[Labyrinthos]

Here are some stats calculated by the Buckeye Firearms Association based on actual shooting incidents, not range plinking and advertising.

I've seen these stats before. The problem with using actual field results is that not every caliber was fired from the same distance using an identical weapon that placed the shot in the exact same location on perps that were dressed exactly alike. For example, how many of the 9mm incidents involved ball ammo as opposed to hollow point +p ammo? How many of the .357 incidents involved a an uncontrollable featherlight revolver as opposed to a more controllable heavyweight revolver like the S&W 686 or Ruger GP 100 or even a light-heavyweight like the Ruger SP 101?

[GonzoGOP]

The problem with using actual field results is that not every caliber was fired from the same distance using an identical weapon that placed the shot in the exact same location on perps that were dressed exactly alike.

It is the old lab -vs- field argument. On the range you can control all the variables, but history is replete with examples of guns, cars, computers, airplanes, that did great in the lab and were disasters in the field. The original M-16 ran rings around the AK-47 on the gun range, but when deployed to Vietnam it was a jam happy nightmare. The lab is great if you lack sufficient data for real world statistical evaluation. But if you have the data the best way to find out about how thins work in the real world is to study the real world.

The big lesson to take away is not that one round had a 1% or 2% better chance of incapacitating an opponent. It was that none of them had a sure thing one round incapacitation. With the exception of the .44 mag none of them even broke 50%. Even a 7.62 rifle round needed a double tap 40% of the time. No pistol, I don't care what you load it with, is going to deliver more energy than a battle rifle. So you should always plan on a double tap. Even if your firearm stars with a four.