[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The people who were satisfied mostly just got on with their lives, I expect.

One thing to consider is that when people complain about lack of stopping power in 'small' or 'low powered' rounds, they are implicitly assuming that a bigger, more powerful round would do better. This is often, within a given class of weapon, not really so. Assuming good bullet choice, 9x19mm is not noticeably less effective than .45 ACP,m and 5.56x45mm is at least comparable to the 7.62x51mm ball the US uses (and often better than 7.62x39mm, which has a standard bullet that tends to drill neat holes in people and not yaw or break up) assuming sensible bullet choices.

Thus, while the people complaining may even be right about the poor performance of their weapon, they may well be comparing it against an unrealistic standard. Aside from the odd perfect hit, where there is an actual instant kill, bullet wounds only incapacitate by pain and shock, so if the victim isn't noticing the pain and shock (fairly common if they're in combat and pumped on adrenaline) they'll be only slightly impaired by being shot - until they fall over from blood loss. This is true for 5.56x45mm, 75.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, and 7.62x51mm wounds, along with most other military small arms. The only reliable way to improve the odds of dropping someone immediately with a small arm via hardware (as opposed to by getting better shot placement through better shooting) is to use expansive bullets, and they are banned for military use. The best we can manage is bullets designed to yaw quickly, and deform or break up in a way that is somehow 'not designed to deform' (a pile of BS, but hey).

yep, "I shot my rifle at some chap and he didn't instantly fall over" ≠ the 5.56mm is no good, or even "he would have if it had been X instead"