Originally Posted by Mister X

Try finding evidence that it is inadequate. There are numerous stats available as well as thousands of documented individual cases of civilians using firearms in self-defense in print and video where the details are provided. You will be very hard pressed to find even a handful where a 5 shot J-frame was or would have been inadequate.

A lot of people look to police use for guidance as to what is the best handgun choice is for defensive purposes, but I just don't see the two being all that comparable since they have very different objectives and directives. It's kind of like how the self-defense martial arts and unarmed techniques I taught for civilian self-defense are very different from my police defensive-tactics program.

My goal as a civilian is to avoid trouble. I have no intent on intentially engaging terrorists or active-shooters in a long range firefight and even if I did, the current odds of being involved in such an incident are astronomically low. However, I don't see being randomly assaulted, mugged or carjacked and similar types of scenarios as being unrealistic. These events occur at extremely close-quarters, are generally reactive in nature, and I think the (enclosed hammer)snub revolver has some very positive attributes in those types of encounters that no other gun possesses. Even if I was jumped by multiple attackers, I would still want the snub due to the relatively high risk of the auto malfunctioning in that environment, even if most criminals will flee as soon as the gun is deployed or after the first shots are fired. And if they don't, the revolver will almost assuredly go bang all five times as well as offering excellent inherent weapon retention against gun grabs.

If I had to choose one gun for (all) defensive purposes, I would definately choose a small revolver. And if I had nagging underlying worries over capacity, I would simply carry a second one and have absolutely no concerns at all.