According to the book “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun” it wasn’t until the mid-80’s with the introduction of the Glock pistol for semi-autos to finally outsell revolvers in both the civilian and law enforcement markets.
Which makes me curious, is there a reason why revolvers remained so popular for so late a time? You would think all those M1911 bringbacks or surplus sales from after WW2 would have helped lead to the acceptance of semi-autos over revolvers, but apparently it was only Glocks aggressive civilian and law enforcement marketing campaigns that finally put semi-autos over.
One of the big issues was reliability. A revolver generally doesn’t jam or misfeed. Semi-autos, especially those with higher capacity magazines, tended to misfeed and jam on occasion. Lower capacity magazines weren’t as likely to have an issue, but then if there’s no capacity benefit, then there’s not much of a benefit to a semi-auto and there’s still the increased risk of a jam or misfeed.
The reliability of semi-autos started getting better in the 1970s. By the 1980s, law enforcement could take advantage of the increased magazine capacity while not significantly affecting reliability.
Guns in general weren’t as big of a problem among criminals in the 1970s and earlier. For example, if there was a gang fight, it most often involved knives rather than guns. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, guns started becoming more common among criminals, and police were encountering more and more criminals who had higher capacity semi-autos. If your revolver has six shots before reloading and the bad guy has eleven, that puts you at a big disadvantage once the bullets start flying. Switching to semi-autos put law enforcement back on equal footing with the bad guys.
As you noted, Glock’s aggressive marketing also influenced some of the decisions.
Another factor was that ammunition improved in tandem with the guns in the 80s. Previously, auto loaders were built around firing fmj ammo loaded within a particular pressure curve. Overpenetration was a real issue, as was reliability if the ammo departed more than a little from spec. As the guns got better and could handle hollow points, different projectile weights, etc., the ammo makers improved their offerings.
I also add that the development of the striker-fired action contributed to the rise in popularity.
Early semi-autos, like the Colt 1911 and Browning Hi-Power, were single action hammer-fired weapons: To put the gun in a ready-to-fire state required racking of the slide to chamber a round, which cocked the hammer. To make the gun safe for carry, an external safety was engaged. To fire the gun, the safety was disengaged. Correctly or not, this was often seen as unsafe, complicated, and a bit slow.
Later actions were double/single action. A round was chambered, then the hammer was lowered (usually with a decocker) on a live round. This avoided carrying the gun with a cocked hammer. In use, the first trigger pull is long and heavy, as it has to cock the hammer. After the first shot, the gun functions like a single action: the trigger pull for subsequent shots are short and light, as the hammer is pre-cocked. Many dislike the inconsistent trigger pull, and the whole decocker thing adds to the complexity of operation.
Striker-fired guns have no hammer. There’s an internal striker that detonates the primer on the cartridge. The striker is always partially retracted (by the action of racking the slide.) Pulling the trigger retracts it fully, and releases it to fire the gun. The trigger pull is consistent from shot to shot, and lighter than the first shot from a DA/SA. There are usually no external safeties. In other words, striker-fired guns are used like a revolver once loaded and a round chambered: put it in your holster, and when ready to shoot, pull it out and pull the trigger.
Also, Miami Vice. No, I’m not kidding. Vice was some very high profile, glamorous advertising for several different guns, including the Glock and S&W’s line of 2nd and 3rd generation autoloaders.
Yes, that would be “another semi-automatic pistol.” As would the Browning 9mm, the M1903, etc. Though now it looks like there are one or two books where he carries revolvers.
The first semi auto that wowed me was the Browning Hi Power. I began target shooting in the late 1960s and when I came across the Hi Power in ads I just had to have one. 13 rounds! I dropped out of shooting and went on to other things, but when I got back in around 2000 the first thing on my mind was a high capacity pistol. The Hi Power was pretty antiquated by then, I became a Ruger fan and have been happy with the P95. 15 in the normal magazine and 20 or even 30 rounders are available but they are just silly.
I did have a Browning 25 ACP in the 60s, but that was just my trail gun to tuck into a tackle box. It was the large capacity of the Hi Power that was the lure.
Another issue is the safety. Many early semi-autos were deigned for a right-handed shooter. (Of course a revolver with a safety is a rare thing.) In a situation where you might have your good arm unavailable, a revolver had it all over earlier semi-autos.
It is worth noting that such things as ambidextrous safeties, throating and polishing (in order to improve feeding), accurizing, trigger jobs and so forth were available for autoloaders as custom options well before the 80s. There were somereallyawesomecustomizedautoloaders available back then.
Back in the Old Days, most soldiers carried the M1911. Aviators and military policemen (I think) carried revolvers. The explanation given me was that those two specialties might have to fire using either hand, and could not rely on backup.
I think you are wrong about that. I think that the vast majority of people who get 7 rounds of .25 acp (8 if he was carrying with one in the chamber) dumped into their vitals are going to lose interest in fighting. It is not out of the question that they will fall down and die.
Try this: Get yourself a good, thick phone book, a philips screwdriver, and a .25 acp pistol with some bog standard fmj ammo. Now see you deeply you can drive the screwdriver into the phone book. Don’t hold back! Now see how fast you can drive the screwdriver that deep 7 times. Now shoot the phone book with the .25. My money is on the slug penetrating more deeply than the screwdriver. Now see how fast you can empty the mag into the phone book.
7 or 8 deep puncture wounds in the throat, heart/lungs, or even gut are not something that gets shrugged off by any but the most exceptional (or drugged up) antagonists, whether those wounds came from a stabbing implement or a small caliber handgun.
Okay…and most movie Bond villains are nameless, faceless mooks. Book Bond, at least as originally written, didn’t face much in the way of Jaws-type baddies. When he did, he had more at his disposal than just the .25.
It seems to me that another reason for this is most soldiers who carried an M1911 carried it as a backup - their main weapon was a rifle, carbine or SMG. Whereas for MPs and aviators, it was their sole firearm, and thus needed to be absolutely reliable.