DMK
Member
I'm always looking for data to validate the effectiveness of various self defense rounds. Obviously reliability in your weapon is paramount, followed by relative accuracy (can't stop an attacker if you can't hit COM right?). Then there's the whole issue of "one stop shots" and effectiveness of stopping bad guys in the field. This is pretty much always a survey of police use of various rounds, sometimes ER or coroner reports.
I have to wonder about these field reports. Even the whole "one stop shot" thing aside, wouldn't field effectiveness reports highly depend on where the rounds struck? I mean one shot to the heart with one brand 45ACP might stop an attacker DRT, where 6 shots in chest only hitting one lung with another brand 45ACP could allow the attacker to continue for a quite a while.
It seems to me that there are really four factors to consider, in order of importance:
1) Reliability in your gun, with your mags; ammo that goes bang and feeds every time.
2) Penetration of more at least 10-12"
3) Accuracy in your gun (obviously less important at conversation distances)
4) Reliable expansion.
Thoughts?
I have to wonder about these field reports. Even the whole "one stop shot" thing aside, wouldn't field effectiveness reports highly depend on where the rounds struck? I mean one shot to the heart with one brand 45ACP might stop an attacker DRT, where 6 shots in chest only hitting one lung with another brand 45ACP could allow the attacker to continue for a quite a while.
It seems to me that there are really four factors to consider, in order of importance:
1) Reliability in your gun, with your mags; ammo that goes bang and feeds every time.
2) Penetration of more at least 10-12"
3) Accuracy in your gun (obviously less important at conversation distances)
4) Reliable expansion.
Thoughts?