Astonishingly, some of these places you can penetrate with a .22 LR and kill someone instantaneously, whereas in some of these places you can get with with a .45 ACP and live.
On those grounds and those grounds alone, those statistics are meaningless
I am sorry, but this doesn't support anything.
About the torso shots a 'duh' could have been sufficient and I am really curious why you would ignore the statistics just because not every wound is fatal and some are even in .22 caliber.
I think that is EXACTLY what statistics are for!
You can die from a .22 cal in the chest and live with a .50 cal in the chest, but these chances are very small. A large array of events takes a mean and can tell you much chance you have of surviving a shot somewhere, although you might die with exactly such a shot.
I am not really getting into the statistics Panzer gave, I just think you have a wrong view of what statitics are really for (or your examples are just badly chosen).
I actually wouldn't mind if they were the same as they are in RO1. Seriously, that game still has the best ragdoll deaths, compared to any modern shooter.
QFT, hate ragdolling and stuff while there is already a good system which can easily be slightly improved