If this reflection is merely a boring rehash, please forgive me and ignore the post: I've been thinking of late about the contrast between the "average" kind of self-defense incident (e.g. for example, those cited monthly in NRA publications) vs. the extrordinary kinds of events we've all witnessed in national news (e.g. the determined suicidal shooter who assulted the Denver area church). It strikes me that the self-defense needs between these two scenarios are very different.
I can't remember reading about an incident in which an "average" self-defense episode required a reload. Nor, for that matter, can I remember any of these "average" encounters that wouldn't have been suitably served by a good old "J" frame stuffed with appropriate ammunition. (I'm not trying to restart any arguments here, merely making a point. Stay with me.)
On the other hand, I suspect that many of us are beginning to think about the the "extrordinary" incident-like the suicidal maniac who attacks the mega church, or the deeply disturbed teen who decides to play "Terminator" at the mall. It strikes me that the expecations between "average" self-defense needs and "extrordinary" situations give very different answers to the kind of arm one may choose to carry, number of rounds carried, etc.
My personal expectation as a civilian, is that my primary responsibility is to protect myself and my loved ones while I seek to withdraw from trouble. Still, if a "terminator" began shooting at everybody in sight while I was at the mall, I'd personally feel more comforted by the precision, reach and capacity of my Sig P220 over my trusty 642. Thoughts?