Why were cops stuck with .38 Special revolvers so long?

Factual Questions
41

I have read the entire description. Of course there were many mistakes, I never said there weren’t. What I said was that given the circumstances, upgrading to more powerful handguns with higher capacity was a reasonable step to take. I didn’t say it was the salient failure or that the FBI shouldn’t have made other policy changes, obviously they did.

They did have agents with rifles on the assignment but they were too far away to get there in time. Don’t think body armor would have done any good in the 1986 shootout but obviously they should have been wearing it anyway.

42

You can may a handgun as powerful as you like; the .50 AE and the .460 S&W Magnum certainly would have punched through and through the perpetrators. The problem is when you use too powerful of a round you end up with a large and heavy pistol that is impractical too carry and too powerful for many people to shoot. The answer isn’t a bigger pistol; it is a more powerful weapon that is capable of being effectively and accurately fired by the average agent, i.e. a carbine, shotgun, or rifle, combined with tactics that allow the officers to deliver overwhelming force and protective cover and fire. The agents in this case got all hurried to take down the suspects and used tools and techniques that were inadequate. They should have called for SWAT backup from either the local field office or the Metro Dade Police Department, put on body armor, and taken a defensive posture at range rather than engage with sidearms by crashing non-prepared vehicles.

Stranger

43

So you believe that all agents should be equipped with a rifle and a .38 special revolver?

44

The best weapon an officer possesses is common sense and a radio.

45

In that particular case, they absolutely should have been. Matix and Platt were known to be two very dangerous characters and armed. The notion that a long gun trumps a handgun has been known to LE for some time. Police have had long guns in their armories since we first had proper, sworn, professional LE. Shotguns in police vehicles have been routine for decades. More recently, largely post-9/11, carbines in vehicles are also becoming routine.

Look, my dad became a cop in 1961. He was issued .38 special revolver and the cars had shotguns. The small town police force additionally had in their armory at that time: a Thompson smg, a Reising smg, a whole pile of .32 Special Winchester lever actions, and several tear gas launchers. At some point along the way from the day he got hired, they added an M-16 (not an A1 for you gun nuts who are interested in the difference), a scoped .25-06 bolt action rifle, a Crossman-manufactured tranquilizer rifle, and an M2 .30 carbine. They also moved from their aging .38’s to Ruger .357’s to Colt-manufactured .45 1911’s that they were still using when he retired in the 90’s. They are using some model of .40 Glock right now, I think. I know the contents of the armory so well because I volunteered, as a favor to the chief, to clean all of it once. As a gun enthusiast, it was worth it just to handle all the interesting toys.

Bottom line is that LE has long understood the value of long guns and those agents back in 1986 went off half-cocked.

46

Just a WAG: Conservatives.

This affects nearly all professions, not just policemen, but the example I am most familiar with is with teachers.

In the early 30’s, Pavlov and Skinner revolutionized psychology with Behaviorism, and there was a move to push Behaviorism into the classrooms. Teacher training programs were changed, teachers had to learn the new systems, etc. By the 60’s, Behaviorism became the dominant teaching style in the US.

However, as early as the 60’s, it became clear that Behaviorism had severe flaws, namely that brains don’t work like that in terms of learning. Speech, for example, uses different brain processes than simple reward/punishment, and learning disabilities (also immune to Behaviorism) were being identified.

So, from the 70’s until now, new teachers have been questioning why they have to teach a certain way, when it is clearly wrong. However, the older teachers do not want to learn new techniques or take new certification tests. The problem is that older teachers have the power, and are usually the senior teachers, administrators, and union reps.

This creates a cycle that by the time the new teachers gain the power, they’ve become old teachers, and the cycle starts anew.

I can imagine the same thing happened with police. When they were young, they questioned the use of outdated technology. However, by the time they got the power to do something about it, their mindset became, “If it was good enough for me, it’s good enough for you, rookie.”

47

You must be slightly dense today. If you look back in the thread, you’ll see that I’ve pointed out the deficiencies of both the revolver and the .38 Spl round; in particular, posts [post=11731390]#14[/post] and [post=11732406]#25[/post]. A peace officer or agent should carry on person a weapon that offers adequate penetration in a reasonably compact and controllable manner (I would pick something in .45 ACP, like the Sig Sauer P250 or the HK 45, but I like heavy bullets with large diameter) with a shotgun or carbine in vehicle, rather than trying to use a handgun that is too powerful to be controlled, to large or heavy to carry comfortably, and too short on range to deal with an extended firefight at range. The fundamental purpose of a duty sidearm is to give the wielder the means to deal with an unexpected threat and fight one’s way to a better gun, not to be the do-all, be-all of armed combat.

In the case of the FBI firefight, the conclusion that a more powerful chambering offering better penetration might have been a secondary conclusion, but the primary conclusion should have been, “Call for backup, take backup, and go in with overwhelming force.” There are no fair fights in real combat, and there is no handgun round that is assured of eliminating a threat.

Aye, that. The more force you bring to bear, the more likely a perpetrator is to surrender, or at least, have enough diversions that officers can take cover and wait for an opening when the perpetrator isn’t focused upon him. “One riot, one Ranger,” rolls off the tongue well, but “Come back home alive,” is a better one to live by.

Stranger

48

Quite possible, although this was in northern Idaho where things get fairly wild and wooly. On the other hand, it was a college town (Moscow). As an auxiliary cop, I figured I could always claim ignorance, and carried a full load of .357 in my Smith Model 28. Not the best weapon one could hope for, but it was in my price range at the time.

49

Yes, and you twice argued against me when I said that a reasonable policy change after the 1986 shootout was a move to more powerful, higher capacity handguns. You keep arguing as if I’m coming out against rifles. I’m not. I agree with you about rifles. I’m just saying that, in addition to rifles, it was probably a good idea to upgrade the handguns.

50

It wasn’t a bad idea to upgrade handguns, in and of itself. Their stated reasons for changing handguns, and the gun they intitially chose as the replacement, were faulty.

51

And overpowered (for a duty sidearm), and ill-suited to anyone who isn’t 6’ tall and wears XL gloves.

Stranger

52

This is very true. Lots of people, for example, really don’t like the recoil and muzzle flash of a .357 Magnum. It’s no good issuing people with a handgun with plenty of stopping power if they have an uncontrollable flinch when firing it, after all.

53

Why didn’t you respond to the first part of my post, which was entirely on topic?

Here ya go; just for you, I’ll repeat it.

"The logical extension of this thought is that eventually they are going to want an even more “efficient” weapon"*

  • So, where does it stop? As weapons continue to advance, should we expect to see officers carrying missile launchers at some point?
54

I call threadshitting.

Also, a recent thread on the same subject as the OP: Why did the police adopt more powerful handguns?

55

Yay!

56

The full-auto stuff, based on what the chief told me, had interesting history. Keep in mind that he was just passing on “department lore” to me; there was no real documentation for any of the weapons except for rather spotty inventory.
According to him, the Thompson had been procured in anticipation of violent labor unrest…which never happened. It was unclear whether the piece had been purchased with department funds or purchased by a local fatcat and donated.
The Reising seems to have had a connection with the local railroad switching yard which was considered strategically important enough to require guards during WWII. The exact details are murky. Could have been provided by the .gov. Could have been provided by the RR. Could have been the property of the RR police and somehow “migrated” into local police possession.
The .30 carbine also had a shadowy history. Semi-auto variants were not uncommon in police armories following WWII. How they ended up with a select fire variant was a mystery.
The M-16 was purchased by the department fairly early in the time period where such rifles became available to anybody outside the militree. The chief at the time it was purchased was a red-hating, bomb shelter in his backyard, ready to impose martial law at the first opportunity (and much beloved by the community) kind of guy. He wanted the department to have state of the art weapons at its disposal.
All this stuff was in great condition because it was very seldom fired due to ammuntion costs and safety concerns. At the time I cleaned all of it, many pieces hadn’t been fired literally in decades.
Most, if not all, of it was sold off in the 80’s and 90’s to fund the purchase of equipment that the department could actually use. To this day, every now and then, small town departments do the same thing. The weapons that these “Andy and Barney” type outfits have sometimes boggles the mind.

57

Same thing for my local PD. Back when I was a teen, I spent many a Saturday down in the basement of the station, reloading ammo and cleaning the range. In the drawers of the reloading bench was a partially dismantled M3. Hanging on the wall was a Reising. The story I got was that both were freebies from the government around 1947 or so. Neither looked like it had been fired in decades.