Picking up on part of the
'The survival situation and how you lose your gear' thread.
Evan Marshall the 'simple cop' who came up with the insight none of the scientists had: 'let's stop arguing about stretch cavity, or expansion, or whatever theory, lets simply count what rounds stopped people best in shoot outs' carries Corbon DPX in all his guns. You can read his fascinating books (recommended) but that is his personal distillation of all his research.
End of discussion as far as I'm concerned; why do all the research yourself, when its been done for you?
But guns seem to make people opinionated. I won't be contributing to this thread again. For some reason people think the user of a different calibre, or make, from them is the equivalent of a child molester. They are just bits of metal folks!
On the original thread; the author of 'Deep Survival' (amazing book) gives his personal account of how it wasn't the going 'trekking without a pack', but ending up trekking by accident that almost got him in serious trouble. He went for a few hours walked and almost missed the last boat home.
It can happen so easy. A 20 minute drive can get you further than you can walk back in a day.
qjs

Haven't read the references you cite, so please allow for that in my comment.

IMO, it is a logically fallacy to equate what the majority of "x" was caused by, with what the "most effective" is. You have to adjust for the proportions of the different types used in the analysis, and the size of the sample used.

For example, I'm sure that an analysis of 20th century firearms fatalities would show that death by FMJ rounds were overwhelmingly more prominent (thus "effective") than any other type round. But such an analysis would ignore the fact that by treaty in the early 20th century, anything except FMJ rounds were outlawed by the "laws of war." Thus, virtually all, if not all, firearms deaths in WW2 were by FMJ. By the rational of "most = best", FMJ would be the choice as it was the most "effective." I doubt many would agree with that conclusion. It was the "most" because it was virtually the only round type used. The others were outlawed, thus used much less often or not at all.

I don't know what is the most effective round. From what I've read, there is no common agreement on a measure of "effectiveness." Discussing it seems to be a quick way to start a strong debate.

I think it depends, in large part, on what you are trying to do and the situation.

One must be cautious and consider the scenarios of use, (i.e. what you are shooting at, e.g. a bear, deer, person, rabbit, duck, squirrel or rat), why (hunting, self-defense), range (in the house, or in the woods), weapon (rifle, handgun, shotgun), and other factors (range, your training etc.)

And I agree a short drive can put you in a survival situation. That is why we need to be "equipped to survive" at all times, ( and I have a bunch of stuff in my car that I hope I never have to use).

Personally, I am very distrustful of "one size fits all" solutions. . .

Can you get 84mm Charlie-G recoilless rifle ammunition in the US? That is quite effective ammunition from the late 1940s!

The are other opinions regarding the Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow data base. Be careful with how opinions are confused with facts.

In some forums this subject becomes a shouting match between the light and fast JHP crowd and those that prefer their bullets bigger. Then there are those who believe that all bullets are slow until you get into rifle velocities above 2700 FPS .

I like handgun ammo with good penetration, not necessarily the most muzzle energy. Beyond that, rifles are good, so are shotguns... With the right placement, arrows work too.

Unfortunately, we are limited to .50 caliber here (for cartridge ammo, black powder projectiles and shotgun slugs can go larger). .50 cal is a little over 12.5mm. So I would think that 84mm cartridges would be right out. Bummer!

just a personal observation... my small circle of friends are mainly USPSA pistol and multi gun shooters, possessing the skills associated with fairly advanced levels of competition... with the increase of "workplace violence" I've noticed that several of them, who have had a concealed carry permits for a long period of time, but chose not to carry....now do so daily, and several, myself included, have opted for pistol caliber carbines, and AR style pistols, suitable for very close quarter interpersonal confrontations

I think it's accurate to say that pistol rounds generally suck; the best just suck less. In almost every situation where we deploy a handgun a rifle would be superior. We carry sidearms because they're light, portable and concealable not because they're effective. I choose my ammo based on the track record it has "on the street" in police shooters (since there are better records of those shootings than civilian shootings). Years ago I was a fan of lighter bullets going faster but now I tend towards the heavier loadings. Most of the time I carry a 9mm, regardless of the activity. In daily life my EDC is usually an HK P30S although in hotter weather I might be toting my Beretta Nano or even my Ruger LCR in .38 Special. My preference for 9mm has been 147gr Federal HST. It has a very good record in police use. When I can't get that I will carry 124gr HST which also has a good record. For the .38 I haven't found anything I like better than the classic 158gr LSCW-HP +P. My main consideration is penetration; I like expansion but if I can only have one or the other I'll take penetration.

On rare occasion I carry an HK USPc in .40 cal. I carry 180gr HST in that when I do carry it.

I will stress that for woods use I am satisfied with a 9mm or .45 ACP because there are no dangerous animals here (save humans). If there were big bears I would carry something bigger. For camping and hiking I will often carry HSTs in the gun with a mag of 147gr flat-nose FMJ as a spare.

I'm not an "operator" or anything and I claim no expertise beyond being an avid shooter. Since all handgun rounds are underpowered vs even a wimpy rifle I worry more about skills than equipment.

What he said.

...which is why I went to a 12 gauge for HD...

I choose mine based on its reliability in the specific firearm it is going in. Not the brand/model of the firearm, the actual firearm itself. Only after shooting lots and determining which ammos are 100% reliable (that takes 100's of rounds of each, not just a few) do I start looking at other factors. I could not care less about the newest magic police bullet if it's not 100% reliable in the firearm it will be used in. Some of these supposed magic bullets cost $1.50 per shot. While I can afford that for carry, I cannot ("choose not" actually) to afford to buy 300 of them for initial reliability testing. I will first try last years magic bullet at half the price as my starting point. Revolvers are much simpler, significantly less testing is required. If I were ever in a shoot out, I pray that my opponent concentrated on buying expensive flying ashtray magic bullets and then did not test them or practice with them. My bigger fear would be the trained marksman with plain old FMJ. I would actually fear that marksman with .22LR more than a gangbanger with any caliber or bullet design. I'll take a .500mag to the arm over a .22LR to the heart any day.