The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target.
I disagree. Energy is a factor, but energy alone does not determine how effective a bullet is, it is only a measure of how effective a bullet could be...
And not a great one, even for that...
What a bullet needs to be effective is to go where it needs to do and do what it needs to do to stop the action of the target. With game, the object is to stop the animal by killing it, as humanely and quickly as possible. With defensive use against humans, the object it to stop them from harming you or others, and a bullet that does that, including ones that are "psychological stops", is effective. It got the job done.
Might it not be the "best possible choice"?? sure, but if it works, it works.
...but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality.
I believe the right term is hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock, "temporary stretch cavity" and related terms have been explored, tested and discussed at length over the years and opinions vary widely about how important the effect is, but one commonly agreed to point is that the effect is negligible until bullet impact speed significantly exceeds what most common service and defensive handguns are capable of.
No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills.
This fails as a valid blanket statement, because, sometimes, the right bullet, the one intended to give quick and humane kills,
is FMJ. People who hunt the largest, most dangerous game on the planet, using the most powerful rifles available most frequently prefer "solids" which ARE FMJ bullets, designed to penetrate, NOT expand.
In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.
I understand the reasoning and the logic here, and generally agree, however, I would caution against the terminology used in reference to defensive shooting. Nuances and shades of language DO matter, and matter a lot if a defensive shooting goes to court. WE don't shoot to KILL, we shoot to STOP, and if the attacker dies as a result of being stopped, that's their bad luck.
The law recognizes deadly force and that death may well result from its use, but if it is believed that it is your intent to kill, not just stop an attacker, you could well find yourself facing criminal charges.
Likewise the other side of the coin, intentionally shooting to wound. Shooting to wound only, intentionally avoiding the risk of killing the attacker has been used as evidence that you did not believe deadly force was justified, and if deadly force is not justified (in your mind, at the time) then you do not have legal justification to shoot someone.
Its a game of words, but the law is funny like that.
You are still asking a straw man question. Seriously -- in any situation, including war, what's the probability of one man -- armed only with a 1911 and 7 rounds of ammunition -- having to shoot seven (or even six) adversaries? That only happens in movies.
Including war?? well, obviously it doesn't happen only in the movies. It has happened in real life. Sgt York is probably the most famous example going seven for seven in a well witnessed event, but there have been other times where people have had to shoot multiple attackers with just their handguns and did so successfully. As well as times when they failed. Its rare, even in war, but it does happen.
Beyond that, if (as was reported) York shot each of the Germans in the belly, if they died I'm sure it wasn't immediately. If they had had quick access to good medical care they probably wouldn't have died at all. If they did die it was probably some time later, from infection in the wounds, rather than immediately.
In York's own words, the didn't die immediately. "Quick" access to good medical care on the battlefield while the shooting is going on, under WW I conditions would not be something I think one could count on. Also, "good
medical care back then was no where near what it is today. I think it most likely that the men York shot did die, from shock and blood loss, either on the field, in, or on the way to, a field hospital.
Point here is that they were put down, and no longer capable of combat.