THanks for the source. I was a big fan of that work when it first came out, but I think that time has revealed some flaws in the logic. I'm going back a decade or more, but the idea that we can compare gelatin performance and then look at empirical data from a limited number of known round performances to predict street performance in the future hasn't stood up to the test of time. Furthermore, I think that taking that data and using it to predict the number of shots we may need is a bit flawed as well. What percentage chance of NOT stopping the bad guy is too high?
...ballistics tests that indicate even a .380 with 70gr. Glaser ammo will provide one shot stops 75% of the time...
Assuming that number came from the same source, unless I am very wrong, it represents one of two things:
A. A VERY small empirical sample
B. A hypothetical percentage based on gelatin tests.
Your conclusion that 2 shots of that round should be enough still leaves you with over a 6% statistical chance of failure, if the number is right to begin with (75% stops of the leftover 25% of failures from the first shot....). That's too high for me..... even if it weren't a guess.
I still think that any attempt to predict how many shots you will fire is futile and borderline reckless. Any training to shoot a magic pattern (which is a circus trick at best... try 2 Body, 1 head consistently in realistic force-on-force and let me know how it works out.) is in an even more delusional state.
Picture this: "I had more bullets, but I stopped shooting and then the bad guy killed me/my wife/my kid/my partner while I was figuring out what to do next."
"Multiple shots into the high center chest (when available, which it usually is) until you have recognized that the threat has ceased"
with whatever gun/ammo you've got, will continue to be what I recommend to students and what I plan for myself.