Caliber is irrelevant in a gun fight
Carrying on the tradition of my favorite opinionated instructor he presented this information in class:
The title of the study was called: Winning Officer Gun Fights (or something like that. I Googled it and it did not bring up a study.)
Some education type gathered up the all data from literally 1000s of gun fights and in the "average" winning gun fight, these were the relevant facts:
Distance was about 10 yards
Approximately 12 rounds were fired by the officer
50% hit ratio
NOTHING was mentioned about caliber.
On the other hand, in an officer killed scenario, the relevant facts are:
Distance was about 7 yards (this might be 7 feet. I did not verify that.)
Approximately 2.5 rounds were fired
25% hit ratio
Hmmmm. With 2.5 rounds fired with a 25% hit ratio means 0 rounds actually hit the bad guy. Again, there was no mention of caliber.
Say what you will about your favorite caliber, but these studies shows that in a gun fight, the caliber of the gun played no statistically relevant part.
There is some logic here.
I will agree that caliber is irrelevant if the shooter cannot hit.
So you googled the title of the report/study cited by the instructor and could not find anything? I find that worthy of note.
The information you repeat here shows when an officer wins a gunfight, he fires a number of rounds and makes hits at a slightly further range than in a loss. When an officer loses, he fires only a few shots and makes no hits at a slightly closer range than a win. Which leads me to believe an officer loses, he is shot in the first volley, probably from ambush or surprise.
If the officer cannot get his gun into operation, or cannot operate it properly, caliber is of no consequence.
That is logically correct, but has no bearing on choice of caliber by one who has a choice.