Revolvers Outdated?
First, let's address the matter of caliber. The .38 is probably equivalent to the 9mm. However, upgrade the revolver to .357 mag, and you have a far superior caliber. Granted, the recoil from this cartridge is much greater, but I'll address that later.
Now, we can discuss the differences in the weapons themselves:
"The newer guns were easier to reload and held 15 rounds in the magazine and one on the chamber, almost three times as many as the revolver."
Yeah, true, but what does that mean in practical terms? Does it truly matter in real world applications? Later in the article we find the answer:
"To date in 2004, the average number of rounds fired by a single officer in a police shooting is 2.8, down from 4.6 in 2000 and 5.0 in 1995."
This is, after all, police work, not warfare. And I believe that the semi-auto has led to a deterioration in practical shooting skills.
"Detective Tomasa Rodriguez, with the Midtown South precinct, remembered the announcement for everyone with revolvers to step aside to a separate range."
Why? Because revolvers don't lend themselves to the range, which involves shooting many rounds through many reloads. Hence the problem with the magnum recoil mentioned earlier. But as noted earlier, this is not the typical police encounter. The semi-auto, with it's many rounds and ease of reloading, has resulted in a spraying mentality as opposed to the "old school" of making the first shot count. And if the average shots in an encounter is 2.8, the first one may be all you get.
Then there is the matter of reliability. There is essentially nothing to go wrong with a revolver. It is a simple machine. Not the case at all for semi-autos which incorporate many moving parts.
The bottom line is, I still prefer my revolver. If I ever need a pistol in a life and death situation, I want to be certain it is going to function. I want to have stopping power with one shot. And I don't want the thought in the back of my mind that I have plenty of firepower, so forget all the training, and just start spraying lead.
Finally, the article sums up these old timers and their decision to keep their revolvers this way:
"'I hate change.'
'It looks cool.'"
This is what the author thinks of these police veterans that have put their lives on the line every day for years? That the decision of which weapon best suits their needs to possibly save their own lives or the lives of others is how it looks on their hip?
I think it is the younger crowd that is more concerned with appearances and image. I think the summary of the article can be found in this quote:
"the department switched from revolvers to semiautomatics, primarily to meet the advanced weaponry carried by criminals and dispel the perception that the officers were outgunned." (emphasis mine)
Now, we can discuss the differences in the weapons themselves:
"The newer guns were easier to reload and held 15 rounds in the magazine and one on the chamber, almost three times as many as the revolver."
Yeah, true, but what does that mean in practical terms? Does it truly matter in real world applications? Later in the article we find the answer:
"To date in 2004, the average number of rounds fired by a single officer in a police shooting is 2.8, down from 4.6 in 2000 and 5.0 in 1995."
This is, after all, police work, not warfare. And I believe that the semi-auto has led to a deterioration in practical shooting skills.
"Detective Tomasa Rodriguez, with the Midtown South precinct, remembered the announcement for everyone with revolvers to step aside to a separate range."
Why? Because revolvers don't lend themselves to the range, which involves shooting many rounds through many reloads. Hence the problem with the magnum recoil mentioned earlier. But as noted earlier, this is not the typical police encounter. The semi-auto, with it's many rounds and ease of reloading, has resulted in a spraying mentality as opposed to the "old school" of making the first shot count. And if the average shots in an encounter is 2.8, the first one may be all you get.
Then there is the matter of reliability. There is essentially nothing to go wrong with a revolver. It is a simple machine. Not the case at all for semi-autos which incorporate many moving parts.
The bottom line is, I still prefer my revolver. If I ever need a pistol in a life and death situation, I want to be certain it is going to function. I want to have stopping power with one shot. And I don't want the thought in the back of my mind that I have plenty of firepower, so forget all the training, and just start spraying lead.
Finally, the article sums up these old timers and their decision to keep their revolvers this way:
"'I hate change.'
'It looks cool.'"
This is what the author thinks of these police veterans that have put their lives on the line every day for years? That the decision of which weapon best suits their needs to possibly save their own lives or the lives of others is how it looks on their hip?
I think it is the younger crowd that is more concerned with appearances and image. I think the summary of the article can be found in this quote:
"the department switched from revolvers to semiautomatics, primarily to meet the advanced weaponry carried by criminals and dispel the perception that the officers were outgunned." (emphasis mine)
posted by The Man at 9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home