The Modern Service Revolver, A Modest Proposal

service revolvers
July 31, 2016  
Categories: Musings
Tags: Wheelguns

Wherein grand master pontificationist and smugly superior novelist Mike Kupari unleashes his inner cranky old man. 

I’m going to propose something that many in the current gun culture will find laughable or even stupid: one branch of the military, specifically the United States Air Force, should adopt a modernized .38 caliber revolver as its standard-issue sidearm.

Now, before everyone gets all up in arms (see what I did there?), or gets a case of the tactical vapors, allow me to explain my reasoning. Before I do that, it may help if I point out that I served a total of twelve years in the Armed Forces: six in the Army National Guard as a combat engineer, and six in the Air Force as an explosive ordnance disposal technician. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, to a small Army patrol base called Sperwan Ghar. We worked closely with infantry and cavalry units, doing everything from IED response to training to mentoring an Afghan EOD team to going on fly-away CONOPs. In both military and private-sector shooting courses, I put a lot of rounds through an M9.

Author Mike Kupari in Afghanistan

I’m also an unapologetic revolver shooter. I’ve carried wheelguns almost exclusively for the past ten years and carried one on duty as a security guard (back before I went EOD or wrote books). I’ve got thousands and thousands of rounds through the humble revolver, from the .38 snub to the .44 Magnum (a 3” Smith & Wesson Model 29 was my everyday carry gun for several years.)

Before anyone gets too upset, I’m well aware of the limitations of the revolver. At the same time, I think these limitations are often over-stated, to the point where I have (on the internet) been told I’m “not serious” and am going to get myself killed for choosing the revolver over, say, a Glock 19. Despite the questioning of both my intelligence and my sanity, a good .357 is still my gun of choice. That said, I’m not here to rehash the decades-old revolver vs. semi-auto argument here.

Kupari and his damn revolvers

MK trivia: I think the Ruger GP100 is functionally a better revolver than the Python, but damn the Python is beautiful — the lines, the iconic look, the bluing…all perfect.

So why the revolver for the Air Force, what’s wrong with the M9? First, nothing. Nothing is really wrong with the M9; people love it or hate it, but mine was nothing but reliable. To understand my reasoning on this, though, you need to understand how the Air Force goes about issuing weapons. Bear in mind that the vast majority of USAF personnel do not have a combat-oriented mission. The vast majority also don’t fly. The bulk of the force is dedicated to either keeping the aircraft (the USAF’s primary weapon system) operational, logistics, or miscellaneous force support. At the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, roughly half the USAF was deploying to Southwest Asia, but most stayed at the large air bases. Their mission isn’t door-kicking or wrecking faces like it is for the grunt or others going outside the wire.

The Air Force decided long ago that the civilized way to fight a war is to sit back, sip coffee, and throw officers at the enemy.

Most USAF personnel aren’t issued an individual weapon and don’t qualify with it unless they’re slated to deploy. While the Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course is, to be honest, a lot better than military handgun classes in the past, it’s still a basic course. It’s designed to teach someone who may or may not be familiar with a handgun the basics of handling and shooting. Personnel who carry a weapon more regularly, like AFSOC, Security Forces, and my own EOD, were issued weapons and trained/qualified with them regularly. The USAF also issues handguns to a lot of personnel who serve in a support capacity and only get rudimentary training. It is for these people that I propose a Modern Service Revolver. My reasoning is that a double-action revolver, while being more challenging for a novice to shoot well, is simpler and I daresay safer for a novice to handle and carry loaded.

If you’ve been in the service, you’re probably well aware of the way the military enforces weapons safety. Clearing barrels are everywhere. Personnel are ordered to carry the M9 with an empty chamber. Hell, at Kandahar Airfield circa early 2012, the rule was you had to have a weapon on you, but couldn’t have a magazine in it; you carried an unloaded gun.

This is all, of course, a training issue, but it’s the reality of the situation. The Air Force teaches that the way to carry the M9 is with a round in the chamber, hammer down, safety off, but that’s pretty progressive for rank and file military. The Marine instructors I trained with were adamant that it had to be carried with the safety on. The Army, as often as not, mandated empty-chamber carry.

In any case, putting 50-100 rounds through a handgun you may or may not have shot before isn’t enough to attain real proficiency, and nobody pretends it is. But, as unfortunate as it is that the most advanced and capable military in the world lags behind the average city police department in handgun training, that’s the reality. It’s getting better, but slowly, and the garrison mentality will threaten to discard some of the lessons learned in America’s longest war.

Where to buy ammo online

Need ammunition? #backthebang 

⚠️ Some hyperlinks in this article may contain affiliate links. If you use them to make a purchase, we will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. It’s just one way to Back the Bang


The biggest hindrance to shooting a double-action revolver well is the long trigger pull, but this is also a safety feature. It provides mechanical interference to novices with careless fingers. The loading and unloading procedure, while slower and clunkier than a semi-auto, provides positive feedback of the condition of the weapon (so long as the cylinder is correctly opened all the way). There is no forgetting to eject the round in the chamber, or forgetting to chamber a round, or not seating the magazine all the way with the revolver. As long as it is in sound working order, it’s simple to operate.

Again, I understand this is a training issue, but let’s be real: the Air Force is struggling to fund its current missions, and hundreds of its aircraft are older than the men and women who fly them. Nobody is going to funnel the time, effort, and money into making guys whose mission is turning wrenches or making ID cards into professional gunslingers.

As I’ve said, the revolver is more challenging to shoot well. The manual of arms is simple (open, put cartridges in, close), but the reloading procedure is easy to fumble without practice, especially under stress. I think, though, that these issues are rather overstated these days, often by people who have never actually used a revolver. Remember there was a time when nearly every police officer in the nation carried revolvers, used them on the street, and this was before the modern renaissance in private-sector handgun training.

The Air Force, too, issued .38 caliber revolvers from Colt, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger from its inception in 1947 until about the time of the First Gulf War. They were used by pilots, Security Policemen, and countless others for decades.

COL Robin Olds, USAF, paints a victory star on his F-4 Phantom after downing a MiG over Vietnam. Note the revolver hanging from his hip. Also note the out-of-regs mustache, worn as a symbol of defiance, which spawned the tradition of Mustache March. This gentlemen, is how you swagger.


June 1957: General Curtis LeMay, commander of Strategic Air Command, practices with a revolver. Note the cigar, Hawaiian shirt, and the complete lack of fucks given. If six shots weren’t enough, there were always hydrogen bombs.

SAC Elite Guard Air Policeman, early 1960s. Note the jaunty ascot and stag-handled revolver in a crossdraw holster.

A serviceman inspects a .38-caliber revolver circa 1990, judging from the chocolate chip desert camouflage and jungle boots.

In other words, the issuance of revolvers to military personnel is hardly unprecedented. Revolvers served alongside the venerable M1911 from the time it was adopted until it was officially replaced by the M9. I think a modernized version of such a gun could serve Airmen admirably, even in the 21st century.

So what would the Modernized Service Revolver look like? How can you modernize something so archaic? Bearing in mind that the M2 .50 cal has been in service for almost ninety years, there are ways you can improve on an old design to get some impressive longevity out of it.

I would start with the Smith & Wesson K-Frame. This medium-sized revolver has been in production, in one form or another, for over a hundred years, and continues to be used today. It was issued to US and Allied armed forces in World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam. It was used by military and civilian police alike for decades and was to mid-20th-Century law enforcement what the Glock is to LE today. I would go with the Smith & Wesson K-Frame precisely because it’s proven. An all-steel gun with a four-inch barrel weighs about 36 ounces, only a bit heavier than an empty M9. If built correctly, it can withstand decades of service, especially considering that even .38 Special +P is relatively mild, pressure-wise. Longevity is a good quality for a military weapon; they may be issued to one serviceman after another for years, or spend decades in storage only to be drug out when the need arises (like the 1950s-vintage M14s I saw in service in Afghanistan in 2011.)

It’s also a commercial-off-the-shelf solution. While you could design a more modern revolver, this would add time and money to the project, and the military’s acquisition process is enough of a boondoggle as is. The Ruger GP100 is a more modern design, easy to disassemble and durable, but it’s a purpose-designed .357. Chambering it in .38 just gives you extra weight and bulk you don’t need. The Taurus is little more than a low-quality copy of the Smith & Wesson. The Charter revolver doesn’t have the proven track record of the K-Frame, even if its simplified design allows for lighter weight for a given frame size and barrel length.

The gun would have to be made correctly, though. As a cost-saving measure, Smith & Wesson has gone to metal-injection-molded internal parts, and the fit and finish aren’t quite what they used to be. My S&W .44 Magnums had to go back to the factory no less than three times; one gun went twice, the third couldn’t be fixed and was replaced. The S&W design is not forgiving of spotty quality control. As such, for this proposal, the guns in question would be required to have real steel internal components, and samples from each lot would be inspected before acceptance by the Air Force. Such guns would be expensive if purchased individually, but if the USAF bought twenty-five thousand of them, the unit cost could be brought down considerably.


S&W Model 67 Revolver, .38 Special, 4” barrel. Current production.

The K-Frame, with a 4” barrel, chambered for .38 Special +P, would be the base gun. Some modifications to the design would be incorporated to improve usability. The traditional pinned-ramp front sight would be replaced with a larger, easy-to-see high-visibility dot type. The adjustable rear sight would be replaced with the Cylinder & Slide fixed rear, for the sake of durability.

Another modification from the standard Model 67 would be for the gun to have an internal hammer, “Centennial” style, ala the model 642.

The enclosed hammer serves two purposes. Mainly, it removes one of the easiest ways for dirt and debris to get into the action. Also, it removes the temptation for handgun novices to cock the hammer. Trying to lower the hammer on a live chamber is one of the easiest ways to have a negligent discharge with a revolver if the user is inexperienced.

I would also suggest changing the underlug profile to completely enclose the ejector rod. A possible option would be a second cylinder in 9mm NATO. Lastly, of course, the Service Revolver would have no pointless internal lock. The finish could either be parkerized steel or Melonite-blackened stainless steel, for resistance to the elements. Revolvers had modular grips before modular grips were cool, so each gun could be supplied with two or three types of grip, for shooters with different sized hands. A lanyard ring would protrude from the butt of the grip. One possibility to consider would be to replace the leaf-style mainspring with a more durable coil spring, as S&W does in their J-Frames. The resulting trigger pull isn’t as nice, but coil springs offer superior durability (and are easier for an armorer to replace).

Another option would be an aircrew-specific model of this revolver. Give it a Scandium-alloy frame to reduce weight, and shorten the barrel to 3”. It would resemble the S&W Model 15 Night Guard revolver, except with an enclosed hammer and a half-inch more barrel. Empty weight would be around 25 ounces.

If I had my way, I would also address the training issue. If this handgun became an Air Force-specific weapon, then a basic handgun course should be part of BMT at Lackland AFB. Revolver marksmanship could be made a point of service-specific pride in a branch that, being honest, doesn’t emphasize the use of individual arms enough.

The next thing that would need to be addressed is the ammunition. Military-issue .38 Special ball ammo was anemic. It was a standard pressure round, propelling a 130-grain, round-nosed, full metal jacket bullet to about 950 feet per second. By way of comparison, the 9mm NATO round pushes a 124-grain FMJ to almost 1200 feet per second. A lightweight, low-velocity, round-nosed bullet is the perfect combination for terminal ineffectiveness.

This can be addressed, however, even if the use of expanding bullets is precluded. Don’t forget, that heavy .38 Special loads are what were used to develop the .357 Magnum in the 1930s, and some factory loads available today push the envelope of what .38 Special can do. The best example that comes to mind is Buffalo Bore Ammunition. Their .38 Special is the only thing I carry in my .38 snubbies, and with standard pressures produces velocities on part with everyone else’s +P. Their +P .38 is fairly impressive.

Their 158-grain +P load clocks over 1100 feet per second from a four-inch barrel. That’s on par with many manufacturers’ watered-down .357 Magnum practice loads. With a flat-point, full metal jacket bullet, you’d get deep penetration and a respectable wound channel. Moreover, this ammunition would make for a better survival gun for downed aircrews. While a hot .38 isn’t ideal for defense against hungry critters, the .38/44 was originally marketed as an outdoor load, and it’s certainly preferable to 9mm ball.

Other ammunition types are a possibility as well. There could field a reduced-recoil practice load, a frangible, low-velocity load for inexpensive indoor ranges, even a soft armor piercing round (yes, such things have existed). You could even develop a Simunition-type round, something that can only be chambered and fired in a special blue replacement cylinder, for force-on-force training.

That’s my proposal. Once again, the Airmen more likely to carry a weapon into combat would be issued the M9, or whatever swoopy, high-speed pistol one thinks the military should use. For my part, I’d have much rather had such a revolver in Afghanistan than the M9. I mean, sure, it only holds six shots, but I also had an M4 and was almost always with a bunch of grunts ready to stack bodies. In that environment, the revolver vs. semiauto argument is all but moot.

If you think revolvers are awesome, you should buy my books. If you think this article is stupid and that I’m also stupid, my books have nothing to do with proposals to give revolvers to the Air Force, so you should still buy them.

  • So Sayeth Kupari back Breach-Bang-Clear

Find what’s in stock, and where, and compare prices. 

⚠️ Some hyperlinks in this article may contain affiliate links. If you use them to make a purchase, we will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. It’s just one way to Back the Bang. #backthebang 

⚠️ Some hyperlinks in this article may contain affiliate links. If you use them to make a purchase, we will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you.

Get banged on the regular, sign up for the newsletter!

Mike Kupari

Mike Kupari

About the Author

Kupari is a wrong-handed Air Force EOD combat veteran of Afghanistan. Now a civilian, he has spent a disturbing amount of time rendering safe a number of things that would otherwise blow shit up. Much of the time he was doing that in a place where favorite local pastimes include such activities as shooting, blowing up or even eating Westerners.


  1. Erick Tamberg

    I´m a police officer in São Paulo, Brazil.

    Our main service guns are Taurus .40 pistols, but I prefer to hold my old issued Taurus 66 .357 Magnum, made in 1992.

    The best Taurus revolvers were made between 1988 (when transfer bar was adopted in all models) and 1996 (Taurus purchased Rossi, eliminating its concorrent, and quality decreased).

    I disagree that Taurus revolvers are “low quality copies of S&W”. The mechanism is different. Rossi revolvers, mechanically, are really copies of S&W mechanism. Taurus quality varied in certain periods, but those made between 1988-1996 are well built.

    Almost two-thirds of homicides with firearms in Brazil are commited with Taurus .38 Special revolvers. Even old and poorly mantained, it works. I lost some colleagues with a single round of .38 Special FMJ fired from rusty Taurus and Rossi revolvers.

    I also have a Taurus 83, .38 Special, 4-inch barrel, made in 1981. I removed the hammer spur, made a trigger job, Parkerized it and installed a lanyard loop – a more modern version of old British Enfield revolver. I used as a model to Brazilian private security companies, still restricted to .38 Special revolvers when on fixed-point duties.

    Two S&W revolvers disappointed me: I had a broken mainspring in a Highway Patrolman, and a cracked frame (under the barrel thread) in a Model 642, firing only one box of standard LRN ammo.

    Recently, we have Fiocchi ammo in our country (ammo importation was practically forbidden years ago). I bought a box of FMJ Fiocchi .38 Special. It´s not “+P” specified, but has the same performance, launching a 158-grain bullet at 890 fps. It´s a good option if FMJ ammo was mandatory in military environment.

  2. JB

    Oddly enough I have been thinking the same thing for aircrews in general. Perhaps an S&W license produced copy of the Korth Sky Marshal? Minus the silly rails of course. The revolver uses NATO 9mm ammo, no moon clips, already lightweight etc. The ability to use different kinds of ammo for various purposes. Also, no heavy magazines to deal with.

    Even with a 3” or 4” bbl its O/A length is still shorter than a K frame, Service Six/GP frame. Simplicity is the key especially when downed aircrew’s primary task is E&E. The new M4 variants they want to give aircrews makes sense. Less pistol weight means more rifle ammo….providing they can get it out of the seat pack in time.

    The creative ways USAF, USMC, Army & USN aircrews carried ammo on their vests, belts etc. shows they could carry a lot of ammo without the extra weight of mag pouches & magazines (the Achilles heel of autos).

  3. Toby Knight-Meigs

    Ruger GP100’s are a lot tougher design than S&W K frames which would seem to make them ideal for combat. The heavier GP100 would help dampen recoil that novice shooters could potentially be sensitive to. The design of how grips/stocks are installed on the GP100 also lends itself to being able to fit a variety of different hand sizes. A fixed sight GP100 would seem to be just the ticket.

  4. Bill Simmons

    I wholeheartedly agree but have always been a fan (no pun intended,, ever try to fan an auto?) of revolvers anyhow….. Been through many rifles and handguns thru my life and miss an old stainless Ruger 357 security six the most. There are so many different store bought loads you can fire, from snake loads to 357, spanning the entire 38 spectrum . You can leave the first chamber empty or get creative with a dummy load to thwart unintended kids or temporarily overpowering miscreats. There’s always the basic advantage of one handed operation as no need to chamber a round, A round doesn’t fire, no problem. Give mea wheel gun over an auto, any day.

  5. Mike P

    I used to say that if I could only have one handgun that it would be my GP-100, 6 inch, stainless. Then I got a Rock Island Armory 1911 in 38 Super. So now I’m having a revolver-semi auto argument with myself. And when I told my marksmanship instructor on Parris Island that my brother had shot an M-16 modified to 22 LR at Lackland, he said “That’s cute”.

  6. Wilson

    Nothing anyone ever says will make me a fan of wheel guns.

    Too many problems and too many potential problems. Old tech. When it comes to carry, toss ’em in the junk heap with your 28.8 modems. They’re a range toy like a flint or match lock. Other than that they serve no purpose.

  7. DMD

    I agree with your .38 spl revolver comments–the starting point should be a round butt 3″ model 10/64 with a shrouded ejector rod housing as in the 3″ 65 LadySmith–or a fixed sight 3″ Ruger GP-100 stainless–all with fixed sights and the biggest luminous “big dot” front sight available–no adj sights as that would be just another complication to break or fiddle with–either of those 2 will last until replaced by phaser ray stun guns. DMD

  8. Bill Wade

    Just stick with the Ruger GP-100. It’s built like a tank, has no screws to get “screwed up”, and Ruger’s transfer bar design means you can safely carry a round under the hammer. And why .38 +P instead of .357?

  9. Richard

    I can’t say that I agree with much of your proposition other than that Pythons are overrated. Unless heavily modified the DA trigger stacks rather badly. They shoot loose if fired much, the cylinder is shorter than many others and it was an expensive gun for Colt to produce. I nearly forgot to mention that the factory stocks sucked. They were probably the worst I have encountered and must have been designed by a sadist. Oh, yes, I have owned a couple and they did look nice.

    As to the revolver vs. self loading pistol, police experience has demonstrated a higher first shot hit probability with pistols (even so they are still disturbingly low) and current field experience favors a greater round capacity than available with revolvers.

  10. Kellogg

    I am a S&W armorer with a large agency. We service approximately 1000 revolvers per year. in response to the concerns about females shooting the revolver, we have several thousand females who have no problems whatsoever qualifying double action every year. As far as the breakage issues, it is true that the older style revolvers break hammer noses, but the modern guns with internal firing pins have no such problems. issues with head space and cylinder endshake are readily handled with .002 or .004 bearing shims which provide a much longer solution than stretching yokes. Additionally, the leaf spring will offer 10 times the service life of a coil spring which is prone to taking a set and failure to detonate issues. God knows the revolver is easier to train and statistically safer to use than the automatic. all that being said, I do not see an advantage to the revolver so great as to negate the capacity and ease of loading considerations that the M9 offers. The ballistics argument to me is a moot point. 380 fmj will easily penetrate a complete gel block, so comparing .35 caliber 38 special fmj to .35 caliber 9mm fmj is probably splitting hairs.

  11. Michael Z. Williamson

    And you missed one critical point. A great many females cannot pull a heavy revolver trigger in DA, and there is no way they’ll agree to lighten the trigger enough so they can, which means a great many females will be unable to shoot, much less qualify.

    We could debate the merits of women in the military without addressing the fact that such a problem means leadership will not allow adoption of the weapon.

    Also, you should go with either a modern Triple Lock, or a Model 1917 with moon clips.

    • Michael Z. Williamson

      So, question for the site owner: Putting my URL into the website box has your site telling me I’m a spammer and not posting.

      Why is that?

      • Bill Simmons

        I tried to post something but it was never posted so I just unsubscribed. Too much advertising anyhow…..

        • Mad Duo Merrill

          Looks like it just got caught in the spam filter. We gotta keep the lights on somehow, and personally I’d rather have sponsors that make good gear than a bunch of “One simple trick!” click-bait ads like so many others. But I’m biased.

  12. JFONAV

    I was prepared to start by calling you a blasphemer and get nasty from there. That being said, your message has a lot of merit. I think anyone who’s seen the way a lot of the USAF personnel (I’m retired AF, not just picking on the branch) handle weapons would agree more training (as you said unlikely due to budget constraints) or something a little more novice friendly would be great. Even Gen Moseley, as CSAF, carried a .357 revolver to the FOL when he’d visit.

  13. ZRS

    Wonderful article, nows writes mes somes Dead Six. Yut!

  14. John Cruz

    You get a nut punch if we ever meet.

  15. Larry E. Sibley

    I was an Air Force Gunsmith for 11 years. I worked with K-Frame S&W’s on a daily basis. I can safely say that it was one of the worst weapons I had to deal with. Stretched yokes, headspace problems, timing issues, broken firing pins just to name a few things. You would fix one problem on these revolvers and another would crop up. When they instituted the M-9 it was one of the happiest days of my Air Force career. In an ideal situation, where people treated their weapons with “kid gloves” these weapons would have been, at best, OK. Such was not the case in the military. I would also like to say that since we were not allowed to carry speed loaders, we had to carry two leather drop pouches on our web belts. By the time you had your spare rounds out and reloaded your weapon some joker with a semi-automatic pistol would have cut you to pieces. No thank you, Sir.

  16. Ogre

    I agree with everything save for the enclosed hammer. Because I like Hammers. Especially ones I can cock with my off hand thumb. Everything else – Spot on. So for me – that Night Guard is almost perfect.It would be even more perfect if it was made by Ruger.

  17. LSWCHP

    Well, I concur. I’m an old school guy, and have a Smith model 19, a model 67 and a model 586. I also have a couple of 9mm semiautos, but I consider myself well armed with any of my revolvers


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Articles back Breach-Bang-Clear

Find what’s in stock, and where, and compare prices. 

⚠️ Some hyperlinks in this article may contain affiliate links. If you use them to make a purchase, we will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. It’s just one way to Back the Bang. #backthebang 

Get Patched In

Wretched Minion Patch