....The problem is these sports have little similarity and relevance to what a civilian will encounter in an actual defense situation..... I also repeatedly see decisions based on "what you shoot better" without any explanation of what that really means in the context of self-defense.
Many of the rules for these gun games are so arbitrary that they just do not reflect real world self-defense. For example, the 4" max barrel length revolver restriction totally ignores that some of us open carry with longer barrels for defense when we are in the woods, etc.
I know I would definately carry one of my Glocks if I thought a scenario that resembled a sport shooting stage or even how some conduct their Force on Force drills was likely. I'm a huge believer and advocate for FoF when it's done right, but how many run them, it is not anymore relevant than participating in a paintball match.
I have to disagree here. It's unfortunate, but in some areas when one thinks of self-defense one has to include multiple assailant scenarios. I usually pack a Model 12, but if I feel the need for more shots, I'll switch to an auto.
...very few Americans carry a firearm. Roughly 10 million out of 300 million Americans even have a permit and only a portion of those carry regularly....
A comment about this, even though this is a bit off topic. While true that CHL holders are in the minority, they have a collective effect on criminals out of proportion to their numbers. As an example, Oregon used to be a MAY ISSUE state. And some counties abused the process by decided almost no one should have a CHL. Multnomah County was a prime example, with no more than a dozen permits issued at any given time, and only to the well connected. When Oregon changed the law to SHALL ISSUE, the floodgates opened and thousands of permits were issued in Multnomah county. Now here's the interesting part that the media and anti-gunners would not report on, but the facts are there. Even though several thousand permit holders are but a small percentage of the county population, their small numbers had a great effect on criminals. The incidents of robberies, muggings and carjackings plummeted overnight. On the other hand, property crimes like burglary, "jockey-boxing" (car break ins), and shop lifting went up. The criminals knew that instead of virtually no one being armed they now risked "winning" the armed citizen lottery, so they changed their tactics from confrontational crimes to non-confrontational crimes. A great many people were safer because a few were now packing.
....Bottom line is that civilian encounters almost always take place at close-quarters and involve very few shots being fired and I assert that a snub revolver is the most effective weapon in a reactive ECQ defensive scenario....
Depending on clothing and carry scenario, I'll switch between revolvers and autos. My default carry piece is a 2" revolver.
I agree with what you wrote, but mainly for novices. In my opinion, a short barreled revolver is simpler, safer, and more reliable to use, than an auto. The autos that come the closest to the revolver are DAO.
I know that many auto owners will decry my opinion about reliability. Ammunition and feeding are much more reliable than in the old days, but consider these points. There are still a great many autos on the market being sold as defense guns that constantly have negative feedback for reliability. Reports of jamming and other feeding and extraction problems abound. Simply switching bullet type means qualifying the auto and its magazines again to ensure they will feed reliably. A novice, especially what we term a non-gun person, is not going to take the time to do that. On the other hand, many of us will gladly take the range or field time to test fire and practice with our guns. In this situation, the revolver is more reliably. It's very rare that a change of bullet or manufacturer of a cartridge will result in a revolver not working.
Another issue prevalent with novices is limp wristing. This can cause serious problems with feeding with some autos. I've seen Glocks that had a perfect track record at the range become a jamming nightmare when a novice test fired them simply because of limp wristing.
And in the case of a dud cartridge, one simply pulls the trigger again with a revolver. You can certainly restrike a dud cartridge with a double action auto, but chances are the dud is not going to fire anyway. And there is no restrike capability with many autos now. So the auto user has to be able to clear the gun fast. Those with lots of practice, especially those who lay out a lot of mags and salt a few dummy rounds in them for clearing practice, know what to do. For novices, a revolver is better.
...I've outlined my reasons in previous posts. If an individual's defensive firearm training is limited to just range shooting, I imagine it would hard for most to understand the dynamics. Anyone is free to disagree, but I would ask they share how they came to their conclusions. I would love to hear an explanation as to how an M1911 or a Glock 17/19(I own both BTW) offers equivelant operational functionality and weapon retention capable as a hammerless snub revolver in ECQ. Did they(or anyone they can reference) thoroughly test it to reach that conclusion and if so how did they test it?
I can only offer anecdotal evidence for myself and observing others. I believe that what you say is true for novices. I do not believe it is universally true for those willing to train and practice, practice, practice.
I'd like to comment on weapons familiarity. I have two types of guns I use for defense*. S&W double action revolvers, and SIG Sauer and Walther DA/SA autos. Why? Because I can grab any gun within these families and they operate the same. The SIG metal frame P-series were the closest autos to revolvers when they came out, having no external safeties, like a revolver. Point and shoot. I never effectively learned to carry a single action 1911 style auto, so I would not normally use one for defense*. The bottom line is my opinion is that training and practice will offset the reliability and simplicity of revolvers.
* (I have carried a 10mm Colt Gold Cup, but only in the woods, not in urban environments. I know my limitations with it.)
One last thing that I think can really help novices. Get a centerfire revolver or an auto that has a rimfire equivalent or a .22 conversion kit and do more practicing.
I found a Model 18 .22 was the perfect companion piece for a Model 19 .357. And found a Walther P-38 in .22 LR was an almost perfect companion piece for my SIGs. Ditto a slide conversion for my 1911's. The trick is to get something that emulates the controls well, has a similar feel to the grips, and has similar sights.
And (LOL) get some Remington Thunderbolts (Thunderduds) for your rimfire clone and you can practice dud round clearing too!
