Ahh, quite true, but the reason they are locked breech is that they are tiny and light. The designers went to locked breech specifically so that the guns could be made smaller and lighter. Small and light makes for increased recoil, regardless of the locking system.
A straight blowback Bersa .380 has far less felt recoil than a Ruger LCP locked breech .380, because the LCP is tiny and weighs almost nothing.
And we'll just have to disagree on the recoil issue of a snub .38 v. an LCP. Sure, you can make a snub recoil a lot more, but not until you make the ammo more powerful than a .380 ACP. At similar ballistics, the revolver's felt recoil is the same or less.
However, I know you'll agree with me that the revolver has the distinct advantage of being able to reliably shoot everything from light wadcutter training loads to full-house defensive ammo, whereas an auto has a much more limited range of useable ammo.
Eurocops in the '30s and '40s carried .380, so that makes it a good choice today? C'mon woodstock, that's a specious argument and you know it. Shall I counter with the NKVD's use of the Nagant revolver in 7.62x38R? Eurocops carried .32 ACP at least as often as .380 ACP, and U.S. police of that era frequently carried various .32 revolvers, but you aren't suggesting .32 ACP or .32 S&W (or 7.62 Nagant) are good choices for a bedside gun, are you?
Don't get me wrong, I own an LCP and a P3AT and a Smith 640 Airweight, and pocket carry all of them (interchangeably, not all at once
). But none of them are bedside guns, and that's the topic here.