No. It's not meaningless because it is a REAL effect. I recall reading of one person who was "shot" with a starter gun and proceeded to fall to the ground and flop like a fish until someone disabused him of the notion.
Of course it qualifies as a "Psychological Stop." But, as I point out, they're not DEPENDABLE. Not that any others are "dependable," per se, but psychological effects are dependent upon a thought process which must happen in the target. Don't bet your life on it.
OK. That's important for around 3% or less, maybe only 0.5%, of actual Self Defense with a Firearm, at least according to the ShootingTheBull guy referenced above.
I believe that I have stipulated to this more than once.
I went back and actually read it after my post, and it makes more sense. I do like that they included "psychological stops", which is a realistic point to consider. He also did a good job providing a possible explanation why some guns had higher hits-to-stop, mostly based on firing speed.
To an extent, I can agree with you. However, we are defending against people, and people have psychological reactions. If I had to choose between a completely silent .45 or a very noisy .380, I'd choose the latter. A miss with the .45 in the heat of battle is useless to me. The noisy shot might have a significant psychological effect, which is a potential bonus. I won't depend upon it, but I will take it into account. Physics is a pure science, but people are far more variable than physics can account for. We have to consider the people in our choices - it's why I keep a pump shotgun, rather than a semi-auto. The ballistics are the same, but one has a distinct sound that warns an intruder that he's about to face a shotgun.
I would never choose a handgun caliber based on psychological stop data. Choosing on a .22 because "most people run when shot with anything" is a non starter because some people will keep on trying to kill you till you bleed out.
We can definitely agree on that latter point. It's hard to talk about "a caliber" as a group - too much variability. I'd rather have a better bullet than a bigger bullet. In the words of Richard Bowe, "More isn't better. Better is better."
+Speed to open. +Accuracy to finish.
If you are legally justified to use deadly force then you are legally justified to use dealy force where you shoot is irrelevent
Absolutely correct.
To expound on this, there are some theories of combat, which hold that those shots may be too close. In the days following WWII, the U.S. Army taught Combat Pistol Shooting and specifically taught that hits spreading out over the torso, not too close to each other, were better than hits all in exactly the same spot because 1) this meant that more internal organs were being damaged, which increased chances of incapacitation and kill 2) the trade-off in "accuracy" was replaced with quicker hits on target at follow-up shots, and 3) it fit well with the Instinctive Shooting method they were using at the time.
