LEO's - 38spl is good for wounding?

[CraigC]

Unfortunately, being a police officer doesn't really make you an expert on anything. Except paperwork.

That bit about 38s bouncing off windshields that Skelton talked about.

Swaged lead .38 roundnose at low velocity wasn't too impressive against the heavy sheetmetal or tempered glass on the cars of the `20's and `30's. According to legend, that is the reason for the .38-44 Heavy Duty and the subsequent development of the .357Magnum.

 

[prairieviper]

Unfortunately, being a police officer doesn't really make you an expert on anything. Except paperwork.

That holds true with just about any occupation. Merely having a title or being employed at a particular job doesn't make you an expert. In my experience though, being a GOOD police officer should make you an expert on lots of things, especially problem solving.

 

[Archie]

It Could be True, as Stated...

I started in Law Enforcement in 1978, somewhat late in the careers of the gentlemen in question. I did have the fortune to know and chat with many older lawmen from time prior; some had been cops in the '40s and one or two from the '30s.

Most of them had carried .38 Special revolvers. One said he bought a (then very new) S&W .357 Magnum (later to be called the model 27) for duty. He carried it for awhile and went back to his Military and Police. It was lighter and he never shot anyone.

Please understand the question and answer. I think it very likely many cops of that time period - from the 1920s to the middle to late 1970s - believed a .38 Special was all the revolver and round they needed, and it was possible to selectively wound or kill as needed. Many policemen worked in areas where they either lived or knew the populace. Most weren't interested in killing anyone. So I think it likely many cops thought they 'shoot someone a little bit' in some circumstances.

Allow me to also add I don't think it would work well, every time. Certainly there would be times when the criminal wasn't all that determined and the sight of a revolver would scare the daylights out of them, let alone a shot fired. On the other hand, there were desperate and dangerous men in those days as well. There are accounts of bad guys being shot several times prior to being taken into custody. Some survived, some died of infection (medical care wasn't as good, either.)

However, addressing the question: "Did the cops think they could?" I think the answer is probably yes.

By the way, I like the .38 Special. I carry a snubby often as a personal defense weapon. I do not carry 158 RNL ammo and I don't plan on shooting anyone 'just a little'.

About bullets bouncing off windows and windshields. Yes, it happened and still happens. This became a greater occurrence after the Second World War when 'safety glass' became more popular and widespread and windshields became more slanted due to streamlining. The combination of a rounded front bullet hitting a stronger windshield slanted at a sloping angle makes for bounces. Under the right conditions, a rifle bullet will skip at times - but it is much more unlikely. The impact typically cracks the glass and leaves a 'star'. Shooting into a window at a ninety degree angle usually results in a penetration; depending on the round, it may even do damage once through.

 

[FEG]

I have an aunt and uncle who were on the Chatanooga police force from the 70s-late 90s. I can't remember if they were issued the S&W Model 19 or the 66 when they started. At any rate, they had to carry .38 Special +P in the gun, while their speedloaders carried .357 Magnum. IIRC, they were eventually allowed to load the first 3 chambers with .38 Special +P and the last three chambers with .357 Magnum.

I'm not saying the department advocated "shooting to wound," but something was going on there... Honestly, I don't know what the mentality was.

 

[KyJim]

Putting together the statute cited by Win71 and U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited by Erik, a police officer in California might not be convicted of a homicide under state law but could be sued and/or criminally prosecuted in federal court for a civil rights violation.

On the main point of the post, it would be interesting if some of experienced LEO or former LEO could confirm or deny a "shoot to wound" mindset many years ago.

 

[curmudgeon1]

In the small towns of Pennsylvania in the late '50s/early '60s, cops were typically armed with .38 Special revolvers. I don't recall ever reading what cops were trained to do in regard to shoot to wound, but I do remember when they infrequently did shoot a criminal and the criminal died as a result, the socialist newspapers would invariably publish questions about why the cops didn't "just shoot to wound" instead of shooting to kill. Times do change; now, they want to sue the cops. And in the United Kingdom they won't even let them carry guns. Who will you be voting for this November?

 

[.300H&H]

I had a distant ancestor who was a 'successful' bootlegger back in the early days of prohibition back in the 1920's. He was 'ambushed' and killed by a local sheriff and a 'posse' of folks at one of his 'distilleries<sp>' in a rural area of Mississippi as he was returning home from a 'business trip' to New Orleans. I read the newspaper account, and I was a bit shocked by the open 'brutality' and 'corruption' <lots of bootlegging $$$$>of the police back then. The ol'sheriff was quite candid about ambushing the bootlegger<who was unarmed> and killing him and a companion in 'a hail of bullets' <.38's, shotguns and a rifle>- and the shameless smalltown newspaper loved the story. Ol' Bonnie and Clyde and lots of gangsters/bootleggers/bank robbers...were basically assassinated - and in those 'good old days' there was a lot of 'shooting to kill.'


Also consider the medical aspects and the lack of medical technology then.
I bet a wound from a .38 was a bit more lethal back in those days.
I imagine the idea of 'shoot to wound' was not born<if at all>out of less violence but possibly a situation of excessive violence being toned down a bit from the 1930's and 1920's. I think with the crack cocaine problems of the 80's there was a kind of resurgence of 'gang violence' that was reminicent of the days of prohibition...


Maybe there was a time of less violence in the 50's and 60's - but in the 20's and 30's there were drive by shootings and other shootouts perhaps even worse than those of today... Another BIG FACTOR - maybe the biggest factor - was the rise of the automobile ie. police needed bullets that could penetrate and stop an automobile...and crime was becoming more mobile.


The more things change the more they seem the same. As far as my distant ancestor was concerned, his widow<this is 1921>filed a lawsuit but lost.
There was a huge funeral replete with an elaborate horse drawn hearse. I still have his customized lever action rifle. At the time of his death, he had bought his mother a ranch, his brother a ranch, and himself a ranch - and only he and the town banker owned automobiles in the little town in Alabama where they all lived. He sold many a jar of whisky - and the price of a single jar was about a good day's pay for the working folks he sold it to. The wound that killed him was a .38 that entered his back and landed in his gut. If shot the same way today, he probably would have lived.
Reportedly he had moved to Alabama from Georgia after he had - according to rumor- killed a local police officer. Ah the peaceful good ol'days!


Remember the .38 was a step up from the then popular .32. I do wish all the police were like romanticized English Bobbies like in that Beatles song 'Lovely Rita Metermaid' but my local paper has a story today about a female officer impressively using her pump shotgun to shoot down an armed robber...and sadly I must say the newspaper glamourizes it today about the same way as the ones did waaaaay back in 1921. With improved technology and +P rounds, even the .38 is still in business too.


At the time my distant ancestor left the stage, the president was Warren G. Hardin<sp> He was corrupt. Reprtedly he was at one time even let out a window in the Whitehouse to keep his wife from discovering he was having a tryst with a secretary/friend. The Palmer Raids. The Great Red Scare. The Loss of Civil Liberties. Lynchings... I keep hoping a good newspaper will arise in America and sort out all these problems, but I doubt it will ever happen. Meanwhile my favorite round is the ol'.38, and my favorite handgun is the Ruger SP101. After a day of shooting at the range, I like to clean it and then have a nice spot of tea. It is indeed a good round for wounding...but I wouldn't count on it to do just that. Might be a tad too risky.


One reason for mixing .38's and .357's in the same revolver is to optimize control ie. in the first shots one wants less recoil and more control...and if more shots are needed, then the .357 kicks in as the control has been established...and is all the more lethal in its ability to 'finish the job.' That could be a possible inadvertant source of the '.38 is good for wounding' rumor. I sometimes make my last round a .357mag so as to be a kind of felt signal that it's indeed my last round. I also tend to favor an exposed hammer because I always like to know what the hammer is doing before drawing and holstering the gun - and I'm not at all in the bad habit of trying to fire single action.

 

[Elvishead]

I'm kind of thinking they are "not" talking about .38 spl. in particular, they were referring to handguns. As the Rifle/shotgun was to be used as deadly force, and handguns "In general" were to "stop" the BG.

Does this make sense, or have any logic to it?

 

[Erik]

"I'm kind of thinking they are "not" talking about .38 spl. in particular, they were referring to handguns. As the Rifle/shotgun was to be used as deadly force, and handguns "In general" were to "stop" the BG.

Does this make sense, or have any logic to it? "

No and no.

Rifles and shotguns were and are certainly the preferred firearms to have with you when the odds of engagin in a gun fight are better than average, but handguns never have been and are not considered less than lethal options. Unless you're talking pistol whipping someone.

And... the "shoot to stop" vernacular didn't exist in the good ol' days. Back then, as some have alluded to, shootin' was for killin', and could be applied much more liberally than today.

 

[Mark Milton]

My step-dad was in law enforcement back in the 70s.
It seems back then, even more so than today, the typical cop was not 'into' guns.
There were a lot of old wives tales that floated around back then and the coppers often bought into them like anybody else.
Probably the best example being the "all them automatics jam" theory.

Urban police agencies limited their men to .38 revolvers because they were obsessively concerned about over-penetration. Urban police chiefs didn't want one of their men shooting through a bank robber and hitting a public accountant 15 blocks away.

But because many of the rank and file never read departmental policy about why the .38 was chosen, like anything else, in life, there were those who made up their own stories as to why.
I have no doubt that somebody told those guys, when they were rookies, that the reason the department picked the .38 was because you could shoot to wound or shoot to kill, and they bought it, because it was probably some crusty old patrolman who told them that when they were still wet behind the ears.
What they didnt' know was somebody who never shot anybody in combat probably told HIM that when he was a rookie.
If that was why their agency issued the .38 back in the seventies, they could just as easily have been issued 9mms after all.

My step dad carried a .357 magnum. First a Colt Trooper and later a Charter Police Bulldog. Once he fired a warning round in the air to stop a fleeing felon. The guy thought he was shot and passed out.
My dad got grief when he hauled him in, because the guy had crapped his pants....not because of the warnin shot.

 

[Elvishead]

Erik

"I'm kind of thinking they are "not" talking about .38 spl. in particular, they were referring to handguns. As the Rifle/shotgun was to be used as deadly force, and handguns "In general" were to "stop" the BG.

Does this make sense, or have any logic to it? "

No and no.

Rifles and shotguns were and are certainly the preferred firearms to have with you when the odds of engagin in a gun fight are better than average, but handguns never have been and are not considered less than lethal options. Unless you're talking pistol whipping someone.

And... the "shoot to stop" vernacular didn't exist in the good ol' days. Back then, as some have alluded to, shootin' was for killin', and could be applied much more liberally than today.

Ok, I researched you a little, and found you to ba a LEO. Good enough for me.

Stay safe.

 

[dogngun]

The .38 Special was a big step up when it was introduced - most LEO's before that time carried .32's. The .38 was seen as THE "hot" new police round. Several larger cities eventually used the +P Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hollow Point (Chicago Police Load, FBI Load) made by Remington, Winchester and Federal at one time. It is still an excellent defence load for any .38 Spl, and it is still made by Remington and Winchester.

mark

 

[raveneap]

I was a LEO in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. I started out with the 38 spl in 1962. We had a range at the academy and received the standard training for that time, in place, 7 yds, 25 yds, 50 yds, running, drawing and firing, strong hand, off hand,prone, barricade, etc. I can tell you that I was happy when we went in to the .357 mags. The 38 spl was standard issue for most law enforcement agencies back in those days and so you made do. No one regretted saying goodbye to them.

As far as "shooting to wound" I never heard of any agency promoting that as a procedure. The average officer wasn't a master. And even if he/she was, the instructions were center mass. As one instructor put it, "shooting the gun out of then BG's hand is for the movies. You guys aren't that good."

And when the target is shooting g back at you, all the fine planning comes down to one thing - survival. So I agree, I think those old boys were having dreams of the old days, and not quite as things happened.

 

[jackmcmanus21]

Yeah, I doubt if an LEO ever has to fire his weapon he aims to hurt. Someone who's hurt can still fire back.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

So I agree, I think those old boys were having dreams of the old days, and not quite as things happened.

Happens alot... my dad still talks about his 1969 Dodge Dart GT that ran 11 sec 1/4 mile stock Dodge lists it at like 14.50
We all want to remember "the good ol' days"

 

[Spade Cooley]

We can't speak for the every LEO Agency across the nation because we have no idea what their shooting policy or training was.

I entered a large western police department in 1964. Our pistol training with the 38 Cal Revolver was extensive consisting of target and combat shooting. IOn the Police academy you shot for an hour every day. When you were out woring the streets ,every month you had to qualify with the pistol alternating between the target and combat ranges. Later on they added the shotgun.

There policy was to shoot at the mass and shoot to stop. In a stressful situation all you could do was point at the largest part of the body and fire. Anyone who tells you they could shoot to wound in a shoot out is wrong.

The 38 Special Ammo was changed over the years. They started out with a 200 grain slug and went to the 158 grain in the 60s and to the 125 grain flat nose plus "P" in the 70s.

I can remember one robbery suspect who got shot by one of my brother officers in the head with a 38 with the 158 grain bullet. He said he had an awful tooth ache when they took him to the hospital. It took him three days to die. It got the job done with proper placement but it was no power house. The new weapons with hollow points are mugh better.

 

[raveneap]

>>>... Please understand the question and answer. I think it very likely many cops of that time period - from the 1920s to the middle to late 1970s - believed a .38 Special was all the revolver and round they needed, ... <<<

In 30 years of LE I can't recall ever meeting one who felt that way. I'm not saying that there weren't any but if so, they were a minority.

In the 60's my department issued 38 spls. (Colts). Then on to 357 mags. (Colt & Smith) Then to Beretta 9mm; our first venture in to semi-autos. I retired in '91. The Department has since gone to H&K .45's.

 

[Erik]

And that mirrors most agencies:

.38 to .357 to 9mm to ________. (Full in the blank with .40 s&w, .45acp, and .357 Sig, in that order.)

As for why, it is because the people in the field demand it, and eventually, albeit sometime quite a bit later after quite the fight, it comes on-line.

 

[nate45]

"Back in my day we could clip 'em in the toe with our 'ol .38s and they'd go down"

 

[txshootist]

I was an LEO from 1965-74 in the largest department on the west coast. Unfortunately, because of the times, or whatever, I was involved in several shootings. We carried S&W mod. 15's and made the transition quickly to decent hollowpoint ammo. I can tell you one thing,....if I wounded someone, it was because I missed.