Part II of "Requirements for replacements of currently issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-8

[stanc]

The qualifier for "actually incapacitate" is that the shot hit the head or torso.

True. That's why in my conclusion I said "he does not tell what % actually incapacitated by one shot weren't fatal, which (IMO) would be a far more reliable indicator of effectiveness."

Consider the .25 ACP statistic for example:[indent][/indent]
This tells me that a hit in the torso or head takes one out of action about half the time or better, even with a pipsqueak caliber/cartridge. The issue is how the statistics were derived.

Precisely my point. He doesn't differentiate between "incapacitation" by killing and non-fatal incapacitation.

The questions you raise are best resolved by sending them to the author of the study.

In the meantime, this is the best set of statistics I've seen in the open literature.

That may be, but it doesn't overcome the flaws in the data he presents. Remember, GIGO.

The pucker factor for a 7-yard shot is a lot greater than it is for a 500 meter shot. So, in my view, the 9mm (or M1 Carbine) equivalent threshold is best applied at some distance from the shooter.

So, struggling for an understandable description, one could say that: "The wound channel for a gel target hit at 500 meters must be at least as large in major cross-section and depth as that of a 9mm FMJ hitting the same block 1.5 meters from a block of the same specifications."

I would happy to replace "M-1 Carbine" for "9mm" in the above.

No need.

P.S. I do think inserting 9mm (or .30 Carbine) performance into the requirements is likely to cause confusion in those reading a document about potential replacements for 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.