Quote
I'm still waiting for anecdotal stories where a non-LEO civilian was attacked, and shot his attacker, but the attack proceeded sucessfully, where a more powerful round would likely have changed the outcome.
Even if your attacker killed you after taking 10 22LR to the chest, it still cannot be proven if more powerful ammo would have stopped your attacker.
Are you going to carry a 22LR then?
There are numerous cases of sub 9mm failing to penetrate skull where 9mm or above likely would have.
"Likely" being the operative word. Now, how many cases of a citizen shooting an attacker in the chest with a small caliber weapon, where the attacker proceeded and killed the citizen? In either case very rare. That is my point.
In my opinion, if shooting somebody in the chest with a .45 will end the attack 99% of the time, I believe shooting them in the chest with a .22 would end the attack 96% of the time. These aren't real numbers, but you get the gist of iit. I'm looking for evidence to suggest otherwise.
It is invalid to compare military and law enforcement or hutning data to civilian carry data because there is a different objective for the weapon.
Deer Hunting objective - kill the target, make it drop as quickly and humanely as possible, and/ or leave a good blood trail.
Military objective - unconditionally neutralize the target immediately.
LEO objective - pursue, stop, and capture the target (with superior force if met with resistance.)
Civilian objective - make the target go away, and if it doesn't go away, neutralize the immediate threat.
What could be very effective for one purpose, could be very ineffective for another.
The .380 is adequate for the civilian defense objective in except for the possibility of a few isolated and unlikely scenarios, and the fact that it would not be suitable or fail to perform well for other objectives is irrelevant.