L E O carrying a revolver
- Thread starter Nick_C_S
- Start date
Yes he was. If you remember the Karen Koslow murder he worked that. He also was on the homosexual murders by Ricky Lee Green when he killed that channel 5 reporter. There was a book written about Ricky Lee Green and my uncle was mentioned several times in it. They also made one of the American Justice/Justice Files shows about the Koslow murder and you can see my uncle coming out of the front door of the Koslow house.
When he was a young cop he did the photagraphy for the PD. After Oswald was killed he took the autopsy pics for the FWPD since he lived in FW for a time. He brought copies by our house and let us see them. I was only about 6-7 at the time but my parents let me look at every single picture of Lee gutted like a fish and whip stitched back together.
Other notable investigations he made the news on was the West Wind auto theft ring. I was proud of my uncle. He was my spare dad. We shot guns and shot the falling plate matches at the Ft Worth Rifle And Pistol Club before Ft Worth decided there was more money to be made by developing the property. He ran the match and I ran the timer. What a blast that was. Did you know a cop named Pat Grogan? He shot with us and was my uncles friend. Pat was a different bird I can tell you.
My uncle died with me on the side of a mountain in Gunnison Colorado on an Elk hunt. He died 9 months to the day after my dad died. And in between one of my best friends died. It was a very bad year for me. But while he was my spare dad I was the son he never had. He had two girls but wanted a son. We did a lot together. I miss my uncle. And my dad.
I started with a wheelgun (Smith M64), if thats what i had on hand today, id put it to good use (and i did back then).
However, that does not mean its the best tool for the job today.
Having 15 rounds on tap does not mean i have to “spray and pray”. It means i have the ability to land mtpl shots and not have an empty (or mostly empty) gun. That makes mtpl attackers easier to deal with. It means i dont have to be concerned (as much) with reloading under most shooting conditions.
If im shooting at somebody behind cover or inside a vehicle i can take those shots without being ammo capacity challenged.
Low capacity, slower to reload, harder to master (longer & heavier) trigger pull. I dont see the allure of using a Revolver as a LEO today. Using the best tool fornthe job at hand just makes sense. No LEO today is driving a 1980’s patrol car or a radio from that era.
However, that does not mean its the best tool for the job today.
Having 15 rounds on tap does not mean i have to “spray and pray”. It means i have the ability to land mtpl shots and not have an empty (or mostly empty) gun. That makes mtpl attackers easier to deal with. It means i dont have to be concerned (as much) with reloading under most shooting conditions.
If im shooting at somebody behind cover or inside a vehicle i can take those shots without being ammo capacity challenged.
Low capacity, slower to reload, harder to master (longer & heavier) trigger pull. I dont see the allure of using a Revolver as a LEO today. Using the best tool fornthe job at hand just makes sense. No LEO today is driving a 1980’s patrol car or a radio from that era.
I haven't seen any revolvers carried as a primary weapons by uniformed officers lately. Revolvers seem to have been relegated to the role of 2nd./back up weapons in police work. I carried a revolver for my first 13 years. Never thought the Dept. would allow any semi-auto as a primary weapon. But when 9mm SIGs, and IIRC S&Ws and Berettas, were authorized, I was one of the guys who jumped on it. I carried the SIG P226 initially, then other semi-autos afterwards. That being said, if I'd been restricted to carrying the S&W .357 revolver carried previously, for the rest of my career, I don't believe I'd have been inadequately armed. BTW, on one occasion I was carrying Glock, with a whole bunch of ammo in the magazine. All that ammo in the high capacity magazine didn't help me much. It suffered a serious stoppage after the first round was fired. I only wish I'd been carrying one of those antiquated low capacity revolvers
Off duty, after 30 years, for personal carry I prefer a revolver (although I do on occasion carry a pistol depending on the season). It comes down to a matter of trust. Seen far too many jams during qualifications over the years due to limp wristing, bad mags / ammo, weather conditions, etc. And, at close / bad breath range, if a pistol muzzle is pressed against a target, the slide comes out of battery, weapon may not fire the first shot and or the 2nd won't cycle properly. Not good if you get jumped and end up on the ground or against a car, wall, etc. with one or more degenerates trying to stab you or choke you out. With a revolver... just jab them in the ribs with the muzzle and pull the trigger until they let go. Something to consider as many deadly assaults and confrontations end up very close and personal. I would carry a revolver on duty if allowed by policy. I just shoot revolvers better, perhaps because that's what I started with as a kid. Accuracy and reliability trumps firepower, at least from my perspective. Carry what you will, but train, train, and train some more. And, avoid your worst enemy... Ego.
Last edited:
Rat, I was a patrol cop at the time. I worked the east Lancaster area as a rookie and the Evans and Rosedale until I went to the Border Patrol. I knew Pat, he was a good guy, as was your uncle. He also came out to the scene of a body in a trunk I helped at in the Trinity River bottoms. Your uncle was a no nonsense kind of guy. Sorry for your loss, sounds like he died doing what he loved.
Small world.
Small world.
I sold a lot of guns to small local PDs while in business from 70-90s. Most of the
PDs had less than 10 officers. The last big batches of revolvers I sold were 686s
in early 80s. Before that m19s. By middle 80s started selling 1911s, S&W 39s
and Berreta 92s. I think that most of the officers in these small departments
were better off with a good revolver. They get limited training compared to big
city PDs. Everyone thinks cops are all gun experts, when most of them are not.
That doesn't mean they are stupid either, they aren't bashful about reaching for
shotgun or rifle. They just found a cop guilty of murder for shooting a doped up
felon 16 times. The cop is getting burnt for PC. Felon was advancing with knife
and cop was in fear for his life. Under these conditions he emptied on the Bad
guy. Now because he shot 16 times he is going to jail for murder. This same
situation has happened several times and got cops into trouble. Yes, under
combat conditions a hi cap auto is needed. It boils down not to revolver or auto
it's the individual and training.
PDs had less than 10 officers. The last big batches of revolvers I sold were 686s
in early 80s. Before that m19s. By middle 80s started selling 1911s, S&W 39s
and Berreta 92s. I think that most of the officers in these small departments
were better off with a good revolver. They get limited training compared to big
city PDs. Everyone thinks cops are all gun experts, when most of them are not.
That doesn't mean they are stupid either, they aren't bashful about reaching for
shotgun or rifle. They just found a cop guilty of murder for shooting a doped up
felon 16 times. The cop is getting burnt for PC. Felon was advancing with knife
and cop was in fear for his life. Under these conditions he emptied on the Bad
guy. Now because he shot 16 times he is going to jail for murder. This same
situation has happened several times and got cops into trouble. Yes, under
combat conditions a hi cap auto is needed. It boils down not to revolver or auto
it's the individual and training.
I grew up in the East Lancaster area. My mother still lives at the same house at the junction of House St and Vinson Ave. That was my stomping ground after we moved from just west on Lancaster at Panola and Canyon Ridge. Yep small world. Thanks for your kind words.
I can thank my uncle for my preference in revolvers. It was what he liked and preferred to carry on duty. In the book "The Snubby Revolver" Ed Lovett states that the NYPD did a study and in over 6000 shooting with revolvers there hadn't been a single failure of the guns in use. Thats a pretty good track record for an outdated gun design.
My senior "thesis" in an LE college program in 1982 was "Auto vs Revolver For Police".
I was around during the transition.
I read all the hoopla in gunmags.
I remember all the arguments.
I was there during the 1975-1985 push for police to transition to autos "because we're out-gunned".
Seeing this thread veer into a direction regurgitating all the old discussions is one thing, but seeing the adamant & dogmatic "GOTTA have an auto to do the job" is just silly.
The auto offers certain advantages to many cops & a very small handful of situations, but saying it's absolutely REQUIRED across the board is idiotic.
Denis
I was around during the transition.
I read all the hoopla in gunmags.
I remember all the arguments.
I was there during the 1975-1985 push for police to transition to autos "because we're out-gunned".
Seeing this thread veer into a direction regurgitating all the old discussions is one thing, but seeing the adamant & dogmatic "GOTTA have an auto to do the job" is just silly.
The auto offers certain advantages to many cops & a very small handful of situations, but saying it's absolutely REQUIRED across the board is idiotic.
Denis
I know that it's hard to say something that isn't controversial, but I believe that most police officers are best off carrying a high capacity semi. Being good with the revolver isn't enough, being able to handle it under stress is what matters. When the guy jumps out of the car at the traffic stop, the cop with the revolver can't be just 'good'. He had better be 'great'. a police recruit can learn how to use the semiautomatic Without intensive training, but proficiency that allows a person to carry with only six rounds is harder to achieve.
I laid out the arguments in favor of both sides.
And I concluded at the time that the auto did offer advantages.
I was a firearms instructor at my PD when the first auto was authorized for private purchase, a SIG 220 in '82.
I saw & taught the transition from revolver to auto for those who bought the SIG.
There were several officers who bought SIGs on their own dime, moving up from .38s to .45s.
Some had difficulty in learning the auto.
Most of the department stayed with the issue Model 64 till the Glock was forced on us in '88.
The low recoil of the 9mm and the fact that they didn't have to pay for an issued pistol caused several officers to embrace the Glock immediately.
The fact that it was going to be mandatory caused others to gradually start phasing it in, with largely indifference to what they were issued. Those were the "Gun? Oh, yeah, that thing." crowd.
And there was a small handful of us who carried revolvers, either the issued Model 64 or the private-purchase Model 25-5, right down to the last possible minute of the last possible shift.
In my case, I had actually been, in '82, the third man in the PD to buy the optional SIG 220.
Carried it for two years.
When both of my fellow firearms instructors had mechanical issues with their SIGs (we three probably had the highest mileage SIGs in the department), I saw the writing on the wall & sold it. Bought the newly-approved Smith 25-5. Our chief actually listened on occasion, and the .45 Colt was the most powerful caliber he'd allow in an urban PD.
I carried that 25-5 till the Glock was made mandatory in '88, with ALL revolvers no longer approved, even as backups.
We did notice something of an escalation in qualification scores in simple shooting drills with the Glock 9s over previous .38 shooters, but many still barely passed & several had difficulty in moving scenarios and malfunction drills.
And, there were those of us who shot the same with an auto as we had with our outdated & obsolete revolvers.
We also had more ADs with autos than we'd had with revolvers.
One size does not fit all, and a good revolver man (or woman), with sufficient reload ammunition on board PLUS a good head for tactics AND a good head for handling people, made a helluva combination you did not want to mess with then, and would not want to mess with today.
90% of an effective cop is what's in that cop's head, not what's on his or her belt.
Denis
And I concluded at the time that the auto did offer advantages.
I was a firearms instructor at my PD when the first auto was authorized for private purchase, a SIG 220 in '82.
I saw & taught the transition from revolver to auto for those who bought the SIG.
There were several officers who bought SIGs on their own dime, moving up from .38s to .45s.
Some had difficulty in learning the auto.
Most of the department stayed with the issue Model 64 till the Glock was forced on us in '88.
The low recoil of the 9mm and the fact that they didn't have to pay for an issued pistol caused several officers to embrace the Glock immediately.
The fact that it was going to be mandatory caused others to gradually start phasing it in, with largely indifference to what they were issued. Those were the "Gun? Oh, yeah, that thing." crowd.
And there was a small handful of us who carried revolvers, either the issued Model 64 or the private-purchase Model 25-5, right down to the last possible minute of the last possible shift.
In my case, I had actually been, in '82, the third man in the PD to buy the optional SIG 220.
Carried it for two years.
When both of my fellow firearms instructors had mechanical issues with their SIGs (we three probably had the highest mileage SIGs in the department), I saw the writing on the wall & sold it. Bought the newly-approved Smith 25-5. Our chief actually listened on occasion, and the .45 Colt was the most powerful caliber he'd allow in an urban PD.
I carried that 25-5 till the Glock was made mandatory in '88, with ALL revolvers no longer approved, even as backups.
We did notice something of an escalation in qualification scores in simple shooting drills with the Glock 9s over previous .38 shooters, but many still barely passed & several had difficulty in moving scenarios and malfunction drills.
And, there were those of us who shot the same with an auto as we had with our outdated & obsolete revolvers.
We also had more ADs with autos than we'd had with revolvers.
One size does not fit all, and a good revolver man (or woman), with sufficient reload ammunition on board PLUS a good head for tactics AND a good head for handling people, made a helluva combination you did not want to mess with then, and would not want to mess with today.
90% of an effective cop is what's in that cop's head, not what's on his or her belt.
Denis
I have to agree. Certain posts and locations don't remotely call for a high capacity 9 mm. For example, maybe, an outpost in glacier park that is visited by bears, or any other outdoor location that tends to attract BIG wildlife? I'm going to say that a .357 revolver would be the smart thing to carry if there was a reasonably large chance that a bison might wander in off of the preserve, or a bear come in to forage for coolers. OTOH, I have never heard of a gang war or bank robbery in a campground. carry what fits the needs and territory. The smithsonian, for example, every bullet fired has the potential to destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of precious objects. There are OTOH, could you reasonably expect that armed villains would come blasting in, charge through 100 yards of hallways, then steal a russian faberge egg? Guards at the smithsonian or other prestigious museums or similar places are armed only against very minor threats and are probably expected to stand down in case a major exchange of gunfire is expected. the Smithsonian American Art Museum receives more than 2 million visitors annually. Let the terrorists have what they want. There is probably a swat unit nearby.
Brian,
You posted while I was typing.
Unfortunately, in the real world, it didn't work quite the way you suggest.
One immediate trend we found after the auto transition was a tendency toward the infamous "Spray & Pray".
Where with the revolver the emphasis was "make each shot count", when the high-cap auto came along we lost something of that emphasis and while we still required "good" hits on paper at qualifications, on the street a subconscious transition to "I got three times as many rounds in my gun before I have to reload, so even if only 1 out of 8 or 10 connects, I'm still good" showed up.
When you know you've got 6 shots, you tend to take those six shots more deliberately.
When you know you've got 18 rounds, you tend to blow more off in a hurry, and that's where the misses creep in.
This is largely a training issue, but it still crops up under the stress that you mention.
You put a seasoned revolver cop up against a rookie with a 9mm in a spot where somebody has to be shot, and I'd bet money on your rookie putting a dozen holes in the surroundings, with maybe one or two in the target.
The revolver cop will tend to make his 6 count better.
And, jumping out of the car?
Recall one incident where a fellow officer jumped out of his car & immediately emptied his Glock without striking his assailant once.
And he was a good shot, not a newbie.
You assume equal ability & equal capability.
A good revolver guy can easily outshoot an indifferent auto guy.
And vice-versa.
I may not have mentioned that I regularly outshot, with my Model 25-5, most of the Glock guys while we overlapped.
Ability, CAPABILITY, and determination.
Denis
You posted while I was typing.
Unfortunately, in the real world, it didn't work quite the way you suggest.
One immediate trend we found after the auto transition was a tendency toward the infamous "Spray & Pray".
Where with the revolver the emphasis was "make each shot count", when the high-cap auto came along we lost something of that emphasis and while we still required "good" hits on paper at qualifications, on the street a subconscious transition to "I got three times as many rounds in my gun before I have to reload, so even if only 1 out of 8 or 10 connects, I'm still good" showed up.
When you know you've got 6 shots, you tend to take those six shots more deliberately.
When you know you've got 18 rounds, you tend to blow more off in a hurry, and that's where the misses creep in.
This is largely a training issue, but it still crops up under the stress that you mention.
You put a seasoned revolver cop up against a rookie with a 9mm in a spot where somebody has to be shot, and I'd bet money on your rookie putting a dozen holes in the surroundings, with maybe one or two in the target.
The revolver cop will tend to make his 6 count better.
And, jumping out of the car?
Recall one incident where a fellow officer jumped out of his car & immediately emptied his Glock without striking his assailant once.
And he was a good shot, not a newbie.
You assume equal ability & equal capability.
A good revolver guy can easily outshoot an indifferent auto guy.
And vice-versa.
I may not have mentioned that I regularly outshot, with my Model 25-5, most of the Glock guys while we overlapped.
Ability, CAPABILITY, and determination.
Denis
The 220s we had were early versions, with the heel-clip mag releases.
I liked the .45 ACP, but the chief would not approve a single-action 1911 pattern (though how somebody was able to persuade him the Glock with its trigger was "safer" later on, we never understood), so I bought one soon as the 220 was approved as our first optional auto.
The design was not quite ready for primetime yet.
When my two buddies' 220s went down, I said "no thanks" & let mine go before it did go bad on me.
I see the same thing reflected in the rimfire world.
Hand somebody a revolver, he or she will tend to take more time to hit.
Hand 'em a semi-auto & they're more likely to just blast away.
That's why I gave .22 revolvers as first-gun gifts to two nephews- I wanted them to learn to HIT, not SPRAY.
Denis
I liked the .45 ACP, but the chief would not approve a single-action 1911 pattern (though how somebody was able to persuade him the Glock with its trigger was "safer" later on, we never understood), so I bought one soon as the 220 was approved as our first optional auto.
The design was not quite ready for primetime yet.
When my two buddies' 220s went down, I said "no thanks" & let mine go before it did go bad on me.
I see the same thing reflected in the rimfire world.
Hand somebody a revolver, he or she will tend to take more time to hit.
Hand 'em a semi-auto & they're more likely to just blast away.
That's why I gave .22 revolvers as first-gun gifts to two nephews- I wanted them to learn to HIT, not SPRAY.
Denis
FrankenMauser
New member
I see this much like the revolver vs semi world's equivalent of the rifle world's single-shot vs semi-auto.
The guy with a single-shot rifle will nearly always fill his tag ... with ONE shot.
Yet, many of the guys with bolt actions will shoot AT animals (not shoot animals, but shoot AT them) until they finally land something that allows a follow-up shot (or six) and moderately easy recovery. There may be another eight animals out there with festering, nasty wounds, and sixteen trees that will die from bullet wounds; but that doesn't matter - they filled their tag!
I understand it - whether it's revolver vs semi-auto, or single-shot vs bolt action (or semi-auto).
Having more ammunition on tap can make people stupid.
But, at the same time, having LESS ammunition on tap can make people seriously consider what EACH and EVERY cartridge should be used for.
A very conscientious and practiced shooter can make the most of anything in their hands. But most do not. They see the unending ammunition reservoir as the answer to their poor marksmanship.
I've been there myself. I grew up in an environment where the mentality was, "shoot into the herd." (Seriously.)
But, after hunting with a Browning 1885 for a year, then muzzle-loader hunting a bit, and finally ending up with an H&R Handi-Rifle later on down the road, I went my own way.
I used to leave the truck with dozens of rounds of ammunition, even for a bolt-action - 20 rounds in one pocket, 20 rounds in another pocket, 10 rounds in a back pocket, 16 rounds in an ammunition carrier on my belt, 4-6 rounds in the gun, and another 2-5 rounds stashed anywhere else I could stick them, like the sling loops.
Once I realized the stupidity of that, things changed.
In 2012, when I dropped my first bull elk, I was carrying a Handi-Rifle in .444 Marlin. The rifle had a butt cuff with eight rounds in it, and the rifle had one in the chamber. ...But they weren't all suitable loads for elk. FOUR of the eight rounds in the butt cuff were what I call ".444-.410". They were .410 shotgun loads stuffed into .444 cases, so that I could legally pop some pine chickens (grouse) with the same rifle I used for elk. (And I did ... in flight ... with a scope ... but that's another story.) And another pair (two) of the cartridges in the butt cuff were an experimental load that I wanted to test for terminal performance on game. They weren't meant to be used to fill the tag - just to be pulled out if the right opportunity presented itself (or as last-ditch backup, should something really bad happen).
I had nine rounds total, but only five were suitable for elk. ...And only three of the five were intended for elk.
Three rounds.
I left the truck with just three rounds intended for the job at hand, and knew that the only way they wouldn't be enough was if I seriously screwed the pooch at least twelve different ways.
If I had been the average elk hunter with a bolt action, that elk probably would have gotten five or more bullets (if what they were shooting could have gone through the trees that the .444 Marlin did ... but, again ... another story).
If I had been the average elk hunter with a semi-auto, the magazine surely would have been emptied ... possibly more than once.
But, having a single-shot in my hands, the first shot was decisively fatal. A follow-up shot was made simply to ensure that the bull expired quickly and didn't run off.
One round did the job. The second simply 'anchored' him and made sure he didn't suffer.
Two weeks ago, I dropped a mule deer with a traditional muzzleloader. The first round was decisively fatal. The second, point-blank round simply made sure the buck didn't suffer unnecessarily (which was later discovered to be, itself unnecessary ... but that doesn't matter).
Semi-auto? Shoot until that ******* hits the ground!
The guy with a single-shot rifle will nearly always fill his tag ... with ONE shot.
Yet, many of the guys with bolt actions will shoot AT animals (not shoot animals, but shoot AT them) until they finally land something that allows a follow-up shot (or six) and moderately easy recovery. There may be another eight animals out there with festering, nasty wounds, and sixteen trees that will die from bullet wounds; but that doesn't matter - they filled their tag!
I understand it - whether it's revolver vs semi-auto, or single-shot vs bolt action (or semi-auto).
Having more ammunition on tap can make people stupid.
But, at the same time, having LESS ammunition on tap can make people seriously consider what EACH and EVERY cartridge should be used for.
A very conscientious and practiced shooter can make the most of anything in their hands. But most do not. They see the unending ammunition reservoir as the answer to their poor marksmanship.
I've been there myself. I grew up in an environment where the mentality was, "shoot into the herd." (Seriously.)
But, after hunting with a Browning 1885 for a year, then muzzle-loader hunting a bit, and finally ending up with an H&R Handi-Rifle later on down the road, I went my own way.
I used to leave the truck with dozens of rounds of ammunition, even for a bolt-action - 20 rounds in one pocket, 20 rounds in another pocket, 10 rounds in a back pocket, 16 rounds in an ammunition carrier on my belt, 4-6 rounds in the gun, and another 2-5 rounds stashed anywhere else I could stick them, like the sling loops.
Once I realized the stupidity of that, things changed.
In 2012, when I dropped my first bull elk, I was carrying a Handi-Rifle in .444 Marlin. The rifle had a butt cuff with eight rounds in it, and the rifle had one in the chamber. ...But they weren't all suitable loads for elk. FOUR of the eight rounds in the butt cuff were what I call ".444-.410". They were .410 shotgun loads stuffed into .444 cases, so that I could legally pop some pine chickens (grouse) with the same rifle I used for elk. (And I did ... in flight ... with a scope ... but that's another story.) And another pair (two) of the cartridges in the butt cuff were an experimental load that I wanted to test for terminal performance on game. They weren't meant to be used to fill the tag - just to be pulled out if the right opportunity presented itself (or as last-ditch backup, should something really bad happen).
I had nine rounds total, but only five were suitable for elk. ...And only three of the five were intended for elk.
Three rounds.
I left the truck with just three rounds intended for the job at hand, and knew that the only way they wouldn't be enough was if I seriously screwed the pooch at least twelve different ways.
If I had been the average elk hunter with a bolt action, that elk probably would have gotten five or more bullets (if what they were shooting could have gone through the trees that the .444 Marlin did ... but, again ... another story).
If I had been the average elk hunter with a semi-auto, the magazine surely would have been emptied ... possibly more than once.
But, having a single-shot in my hands, the first shot was decisively fatal. A follow-up shot was made simply to ensure that the bull expired quickly and didn't run off.
One round did the job. The second simply 'anchored' him and made sure he didn't suffer.
Two weeks ago, I dropped a mule deer with a traditional muzzleloader. The first round was decisively fatal. The second, point-blank round simply made sure the buck didn't suffer unnecessarily (which was later discovered to be, itself unnecessary ... but that doesn't matter).
Semi-auto? Shoot until that ******* hits the ground!