, but UNLESS you are going to train extensively with them, they are not a good choice. Try reholstering when you're rolling around with someone or after a three block foot pursuit. The "Gloks are just like a revolver" comments are nonsense, unless the revolver in question has the hammer cocked. The NYPD issues three weapons, the Glock 19, SIG 226, and S&W 5946. When I left the job, there were ZERo ND's with the SIG or the Smith. Everyone of them with the Glock. Placing your thumb on the hammer while reholstering prevents ND's. Glocks don't give you that option. In my opinion, they are among the worst choice for new shooters (just like every other striker fired pistol). I wouldn't recommend an M&P to a new shooter, either.

 

[Az. revolver fan]

I have been a police officer since 1969. I retired in 2005 and a year later went back to work for the SHERIFF'S DEPT.. Most of my entire career I carried a .357 S&W REVOLVER. There were a couple of times in the 2 departments that I worked for changed "Chiefs". With that change also came a mandate that we MUST carry an auto. I have been a rangemaster for about 35 years and I went into the Chiefs with my argument between the revolver & the auto. When I was done they then came out with a mandate that IF WE WANTED TO CARRY A REVOLVER WE COULD, BUT WE HAD TO BUY IT, ALONG WITH ALL THE AMMO FOR SHOOTS AND WHAT WE CARRIED. I am still carrying a S&W 586 with a Crimson Laser Sight on it. Back in the day when all the Officers were carrying REVOLVERS if there was a shootout the average rounds fired were something like 1.4 rounds. TODAY with the AUTOS the average rounds fired in a shootout is, I believe between 3 & 4 rounds. In other words, instead of teaching the Officers how to shoot, the Dept. gives them an AUTO and they expect the Officer to go out and SPRAY & PRAY. Departments still don't get it, they spend all their budgets on stuff we don't need, but they don't have any money to buy ammo for practice and make the Officers go to the range and learn how to shoot and hit what they are shooting at. In my opinion, POLICE OFFICERS ARE SOME OF THE WORST SHOTS AROUND. THE ONLY TIME THEY TAKE THEIR GUN FROM THE HOLSTER IS WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE RANGE AND SHOOT THE MANDATORY QUALIFICATION SHOOT. It was like that in 1969 and it is still like that in 2011. That Officer is responsible for EVERY ROUND THAT LEAVES THAT BARREL. GOD FORBID HE HITS AN INNOCENT BY-STANDER. HE IS THEN ON HIS OWN. THANK GOD FOR THE FOP...................I APOLIGIZE IF I OFFENDED ANYONE, I DIDN'T MEAN TO IF I DID...........CookE

We were lucky in Nv. We had a huge open desert and many of us on the shift would target practice and hunt jackrabbits and coyotes with our duty handguns on our days off to actually see how our weapons performed. This experience led directly to everyone taking a vow to never carry a 9mm after witnessing it's dismal performance time and again on many big western jacks. We were even able to talk the boss into removing them from the "approved" list. So something good came out of the extra practice besides becoming better shots.

 

[jimmyj]

Hi:
Old time Street Cop here. I carried a revolver for most of my career and felt ok with the "Six Shooter". However in the "Oh ****" situations I wished that the "Old Six Shooter" was belt fed. In today's world the more rounds before reloading, the better due to less cops/backups available due to budget cuts and more bad guys with high capacity weapons.
In the long ago days ACs with revolvers occurred also.

 

[roaddog28]

Price. Glock has been known to GIVE new Glocks to agencies and take their older guns in trade. My old job traded their 5946's for Glocks, and total cost was 75 bucks a pop, and that included three mags. I've owned two Glocks, and they work, but UNLESS you are going to train extensively with them, they are not a good choice. Try reholstering when you're rolling around with someone or after a three block foot pursuit. The "Gloks are just like a revolver" comments are nonsense, unless the revolver in question has the hammer cocked. The NYPD issues three weapons, the Glock 19, SIG 226, and S&W 5946. When I left the job, there were ZERo ND's with the SIG or the Smith. Everyone of them with the Glock. Placing your thumb on the hammer while reholstering prevents ND's. Glocks don't give you that option. In my opinion, they are among the worst choice for new shooters (just like every other striker fired pistol). I wouldn't recommend an M&P to a new shooter, either.

Thanks for the information kbm 6893. I have always believed that Gaston Glock bought there way into the LE market. The Sig 226, S&W and Beretta were the dominating carry arms for LE officers. Too me they are much safer than a Glock. I agree with you that any striker fired pistol is not a good choice for new shooters. I will take my S&W 5903 anytime over a Glock.
Howard

 

[wnr700]

Not trying to misdirect the thread... I've mostly owned S+W revolvers and an occasional Glock, Taurus 24/7 of varying calibers. Why are striker fired autos (Glocks in particular) and new shooters a bad combination? I'm a newb when it comes to autos.