Just to point out historical fact, the Brits went with HE's in non shrouded ejectors as a cost cutting measure, not due to some percieved "better" factors regarding combat. Triple Locks were much more expensive but Smith could produce the 2nd model for a whole lot less. Drop the crane lock, delete the shround, rechamber to .455 or .455 Eley and voila, cheaper handgun for government service. (don't forget to throw in about a bazillion weird proof marks too ). The 1917 kept the no shroud system as it was already in production for the Brits by 1917 and was readily rechambered for .45 acp. Simple ecomomics at play here, not some perceived deficiency.

Additionally, the previous post wherein it was claimed that non lugged barrels are somehow "better" for combat is subjective at best. The last US Gov sanctioned revolvers, the Mod 686 used by Border Patrol were chosen due to their durability on a steady diet of .357's vs the previously half lugged K's. Certainly this has to do more with frame/cylinder size than with lug v 1/2 lug but at least check your history as to who found out what and why.

Imo it's personal preference, pure and simple. And add a GIGANTIC dose of training with a particular model and I'll bet anyone's combat or self defense capabilities will improve. Each system has pros and cons, but the more you train with one, the better you'll get on that one.

Just my .02 and just some history fact, not .02.