Listen to your own logic...
Here we have a gun that is:
--inexpensive,
--used ridiculously inexpensive ammo,
--is small, light and easy to carry,
--and according to trauma staff in hospitals, creates more dead victims than any other caliber.
Why would you NOT consider this an effective weapon.
Now you're just starting to irritate me. I don't know how many times I have to say that I AGREE WITH YOU that it is an effective weapon, BUT I don't consider it the ULTIMATE FIGHTING GUN.
Who are you gonna believe, a bunch of egg-head engineers shooting into blocks of Jello, who are being paid to come up with data to support the claims of their employers--the manufacturers of high-priced, expensive-ammo-eating firearms....
Or an ever-growing stack of dead bodies with.25 and .22 sized holes in them?
Do the math, folks...
Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.
Now let me flip experiences with .22 caliber rounds, seeing as how I have a great deal of experience of actually using it in a combat environment along with the 7.62/.308 and the .50 BMG. I have
seen with my own two eyes Taliban fighters take multiple 5.56 rounds center mass and not go down, from M4/M16s to M249 SAWs. On the flip side, I have not seen a single individual who was shot by a 7.62 round, either from an M14/M21/M24 or an M240B MG continue to fight. I don't need an engineer to tell me this, I've seen it. In fact you probably have to. Ever seen that video of the Iraqi standing in the middle of the road with an RPG and get shot? He was shot with a SAW, twice. The first burst riddled him in the legs and abdomen, he didn't go down until the second burst caught him in the head.
You're using the Soviet definition of effective, that being to get as much lead down range as possible, which is actually counter to your argument of shot placement. The reason they're effective is through sheer volume of rounds fired, because like you said your EMT buddy said, they would dig out
multiple rounds from one vic. I would consider the ultimate fighting gun to be a gun which is controllable, accurate, and can statistically deliver a round capable of knocking down an individual in one shot. Are there stories of, say, a .45 round not putting someone down, yes, but they're fewer than a .22 or even a 9mm.
One last thing,
or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.
Ever been shot? Ever seen someone shot? Ever had your fingers in a bullet wound?