most people don't have a clue about probabiliity

[goundra]

or any understanding of ratios. There is something called the 'Law of Diminishing Returns" that says you get less and less for each additional unit of resources committed, as you get closer and closer to what is possible".

A rd of ammo that is rated as a 90% likely manstopper (with a regular chest hit, now, not lucky FLUKES to spine, or hip-pelvis socket, nor brain) and not a hit to the guts, which has no ability or reason to have any sort of effect, for MANY seconds, at the very least) is 3X as good a choice as a 70% load. A 90% manstopper leaves 10 men out of 100 attackers still able/willing to fight. A 70% load leaves 30 such men out of 100 attackers. 3x as good odds of success.

 

[betheman]

what about head shots?

 

[goundra]

what about them? of COURSE they are the sort of hit most likely to suffice. but when you mix them in with body hits, it just messes up the entire debate. you don't benefit much, if any, by going from a 9 mm up to a 357 when you hit the brain. If you splash his brains everywhere, of course he's stopped, and any decent load can accomplish that, but only the merest handful of people being attacked are going to possess the level of skill and nerve control to make reliable brain hits. Such people tend to not get attacked, or if they are (like me) they draw their pistol and get "aimed in" so fast that the attacker flees or surrenders, because he has no choice but to do so or die. I've held men at gunpoint 4x in my life, and each time, they knew damned well that they'd better stop.