It should be of no surprise that the most lethal rounds are the best rounds to stop an attack. A dead attacker is a neutralized threat, absolutely. Also, the rounds that are best at killing are the best at doing damage to less than vital structures in the body of an attacker, i.e. a 20 gauge shotgun rifled slug to the knee will do a better job of reducing the combat capabilities of an attacker than a 40 grain lead round nose .22 LR. The most lethal rounds are the most damaging and disabling rounds, and are, shot for shot, better in every hit in a gunfight.
Let's say you hit the pelvic girdle. Now, we have boiled won the question of wither or not you should ever aim for the pelvis, but, let's put that aside and focus on the hit to the pelvis itself. Even if you don't aim for it, you might hit it anyways, correct? If we hit an attacker in the hip, which bullet will do better, a 9mm 124 hollow point, a 45 230 grain hollow point, a 255 grain semi wadcutter 45 Colt, a 240 grain 44 Magnum soft point? Even if we don't aim at limbs, which bullet might disable the limb and reduce combat effectiveness of the attacker if we hit them anyways in the fight? Which bullet will crush hard tissues more effectively, traumatize nerves?
We can say that a 9mm hollow point to the center of the heart is as deadly as a 12 gauge shotgun blast using 00 buckshot. But, at close range, the shotgun will do a better job against a femur, a knee, and can almost sever some people's arms. I was reading about some self defense where a man shot two female attackers with his 20 gauge using buckshot, and one attacker had her arm almost ripped off. Sorry, but that's effectiveness, and something you don't get from most handguns, and certainly not from mouse guns.
Like it or not, there will be times that 9mm can't outdo a 45 heavy weight bullet, where the bigger heavier bullet will do better against bone. There will be rare instances of shots where a big fat large bore wadcutter will outdo a modern hollow point out of a smaller caliber. That's just how things go, the body and shot angles offer many, many different hits and scenarios. To sit here and say that 44 Magnum is too powerful for self defense because of recoil, ect, is one argument, to say that a high power heavy magnum round will never pay off is quite another.
As for effectiveness vs full power rifle, I can't disagree more. Almost every single vital shot I've done, or seen, with high power rifle leads to dropping the deer dead, and if they run, its extremely short distance. To me, the notion that handgun rounds kill as quickly and effectively in hunting is absurd for medium game. High power rifles generate so an incredible amount of damage vs. a high power handgun, the two can't be compared, its unfair.
Also, when you read about men taking multiple 308 or 7.62x39 rounds and living, notice that those stories come from war where they are using FMJ. Such incidents using soft points are EXTREMELY rare, and people who take torso shots using soft points and living are quite noteworthy, and when you examine those cases, the bullets usually hit the extreme exterior of the trunk. Anything interior center of mass will create an unsurvivable wound. Truth being that using soft points, not Hague convention bullets, center of mass shots really do reach almost 100% lethality in humans.
To say that 9mm hollow points are as effective in stopping an attacker as .308 soft points is a laugh riot, worthy of the finest jokesters. To say that lethality doesn't matter in stopping an attacker is dead wrong, to say that damage potential of bullets isn't important is dead wrong. You don't know what kind of wounds you might inflict and how they will slow down, impair, or outright stop an attacker. Firepower does matter, wither you want to rationalize it away or not.
