[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police sidearms (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/11/2012 4:01:59 PM EDT
|
Something I haven't really understood is why the majority of LE departments in America didn't switch to semiauto pistols until the late 1980's.
By then there were already a bunch of reliable handguns like the Beretta 92, Glock, Walther, 1911 variants, etc. I wonder if it was just the same nostalgia or resistance to change that the military had in the 19th and 20th Centuries with modernizing weapons, or because it would be too costly or time-consuming to retrain officers with new pistols. It just surprises me because a six-shot revolver with maybe twelve extra rounds seems so inadequate, even if backed up with a pump shotgun (typical until recently). Perhaps strong influence from domestic gunmakers like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Ruger, etc? |
| Money - mostly. Add up the cost of the guns, magazines, holsters, magazine pouches, spare parts. Take that number and add all of the ammo required to train the cops on the "new" guns. Next up is the cost of sending your armorers to the certification class to learn the new guns. Someone has to come up with a new training course and some time figuring out the liability all along the way. Take those numbers and add them to the cost of 2 or 3 days of training to learn the new guns. That is a lot of money...... |
| Because rthe people in charge back in the late 1980's weere only used tro revolvers. Had little to no training on semi auto's and there capabilities. Also unfortunately the short time for training for minimum standards is onkly 40 hours in the academy. Hopefully new Directors or chiefs will embrace new ideas and training methods. |
|
Someone that has never been involved in law enforcement has no idea how much institutional momentum they have. Typically the higher ups are promoted from within, and have been at the department for 10-15 years. They have always done something a certain way, so they think that's the only way to do it. |
| Same reason that we still wear polyester and lots of shiney shit on our shirts. The older admin folks are always a little scared that people will think we look to military. Same reason we still drive a 20 year old platrom in the crown vic. It's the way it is so why change it attitude. |
|
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today!
For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 |
|
Like said before "The Miami shootout" changed many peoples outlook on what a law enforcment officer needed. Shortly there after Glock came on the scene and practicly paid departments to get market share, knowing that what the local cops used the civilian polulation would pay for.
|
|
I remember talking to friends back in 1991 about reliability issues auto vs revolver. I was packing an auto at the time. Reno PD and Washoe Sheriff back then required all probation officers to carry 19 or 686 revolvers for the first year before transitioning due to fear of spray and pray by rookies, but didn't aknowledge it as such. After that the mandated sidearm was the S&W 4506. Not a bad choice, but a large gun, short on capacity, heavy/bulky and that freaking mag disconnect!!!! I got my first Glock 19 in 1990, an a G21 shortly after. In 1995, I got one of the first 200 HK USP45F's in the country and carried that every day after until 2005 or so. I carried a Colt 1911 right after getting out of the Army in 1986. |
|
The revolver was *the* police sidearm since the start of U.S. policing and had served well in that time.
The early semi-auto pistols were not as reliable as the revolver. The 1911 was an exception, but the general perception was that the 1911 was not well suited to police use due to it's single-action design and light trigger. There was also the training issue of having to train the offices to disenage the safety where with a revolver there was no safety to worry about. (The same goes for the BHP, as well as the fact that 9mm wasn't really accepted in the U.S. until at least the '60s) There were some agencies that issued semi-autos before the 1980's. The Illinois State Police issued the S&W Model 39 starting in 1967. That was really one of the first semi-autos considered really suitable for police work. Ironically, they did not issue or allow troopers to carry a mag pouch with an extra magazine, so those officers who worked for agencies that issued revovlers + speedloacers (or dump pouches) had more "firepower" on their person than the ISP guys with the Model 39 and their single 8 round mag in the gun. (The later variants of the S&W DA/SA design had larger magazine capacities than the 8 shot Model 39.) You also have to remember that the revolver was seen as "good enough" for all those decades and there wasn't even much of a outcry to "upgun" police until the late 1970's or early 1980's. In the 1980's the perception became that, due to the "drug war," that police were "outgunned" by the bad guys. This supposed need to "upgrade police firepower" coincided very closely with the development of the high-capacity DA/SA 9mm pistol. The so-called "wondernine." Many of these designs arose from the U.S. military pistol trials of the early 80's. These pistols had a heavy DA first shot and more than double the ammo capacity of the revolver. The different pistols available allowed agencies to decide whether they wanted a pistol carried with the safety "OFF" to make it simplier to get the gun into action or if they wanted to have the safety "ON" to help prevent gun grabs. The Beretta 92 was developed in the late 70's but wasn't popular until after the U.S. military adopted in the mid 80's. The Sig 226 was developed for the same U.S. military pistol trails so it wasn't available before 1983 - 1984 or so. The S&W 2nd and 3rd generation autos were developed as the successor to the Model 39 around taht same time and had a large market share as well. So, really, the switch to semi––autos for police work was really a product of different factors comign together. The combo of the percived need for "more firepower" synced up with the development of the "wondernine" pistols and also advances in JHP ammo design. The later intro of the Glock and the fact that GLOCK practically gave away the pistols accelerated the switchover. |
|
Because the Chiefs and Sheriffs in charge were using wheelguns when they went up through the ranks, and if it was good enough for them, then by God, theres no reason to change NOW!
Besides, LE doesn't change easily. It usually takes a major incident or court case to force a change in policy, gear or tactics. |
|
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 In this day and time I would think all patrol cars would be equipped with an AR15 and a shotgun. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Slow to change. The Miami shootout opened a lot of eyes in the law enforcement world. Actually, 9mm didn't do to good in that shootout. What ended up stopping the fight was a .38 special revolver. 9mm actually did pretty good, better than people portray it. The one 9mm that people always mention failing to penetrate one of the guys heart, had to travel through his arm, deltoid, ribs, lung and brachial artery first, and is what was believed to be the cause of death. .38 special, what people credit "stopping the fight" actually failed to stop in the first few hits. Matix, one of the bad guys, took a .38 special 158 grain bullet to the head, and all it did was knock him unconscious. They soaked up a LOT of .38 special. .38 Special may have stopped the fight, but IMHO if the agents had actually carried .357 magnum loads in their .357 Magnum revolvers, the fight may have been a lot shorter |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 In this day and time I would think all patrol cars would be equipped with an AR15 and a shotgun. Yeah, I know. Wanna hear something real bad? This same Sgt also wants to remove the shotguns from the cars. I asked him why, with a no doubt dumbfounded look on my face and he responded, how are you gonna handcuff someone if you're holding a shotgun on them? Can't lay it down, probably can't handcuff them one handed. I told him that, if the situation is bad enough that I bring out the shotgun, it's bad enough that they can lay there, proned out, till help gets there. Either that, or put slings on the shotguns. He asks why I want one of them "bandolier things" on the shotguns and I told him that it would let me sling it and handcuff the subject without loosing control of it. He gives me a  look and says that we don't need them.
Bub75 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude, people on here flip out if cops are wearing cargo pants.  Some of them do go a little overboard. Seeing a officer writing a ticket for 5 over while dressed like he's about to be dropped into Chechnya is a little much. A couple of weeks ago I saw one in a small town gas station that looked like he sought out every mall ninja peice of shit he could find and strapped it on. 
Whatever works.. it doesn't offend me. It just seems a little absurd sometimes. |
|
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? |
|
Quoted: Does this guy regularly go out and get trained by other agencies or commercial training providers so he can see what many modern LE departments are doing in regards to tactics and training?For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. ETA: He sounds like big fish in the little pound syndrome. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? But it could pop up tomorrow. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slow to change. The Miami shootout opened a lot of eyes in the law enforcement world. Actually, 9mm didn't do to good in that shootout. What ended up stopping the fight was a .38 special revolver. That fight was about a failure in training, and tactics, not equipment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 In this day and time I would think all patrol cars would be equipped with an AR15 and a shotgun. Not even close....No rifles at ALL, in a suburb of Newark, Shotguns are securely locked up in the station...I;ve been hearing for 20 years that "We'll have the shotguns in the cars by the next training session".... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 In this day and time I would think all patrol cars would be equipped with an AR15 and a shotgun. Yeah, I know. Wanna hear something real bad? This same Sgt also wants to remove the shotguns from the cars. I asked him why, with a no doubt dumbfounded look on my face and he responded, how are you gonna handcuff someone if you're holding a shotgun on them? Can't lay it down, probably can't handcuff them one handed. I told him that, if the situation is bad enough that I bring out the shotgun, it's bad enough that they can lay there, proned out, till help gets there. Either that, or put slings on the shotguns. He asks why I want one of them "bandolier things" on the shotguns and I told him that it would let me sling it and handcuff the subject without loosing control of it. He gives me a look and says that we don't need them.
Bub75 if it werent for the state, id think we worked for the same people...... I offered to buy single-point sling plates and half a dozen slings out of my pocket, and i was told No.. |
|
There is a lot to consider in the situation.
Here is something to consider. Up until about the mid to late 80’s, there were not as many “high performance” auto rounds. Bullet design was not what it was today. In addition, at the time, probably the most effective round, by far, was the 125 JHP in 357 mag, especially the Remington scallop or semi jacketed hollow point. Also, there were far fewer double action, double stacked or high capacity autos commonly available. The Browning HP-35, like the 1911, is a single action auto. Most police departments have never been big on “cocked and locked” autos on a duty belt. S&W has made some 9mm that would fit the bill, they did not catch on for a while. By the time they did, they suddenly had a lot of competition. At one time, the Browning Hi-power was the choice among some of the most highly trained in law enforcement, such as the FBI HRT. Also, cops have changed. Cops where expected to be able to handle a gun. Today, it is not uncommon to find a cop who has never owned their own handgun until they got the job. Also, look at the percentage of cops today who are female. It is a different world today. If you saw a half dozen cop cars at one site, it was a major incident such as a barricade bank robber. Today, that is common seen on a late night DUI stop. This was about the time that the “Wonder Nine” came into being. These firearms had the high capacity of the Browning Hi-Power (HP-35) and the Double Action trigger made famous by the Walther P-38. It just took the better part of 40 years to combine the concepts into a successfully marketable package. Once that happened, the firearms industry just had to make them reliable … twice. Once when getting people to accept them and again once modern, hi-performance, reliably expanding hollow points became commonly available and used. Also, a lot of policy changes and public attitudes have modified and shifted by careful manipulation as opposed to focusing on the cold hard relatives of survival. For example, the FBI “Miami Shootout” is good example. Many people have been distracted by ineffective use of the 9mm round. That was rather unimportant. The facts are that the criminals were more prepared, more appropriately armed, and more determined. The responding agents used poor tactics with inappropriate gear for the situation and should have not even selected the approach of that situation. There were a lot of mistakes made that day and it cost people dearly. Around that time, departments like the FBI and Kentucky State Police, transitioned away from guns like the 357 revolver to autos, like the 10mm. However, society was also transitioning. More women and non-gun males were moving into law enforcement. The 10mm was more than such people could manage . Today, one of the mostly issued side arms in law enforcement is the Glock 22. It fires a .40”/10mm projectile at energy levels similar to the 9mm Parabellum and 45 ACP at moderate levels of recoil. It is easy to maintain and is not heavy. In addition, for those who struggle with marksmanship, it has a standard capacity of 15 rounds. With its full size configuration, it is easy to hold onto and control. It is also easy to manually cycle. Newer models have a rail for lights and lasers. Today, anyone could effectively operate the current autos available to law enforcement. The changes in society and those gravitating to law enforcement have resulted in the firearms industry responding with sidearms that anyone can use. As a matter of fact, for my ailing and crippled, 68 year old mother, who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet, I have supplied her and trained her on the Glock model 22. I have it set up with night sites, light and laser, spare mags and extended mags, concealed carry purse and holster for around the estate. She loves it and takes it everywhere. This is standard today for law enforcement across the nation. |
|
Things have changed. Unlike many of the autos first adopted by law enforcement, today’s autos are very reliable and in some cases more reliable than most revolvers. Run a Glock 17 for 500 + rounds in a course or try it with a Sig 226. Try that same course with a model 19 or 686. Remember, don’t clean them. I’ve locked up a filthy revolver a time or two. Along with changes in materials and manufacturing technology, cost have changed. Go into a gunshop and price a new S&W 686. Try to find a new Colt revolver. Then, price autos like the Glock model 17/22, the S&M M&P series, or the Springfield XD series. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? That is an incredibly valid point that other departments should consider. However, a man should not be kept from free and reasonable choice either. There would be nothing wrong with having a list of authorized sidearms, rifles, and shotguns. It would not take much to do that. It also should not be a big deal to expect an officer to know how to handle most common weapons. |
|
Quoted:
Money - mostly. Add up the cost of the guns, magazines, holsters, magazine pouches, spare parts. Take that number and add all of the ammo required to train the cops on the "new" guns. Next up is the cost of sending your armorers to the certification class to learn the new guns. Someone has to come up with a new training course and some time figuring out the liability all along the way. Take those numbers and add them to the cost of 2 or 3 days of training to learn the new guns. That is a lot of money...... Pretty much. The FL Dept. of Corrections still uses revolvers. Why? Money. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slow to change. The Miami shootout opened a lot of eyes in the law enforcement world. Actually, 9mm didn't do to good in that shootout. What ended up stopping the fight was a .38 special revolver. That fight was about a failure in training, and tactics, not equipment. Hush! It is much easier to blame a round that has about the same bullet weight and diameter as the 38 Special but is faster. You, sir, are a trouble maker who just wants to focus on reality and logic. |
|
Quoted:
I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? If the cost of the rifles is such a concern, let guys carry personal rifles. Many guys are willing to incur the cost if allowed to carry the rifle on duty. Quoted:
]Does this guy regularly go out and get trained by other agencies or commercial training providers so he can see what many modern LE departments are doing in regards to tactics and training? I bet he hasn't sought any additional training since being certified to teach. |
|
why? because back in the day....you would not resist or challenge the officer. there was more respect and if you did shoot at a cop all bet were off. a revolver was enough 99% of the time, if not the shotgun came out.
that being said, most officers just miss more now. most cops aren't gun guys and aren't shooters. a newark cop shot 15 times at a car, swore he hit it multi times. when the car was found not a single hole in it. |
Ha. If most departments were trying to switch now, instead of having switched years ago, arfcom would be knee-deep in "militarization of the po-po" threads. "OMGWTFBBQ, this department wants to carry a military handgun/Beretta 92/G17 that carries even more ammo than the army needs!!!!!!" 
Like a lot of other posters said, tradition. And, frankly, the nut behind the trigger matters a heck of a lot more than the gun. I wouldn't hesitate to go out on patrol with a Model 10 and a 5-shot 870. Not my first choice––I like my G22 and AR––but I'd do it. I've even thought about doing it on my last shift before retirement, just to say I once carried a revolver as a cop.
|
|
Quoted:
Same reason that we still wear polyester and lots of shiney shit on our shirts. The older admin folks are always a little scared that people will think we look to military. Same reason we still drive a 20 year old platrom in the crown vic. It's the way it is so why change it attitude. When I see cops in Texas (or the south in general) wearing black uniforms in the summer I always think their chief must be the biggest retard in the world. Cops here should be allowed to wear loose fitting trousers, like the 511, and light colored tops. People that think it looks to much like the military don't are not the ones that have to wear the stuff outside in the summer. When I see this I always think why don't they change their uniforms. I guess your post answers that question. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does this guy regularly go out and get trained by other agencies or commercial training providers so he can see what many modern LE departments are doing in regards to tactics and training?
For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. ETA: He sounds like big fish in the little pound syndrome. Sounds just like the brass at my department, which is the largest in the country.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? If the cost of the rifles is such a concern, let guys carry personal rifles. Many guys are willing to incur the cost if allowed to carry the rifle on duty. I'd buy my own in a heartbeat, regardless of cost. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 I think your Sergent might just have a valid point. How many tax dollars should be wasted on a threat that has not popped up in 150+ years? That is an incredibly valid point that other departments should consider. However, a man should not be kept from free and reasonable choice either. There would be nothing wrong with having a list of authorized sidearms, rifles, and shotguns. It would not take much to do that. It also should not be a big deal to expect an officer to know how to handle most common weapons. Sidearms, sure, rifles and shotguns would require additional training and documentation of said training. (read $$$) I am guessing it is a small town and they tend to be tight with the purse strings. Second, the town may be concerned with "image". They might want to portray more of a Mayberry image. Cops going around with AR15's would kind of spoil that. |
|
Quoted:
Second, the town may be concerned with "image". They might want to portray more of a Mayberry image. Cops going around with AR15's would kind of spoil that. I know what you mean about image, because that was one of the excuses used by bosses in my neck of the woods years ago. The image of an unprepared agency after an incident will be far worse than the one they are worried about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slow to change. The Miami shootout opened a lot of eyes in the law enforcement world. Actually, 9mm didn't do to good in that shootout. What ended up stopping the fight was a .38 special revolver. 9mm actually did pretty good, better than people portray it. The one 9mm that people always mention failing to penetrate one of the guys heart, had to travel through his arm, deltoid, ribs, lung and brachial artery first, and is what was believed to be the cause of death. .38 special, what people credit "stopping the fight" actually failed to stop in the first few hits. Matix, one of the bad guys, took a .38 special 158 grain bullet to the head, and all it did was knock him unconscious. They soaked up a LOT of .38 special. .38 Special may have stopped the fight, but IMHO if the agents had actually carried .357 magnum loads in their .357 Magnum revolvers, the fight may have been a lot shorter Yes. One of the agents did have 357 rounds but I believe he left them on the front seat of the car and when they came to a sudden stop the bullets went flying off and he could not find them. He had 38 rounds in his revolver. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about tradition. Their attitude used to be (and some still have it) that, if it was good enough 30-40 years ago, then it's sure as hell good enough today! For example, at the PD I work for, our Sgt, who is the head firearms instructor, refuses, flatly refuses, to allow or even consider rifles for duty use. Every time we try to bring it up, his response is to demand that we name a single incident in the last 50 years where a rifle would have been of use. Considering that, aside from dispatching sick animals, no Officer from our Dept has used their sidearm since the town was founded in the mid 1800's, he says that we didn't need them then, we don't need them now. Since we require his approval to carry a gun on duty or qualify with it, how do you fight that? I've heard from some of our "old timers" that were on the Dept in the mid '80's, that the Chief at that time flatly refused to allow autos for duty use. He insisted on a S&W M66 with 2 speed loaders or 2 dump pouches (no more, no less) and no backup/off duty guns. It took a Union lawsuit to let them start carrying autos. THIS is the power of tradition, and NOTHING will change their minds! Bub75 In this day and time I would think all patrol cars would be equipped with an AR15 and a shotgun. Yeah, I know. Wanna hear something real bad? This same Sgt also wants to remove the shotguns from the cars. I asked him why, with a no doubt dumbfounded look on my face and he responded, how are you gonna handcuff someone if you're holding a shotgun on them? Can't lay it down, probably can't handcuff them one handed. I told him that, if the situation is bad enough that I bring out the shotgun, it's bad enough that they can lay there, proned out, till help gets there. Either that, or put slings on the shotguns. He asks why I want one of them "bandolier things" on the shotguns and I told him that it would let me sling it and handcuff the subject without loosing control of it. He gives me a look and says that we don't need them.
Bub75 Not trying to get off topic here, but WTF is gonna happen when you show up with a pistol to a rifle fight? Criminals don't use or have rifles in your area? I could not imagine being a cop without the proper equipment on hand to cover all situations. And I would think facing someone armed with a rifle would not be uncommon in this day and time. All the county cops in my area are equipped with M4's and shotguns, and most people I think are good with that. Fuck the ones that aren't, they would either be the the criminals or people out of touch with reality. |
|
Quoted:
Not trying to get off topic here, but WTF is gonna happen when you show up with a pistol to a rifle fight? Criminals don't use or have rifles in your area? I could not imagine being a cop without the proper equipment on hand to cover all situations. And I would think facing someone armed with a rifle would not be uncommon in this day and time. All the county cops in my area are equipped with M4's and shotguns, and most people I think are good with that. Fuck the ones that aren't, they would either be the the criminals or people out of touch with reality. I can tell you EXACTLY what would happen..at least where I am..not a goddamn thing..the fucktards HERE would be bitching about how stupid the Cop was (In between breaths from bitching about how the cops are over-armed) for not having a rifle, we'd bury our dead, and life would go on. Our SOP's for Patrol Rifle, Shotgun mounts, and even our Emergency Services team are sitting on my Chief's desk waiting to be signed.....since 1999  . Even since 9-11 I have had a shotgun assigned to me exactly 4 times..ALL of which were in response to a direct DHS alert regarding a facility in my town (One on the top 5 list of targets for the greater NYC area), and my assignment to a fixed post at that location.
|
|
Miami Vice helped in the very early days of the switch.
Semi-autos became cool. Another thing to consider.. With most auto's of the 70's and 80's... you were pretty well armed with a Smith & Wesson Combat Magnum. The model 19,66,586, and 686 were DAMN NICE revolvers. Those great double action revolvers really should have never been made considering that the semi-auto design had been around for a long time at the developement of those guns. |
|
Quoted:
Miami Vice helped in the very early days of the switch. Semi-autos became cool. Another thing to consider.. With most auto's of the 70's and 80's... you were pretty well armed with a Smith & Wesson Combat Magnum. The model 19,66,586, and 686 were DAMN NICE revolvers. Those great double action revolvers really should have never been made considering that the semi-auto design had been around for a long time at the developement of those guns. You may have answered the question in many ways. The revolvers were damn nice guns and served their purpose well. The real reason that semis did not displace them was there really was no need. Only with the perception of being outgunned did depts switch over to semis. Even then alot of line officers did not want to give up their revolvers. Some were grandfathered in. |
|
Quoted:
Miami Vice helped in the very early days of the switch. Semi-autos became cool. Another thing to consider.. With most auto's of the 70's and 80's... you were pretty well armed with a Smith & Wesson Combat Magnum. The model 19,66,586,681 and 686 were DAMN NICE revolvers. Those great double action revolvers really should have never been made considering that the semi-auto design had been around for a long time at the developement of those guns. FTFY..carried a 681 for my first 5 years..i STILL wish i;d taken advantage of the offer when we switched and bought mine......as well as as many more i could afford 
|