The reason that performance is poorer with auto-pistols is training. Some agencies put in adequate time and effort, and set/maintain a standard, so they get satisfactory performance. Some don't do that, and they get what they deserve. More and more agencies are afraid that more training means more dead offenders (like that's a bad thing) and/or simply don't want to spend the money to maintain the perishable skill.

In an urban setting, with lots of backup only moments away, I would not be bothered by carrying a good revolver, but I would have to invest a lot of training in getting back to a level of proficiency I consider acceptable. Most of my training for the last 25+ years has been with auto-pistols, and I have to be realistic. Having worked in areas where backup was a long time coming under some circumstances, there is much to be said for higher capacity and more ammo carried in magazines. My last duty weapon was a G21, and I carried 3 spare mags on my belt, with more in the car or in my carbine case. I also carried my own AR (set up for me) with 4 mags, plus the 2 mags from the car.

Considering that my agency had an event occur a few years ago that required sending runners to the armory for replacement ammo, that kind of event was in the back of my mind. Another big issue is that most of the R&D on duty ammo of the last 20 years has been applied to auto-pistol calibers. Very few revolver only rounds have been tested and validated. While the uniformity theory is irrational and without any basis (ammo exchange is a myth, and the parade ground fetish of some agencies is shameful), carrying ammo that has not been validated is unsound, and allowing it is dereliction per se.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.