What I'm suggesting is that the
difficulty of the shot should be included in the effectiveness arithmetic. There are lots of places on the body that result in instant disability. The problem is that hitting them reliably is too difficult for humans to pull off.
In other words (and here I'm using numbers in the abstract, to illustrate the argument, hence the quotes...there's really no such thing as an "X%-effective hit), if a particular "hit" somehow did result in 100% incapacitation, but could only be attempted successfully 1 in 20 times, it's not 100% effective, it's only "5% effective". On the other hand, a hit that only achieved a stop 40% of the time, but could be made successfully one out of every two attempts, would be "20% effective".
Anyways, my customary blow-by blow.
Quote:
|
Correct, sort of. No shot is guaranteed, but an adequate rd thru the eye socket is probably 99% one shot stop. Certainly a higher % than trying to shoot the gun out of soneobes hand??? Seriously, that is a bit too hollywierd right there.
|
Which is precisely my point. Everybody more or less accepts that shooting guns out of people's hands is pure fantasy. And it's no more difficult than the eye shot. Which is why I wrote
"If you can hit a 1" circle on demand, then it stands to reason that you should also be able to shoot the gun out of your attacker's hand. But we all know that's a fantasy. So if you accept that you can't shoot the gun out of someone's hand, on demand, why would anyone think they could reliably make the eye-socket shot?"
I even underlined it.
Quote:
|
We are talking spitting distance, likely inside 12ft. A cool head, decent shot can put that rd into that 1" circle, every time, no specialized gun required.
|
One thing is that I really doubt it, but that's about all you can do. There are no solid statistics on DGUs.
Two is that we're not talking about hitting a nice black circle on a sunny day at the range. We're talking about hitting an ill-defined area that happens to be moving, and attached to a person that's trying to kill us.
Three is that the average shooter is incapable of hitting a 1" circle at even three yards, on paper, at the range. This is, in fact, a drill that's often suggested to students. It's mean to teach one to focus on their application of the fundamentals, by removing the ability to blame the gun, the sights, the ammo, etc. The only difference is that most folks normally suggest a 2.5-3" circle.