No. Nobody who follows modern terminal ballistics is the least bit mystified.
Early HP bullets were designed by shooting into water. Water causes a HP bullet to expand reliably at a lower velocity, so 357 did better than 38 and light +P 9mm did better than the slower heavier bullets. (In unobstructed shootings where the lack of penetration didn't come into play)
There are plenty of standard pressure 9mm that performs as well, without the extra recoil and blast.
Basically there is a minimum amount of energy needed to reliably both expand and penetrate enough. More power can give you a little more of one or both, but that doesn't translate to significantly increased terminal performance.
FBI testing has been backed up by a significant amount of OIS examinations. There are no fact based reasons to question gel testing.
No pistol caliber wounds are not impressive, so the difference between the best performing 9/40/45/9+P is just not worth worrying about.
Actually, they don't perform on the street any better than bullets did before the FBI protocol. I was a cop then too, people still occasionally need to be shot alot to stop them. The Cop that was just shot in Cicero, Il was shot 4 times, stayed in the fight, radioed it in.
No pistol caliber wounds are impressive.
None.
I didn't exclude 357 Sig and magnum (10mm) from that statement. I didn't include them in common service calibers because they are not common.
Anecdotal "street" performance is usually used to disregard testing that doesn't match up to ones biases.
I believe gel testing is a consistent medium to test bullet performance. I believe the experts that say actual shooting results compare well to the gel results. Gel results don't show any significant increase in wounding from magnum or +P.
Bookmarks