[AdrianB1]

The first study is interesting, but not relevant: 83 cases have a huge variance. The second one is even more interesting, showing that in the majority of the cases the firearms were not used for various reasons or improperly used. This is a bit surprising because carrying a firearm in the bear country and not using it properly suggests a serious lack of proficiency that I cannot explain.

The second study is lacking in determining any important factors of the firearm, just splitting into handguns and long guns is not telling anything about efficiency. In 25% of the cases the user was not able to use the gun (it was empty, safety on or too close) which is highly dependent of the magazine capacity, loading and safety mechanism (ex: bolt action), readiness (empty chamber of full chamber), carrying style (on the shoulder, in a closed holster, open holster). For the other cases caliber, one of the most important parameters in stopping power, is missing.

So the studies are an interesting reading, but not proof of comparative efficiency.