View Full Version : Why semi autos only became prevalent in the 80's
skimbleshanks
05-14-16, 02:13
Just kind of curious as to why semi auto pistols only gained really wide spread usage with police and civilian populations after the 1980's? 1911 had a good track record as did the Browning hi-power. The Luger wasn't a slouch and the mix of Walther pistols has to my knowledge never been particularly terrible. I like my revolvers and I have shot them more and better than my semi auto pistols but the use of them is in my mind limited (or at a slight disadvantage) to woods carry with big predators or very small carry options like a j frame. Why did police choose to use revolvers so for so long for that particular role?
The 1911 and High power are single action and that's never been very popular with administrations. When the switch did begin it was largely to DA autos. Revolvers had a long and established history with US LE. The Luger was never a real option and the Walther pretty much wasn't either. The two US autos listed and the Smith and Wesson models a the time weren't always feed reliable with hollowpoints
Add to that the monetary cost to transition and train. The Sheriff's dept here could always carry autos. The PD in the city I live in couldn't carry autos until 1985. And then only DA or squeeze cocker (HKP7). But several 1911 fans on the PD purchased the old Double Ace, I think it was, conversion which converted the 1911 into a squeeze cocker via the blackstrap. They never worked reliably. I actually still have two of them that I pulled off pistols owned by former friends and replaced with standard 1911 components.
Now you can't find a revolver in front line service here. And the Kansas Law Enforcement academy won't even accept a revolver. It's all built around an auto pistol curriculum. And they'd like to see all Glock
Just kind of curious as to why semi auto pistols only gained really wide spread usage with police and civilian populations after the 1980's? 1911 had a good track record as did the Browning hi-power. The Luger wasn't a slouch and the mix of Walther pistols has to my knowledge never been particularly terrible. I like my revolvers and I have shot them more and better than my semi auto pistols but the use of them is in my mind limited (or at a slight disadvantage) to woods carry with big predators or very small carry options like a j frame. Why did police choose to use revolvers so for so long for that particular role?
Matter of perception. Nobody wanted Officer Friendly to look like GI Joe.
For civies Colt Commanders were pretty popular until the wonder 9s took over.
My entries into this guessing game is:
More reliable semi-automatic pistols and ammunition (less tendency to "jam").
Better 9mm terminal ballistic performance
Need (perceived or real) for higher capacity and faster reloading
Better training
Demonstration that with adequate training, semi-autos don't have to result in increased NDs
Glock "safe-action" pistols with partial precocking (heavy, creepy, spongy double-action trigger = fewer NDs)
Glocks - cheap and reliable with aggressive law enforcement agency marketing schemes
Glocks - simple department armorer requirements, cheap to maintain and service locally
Probably, the short answer is "Glock".
My understanding is a lot had to do with what was happening in Miami Fl. When the cartels become center stage. They were having shootouts on the highways in traffic in broad day light. Assassinations in public places with SMGs. I remember hearing (on a show) one detective say that after they captured a small UHALL type truck full of automatic weapons he went out and swapped his 6 shot 38spl for a Browning Hipower
See if you can find a documentary called Cocane Cowboys
Then there was the famous FBI shootout.
I think that as criminals got better weapons the cops were forced to upgrade as well
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
05-14-16, 14:37
Why did carbines only become prevalent in LE in the late-90s and early-00s?
I think it's worth bearing in mind that, in most of Europe, the semi-automatic handgun has been the sidearm of choice for police since the middle of the 1930s. It was not uncommon for European police to carry submachine guns - sometimes select-fire, sometimes semi-auto-only - starting in the 1950s and 1960s.
So why did American police favor revolvers until the 80s and shotguns into the late-00s?
I'll tell you why.
Tradition!
American police officers had carried revolvers and shotguns since the late-19th Century and for most of the 20th Century - with a noticeable period from about 1920 to about 1933 where this wasn't entirely the norm - and these weapons were more than adequate for 99% of police duties. Even with the terrorism of the 1970s, the average cop was still adequately armed with revolver and maybe a shotgun, although the 1% of the time where they were insufficient saw the creation of SWAT.
I don't think the FBI shootout in Miami changed much WRT carrying revolvers versus automatics - after all, some of the agents present did bring autos and it was the superior power of the shotguns the agents had (and the massive, wrought-iron testicles carried about by at least one agent) that enabled them to prevail, not the presence or absence of automatic pistols. In fact, for many police agencies, the FBI shootout in Miami probably only proved to them that the 9mm automatic was insufficient for police work and that the 357 Magnum in a wheelgun was the way to go (and they probably didn't see the one extra round the 1911 carried to be generally worth the blow to reliability of going to a 1911 instead of, say, a 586). Obviously, the FBI took away different lessons, thus the S&W 1076 and the 10mm Auto cartridge were born, and the FBI's R&D with the 10mm and the 40 S&W paved much of the way that police forces would choose to arm themselves.
Nevertheless, I think it was ultimately the desire of police grunts - against the desires of police brass - for the higher capacity, faster reloading semi-automatic handgun that saw them rise to primacy over the revolver. While it is a certainty that the war on drugs helped to pressure police brass to adopt autos, I find it hard to believe that it was the key event, chiefly because a police officer armed with a six-shot 38 Special or 357 revolver is not actually that underarmed against a goblin with an automatic (in such a situation, the officer's mindset and skills are far more important than the equipment or disparity of equipment), a police officer with an automatic is still underarmed against multiple goblins with automatics or revolvers, and a police officer armed with an automatic is not really that much less underarmed with an automatic than with a revolver when facing goblins armed with AKs, Uzis, and MACs.
If the desire had been to reach parity of firepower, or overmatch, with cartel goblins then I think we would have seen patrol officers armed with subguns or carbines as a primary weapon in the 1980s, with their wheelguns continuing to soldier on as sidearms, rather than see the wheelguns get supplemented and eventually replaced by automatics. (It would be interesting to see how weapon light development might have occurred differently if the revolver were still the primary handgun of American law enforcement.)
Mr. Greene
05-14-16, 15:34
Agree, with the point of view that the training of reteaching was a point of consideration and the long tradition of wheel guns was another but the main reason I thought was there was not a reliable auto in mass numbers or enough competition to drive the market until the wonder 9 explosion in the 80's. The S&W 59/39 series was about the only choice until the beretta, Sig, and Glock were up and running. I do miss the wheel guns, I had a blast during my instructor course for my agency when we had the revolver segment, it was a shame to see a lot of guys not knowing how to run them. Don't get me wrong I love my autos but I wish Smith still made R revolvers the old way, no lock better finish etc.
I agree with all the points I've read on the above posts as to how Law Enforcement (LE) transitioned from revolvers to mainly semi-autos.
One other thing briefly touched upon but not specifically identified was also the transition from round-nose bullets/ammo to jacketed hollow point (jhp) type with the wadcutter-type variations in there, too.
As the JHP was gaining popularity, as already mentioned, the semi-autos were not deemed reliable enough with the various makes of JHP ammo. In the last 10 years (around 2007), I even recall one local department finally OK jhp ammo if the officer was carrying a 1911. Prior to that, the officer had to carry FMJ, possibly lead round nose, ammo. I believe the 1911-carrying officers had to convince the Chief their 1911s could reliably feed JHP ammo. Sometimes management and the LE industry can move very slowly.
As a very old memory, I do recall seeing one local retired police officer carrying a 1911 around 1960, and remember thinking it was unusual with the hammer already cocked back. From movies and television (black & white, only at the time), I did know just a little bit about guns. He was already retired, but still in uniform working as a crossing guard as I walked to elementary school.
Mid to Late 70s:
- 9mm performance was much worse than 357, and possible even 38s
- your options were: Colt 1911 (expensive), Browning High Power (expensive and 9mm), and later, the SW 39 & 59, which were not great, and still just 9mm. Walthers and sigs were rare. Sigs first surfaced as BDA's and were pricey. And that was probably more like the early 80s to see them in stores.
- unlike now, revolvers were typically less expensive than same quality autos. Just a fraction of the aftermarket support there is now for 1911, and almost none for the BHP and Smiths.
Just a different landscape entirely
I grew up with revolvers (still have several)---they were heavy and with limited capacities but handled powerful ammo. Autos on the other hand, were also mostly heavy steel and 9mm was just not America's cup of tea. Two things happened---much improved 9mm JHP ammo and much improved reliability. I spent many, many years in the retail/wholesale business---during this time, I carried a Browning Hi Power (still own it)---then the Glock 17 appeared---I, personally, didn't care for it, but it WORKED most all the time---something that definitely could not be said of early autos. Now with improved ammo and lighter weight poly-pistols, we have arrived at a happy place with lots of choices (I fine myself with several HK pistols) and the semi-auto pistol is now king...
My entries into this guessing game is:
More reliable semi-automatic pistols and ammunition (less tendency to "jam").
Better 9mm terminal ballistic performance
Need (perceived or real) for higher capacity and faster reloading
Better training
Demonstration that with adequate training, semi-autos don't have to result in increased NDs
Glock "safe-action" pistols with partial precocking (heavy, creepy, spongy double-action trigger = fewer NDs)
Glocks - cheap and reliable with aggressive law enforcement agency marketing schemes
Glocks - simple department armorer requirements, cheap to maintain and service locally
Probably, the short answer is "Glock".
This pretty much nailed it perfectly. Glock brought boring reliability and incredible marketing to play. They dominated the police market for years and led other manufacturers to follow. The more police departments who adopted the Glock, the more who considered and accepted it. It was a watershed for the industry.
Having known and been mentored by some seriously old salts, several of whom are now gone, God rest their souls, here's what I was told.
By and large there were a lot of guys coming out after Korea and Vietnam who were really indoctrinated on 1911s. Revolvers were always seen as more reliable but autos far more handy.
The issue was that the qualifications were focused around revolvers. At one point it was rote instruction to keep your brass and put it in your pocket before even going for the speed loader. That happened. More switched on guys went through the motions but if under fire, that would go out the window.
PPC was really big and considered the thing. Plus a lot of guys had to buy their own guns....on police pay. That led to a mish mash of revolvers from an approved list be it some generic German made deal, to a Colt Police, to a Model 10, to a Python, but most people wanted either a Smith model 27 or 19.
Anyways...when SWAT teams became a "thing" autos were approved anything from 1911s to Smith model 39s to the model 59 depending on year era.
Autos were frowned upon for being militaristic and not looking "professional".
But there may have been some guys who kept a 1911 wrapped in an oil rag in the glove box with a taped down grip safety and extra mags. Especially during some of the little bouts of black unrest and rioting during the 60s and 70s that hit other larger cities besides Watts. Especially in the South. Maybe an M1 Carbine in the trunk.
The appearance of a police sidearm has never been about right tool for the job and always about politics.
I saw Robocop as a kid and thought "Man that's futuristic" when Murphy twiddles his Sig P226.
Hell even as a young adult in the 21st century, I had to suffer under using a Smith Gen 3 single stack auto because it was Stainless and didn't look as 'aggressive' as a Glock. Guys bought Glocks in droves but had to get them "approved" which took a while because the guy who reluctantly signed off was absolutely anti-Glock. SW compact autos or J frames were just Punky Brewster by him but if you brought in a Glock he would willfully delay you.
Seriously, you could bring in an old Colt .25 and he was fine with it. SP101 good to go. Glock 26 or Glock 30 he'd just stare at you like a retard, say that using a Glock will get you indicted in a shoot because it has no safety (yes...yes that was said), and that Glock is just for "killing people". Like a freaking .45 ACP Smith is just to give people stern warnings?! The duty model was DAO it was ...I...ugh...
Anyways.....mind you that before the transition to autopistols the NAACP protested the use of .357 magnums in duty weapons. Yes that shit happened. There was this trail of tears about young black men getting shot by .357s and dying because the round was too devastating and unfair, so to avoid upset they rewrote policy for .38s only before just switching to autos and .45s. This was the early 90s. And even in the 00s you could have any snubnose revolver as long as it was .38 only.
But a lot of guys, especially those from the 'Nam era were quick to get on board with personal hi powers, berettas, AR15s, AR180s, HKs, etc in their personal collection.
Those that may have just had a 1911 or M1 Carbine handy regardless already had college or another trade and preferred living over hurting feelings.
There is a LOT of retardation when it comes to police weaponry.
.45 GAP comes to mind. Take gun magazine Tackleberry commandos who suck ass to politcian chiefs and you get stuck with a bullshit duty weapon that for the longest time was anything but a Glock 17.
And even now they STILL screw that up by putting in 12 lb triggers.
So there really is no logic.
dwhitehorne
05-15-16, 06:03
There is a lot of good posts but I think this nails it. "PRICE" There weren't a ton of 686's out there is holsters, we had models 10's and went to model 13's with 38 +P Nyclad ammo. After Miami and it was deemed that all Law Enforcement was outgunnned and Glock was here at the right time and price. They were only about $50 more than the Smith and you got 52 rounds for duty carry instead of 18 in.
Another thing was DoD was going full Berretta 9mm in the same time frame which is what a lot of Maryland departments started with. David
Mid to Late 70s:
- 9mm performance was much worse than 357, and possible even 38s
- your options were: Colt 1911 (expensive), Browning High Power (expensive and 9mm), and later, the SW 39 & 59, which were not great, and still just 9mm. Walthers and sigs were rare. Sigs first surfaced as BDA's and were pricey. And that was probably more like the early 80s to see them in stores.
- unlike now, revolvers were typically less expensive than same quality autos. Just a fraction of the aftermarket support there is now for 1911, and almost none for the BHP and Smiths.
Just a different landscape entirely
ramairthree
05-15-16, 15:22
Reliability,
Price,
And acceptance.
Say it's 1980.
How much was your average SA pistol?
And how reliable was it off the shelf.
How many were advocating one for carry, etc?
Even in 1990,
When say a model had acceptance,
Like a Beretta 92,
Was adopted by the military,
Was being grabbed up by LEAs,
And had been starring in movies,
And had good acceptance,
A typical OTD price was 500$.
That was a typical Glock 17 or 19 price then also.
That would be like spending 900 bucks now.
Most solid SA pistol choices now are very reliable. So no issue there like their used to be.
Costs are better now relatively than they used to be.
Would you go out and spend 1000$ on a basic Glock 17 or Beretta 92 right now, that's what it was like for someone in 1985.
The SAs are widely accepted now. Personality advocates play a huge role.
How many bought M&Ps because of Kyle Lamb. Glocks because of Vickers, new Berettas because of Wilson or Stoeger, etc.
Hell, if someone started winning Production and SSP with a Taurus PT92 guys would be buying.
If Vickers started proclaiming it DA with safety on, DA with safety off, decocking capability, and cocked and locked versatility in that platform as a highly reliable, most versatile, backed by a lifetime guarantee wonder gun guys would be buying.
Fanboys with personalities one notch above actually rolling in the range sand moistened from the ball sweat of their favorite instructor or competitor flock to buy products those people use and recommend.
The Taurus 92 sales would go up.
Aftermarket companies would team with the advocates and name branded extended mag releases and decockers, etc would come to market. Drop in mag releases allowing use of the better made and more common beretta magazines.
How many big name people were accepting autopistols? Jeff Cooper.
But as I understand it, shooting was very much fringe compared to now
Anything beyond a deer rifle, goose gun, or revolver was frowned upon.
Again, a LOT of post Vietnam guys saw going to a revolver in police work as a step down and back. But they readjusted.
Again, a LOT of guys had to buy their own guns. It wasn't totally common for a PD to issue guns unless it was someplace big. Like LA big. There were typically approval lists because at that time, everybody used .38.
Unless you were a cool guy and got a lot of leeway because you were in a special outfit, you might get away with using a .44 SPL, .41 Magnum, or an autopistol.
Guys who got back from toting Hi Powers and 1911s in dank jungles and tropic weather suddenly have problems stateside with the same guns?
Nope.
A lot of younger moonlighting guys or guys with understanding wives bought the gold standard which was the Model 27 or 19. If you were less able, a Model 28 Highway Patrolman. Model 10s were bare minimum. The more irresponsible bought some cheap import .38.
But more than a few had an auto laying about. Not all. Most police then as now are just putting in time and skating. But those in bad areas would sooner beg forgiveness than ask permission.
You can always get a new job. You can't come back from the dead.
The biggest bane to police duty weapons and calibers has been politics and city councils.
For the longest time, nobody wanted to let guys have rifles out fear that it would start an "arms race" with the hoodrats and shitsticks.
People have argued with a straight face against getting police body armor because "they'll just shoot you in the head for sure"
These decisions are made by people who know jack nor shit beyond having some money and getting elected.
Police Chiefs are fatass politicians who must prostrate themselves to keep their comfortable position.
They aren't going to in a post Vietnam War era say "hey lets get guys some Hi Powers and body armor."
They would be oustered most ricky tick.
Hell because of "diversity" they come up with all this stupid pointless shit.
Police getting semi squared away was a relatively new thing but with the latest BLM bullshit it's taking more steps back.
It is 2016, and just now are people accepting rifles and Active Shooter response.
Remember, policework is a heavily political field. They absolutely are not concerned with how good your equipment is or even how effective you are.
Just appearance. I know several upper echelon types who are dumber than day old dogshit but were promoted solely because they were black. Like literally. On one end....they are sitting their fat ass inside all day so that keeps people from having to rely on them in a fight, but on the other hand they rewrite some stupid ass patrol policies that focus less on crime prevention and more on stats and generating revenue.
But that's another sensitive topic that I don't want to get into
Tldr POLITICS
The Illinois State Police adopted the Smith Model 39 in the late 60's. If I am correct they were the first large agency to adopt an auto-pistol. There were several reports (unsure if they were anecdotal) of ISP officers saved by either engaging the safety or, activating the magazine safety by releasing the magazine.
Pretty sure that prior to that agencies that allowed auto-pistols for the most part allowed them on an individual approval basis. I briefly carried a Commander on patrol in 1977, but switched back to my revolver because I had become pretty ingrained to the Hoyt breakfront holster that I had been carrying.
In my state, one of the larger metropolitan Sheriff's Departments went to the Smith 639's in the mid-70's and for over a decade was forced to carry them with the safety/decock in the engaged position because that was how they convinced the purse strings to allow them to ditch their Model 10's. About that same time period one of the larger agencies on the opposite end of the state went to the Smith 39's and/or 59's. Officers from that agency had to purchase their own weapons.
By 1980, I was working at the State Academy, and we were predominantly revolver, the agencies that carried auto-pistols either gave their officers revolvers to go through the academy, or supplied their own ammunition. Off the top of my head, by 1983-1984 we were providing ammunition for the auto-shooters and one day in the mid 80's it seemed that seemingly overnight 1/2 the officers coming to training had auto-pistols. I had been placed over the range program by then and we continued to provide training for both revolvers and auto-pistols by dividing the range groups for weapon handling training and shooting them on the same course we had been using for revolvers. By the early 90's revolvers were the extreme minority. They were still allowed for training until 2001 when we announced the end of revolver training for basic students.
In the mid 80's the LAPD adopted the Beretta 92, the NYPD finally transitioned to auto-pistols in 1993. I think the NYPD drug their heels because of politics and for the practical issue of the logistics required to retrain 25,000+ officers with a new weapon. As a result we have the NY triggers. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/21/nyregion/new-york-city-police-to-replace-revolvers-with-semiautomatics.html
This, the adoption of the auto-pistol, is one instance in which change in law enforcement didn't begin in one of the large agencies on either coast.
JMO
I'd like to thank 26 for his more positive contribution to this thread. He worded things far more constructively than I did.
The GDC down here were still using Model 10s as of 4 or 5 years ago when working chain gangs or transports
Trying to avoid being negative and bitter, I recall a Massad Ayoob article (and I'm not a fan of his but for a time he did write some interesting articles) about Illinois State Patrol using Model 39s.
BS or not, he alleged of an incident where an outnumbered Trooper had taken cover behind his vehicle and the subjects thought after he fired six shots, they'd just rush him and finish him off before he could reload. Only to round the vehicle to stare down a Model 39.
I don't know if that is true or propaganda(which with Massad Ayoob, can be a 60/40 split) but...my issue with that is that
A) someone who practices can reload a revolver most high speed. Maybe not to Jerry Miculeck level but pretty quick
B) anybody who has been in some shit isn't counting shots. They may do a gas up during a pause but most will run dry and reload as quick as possible under cover. Tunnel vision is real. Even if the bad guys were just hardcore gangsters they didn't think that the Trooper wouldn't have a holdout.
It's not unusual for an officer to have a holdout gun if not two. Especially if he is working alone and backup can be miles away.
So...that could've happened but sounds like propaganda to forward automatics.
Automatics were used quite a bit by gangbusters in the Depression era. .38 Supers were like the. 357 Sig of the day, carried more rounds than .45 and that's not counting the use of SMGs or semi auto Remington 8s or full ato BARs.
The recurring theme seems to be two steps forward and one step back, politics, superstition, money, etc.
Revolvers seem less "imposing". Even females who know squat about shooting seem to think a revolver 'doesn't count', yet finds a Glock 19 or USP 'scary'.
Despite the trigger being heavier, more manual of arms, and that 6 shots isn't the best odds vs a larger group.
My era was turn of the century...full steel Smith autos, single stack, and being envious of guys who had Glocks as main duty weapon.
Ever see the Pacific? Where the Marine guys see the Army guys getting Garands and they are still using WWI era 1903s? It felt like that. For a brief time I was issued an M&P and it was a dog. I could shoot it, I guess but it was a total dog. Especially the first runs. I know people have endorsed them and liked them, but they've just not been all that. On paper, they seem like a Glock killer, but I've personally seen them fail enough to sour me to them. Those that like them, have at it.
The new Sig 320s seem okay...no real advantage over a Glock but I liked how the .45 felt. I could see myself getting one later on.
I ramble.
I think that had zeitgeist been a bit different and had people not had hangups that more autos would've been in more holsters a lot earlier.
If I were quantum leaped back to 1975, and had no issues carrying whatever....I'd probably tote a ring hammer Hi Power and the best SuperVel or Silvertip(were they available then?) I could get and just keep my gun really well lubed, if not nickeled.
Probably a PPK as a holdout.
I like revolvers for PPC, the tradition, and the history. But I would sooner have an automatic for fighting
Most interesting thread gents.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Just kind of curious as to why semi auto pistols only gained really wide spread usage with police and civilian populations after the 1980's? 1911 had a good track record as did the Browning hi-power. The Luger wasn't a slouch and the mix of Walther pistols has to my knowledge never been particularly terrible. I like my revolvers and I have shot them more and better than my semi auto pistols but the use of them is in my mind limited (or at a slight disadvantage) to woods carry with big predators or very small carry options like a j frame. Why did police choose to use revolvers so for so long for that particular role?
Mostly because revolvers were invented and perfected here, while semi-autos were invented and perfected in Europe. Also, semis need excellent ammunition to function, and that didn’t really exist until after WWII.
Several folks have mentioned some aspects of how use of the semi-auto spread, but we’ve overlooked some huge things that happened between 1976 and 1985.
IPSC was founded in May, 1976. Jeff Cooper and others had been running matches in which the courses of fire were not announced until match day for several years, but IPSC took that to an international stage, where it exploded. It drove demand for pistol smiths who could make an off-the-rack semi-auto accurate AND reliable. After several years, major gun makers started to offer features we now take for granted, like controls you can reach in a hurry, sights you can see in a hurry, etc. Revolvers just couldn’t run with semis in action shooting.
In September 1976, the first class graduated from the American Pistol Institute (API), which later became Gunsite. API drove understanding of the semi-auto pistol at the highest reaches of military and police shooters, although what they learned took long time to reach the chiefs and even longer to get back down into the ranks. More important, people who had worked for Cooper at API, who had been early action shooters, or who had been at the Columbia Conference when IPSC was founded (including John Shaw, Ken Hackathorn, Clint Smith, Mike Harries, Bruce Nelson, Ray Chapman, Thell Reed, Robbie Leatham, Brian Enos, and others), either started their own schools, began writing careers, or entered other parts of the shooting industry and spread the word. All of these folks favored the semi over the revolver.
In 1979, the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) started looking for a replacement for the 1911A1, and they were not looking for revolvers. This and the drive from action shooting spurred S&W, Ruger, Colt, Star, Steyr, SIG Sauer, Browning, FN, Walther, H&K, Benelli, and other gun makers to upgrade their existing designs or to create new ones. So before 1979, the “modern semi-auto” class of pistols included the 1911, the BHP, and a couple of Smiths, but just a few years later, it had grown by orders of magnitude. Suddenly it was far harder for the revolver to compete.
The JSSAP also got tons of coverage in the gun press. JSSAP, practical shooting, and all of the new models basically handed several years worth of articles to the editors of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, The American Handgunner, and similar magazines. When readers finally got tired of “revolver vs. semi-auto” articles, the editors switched to “9mm vs. 45” articles. All of that sold a lot of magazines, and a lot of semi-autos. It didn’t sell very many revolvers.
So when the US finally adopted the M-9 in 1985, the modern semi-auto had the benefit of nine years of constant publicity and billions of dollars of technological development behind it. Revolvers remain viable weapons, but they’re out of the limelight for now—unless whoever wins the next election brings them back.
Okie John
Straight Shooter
05-16-16, 04:01
As one who was around for "the change"...I remember it being for many reasons...yes, Glock DID change the world of handguns. Shows like Miami Vice did too. The proliferation of street gangs armed to the teeth exploded in the eighties, and cops rightly felt the need for more firepower. Also, quite simply..guns got better...ammo was a LONG time catching up, and iirc the .45ACP was still very popular for cops and citizens ..I know it was for me & my shooting buddies. Ha..still is! Anyway..just as an afterthought- I remember when the first stainless steel guns started coming out..AMT comes to mind, and another company I cant remember who has long since gone belly up. The first few years those guns suffered from TERRIBLE galling and were unreliable in the extreme. Wanted an AMT Hardballer Longslide 45 until I read reports and saw firsthand how they were literally ripping itself apart from firing. After the gunmakers finally got SS down pat, they took off and was the latest "fad" at the time, iirc.
Also- training was just starting to really get good & to be modernized from the old traditional methods..think "FBI Crouch" type stuff. I idolized Cooper, Jorden & Skelton & Keith back then. Pisses me off no end to see dipshits demean the foundational work men like this-who had "seen the elephant"..did. They & others started the industry of civilian training and also improved law enforcement training too. Thirty years from now, I guess people will look back on today and ridicule current training, guns & ammo.
Philadelphia PD switched to Glock 9mm in 88/89. Incoming officers got Glocks, older guys could keep their model 10 38spl. Today they are issued Glock 17 but if the officer wants he could carry a 40s&w or 45acp Glock but on his dime. Most agencies surrounding Philadelphia carried 5906 or some version of the 3rd gens up until the mid - late 90s, eventually switching over to Glocks. Some still carry Sig 226. My friend's small department (less than 10 officers) issues G23. Township I live in (20 officers) switched from Sig 2340 40s&w to G22 about 4 years ago. Only reason I know this is cause they bought all their Glocks from my LGS. And all their Sigs ended up there for sale. Township I work in issues M&P 9.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Mostly because revolvers were invented and perfected here, while semi-autos were invented and perfected in Europe. Also, semis need excellent ammunition to function, and that didn’t really exist until after WWII.
Several folks have mentioned some aspects of how use of the semi-auto spread, but we’ve overlooked some huge things that happened between 1976 and 1985.
Okie John
Nice informative post.
I don't think the FBI shootout in Miami changed much WRT carrying revolvers versus automatics - after all, some of the agents present did bring autos and it was the superior power of the shotguns the agents had (and the massive, wrought-iron testicles carried about by at least one agent) that enabled them to prevail, not the presence or absence of automatic pistols. In fact, for many police agencies, the FBI shootout in Miami probably only proved to them that the 9mm automatic was insufficient for police work and that the 357 Magnum in a wheelgun was the way to go (and they probably didn't see the one extra round the 1911 carried to be generally worth the blow to reliability of going to a 1911 instead of, say, a 586). Obviously, the FBI took away different lessons, thus the S&W 1076 and the 10mm Auto cartridge were born, and the FBI's R&D with the 10mm and the 40 S&W paved much of the way that police forces would choose to arm themselves.
as i understood it the fbi shoot out in miami at least showed that revolvers were slow to reload
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/8/22/a-history-of-fbi-handguns/
this article has a rather holistic view of all the fbi handguns employed over the years.
ramairthree
05-16-16, 17:35
There is a lot of good info here on PDs and stuff I have no experience with.
I wonder how large a roll movies and stuff had.
One day it was like,
We are getting new Berettas when we get new rifles,
Cool guys in movies had Berettas,
Cops started getting Berettas,
Everyone was getting a beretta,
Holy crap this Glock 19 has all the firepower of a beretta in this little package,
And a bunch of people buying and going to Glocks.
And the tags on the new Glocks and Berettas in the display case are pretty much the same numbers they were in the early 90s.
I have never seen any other models have the rise in production, market share, popularity, and get so common so fast as the Glock and beretta.
Nothing not anywhere near close.
I can not even imagine what model, brand features would come out,
Be adopted by the military, massive amounts of LEAs, and big civilian market share so fast.
Of course,
Glock is still a huge player,
You can get a long slide 9mm, suppressor ready one, comp one, full sized one, compact one, and subcompact one with magazine capability, unobtrusive rail, etc. with holster capability except for length.
That model sure worked better than a bunch of different, confusing lines, models, etc.
EXCELLENT discussion. My old agency in the day had a fair number of actual pistoleros and considerable latitude for POWs: American made, .38 or larger, and qualify with it. For a few years I carried (plainclothes) a LW Commander .45 auto. I loved that gun, shot IPSC with it. Came the day when a visiting management weenie saw it, and next thing I knew permission was rescinded because I didn't have approved training with it. I'm more inclined to think it was because the guy was an a$$hole, but that's conjecture on my part. (Edit: On further thought, he really WAS an a$$hole...)
So I bought a .357 wheelgun, read McGivern, went to Gunsite, and wore out two barrels by the time I retired. (Instructors never run out of ammo.) SIGS and Glocks were coming on strong in the late 80s, but I stayed with Old Reliable. My personal AR was an unseen option.
As an old fart my EDC is a G19, just like the vise grips in my toolbox. No particular affection for it; it works, and it's expendable. Still have 1911s, BHPs, and K frames...enough that two are MIA somewhere in my gun room now.
I agree that organizations are irrational as hell about weaponry. They'd do better throwing darts at a board, judging by their track record. I have better stuff now than I did in SEA or guarding nuclear weapons in the day.
Time for my Prozac.
SNIP...read McGivern...
Hell yes.
Okie John
Threads like this are why I became a site sponsor.
I guess now it's back to the Trump threads.
:(
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Folks, with all respect, it feels like we are overlaying 2000 and later perceptions and beliefs on the question. It's pretty simple, in the mid to late 70's, the wheel gun was king for some very specific reasons.
Yes, some agencies were very restrictive, but it was usually around "magnums" and allowed carry ammo. In fact, some agencies that did not allow 357's or other magnums happily allowed 9mms, often for detectives in the form of model 39 and 59's first.
But the trooper carrying a model SW model 19, 28, or the king daddy, the 27 felt they had the best tool for LEO that was available. With some justification, as they were probably the best combat pistol (reliability, accuracy, support, etc) available.
Remember, the modernized 1911 was simply not available. Colt sold government models (fixed sights, WW2 bushings) or gold cups, which were viewed as OK for paper punching, but not reliable for carry.
In my area, county officers could carry whatever they wanted. I remember one guy electing for a 1911, and it as viewed as old school.
these perceptions were largely the reality of the time and were due to:
- The 9mm combat loadings largely did not exist. If you carried a 9mm, it was with loadings that did not even duplicate 38 Special LEO performance. I can't remember when supervels surfaced, but I started using them in 79-80 timeframe, and the first ones I had for 38 super still used revolver type hollowpoints with exposed lead.
- Modern JHP bullet had not been invented, or certainly not in usage. Exposed lead rather than the rolled jacket we use now. Were not reliable in auto's.
- Introduction of the now common truncated cone FMJ had not occurred, and it was considered a bit of a breakthrough for agencies still stuck with FMJ as it stopped a bit better
- Carrying a 9 was not considered a good thing. As in: "Congrats on the detective promotion, Bob. You going to be OK carrying that 9mm?" And the answer was usually: "I've still got this as backup" pointing to a Detective Special or similar.
- 1911's were not widely customized outside of bullseye type competition. I remember searching far and wide for a smith who could change a 1911 front sight with the proper staking tool. "Tuning" was largely stuff like polished feed ramps, swapping mainspring housings for flat from an old GI surplus gun, and in a few cases, putting gold cup sights on a gov model. Gold cup bushings were not viewed as reliable, some folks had started tightening frame rails, but it was viewed as a target only mod. Real 1911's rattle. There were 1911 smiths and a few products, but they were mostly bullseye focused.
Yes, this changed in the very late 70's as IPSC became popular, but it took a bit for the aftermarket to add products to support it.
- Glocks were not known, and when introduced, were very controversial. There was not immediate embrace, and when it did occur it was more due to SW complacence and mishandling of their LEO lock on sales than customer "pull". Like now, agencies largely switched based on the "deal", sales price minus trade in. So the idea that everyone wanted glocks absolutely was not the case. Many reservations about durability, and with the 9mm concerns thrown in as well.
- The modern wonder-9 (Double stack, Double action, lightweight, compact) pretty much displaced the 1911 and revolvers in LEO and even popular support. And was a big deal until the Glocks became dominant in the mid-late 80's. Outside of IPSC, which heavily penalized anything but 1911's in .45, 1911's were still viewed as old school classics. But some compact (Deutonics, Star PD, etc) challenged that a bit for folks who did not buy into the wonder 9's. And in the mid 80's you did see a few agencies go back old school with 1911's. But the available 1911's by that time were much closer to what we'd consider a modern combat 1911.
- Agencies did have biases, especially big city municipal. But it was more anti-magnum, and in some cases, anti hollow point or performance ammo. The big deal was to be able to carry your own ammo, and most LEO 38SW loadings beat 9mm offerings, and even the less than optimal 158 grain 357 far more. Barrier penetration was not a big focus at the time, nor was body armor. So even the "combat" loadings tended to focus on maximum expansion. to the point that hollow based wad cutters seated backwards were a popular handload for 38 special pocket guns (detective special, airweight, etc)
This was the landscape in the mid to late 70's. Very different than now.
What about the one shot stops that was heavily relied on in the 80s. IIRC, .357 was recorded with more one shot stops.
when the dept I work for switched from SW686 to G21 in 1992, there were many senior officers (I was junior at the time) that argued, we were making a mistake.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
ColtSeavers
05-17-16, 13:18
What about the one shot stops that was heavily relied on in the 80s. IIRC, .357 was recorded with more one shot stops.
when the dept I work for switched from SW686 to G21 in 1992, there were many senior officers (I was junior at the time) that argued, we were making a mistake.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
I've read of those statistics multpile times in caliber war threads over the years. I think a factor that is overlooked is that I also remember reading that LEOs used to shoot their guns a lot more for training and had longer qualification ranges as well which I would think would help with any caliber used, much less one of the most popular ones in use.
And I am a .357 fanboy.
What about the one shot stops that was heavily relied on in the 80s. IIRC, .357 was recorded with more one shot stops.
It was well into the 90's before 357's were challenged on that front.
Likewise, I think people are forgetting that the very first Glocks were not imported into the US until '86 or so, with the first agencies taking them up in '87 or '88. NYC apparently started issuing as tests in 88, and it was much later when they switched. (Miami and St Paul maybe the first wins? '87-88?)
Though the Sig surfaced in the form of the BDA around '80, it had euro style mag release which most found unacceptable. Even when sold as the 220 it initially still had the Euro mag release, if I recall. It was not until the joint service pistol era ('84-85) that the P226 surfaced, along with the Beretta 92SB. And it took a bit after that to hit the civvy & LEO market. The Beretta 92SB may have been available in the early 80's for the Air Force, but did not become a player until after winning the JSP mess.
For some reasons you did not see Browning High Powers much in the LEO world or even press. Don't really know why.
So until mid-80's it was still SW autos & revolvers dominating LEO sales, though wonder 9's had picked up starting around '80. With the 4-5-639's and 4-5-659's and x69's really being the dominant players. And a very few die hard agencies going old school with 1911's in .45. It was rare enough that it made national gun press when an agency picked 1911, as the industry was in love with DA, Doublestack wonder 9's.
Sigs, Glocks, and civvy Berettas did not even really become a factor until late 80's.
I'm sure I missed something, but it was very much a SW world at the time. And the buzz was that Glock and to a certain extent, Sig, under bid with huge trade in discounts & service commitments to buy the LEO business. I do believe SW quality had started to suffer a bit, as did their customer support. Just became complacent.
And Colt to a large extent was even more disinterested & complacent during the late 70's & early 80's. Toward LEO and Civvy markets. You had to go way out of your way to buy Colt products at the time. I had to special order my Colts in the late 70's & Early 80's.
JSP was a big mess, with the focus on NATO standard 9mm, DA, etc. Colt was caught flat footed. Glock could not respond in time, which was unfortunate as Austria and Norway had just selected the G17. HK should have been a player, but the P7/PSP was just too odd, single stack, and still had butt mag release. (Though I think they came out with the later models with thumb mag release around the JSP timeframe)
when I started in 89, they gave me a beat up 686 and we had to qual at 50 yd course of fire. we shot 4 times a year and we were out there all day. FUN!
Now, we are down to twice a year with half days, 25 yard course of fire and on in and all I hear is complaining about when can they leave.
I've read of those statistics multpile times in caliber war threads over the years. I think a factor that is overlooked is that I also remember reading that LEOs used to shoot their guns a lot more for training and had longer qualification ranges as well which I would think would help with any caliber used, much less one of the most popular ones in use.
Could be a factor, and the revolvers of the era were also pretty accurate (Smith m19/27/28/13)
But the bog standard 158g 357 JHP LEO loading was a decent load, especially relative to the round nose, exposed lead that it replaced in 38 & 9mm.
Likewise, 38's of the era seemed to be be loaded a bit hotter based than current loadings, about 100 fps.
It appears SuperVel was a 69-74 thing, and had shut it's doors by 74. Which is odd, as I used supervels in 38 super in the '79 timeframe. But it was revolver style bulelts (exposed lead) even then. Which would deform if chambered from a mag.
Their deal was lighter bullets (110-135g) and slightly undersized (9mm in 38/357) to get better velocities. Most LEO agencies I remember did not allow their usage, and it was a subject of controversy "I heard Joe shot that guy with SuperVel's, and is going to pay for it" type stuff.
ColtSeavers
05-17-16, 15:01
when I started in 89, they gave me a beat up 686 and we had to qual at 50 yd course of fire. we shot 4 times a year and we were out there all day. FUN!
Now, we are down to twice a year with half days, 25 yard course of fire and on in and all I hear is complaining about when can they leave.
Reminds me of my POG ARMY unit on range qual day or having to be range cadre. Very few actually liked being able to shoot shit, or wanted to actually try and teach marksmanship, almost all wanted to jam their way through as fast as possible.
It was also the 25yd static range with differing sized silouettes on one sheet of paper.
PD where I grew up (NJ) carried BHP since early 70s at least. Most others moved to B92 in early 80s. After Lamonaco, most PDs moved to some kind of S/A.
It was well into the 90's before 357's were challenged on that front.
The ammo debate in the gun rags of the day made one-shot stop stories problematic. Some writers liked slow, heavy bullets, while others liked light, fast bullets, and they picked fights with each other in print because it helped sell magazines. Some of those writers also had a financial interest in helping to sell one type of ammo over the other, and either made things up or cherry-picked data. There was a LOT of pure bullshit in the press in those days, and it wasn't until the FBI brought a more science-based approach to terminal ballistic performance in the wake of the Miami-Dade shootout that one-shot stop stories started to fade.
For some reasons you did not see Browning High Powers much in the LEO world or even press. Don't really know why.
I believe it had to do with cost, features, and ammo performance. The commercial BHP was always a premium piece, essentially the Colt Python of military-grade semi-autos. There were very few surplus BHPs in those days because most of them were still in service overseas and the few that made it into the US were snapped up by collectors. On the other hand, it was still pretty easy to find a surplus 1911 that hadn't been screwed up by an amateur gunsmith, and they cost $50-100 less than a BHP. So if you wanted a BHP, you bought a commercial gun for a premium price, and even then they still needed a lot of work. Until the Mk II came out in 1982, the BHP had tiny sights and a tiny safety, and was reliable only with ball ammo. Aftermarket support was slim at best. Few gunsmiths would work on them (generally only the top-end guys) which made it more expensive to get a BHP running. And once you did, only a few loads were adequate for self defense, and they were marginal at best.
I remember very few gun-rag articles of the BHP back then. The 9mm was typically compared to the 38 Special and 357, and the revolvers always won because of their ammo selection. The 1911 got compared to the N-frame S&W magnums, and the Colt won because the revolvers were big and because they kicked so hard. The BHP was neither a 38/357 nor a 45 ACP, so it was overlooked.
Peter Kokalis and other Soldier of Fortune folks held the BHP in high regard. They mentioned it occasionally because of SoF's audience, but they focused on the military variants. Most mainstream gun-rag coverage was in articles on Hoag, Swenson, or Pachmayr custom 1911 work, where you’d find an “oh, yeah, they work on BHPs, too” paragraph near the bottom, maybe with a photograph. Leroy Thompson was the only writer I remember who actually used a BHP, and that’s because he worked in places overseas were ammo and parts were easier to find. (I remember an article where he got someone in a Turkish shipyard to work on a BHP that he broke, so I guess that mattered to him.) Skeeter Skelton wrote about shooting them on the range now and then. Charles Askins, Jr. may have written a piece or two, but nothing sticks in my mind.
I feel old for knowing all of this stuff....
Okie John
"I feel old for knowing all of this stuff...."
Not necessarily a bad thing. Clip from "The Postman"--see from 1:11 to 2:00...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw7EX3Nned8
It may have been mentioned in here, more sheer ignorance than anything. I've heard two things to prove it.
Glocks are dangerous
With shotguns to AR's-"we can't have people out here with machine guns"
Fortunately, both have been corrected.
It may have been mentioned in here, more sheer ignorance than anything. I've heard two things to prove it.
Glocks are dangerous
Won't dispute that there was/is this type of thing. But Glocks went from not imported to in use by some major depts in about two years. So anti Glock bias if it existed certainly did not slow things down much. And that was all in the very late eighties anyway.
There were definitely concerns about glocks, primarily around durability and safety. But Glock out sold Smith & Wesson largely via aggressive pricing.
From memory, Glocks did not start sweeping Agencies until '89 or '90
There was a sense that autos were more dangerous in big metro agencies due to the "it's not unloaded if you just drop the mag" thing. Really a training issue
Won't dispute that there was/is this type of thing. But Glocks went from not imported to in use by some major depts in about two years. So anti Glock bias if it existed certainly did not slow things down much. And that was all in the very late eighties anyway.
There were definitely concerns about glocks, primarily around durability and safety. But Glock out sold Smith & Wesson largely via aggressive pricing.
From memory, Glocks did not start sweeping Agencies until '89 or '90
There was a sense that autos were more dangerous in big metro agencies due to the "it's not unloaded if you just drop the mag" thing. Really a training issue
I hope you are not misunderstanding me---that did not come from me.
I hope you are not misunderstanding me---that did not come from me.
Understood, I've heard similar. Just pointing out that Glocks only entered the scene in the late eighties, and they were adopted surprisingly fast in spite of some of the concerns.
Law enforcement agencies are influenced by trends, some of which are band wagons. From 1945(end ofWW2)up through the 1980s S&W held the number 1 place in law enforcement sales: handguns, tear gas guns, gas operated tear gas generators, holsters, belts, night ticks, and a few shotguns which were crappy. The company pushed its 9mm Model 39 series which evolved through three generations. At the same time, their revolvers were already in every cop's holster.
So my point is that Smith had great wealth to fund lobbying efforts to push their semi auto line, and the company played a big role in starting the semi auto trend, which became a band wagon. Unfortunately for Smith, Glock jumped into the game in the late 1980s and grabbed the biggest piece of the pistol pie.
As has been stated by others, few agencies were willing to adopt a single action only pistol. Smith's double action Model 39 line hit the market in 1954. The Illinois State police was the first agency to adopt this model, which by the way would not feed hollow points. My opinion is that many cops considered the 39 line as unsatisfactory.
Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I frequently talked to WW2 veterans about their military weapons. I remember that the vast majority considered the 1911 to be a heavy, inaccurate, and hard to shoot pistol. In condition 3, they described it as dangerous. Old Marine Corps sergeant types liked it, though. Anyway, this attitude toward 1911s likely played a role in discouraging l.e. planners from adopting semi autos.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.