Good read. However, and there always seem to be a "however", makes you wonder why every law enforcement agency (police, federal, large city and small muni's) carry auto loaders. The military picked up on the 1911 and abandoned the revolver over a hundred years ago (except Patton) and every branch has carried auto loaders exclusively for years. There may be some exceptions along the way. I do know from personal experience that pilots during Viet Nam were issued snubby .38 specials and the one's I served with didn't even bother carrying it when on combat flights over North Vietnam, thinking it would be a joke to try to fend off a bunch of irate folks they just tried to bomb before being shot down, using that space to carry an extra radio with the homing device to aid in hopefully being picked up by a chopper before being killed or captured. In the armed police shootings I was close to but not personally involved, the Sigs and Glocks involved never failed to fire. No limp wrists, jams, failure to feed or any of the other things that can happen with a full auto. Hundreds of rounds from multiple cops firing under stress, and not one problem, unless you call 83% of the rounds fired missing the intended target a problem (humor). So some may elect to carry a snub, but for those who face a munch higher percentage of actually having to use their gun in a lethal situation, autos will still be the weapon of choice. When I was a cop I know I would have felt screwed if everyone was issued a Sig as the duty weapon and I was given a snub nose Smith (which incidentally I have).And consider what happens when that high capacity auto jams in a contact fight or just because you had a faulty grip on it. Good luck with that.
The argument is always “these days” so I need a high capacity autoloader. Based on what facts or logic? Outliers? What about the most likely scenarios? It seems logical to me to give them priority.
A snub revolver offers inherent advantages over a Glock 19 and vice versa. Consider what advantages are likely to be of benefit in the context of civilian self-defense. It’s not just a matter of capacity nor is it a training/software issue.
t’s really difficult to keep an autoloader running in a contact scenario. I have yet to see anyone who could do it consistently. It’s even hard to access it in the first place. It doesn’t matter who you are are how well you’re trained. And most people’s training in ECQ doesn’t include any contact at all. There are valid reasons as to why, but thinking you are prepared is akin to thinking you’re ready to step into the ring against a young, tough boxer just because you did some shadow-boxing and bag work.
My view is a snub is at the very least adequate in the vast majority of situations which occur at very close range but in excess of touching. The stats and common sense support that. The outliers would be ranged gunfights/shootouts which are so rare for civilians I would imagine they are about as common being struck by lightning and winning the powerball on the same day. They just don’t happen outside of law enforcement and movies except in exceedingly rare circumstances unless you willingly engage, which I would recommend against.
Close-quarter physical assaults with fists/feet, contact weapons like knives and bludgeons as well as firearms are by comparison relatively common. A snub is a more effective weapon in anyone’s hands in these situations. But, what if there’s multiple attackers? If you can’t keep an autoloader running against one attacker, why in the world would you be better against multiples? I’d rather have a more retainable and be able to get off 5 or 6 shots rather than one or none.
I guess carrying both a high-capacity autoloader AND a snub(which I would actually consider primary) could be considered ideal, but it’s not worth it for most people and I would agree with them.