1911 vs revolver

[tweener]

I have wondered for quite some time now, why it seems the 1911 was popular during the 2 world wars, but for several decades since, Police mostly carried revolvers. Then obviously in the late 80's, semi-autos came back into favor.

Can anyone explain to me why police generally carried revolvers when you would think that after the wars, they would want to carry the proven 1911 model..

Some one has to have some insight into this.

[1911fan]

A lot of it was institutional inertia, a lot of it was the idea of the unmilitarized police force. Police were civilized, they carried civilized weapons. very few PD's ever carried 1911's, that I am aware off. There are probably more now than ever before, but even now, its a small percentage.

Revolvers also had the advantage of power compared to most automatics, A .357 revolver is a pretty potent piece, and many PD's allowed the carry of bigger chamberings as well.

[Paul]

It's hard to argue against the reliability and simplicity of the revolver too.

[monschman]

simple, cuz the glock hadnt been produced yet
sorry had to, i pretty much agree with the above post however, revolvers are simple, generally reliable (kinda like the aforementioned "other gun") a

[selurcspi]

It's hard to argue against the reliability and simplicity of the revolver too.

Also, the manual of arms is simpler and therefore it's easier to effectively train the officer to manipulate the piece under stress on the limited budget of a PD.

[Belgiboy]

all of the above plus the 1911 is a SA handgun which implies that it needs to be carried cocked and locked if the officer wants it ready to shoot fast. I'm sure that made some police administrators nervous.

[Ironbear]

Perhaps the police didn't anticipate facing multiple, armed, aggressive, enemy combatants; at close quarters, on a regular basis. Different requirements result in different solutions. Police weren't generally issued trench knives, hand grenades, TNT and flamethrowers either.

[Paul]

Also, the manual of arms is simpler and therefore it's easier to effectively train the officer to manipulate the piece under stress on the limited budget of a PD.

That's kind of what I was thinking too... Except I don't think it's so much a result of a limited budget. Years ago, departments didn't really train the officers much at all. On your first day they gave you a badge and gun, and sent you on your way.

[Belgiboy]

This explains everything. I apologize for the Finnish subtitles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXrmLPo3 ... =1&index=1

[tweener]

Perhaps the police didn't anticipate facing multiple, armed, aggressive, enemy combatants; at close quarters, on a regular basis. Different requirements result in different solutions. Police weren't generally issued trench knives, hand grenades, TNT and flamethrowers either.

Being only in my 30's..... I did not realize that semi-autos were tossed in the same catagory as flame throwwers and handgrenades.....while revolvers were in the same catagory as pocket knives and toothpicks....

If such stigma was attached to the semi-autos and 1911's in particular, why?

Again, I did not grow up in the 60's and 70's......so this is foreign to me.

I can remeber when I was VERY VERY young, seeing cops with revolvers....

I also remeber when H.C.S. and local PD's rolled around with shotguns standing tall in the front seat....but even that dissapeared before I turned 18...

[tweener]

This explains everything. I apologize for the Finnish subtitles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXrmLPo3 ... =1&index=1

allthough funny, how does this explain why cops carried revolvers?

[tweener]

A lot of it was institutional inertia, a lot of it was the idea of the unmilitarized police force. Police were civilized, they carried civilized weapons. very few PD's ever carried 1911's, that I am aware off. There are probably more now than ever before, but even now, its a small percentage.

Revolvers also had the advantage of power compared to most automatics, A .357 revolver is a pretty potent piece, and many PD's allowed the carry of bigger chamberings as well.

So back then, semi-autos were not considered civil weapons? Were they kind of like what AR's were perceived as in the early 90's??

[westberg]

They had BAR"S and Thompson's in their arsenals. Remember Bonny and Clyde, Little Bohemian shoot out..................

[R.E.T.]

Back in the fifties the common perception was that semi autos were not reliable but that revolvers were.

[fotog54]

Yeah, I will revive a 2 week old thread. As a young man in my twenties, in the mid 70's I worked for 3 different police agencies in Metro Atlanta and all we were allowed to carry was revolvers. Even though we bought our own weapons, all had a departmental policy that only revolvers of either .38 or .357 were allowed for duty carry. I even bought a S&W Model 59 and tried to convince the powers in charge that this was a superior weapon for Law Enforcement. (Wish I still had that one!).

Most police departments did not go to the semi-auto until the military adopted the Beretta 92 and then shortly after the Glock came along. Police departments easily saw the firepower advantage of 15-17 rounds v. 6 in a revolver.

The Glock was easily adopted by us old revolver users because it was simple and had a trigger pull similar to a Double Action revolver, no external safeties... just point and pull and it goes 'bang'.

The .45 was still considered by many as a "military" round and thus not suitable for civilian use. Too bad many still hold to that view today.