How would that imply a belief that the attacker would be standing still for the first shot?
Do you still subscribe to the discredited theory that "impact" is the basis for handgun effectiveness?
If it penetrates adequately, that's all the "impact" it needs. As labnotl put it above,
"It's safe to think of any handgun (regardless of the cartridge) as a puncturing machine. It's not sane to think of handgun terminal effects, even magnums, as explosive. We should think, puncture, puncture, puncture... not "it will blow your head clean off."
The best one can do is make every shot hit within a general area of the body. Each bullet will travel into the body doing damage, which will depend upon the precise location of the entry wound, the angle of entry, and the posture of the assailant. At that point, whether the damage be effective will depend upon what is damaged, and the defender not only has no control over that, he or she had no way to influence that when the trigger was pulled. It's a matter of probability, and more quick shots increase the probability of effective wounding.
What leads you to believe that?
Really?
Have you ever really considered how little difference there is between the expanded bullet diameter of a 9mm and a .45, when compared to the size of the human body and the sizes of the critical body elements that must be damaged?
Have you entered it into the analysis of whether that, or the ability to make additional hits more quickly, would be more important?
Full disclosure: around a decade ago, I acquired a .45 auto. Decades of folklore about Moros, militaries using FMJ bullets, "knockdown power", "bigger holes", and so on made it inevitable.
I embarrassed myself by speaking of those things here.
Then I was introduced to the reality of Dr. Marvin Fackler's work, and I also found out in realistic training that I was likely to make fewer hits with it in the drills than with a 9mm.
That was due to the higher recoil on the sending end.
The .45 is retired.
I hear you!
