CurtInOhio wrote:I don't get too caught up in whether brand x stops 91.7% of the time vs. brand y stopping only 90.9% of the time... there's enough variation that I'd go for the cheaper ammo in that case... tests could have skewed slightly one way or the other with results that are fairly close. But if the difference is 90% vs. 70%, I'm going with the 90%.
The problem being that the fella who is reporting the 90% and the 70% has been shown to be wholly unreliable.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From Firearms Tactical Institute:
http://www.firearmstactical.com
Chances are, if you’re an average person, your primary (perhaps only) source of information about wound ballistics is what you've read in newsstand gun magazines. Problem is, most newsstand gun magazines are not a credible wound ballistics reference. Why?
Because a few questionable gun-writers (and editors) apparently recognize that magazine articles are the only source of information about wound ballistics for most people. It appears they’ve chosen to prey on a general lack of knowledge about wound ballistics to misinform and invent controversy. Controversy sparks reader interest and promotes sales. Most anyone familiar with the popular media recognizes this.
These discredited authors have been so successful in influencing the popular gun press (including honest editors and authors who don’t know any better) that most information published in newsstand gun magazines about wound ballistics is tainted.
The basics of terminal performance, wounding effects and wounding effectiveness are pretty easy for ordinary people to understand, and this creates a conflict of interest for some gun-writers because there really isn't much to write about.
Instead of sticking to simple facts these particular authors would rather delude you with paragraph after paragraph of mystical concepts such as "energy transfer," "neural shock," "Fuller Index," "one-shot stopping power," "Strasbourg Tests," and "street results." Although this stuff makes for interesting and entertaining reading, it's really nothing more than a bunch of sophisticated junk-science they've invented to ensure they have plenty to write about.
These pseudo-expert 'master psychics' of wound ballistics want you to believe only they (and they alone) possess the clairvoyance to properly interpret and evaluate the factors that make a particular bullet more effective than others. They tell an alluring tale, but these discredited few are actually snake-oil salesmen who've been quite successful in creating a market to peddle their brand of proprietary nonsense.