Interesting NY Times article on NYPD revolvers.
 

This was printed about five years ago, but it's an interesting read. For those who are into revolvers and for those with a sense of history. What is even more amazing is that this article appeared in the New York Times.

UPDATE 06/07/2018


Well as of August of 2018 the fifty NYPD officers still carrying revolvers have been ordered to transition to semi-auto pistols. An era has ended and I feel pretty old.

http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?p=44352#post44352
__________________________________________________ _______________

December 16, 2004
In New York, Only Older Officers Pack the Old .38
By MICHAEL WILSON

Roughly 19 out of 20 officers in the New York City Police Department carry the semiautomatic pistols that have been standard issue for 11 years, a boxy handful of steel and polymer as clean and smooth as many of their young faces.

This story is not about them. It's about the 1 in 20, and the old, heavy piece parked on that officer's hip like a jalopy at the top of the driveway. Wow, people say - look at that thing. Does it work?

An older model of sidearm was grandfathered in with officers who are, in some cases, grandfathers. It is thick, but elegant in its way, its grip curling lazily out of the holster, the grooves in the hammer like those around aging eyes.

It goes by many names - thirty-eight, six-shooter, pea-shooter, wheel gun - but the .38-caliber revolver is a dying breed on the belts of New York, soon to go the way of the rosewood nightstick.

Today, a few more than 2,000 service weapons are revolvers, down from more than 30,000 in 1993. Never again, the police said, will new revolvers be issued, and so the number shrinks with every retirement. Many officers own two guns, and some officers continue to carry revolvers off-duty, but again, that choice is no longer available to new recruits.

More than anything else, it is carrying a gun - the daily familiarity of it, the expectation that it must be used on a second's notice - that most sets apart the police from the policed.

And yet, choosing the gun was unceremonial, rushed and uninformed: pick up a revolver off a table, see how it feels, try the next one, then a third, then pick your favorite. Then, during training, the recruits learned to respect this piece of equipment that can take a human life. Now it feels strange to leave the house without it. They have come a long way together, these 2,000 officers and their revolvers. Uniforms have come and gone, and the belly under the belt has grown, but the gun hanging there is not to be messed with.

"Eventually, they'll all be gone," said Inspector Steven J. Silks, commanding officer of the firearms and tactics section of the Police Academy. "It's like people who like to have a stick shift. You take it away from them, they feel like they can never drive in the snow again."

In the early years of the Police Department, officers carried any weapon they chose, until Theodore Roosevelt, as president of the Board of Police Commissioners, ordered the 4-inch, .32-caliber Colt revolver to be the standard sidearm. Training with the guns began on Dec. 30, 1895.

Ninety-eight years later, in 1993, after much debate among the department and the unions and legislators in Albany, 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.

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. Officers with revolvers were allowed to keep them if they chose, while rookies received the new guns.

So, the model of an officer's gun dates him or her like rings on a tree. The outer bands are the semiautomatic, 9-millimeter pistols. The next ring is much thinner, the brief period of the so-called spurless revolver, a gun with an internal hammer that for safety cannot be cocked. Finally, in the center, there is the classic revolver, such as the Smith & Wesson Model 10 or the Ruger Police Service Six, more commonly seen on "T. J. Hooker" reruns or film noir than on the streets of New York.

The grips still echo the earliest revolvers, designed in the 19th century to feel like the handle of a plow in a man's hand. Lt. Eugene Whyte, 45, with 22 years on the job, remembers arriving at a meeting for the Republican National Convention this summer, and men in suits quickly calling him aside, agog at his snub-nosed sidearm. "I had Secret Service guys asking me if they could see it," he said. "It was as if I was carrying a flintlock pistol."

It is not only fellow law officers who notice. Officer Andrew Cruz, 41, was posted in Times Square recently when a tourist did a double take at his revolver. "He said, 'Old school,' " the officer recalled. They get that a lot: "You're a real cop," or, "You must have seen a lot," or, "You must be getting ready to retire."

"They say, 'What are you, an old timer?' " said Officer Mark Steinhauer, 41, who joined the department in 1991. "My answer to them is, 'It worked for John Wayne.' "

The guys with revolvers, they say, are the same guys who married their high school girlfriends. Dependable. No surprises.

"It's put me through 20 years, and I'm still alive," said Officer Gregg Melita, 41, who not only carries a Ruger Police Service revolver, but the old "dump pouches," two leather carriers that hold loose cartridges. "This is when guns were guns, and cops were cops," he said. "The new guys don't even know what dump pouches are. They go, 'Hey, what's that hold?' " He chuckled. "'Bullets, kid.'"

The design of a 9-millimeter magazine, with a spring pushing cartridges in single file into the chamber, makes it susceptible to malfunction, to jamming. With a revolver, there is always another round ready to fire, no matter whether the one before it did.

"These aren't Ferraris," Inspector Silks said. "These are Chevrolets."

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly ordered the switch to 9-millimeter pistols 11 years ago, and learned to shoot one himself. But it is his revolver, a Colt Detective Special, that he carries today, under the slight break in his trouser leg at the left ankle.

"It's easier to carry, for me, anyway, the revolver. I've carried it for a long time," he said. "I actually won it in the Police Academy, many years ago," graduating first in his class. It is inscribed: "Bloomingdale Trophy won by Probationary Patrolman Raymond W. Kelly. May 15, 1967."

As for the decline of the revolver, he said, "I don't think it means very much, tactically. I don't see that much difference in shooting a semiautomatic handgun or a revolver. The difference, people will tell you, is dependability. You take a revolver that's been in a drawer for 100 years, take it out, pull the trigger, and it's going to go off. Automatics have the potential, probably more so than revolvers, for jamming. At least, that's what people think."

Officers with revolvers say that yes, they feel more comfortable with a gun that is virtually malfunction-proof, and that six shots at a time, along with their extra six-shot speed-loaders, ought to be enough. "After 18 rounds, if I can't hit him, I'm in big trouble," said Officer Sean Murtha, 40, who carries two speed-loaders. (And he would be a statistical aberration. 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.)

But there is something else about the gun. It makes a statement.

"It has to do with identity," said Officer Cruz, from the 88th Precinct in Fort Greene in Brooklyn. "You see someone with a .38, you know they've got some time on them."

Officer Melita, with his dump pouch, joined in 1986 and patrolled in Harlem for 18 years. He believes his gun shows younger officers that he was at work when times were different in New York. "That's how you can tell who's been on the job awhile," he said. "Back when it was, you know, wild."

Officers must appear twice a year at the firing range in Rodman's Neck in the Bronx. Detective Tomasa Rodriguez, with the Midtown South precinct, remembered the announcement for everyone with revolvers to step aside to a separate range. "It was embarrassing. All the young kids were looking at us like, 'Oh my God, these people, they're emotionally disturbed, they still have a .38,'" she said. "Before you know it, you're out of there. There's, like, two or three people. I told my partner, 'I was embarrassed at the range.' But I don't care. I like my weapon, I know how to use it."

The department had 2,367 revolvers in service in 2003. At last count this fall, that number had dropped to 2,019. Wait, make that 2,018 - Marty Paolino, 42, retired from the 88th Precinct a few weeks ago. ("I never wanted to go for the special training," he said on his last day of work. "They don't pay you enough.") Next year, with the expected retirements of officers who joined in 1985, a relatively large class of recruits, hundreds of revolvers will disappear from service.

It is too soon for eulogies, but not much. For an epitaph on the revolver's tombstone, consider two statements from two officers, six little words for why they kept their six-shooters.

"I hate change."

"It looks cool"

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...ps54wkmyej.jpg
http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...pswpukjqna.jpg
http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...pspzr8e9zi.jpg

Very interesting story, I also did not know that commissioners even carry guns.

Very interesting. Though I personally don't remember seeing too many revolvers the last time I was up there.

The irony is that this author doesn't seem to realize it, but the fact that the "young guns" are carrying 9mm Glocks, SIGs, and S&Ws shows how far behind the times the whole department really is. When Commissioner Kelly ordered the switch to 9mms in 1993, many federal, state, and local agencies in the U.S. were starting to ditch 9mms and adopting .40 S&W pistols. It was a trend that was only just starting (and didn't really complete itself until about 2000), but it's the kind of thing I would figure that a big, well-funded department like NYPD would adopt sooner rather than later (or never). My own local PD, which has a pretty small operating budget even for its size and jurisdiction, was adopting the Glock 22 and 23 in 1993 (though to be fair, this was after 30 years of using S&W revolvers, so they were LONG overdue).

So the veterans in the NYPD may be carrying revolvers, but the new recruits are still behind the rest of the country to this day. :D

And NYC issues double action only, FAIL.

MT2008

Ahhh the 9mm debate. I don't think it will ever end. When I was hired by my department in 2000 we could carry any type of semi-auto pistol we wanted as long as it was 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 acp. If your choice was GLOCK, Beretta, S&W, Colt/Kimber/Springfield 1911, Ruger, H&K, Browning Hi-Power or Sig Sauer your were good to go. Other choices had to be approved by the Lt. in charge.

Our city continued to grow as did our manpower. For some reason as departments grow admin eventually feels like it's a good idea to go to a uniform issue and a single caliber if possible. In 2006 we got a Federal grant and went with GLOCK. The decision was to go with the G21 (45 acp) but we (the firearms instructors) met with admin and told them that we should have a smaller frame for those already hired officers to go with. That's fairly standard now all over the country. Evidently there were some lawsuits and so on.

Anyway the Chief agreed and the Glock 19 was offered as the alternative. Alot of folks don't like the 40 S&W. That load beats up on frames and the barrels supposedly don't last as long. Whatever the reasoning the boss made the choice and I went along because I'm not the boss. I carried a Sig Sauer P245 (45 acp) before the switch, but I opted for the G19. I don't like that big old chunky grip and I don't have big hands. Simply put I don't trust my ability to get a good grip on the model under stress. No matter how much I practice so I went with the 9mm. Now all officers hired after the transition get the G21 and that's it. I teach them and most of them do well, but I'm going to stick with the G19. I like it and I shoot it well. I don't feel like I'm behind the times at all.

For what it's worth we carry the Federal +P 124 grain HST hollow point load. It's been tested in many real world police shootings and has proven it's worth.

The G21 officers use the Federal +P 230 grain HST hollowpoint load. Another excellent load.

We also carry Federal 00 buckshot and slugs in our Remington 870's and Federal 5.56 mm in our various AR-15 rifles. As you can see Federal ammo has a big fan in my department.

I don't consider using the 9mm to be behind the times as long as you carry good ammo. The most important thing is can you hit what you are shooting at and are you using a quality pistol? It isn't my favorite but I trust GLOCK QC. Now when the NYPD restricted it's officers to hardball ammo the department was absolutely behind the times. 9mm hardball is only good for target shooting. That was a braindead act and I believe has since been reversed.Mind you I said believe. Handgun ammo has come a long ways since the 1986 Miami shooting between the FBI and Platt and Matix.

P.S. I actually think the .357 magnum is a great load. Very accurate and powerful, but I don't ever see that coming back into police usage with the exception of backup pieces. However I have a Ruger GP100 and a S&W Model 28 at home. Great models that shoot a great load.

I live in Lake County Indiana and I've encountered a lot of cops who were allowed to carry their own on duty pistols. So far, I've encountered guys with Kimbers, USPs in .45, I forget which SIG was it, but it was in .40 S&W. I found out that a lot of the East Chicago's issued sidearm was a Beretta M96 in the .40 S&W, the same for the State troopers, too. Lake County Sheriff's department has Glock 22s as the standard. A lot of departments apparently has Glock 22s.

Actually, I'm more of a 9mm guy myself. In other topics, I've expressed a preference for 9mm over .40. It's partially because I'm a SIG guy and their .40 magazines only hold 12 rounds, but also because 9mm is cheaper anyway.

I just couldn't help but feel a tiny bit of irony that this clueless NY Times writer doesn't seem to understand how behind-the-times he's making the NYPD look.

The G22 is by far the most common LE sidearm in the U.S. Glock dominates about 2/3rds of the domestic LE market, and of that, I'd guess probably 90% of the departments that use Glocks issue/authorize the G22. Glock's web site even calls it "The U.S. Law Enforcement Pistol."

Also, what's a Beretta M96? Do you mean 96F? There is no "M" before the 9 in the Beretta 92/96-series pistols.

Sorry, I forgot about the M designation. The ECPD detective that guest lectured said it was a 96. Didn't say if it was an F model or not

All I can say is that NYPD guns suck. They have about 5 or 6 9mm DAO guns approved for duty carry and and only a few more for off duty, and they all have 12 pound trigger pulls, including the Glock 19. The only one that would be even remotely comfortable is the Smith and Wesson Model 64 in .38 Special, the topic of the article. By design it's DA so it's not gonna feel messed with, and it would be comfortable to shoot. Of course you've lost the firepower you get with a double stack automatic in 9mm, but like I said, they suck.

I'm a .45 guy, it has low recoil and muzzle blast (I feel the .40 is snappy and lod) and 45 is a very powerful defensive round. Besides, the 9mm fans cant make fn of capacity when you bring out an FNP-45 with 16 rounds of Hornady 230gr JHP.

If I were a cop one day, I'd stick to the 9mm for the more magazine capacity and get them in hollow point. I'd use a .45 when I am off duty for self defense because I like the stopping power. I don't like the .40 S&W either. It is a pretty snappy recoil

I agree. Earlier this year I attended the GLOCK armorer course. As we stripped down our pistols we installed the "New York Trigger" for training purposes. It's very easy to do. I didn't like the trigger though. I prefer the 5.5 lb trigger pull of the standard trigger. The GLOCK reps said they didn't understand the NYPD's logic either. Supposedly it's because the cops were used to the heavier trigger pull of the DA revolver, but that ceased to be an issue by the late nineties. Actually it was probably not an issue after a year or so later from the transition in 93. At that point they were hiring folks who weren't used to handguns of any type. Whatever the reason it's a terrible trigger in my opinion.

Wow the New Yorkers made the Block i mean glunck trigger worse? It was "sproingy" already.

And I would never carry a 9mm. I like .45 stopping power. Sometimes you only get one shot. I want it to cont. And not all .45s are 1911s, there are 14, 15, 16 round 45s out there. A FNP-45 is possibly the perfect duty weapon (DA/SA, Good trigger, can change backstrap for different sized hands, night sights, 14 and 15 round mags, reliable, accurate.)

I also would get some hornady TAP. Hornady has the best quality control and awesome ammunition, In my experience. Too bad they don't make .22 lr though, they decided to just do rimfire magnums. There .30-30, there 308 amtch (cheap for match ammo) and 45 have impressed me, so did there shotgun slugs.

I've never tried an FNP-45, but I tried an FNP-9 and it had the worst trigger I've ever felt this side of a Nagant or Bodeo.

FN has improved it quite a bit recently. They get word that the militarys looking for a new pistol and tune there FNs to be prime competitiors. Besides, FN likes there customes, the FNP comes with three mags, SIG gives you one and HK gives you a card telling you they hate you and think you suck.

I think the HK thinks we suck joke is getting old

Don't get me wrong, ordinarily I'm a huge fan of FN firearms, I was just not impressed with the FNP I tried. Or the Five-seven for that matter - not a bad trigger and that weird safety works surprisingly well, but the thing makes a USP feel slim.

During my years in the U.S. Army I carried both M-16's manufactued by FN which was subcontracted to FN by Colt and an M-249 SAW. When I was a tanker we used a variation of the M240 as our co-ax machine gun on the M-1. For many years I owned a genuine FN Browning Hi-Power actually made at their plant in Belgium. I've always liked the FN product.

H&K makes a good product as well but the company is rather elitist. Don't know if the company "hates" non-goverment shooters, but it doesn't seem to be very interested in us.

HK is known to have truly awful customer service, and ships guns in boxes completely unprotected sometimes, they were shipping 2000$+ sl8s in just cardboard.....

Well, now that Colt bought out Diemaco I guess you could say my C7 is Colt-made, though mine was made when they were still Canadian owned. My Hi Power is a WW2 Inglis, so it's also Canadian made. All our MGs come straight from Belgium though. I've only ever played with one once, but our new sniper rifles are actually made in my hometown.

I own a couple Lee-Enfields made by Enfield and a Webley Mk VI manufactured in 1925 by Enfield. I have a MkIII* made at (or is it by?) Lithgow. But as of today I have no Canadian made firearms. I hope one day to get a Long Branch, but for now no such luck. I really like the old British/Commonwealth firearms. I'm even considering an Ishy.

That's pretty cool. I think Imbel has a few plants in my city. I know there is an brazilian Army base in my city. I pass through there almost every day on my way to school.

I concur. Not to mention that even the guy who started the joke cautioned his readers that they should make sure they've shot the guns they're criticizing/praising before forming strong opinions.

Not bashing guns, fired the USP-45 and thought it was great, just there customer service is known to suck, and thats important to me. Theres a reason I respect SA, Smith and Wesson and Ruger A lot.

Well, it's not like there's alot of Canadian-made military firearms. The Ross rifle, Long Branch No.4 and Inglis Hi Power are the only ones you're likely to find. The CAL C1A1s are great rifles, but about as common as rocking horse poop on the civilian market.

Pre-war Ishy's actually aren't bad quality, but I'd stay away from any made after 1941. I've had bad experiences.

Yeah I've been told to be very careful with the Ishys. You know I've never seen a Ross - not even in a museum. However in the past year I've ome into contact with many models that I had never seen before except in a museum - if that. However I now own a few of those pieces so never say never I guess.

Now I do happen to know where there are many Para-Ordnances.

The same Ruger who supported the AWB? Come on, now.

Bill Ruger died in 2002. His company is under different management and recently began selling hi-capacity magazines to the general public. I try not to condemn him for that political move. Sixteen years ago American gunowners were on the ropes. It seemed like the political momentum had finally gone to the gungrabbers and people were scrambling. Bill Ruger started his company from scratch and I can understand his motivation. He was trying to save his life's work. Everybody compromises sometime in their life and that's what he was doing.

I didn't agree with that letter, and sixteen years ago I was twenty-five so I could be very righteous since I was younger. Many years later I see the world somewhat differently and have come to realize that we all the potential of being assholes, cowards, cads, and heros - sometimes all on the same day. You get older and start to gather the ineviatable baggage of life (family, responsiblity etc) and your attitudes change somewhat.

In the early nineties it looked like we were going down and it was a matter of trying to make the fall as soft as possible. I joined the NRA and got angry. Bill Ruger was alot older than me and choose to try some political manuvering. Ironically the NRA proved to be very adept at political mauvering and we've made some real gains. But lets not go spitting on Mr. Ruger's memory. I myself have grown more temperate in the past few years as well. It happens.

Okay I'm off the soapbox now.

Bill ruger decided clintons ban wasn't good enough and only sold 5 round mini-14 mags, but it is true, the current company is a whole new breed. Introducing high-caps and tactical models, rugged, well made rifles, pistols and wheelguns, started phasing out "lawyer triggers" (the lc6 is no savage accutrigger, but you can't pick up a cocked rifle bu the trigger without it firing anymore) plus Ive heard the trigge pull on a GP-100 is starting to rival a smith's instead of being 14 lbs. Good customer service. Plus affordable prices. The shadow of Bill ruger no longer hangs over the company. Plus, they are all american made and owned by americans.

And, in regards to H&K, im sad the p7 never caught on, neat little pistol.

I understand Ruger's attempt to be pragmatic, but I think it backfired quite a bit. Not just in terms of the reaction from gun owners, but in the way that gun controllers repeatedly shoved in our faces the rhetoric that "even gun manufacturers support gun control"...as if they're doing it out of the goods of their hearts (as opposed to concern for their businesses).

Anyway, there's a bit of a darker dimension as well...I dunno if you guys have heard, but there is some evidence (I'll have to find the article again) that Ruger and Colt were also supporters of the 1989 Assault Weapons Importation Ban and urged President Bush (H.W., not W.) to sign it. And that was almost entirely their own initiative; they saw it as an opportunity to remove their competition from Norinco, H&K, Steyr, etc. in the marketplace for military-style weapons. Like everyone else, they didn't anticipate the switch to "post-ban" models of those weapons.

I do realize that we can't necessarily expect commercial enterprises such as gun manufacturers to value 2nd Amendment principles over business. That's the nature of capitalism, and I accept that. But it's still pretty hard for me to take Ruger seriously anymore, in spite of their recent relaxation of attitudes. After all, there have been manufacturers such as Barrett that have shown a willingness to do what Ruger didn't.

What did Barett do? Ive heard good things about them but never specifics. And ruger is a whole new breed now, making new original weapons. The LCP and LCR for CC, the SR9, the 327 federal, they know their stuff.

I heard Ruger made a new AR-15 rifle of their own and that it is pretty good.

The Ruger SR-556, saw it at cabelas about 1600 dollars, very good for a piston gn, especially seeing it comes with 3 magpul p-mags troy indstries flip up sights and rail covers, hoge grip and full top rail.

It's a Zombie thread. Digging it out.
 

So I got to shoot a Glock 19 with the so-called New York trigger installed on it today. It's heavy at 12 pounds, but no worse than a revolver. It's a very consistent trigger and in some ways it has more constant resistance than the 5.5 lb trigger pull that comes from the factory. I still don't think I would want it on my Glock, but it's not as bad as I expected. However without practice it would be a harder pistol to operate.

I remember when the story below occurred (in summary, NINE bystanders wounded by two cops going after one shooter), and wondering if it wouldn't have happened if they had lighter triggers. It also doesn't help that if the cops are locals, they probably didn't grow up shooting either.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25...olice-gunfire/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/ny...anted=all&_r=0

It's a combination of a lot of things from lack of training and practice the police force has. In the military, they are constantly training and drilling weapons handling but the police force has really low standards.

If you go to the second link, you'll see that the city has paid out $18 million in compensation to shot bystanders, and that's not counting the legal costs of fighting those who want more than just basic medical costs. If the heavier triggers are to save the city money from accidental shootings, I'm not sure it's worth the money.

The problem is the idea of putting a heavier trigger on a gun that was never designed to have one. The reasons why people pick striker fire guns or even single action guns is for a shorter trigger pull that isn't going to give you carpal tunnel and arthritis

When I was in the Army we rarely went shooting. Couple times a year to qualify and once in a blue moon we would go to the range to do some live fire training. Now I wasn't in the infantry (and there was a difference), but many folks in the military don't shoot as much as you might think. I do a lot of dry firing practice myself and go to the range once or twice a month for live fire. I recommend it to my fellow officers, but I'm not sure how many actually do that.