If the majority of reputable instructors as well as those who routinely put themselves in harms way all choose the same basic gun to count on if life is on the line, I don't think it's very wise to nonchalantly dismiss that fact. Even if it is different from my choice, I want to know precisely why they chose what they did and not try to explain it away by twisting the narrative to fit my preferences. The reasons could be irrelevant from my perspective or actually not be applicable to my particular circumstances or I could be wrong and lack understanding and insight.
John Correia/Active Self-protection posted this awhile back...
John P Correia - I've watched about 5,000 gunfights at... | Facebook
It both confirms and contradicts different parts of my opinions in terms of what is likely to occur in a civilian gunfight. I'm actually pretty impressed with John's overall analysis and ability to see the big picture and discern and convey the basic learning points in the numerous videos he's narrated, so his opinion is always worth serious consideration as far as I'm concerned.
All guns are not equally viable choices just as all martial arts are not equally effective. If you wanted to be a successful MMA fighter, some systems have proven to be more effective than others in that context. Someone can dismiss the results and choose to enter the cage with no training other than in some flowery Kung-Fu style, but any rational and knowledgable person would advise against it. The same principal applies to selecting firearms.