LP,
I am also guilty of carrying an automatic rather than a revolver and will gladly admit it (as you have). Does that imply hypocrisy?
My preferred carry arm is a 1911 clone (there goes any capacity argument), although I sometimes carry a P226 9mm if I sense my destination may require I engage multiple targets (e.g.; gang presence) in a confrontation.
Sure, for most of us, the likelihood of being confronted with a violent assailant probably does not warrant we carry much more than a revolver of some type. For example, I would not feel outgunned, if I had only, say, my Colt Trooper MK III. Having carried a .357 as a defensive piece for more years than I have automatics, I can say I've walked the walk. Still, it would be dishonest for me not to admit that capacity is an issue for me at times. At least for what I see as specific circumstances as described above.
I just don't see the switch to an automatic as being the panacea for everybody that Pat continually claims it is. His blanket "sound byte" snippets fail to encompass many simple realities as witnessed by the excellent points made by fellow members in this thread and others.
For example, I have been working with my female companion for several months attempting to get her to make the transition from her .357 revolver to a 9mm semi-automatic.
I see this as more of an ammunition commonality issue than anything else. There are also the cost and effectivity issues (she shoots .38+P @1,000 fps in her .357 at present) versus 9mm defensive ammunition, with 9mm costing less and generally being considered more effective.
The capacity issue is a much smaller consideration, in fact, as it appears she will end up with a single stack 9mm before it is all said and done (small hands). So, until she can demonstrate the skills and proficiency in operating a semi-automatic such as loading, unloading, safety controls, clearance drills, etc; is it not the better choice to arm her with an "obsolete" revolver during the interim? I am positive Pat would not advocate arming an officer with a firearm they could not demonstrate proficiency with either.
I'd prefer she carry a commander or compact 1911 clone, but where weight is not the issue, recoil or reliability would rear its ugly head. I also don't want the additional logistical requirement and cost of having to procure 185 grain defensive loads, which, in my experience, have proven harder to find and are more expensive than the multitude of 230 grain offerings out there.
It does make sense for LEO to carry automatics, given that they receive proper training and are required to demonstrate proficiency periodically. I would go so far as to say, with criminals opting for semi-automatics, that their profession demands it.
But it isn't the "pat" answer for everybody.
I think Pat pulls from a pool of knowledge and experience much like we all do. Much of what he says is concrete in its foundations. But his "one-size fits all" comments regarding semi-automatics versus revolvers ring of the confines and constraints of his requirements in his chosen profession.
I know he isn't claiming that we should toss all the revolvers in the ocean and only offer semi-automatics to everybody, but you can see where a person might derive that from his many statements.
Each of us evolves in our pursuit for whatever firearm(s) we think will fulfill the scenarios that we sense we may encounter in a self-defense situation.
Anyone that says that any category of common arms (like revolvers) be completely discounted from the pool of selections for self-defense is bound to draw much criticism, and rightly so.
Especially on a revolver dedicated portion of any forum.
I had a Nissan once that was a nightmare to operate, when it would run. You don't see me going down to the local dealership or Nissan fan club and telling them what they sell is junk and of no use to anybody.
Only a fool would do that and believe they were going to accomplish anything.
