pinkymingeo
Member
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.
Would any cop today feel an advantage with a .357 Magnum revolver?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
DWFAN
US Veteran
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
DW
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.
Last edited:
cjtraining
US Veteran
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.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,809
- Reaction score
- 7,256
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???????)
Last edited:
Marshall 357
Member
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.
The Proffesor
Member
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
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,578
- Reaction score
- 6,352
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.
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.
kbm6893
Member
This is better than a bear thread
Hey! I resent that. My bear thread was much more interesting!
DonD
Member
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
The Proffesor
Member
GOOD thoughts !!
BTW, I, as you may have "noticed" I am of the "straight stick & revolver"era plus the Leather with "dump boxes" ( think dump on the ground in a situation ) I rode a very "large" rural area & back up was VERY iffy,Plus commo was a joke.
Even though MANY LEOs ride the "boonies" & back up is a "ways away", they (at least in my area) have better commo & equip. IMHO, it depends on the Officer & His/Her "preference, comfort zone, & training.
Today, if I were back on the "Job" it would still be my .357 mag., my shot gun ( 00 buck TAP ) & my SOCOM16 (7.62 NATO)
The Proffesor
Whatever your preference, be it a pistol or a wheel gun, there is no substitute for training. I carried a pistol for years because that need existed. Now, I carry a wheel gun because I don't require the capacity nor will I find or allow myself to be in a position of disadvantage due to my training 
There is a tool for every task, a poor craftsmen blames his tools !
There is a tool for every task, a poor craftsmen blames his tools !
devildog66
Member
Not in LE not ever have been so I am unable to answer the question directly. I love shooting my Smith revolvers; I just dumped about 100 rounds through my 610 this evening. That said, while a well-aimed shot is just that, six well-aimed shots is good, but six just cannot be better than 15 well-aimed shots with a faster reload of 15 more shots available.
Nothing can replace solid training except solid training with more ammo on one's primary weapon and a back-up weapon for that.
Nothing can replace solid training except solid training with more ammo on one's primary weapon and a back-up weapon for that.
Last edited:
Sir, FWIW, I suspect that those who prefer a .357 are mainly old guys who started out with revolvers "back in the day." I doubt many of today's patrolmen would be comfortable with any revolver, regardless of caliber.
JMHO.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
akviper
Member
I'm an old guy who started out with a revolver back in the day. I became a state certified firearms instructor and after a few years was lead instructor for my agency for over 20 years. I carried a Model 19, Model 66, and finally a Model 686 before we authorized autos in 1982.
I felt well armed with the 357 but it was problematic when the day came that required qualification with full power ammunition. Most normal people, cops included, have great difficulty shooting 357 magnum ammunition. Most can shoot 38s all day long but a qual with 357s will induce anticipation and a host of other problems in short order. A K or L frame loaded with the hot 357s had a lot of recoil, muzzle flash, and muzzle blast.
Even back in the old days most cops were not gun guys and most only went to the range when required by the job. Many never spent the time or effort to master the 357. Most agencies used 38s in guns chambered for 357. Like hollow points, magnums were not politically correct until in the 80s.
I felt well armed with the 357 but it was problematic when the day came that required qualification with full power ammunition. Most normal people, cops included, have great difficulty shooting 357 magnum ammunition. Most can shoot 38s all day long but a qual with 357s will induce anticipation and a host of other problems in short order. A K or L frame loaded with the hot 357s had a lot of recoil, muzzle flash, and muzzle blast.
Even back in the old days most cops were not gun guys and most only went to the range when required by the job. Many never spent the time or effort to master the 357. Most agencies used 38s in guns chambered for 357. Like hollow points, magnums were not politically correct until in the 80s.
Last edited:
The mainstream of Cops today are of the same mind set as Cops 20 to 30 years ago. The issued .38 and .357 was the top of the line then. Cops of today feel the same with being issued a 9mm or .40S&W today. I do feel that Cops are not that into guns like they use to be. PPC shooting was a big thing in many areas but has died off now. Far too many feel revolvers are old and not dependable and think only a high cap auto is the way to go. I carry a S&W 4566 but wouldn't mind packing a old S&W .357. I have the option and have thought many times to do so.
Trooper224
Member
I started my LEO career with the .357 magnum, in Model 27 guise. It saved my life one night and I still have strong emotional ties to that particular model and caliber. I've relied on all the major service calibers at one time or another, for both on and off duty use and find caliber selection to be the least important factor in the equation. There have been enough advances in bullet technology in the last decade that caliber debates are largely academic exercises.
While I'm a six-gunner at heart I have to admit the semi-auto is a tactically superior weapon. When approached from a logical and dispassionate angle there's no getting around it. Consequently, while I love my revolvers, all of my duty related weapons are semi-autos. If I had to carry that 27 into harms way again I wouldn't feel undergunned but it wouldn't be my first choice.
I do find it amusing when I talk to LEOs who can't handle the "snap" of a .40. I often wonder how they would have reacted back in the day when our guns were made of steel and said "magnum" on the barrel. I do miss the days when we stepped to the line during qualification and it was like the wrath of God being turned loose.
While I'm a six-gunner at heart I have to admit the semi-auto is a tactically superior weapon. When approached from a logical and dispassionate angle there's no getting around it. Consequently, while I love my revolvers, all of my duty related weapons are semi-autos. If I had to carry that 27 into harms way again I wouldn't feel undergunned but it wouldn't be my first choice.
I do find it amusing when I talk to LEOs who can't handle the "snap" of a .40. I often wonder how they would have reacted back in the day when our guns were made of steel and said "magnum" on the barrel. I do miss the days when we stepped to the line during qualification and it was like the wrath of God being turned loose.
Last edited:
jtpur
Member
The only worry I ever had about carrying a revolver was the limited rounds it could hold. I loved the reliability of it going bang any time the trigger was pulled. I never feel 100% secure with a semi auto, but like knowing I have lots of bullets. I was fast enough with a speed loader to notice that at the range I could reload my revolver as fast and one could reload his semi auto. I never trust the semi auto to keep firing after the first round and I worry that in a shoot out I might be so nervous that I cant reload. Having had a few real shootouts, I can say I fired as few as one and as many as six....and like Dirty Harry in all the confusion I could not remember if I had fired five or six.....the last bad guy didnt press his luck....I was happy about that....He also did not want to know and I did not tell him...that particular night I had nothing to reload with either.....and that my friends was a wake up call.....
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Wow, I almost feel obligated to respond to all the misinformation that gets thrown around about the 4/11/86 shootout in Miami.
The Bureau didn't go to semi-autos as a result of Miami. The change was well underway already. There were a couple of Smith 9mm present during the shooting, and Jerry Dove's 9mm launched the Silvertip that caused all the subsequent controversy.
As noted, it was SA Mireles' personally owned four inch 686 that brought things to a close. Not long after the shooting he began carrying a Sig 220.
There were long guns available. SSA McNeill had an 870, but elected to use his personally owned Model 19. With it, he stuck a bullet in Matix's face and effectively removed him from the gunfight. SA Mireles used his 870 after he was shot, but it was largely ineffective. Other agents in the rolling stakeout had MP5s and ARs, but they got to the scene after the shooting was over.
Somehow it has become chiseled in internet stone that the FBI blamed the whole thing on Jerry Dove's under-penetrating 9mm Silvertip. Not true. I came into the Bureau five years after the shooting, and the critique of every aspect was still on going. Changes were made in tactics, training, and equipment. Ammunition was a part of it, but a relatively small part. The Bureau took a look at all of its shootings, set a standard for performance based on the most likely scenarios, and began testing ammo to meet that standard. For us, penetration is important. We don't issue ammo to other agencies, so they are free to choose ammo that meets their needs. I'm happy with the 230 grain Golden Sabres they give me for my Sig, and the 180 grain bondeds I get for my baby Glock.
I started my LE career 27 years ago with a Model 15, and couldn't wait to get one of the fancy new semi-autos. I was later issued an auto, but continued to carry revolvers on occassion, until they were disapproved for carry a few years ago. I'll retire soon, and probably go back to carrying a revolver, but if I was given the responsibility of arming a police department I doubt I'd even give revolvers a serious look.
For anyone interested, there is plenty of reading to be found here:
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act
Its pretty much all there - backgrounds of the shooters, the weapons and ammo used (including serial numbers), photos, charts, and diagrams.
The Bureau didn't go to semi-autos as a result of Miami. The change was well underway already. There were a couple of Smith 9mm present during the shooting, and Jerry Dove's 9mm launched the Silvertip that caused all the subsequent controversy.
As noted, it was SA Mireles' personally owned four inch 686 that brought things to a close. Not long after the shooting he began carrying a Sig 220.
There were long guns available. SSA McNeill had an 870, but elected to use his personally owned Model 19. With it, he stuck a bullet in Matix's face and effectively removed him from the gunfight. SA Mireles used his 870 after he was shot, but it was largely ineffective. Other agents in the rolling stakeout had MP5s and ARs, but they got to the scene after the shooting was over.
Somehow it has become chiseled in internet stone that the FBI blamed the whole thing on Jerry Dove's under-penetrating 9mm Silvertip. Not true. I came into the Bureau five years after the shooting, and the critique of every aspect was still on going. Changes were made in tactics, training, and equipment. Ammunition was a part of it, but a relatively small part. The Bureau took a look at all of its shootings, set a standard for performance based on the most likely scenarios, and began testing ammo to meet that standard. For us, penetration is important. We don't issue ammo to other agencies, so they are free to choose ammo that meets their needs. I'm happy with the 230 grain Golden Sabres they give me for my Sig, and the 180 grain bondeds I get for my baby Glock.
I started my LE career 27 years ago with a Model 15, and couldn't wait to get one of the fancy new semi-autos. I was later issued an auto, but continued to carry revolvers on occassion, until they were disapproved for carry a few years ago. I'll retire soon, and probably go back to carrying a revolver, but if I was given the responsibility of arming a police department I doubt I'd even give revolvers a serious look.
For anyone interested, there is plenty of reading to be found here:
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act
Its pretty much all there - backgrounds of the shooters, the weapons and ammo used (including serial numbers), photos, charts, and diagrams.
Last edited:
RetLawman590
Member
I concur with this statement completely.
Mr. Moore below is part of the documentation I read a number of years ago and based my statements on. I was not referring to the wounds that killed Matix, but the reason many myself included believe that Matix was taken out of the fight so soon. If my statements were not clear to you or anyone else I apologize, as that was not my intention.
Firearms Tactical Institute
FBI-Miami Shootout
Anderson, W. French, M.D.: Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight. W. French Anderson, M.D., 1996 (127 pages, paperback)
I. The First Encounter: Platt and Matix Inside the Monte Carlo
Matix's 1st gunshot wound (right forearm wound E) - Grogan
Matix's 2nd gunshot wound (right head wound F) - McNeill
Matix's 3rd gunshot wound (right neck/chest wound B) – McNeill
smith revolver cop
Member
The Miami firefight was a failure of many things, primarily tactics. Shotguns were available, but were tossed in the back seat. Body armor was available- also in the back seat. Many of the sidearms were snub-nose revolvers. One agent lost his glasses in a low-speed collision, and was thus handicapped in shooting. The agents knew they were on a rolling stakeout for heavily armed bank robbers, but failed to have a basic tactical plan. Their lack of rifles was somewhat secondary to their lack of planning. The hero agent who finally ended the firefight used a 12-ga. 870 and a .357 mag. (I believe a 6-round 4".) When you reasonably believe that you will be facing armed suspects, yes, a shotgun and/or rifle is greatly preferable. Unfortunately, it is not always practical to carry with you as an LEO (thought it should be close at hand), hence carrying a handgun at all times. Personally, I would be quite comfortable with a .357 mag- carried a Model 65 for many years. Replacing 6 .357 rounds with a dozen or more 9mm or 40 cal rounds doesn't make a difference if you don't know how to get the gun out, on target, and fire a center-mass round at the first, instant opportunity. That concept is also consistent with the military moving to a 3-round burst, instead of the "spray and pray" of a full-auto. I think too many LEOs count on just having a lot of handgun rounds available, instead of real tactics and shooting ability. IMHO...
smith revolver cop
Member
Well said. As a young officer, I had a supervisor who would remind me that a .44 is no better than a .22 if you miss!
smith revolver cop
Member
I'm with you 100%. Yes, I'm an old guy who started 29 years ago with a .357. But a well-trained dinosaur who can put his rounds on-target with a revolver is still better in a firefight than a less proficient officer who can crank off 18 misses with a high-cap semi-auto. My current department allows officers to carry their own weapons, but no longer permits revolvers. I've stuck with a double-action, single-stack .45 (Para). Plenty of confidence in the round and my ability to shoot with it. Only holds 7-8 rounds per mag (uses 1911 mags), but swapping them is pretty darn quick.
As a retired LEO and firearms trainer, I am still somewhat hesitant to jump in here. Initially, I carried a 4 inch Model 28. The agency specified 125 JHP +P 38 specials for duty, practice and qualification. For a lot of officers, magnums would have adversely affected their ability to shoot accurately. I guess I would view accuracy as more important than power. I never felt that I was inadequately armed. We trained and shot frequently.
We then moved to 5903's in the late '80s. Some officers viewed it as a step forward, others thought they were tools of the devil. Again, we trained and shot frequently, I never felt under-armed.
In the 2002, we switched to Sig 229's in 357 Sig. The selection process was rigorous and the choice was based on many factors, all viewed as relevant. The change was viewed positively by every officer I talked to during the conversion.
The primary reasons I like the 229 and the 357 Sig is that it does many things very well. It is a wonderful balance of power, control and ease of operation, even for average shooters. High cap semi's do offer an advantage for dealing with multiple adversaries, provided the officer can shoot. The 357 Sig cartridge is comparitively flat shooting, which can be important in rural settings where distance can be much greater, still offering good power and penetration. As mentioned at the beginning, it does give up bullet weight compared to a standard 357 magnum. It is not perfect, but nothing coming out of a holster ever will be.
All this being said, I love revolvers and have more 357 magnum revolvers in the gun safe than any other type of handgun (8). I would feel comfortable with one in most circumstances. But if I really had to defend myself, taking into account all the things one could come up against, I think there are better choices available in handguns.
We then moved to 5903's in the late '80s. Some officers viewed it as a step forward, others thought they were tools of the devil. Again, we trained and shot frequently, I never felt under-armed.
In the 2002, we switched to Sig 229's in 357 Sig. The selection process was rigorous and the choice was based on many factors, all viewed as relevant. The change was viewed positively by every officer I talked to during the conversion.
The primary reasons I like the 229 and the 357 Sig is that it does many things very well. It is a wonderful balance of power, control and ease of operation, even for average shooters. High cap semi's do offer an advantage for dealing with multiple adversaries, provided the officer can shoot. The 357 Sig cartridge is comparitively flat shooting, which can be important in rural settings where distance can be much greater, still offering good power and penetration. As mentioned at the beginning, it does give up bullet weight compared to a standard 357 magnum. It is not perfect, but nothing coming out of a holster ever will be.
All this being said, I love revolvers and have more 357 magnum revolvers in the gun safe than any other type of handgun (8). I would feel comfortable with one in most circumstances. But if I really had to defend myself, taking into account all the things one could come up against, I think there are better choices available in handguns.
BreakerDan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 34
I personally believe that if your dept. policy allows it, then carry what you are comfortable with and are efficient with. For many that may be a G 17 9mm and for a few it may be a S&W Model 10.
I carry a S&W Model 28 4" .357 and 12 ga pump on duty and a Colt DS (non shroud) .38 off-duty . It works for me and I feel comfortable. However, I would not fault any LEO who did not feel comfortable with only 6 rounds considering the armament of today's crooks. And also....leave the dump boxes for ceremonial use, they have nor had any business on the street!
I carry a S&W Model 28 4" .357 and 12 ga pump on duty and a Colt DS (non shroud) .38 off-duty . It works for me and I feel comfortable. However, I would not fault any LEO who did not feel comfortable with only 6 rounds considering the armament of today's crooks. And also....leave the dump boxes for ceremonial use, they have nor had any business on the street!
Last edited:
BreakerDan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 34
Back Up Gun.
Similar threads
