Why are you testing self defense pistol bullets from a 16'' barrel when they were designed for 5'' or less? And why are you using the results to choose your carry ammo??? And besides, I've seen MANY gel tests with +P and +P+ loadings out of full size pistols, and the premium bullets don't fragment even at those velocities. Your water bucket test simply isn't consistent enough to give useful data. That's why we have ballistics gel. It accurately predicts if a bullet will expand in human tissue, and if it will fragment. That's what it's designed for, and it's good at it.
With respect, I think you are missing Denis' point. He was testing 9mm ammo out of a carbine because some of us shoot 9mm out of a carbine. We find that info useful and pertinent to our sport shooting, and also if employing a carbine for defense. Just because the results are not of interest to you doesn't mean they are uninteresting to everyone. While I feel the wording of many gun mags has become very predictable and reading multiple magazines often covers the same gun and are redundant, it doesn't mean that some people don't learn from those articles and data. You are projecting your narrow definition of how tests should be conducted and in what firearms they should be tested in, when a gun mag writer is trying to reach out to a variety of people with different, and often conflicting interests. So if you don't find that info relevant, then the solution is to not read it, and accept that some folks do find it interesting.
You're also sidestepping the one issue that keeps coming up. No one likes reading reviews that are nothing more than advertisements. All anyone is saying is that the gun mags need to stop giving glowing reviews to bad guns. Test the gun objectively and report the results even if they're not flattering (caugh, kimbersolo, cough cough).
Sorry, but this reflects a bit of ignorance. Some gun reviewers, particularly on the internet, acquire regular production guns. However, you ever notice how many gun mag reviews come out before the gun actually seems to hit the market? It's because the gun companies send guns to be tested by reputable individuals. Do you think maybe there is a possibility that they are going to send a good example? Do you think possibly they do this with the hope that any review, good or bad, will at least get the word out about the gun? Do you think possibly they are using gun reviewers as an outside source of info to help hash out issues before the guns hit the market full steam? Do you think maybe when guns go into regular production, there could possibly be issues that come up like material consistency? Tooling wear? Maybe a person on the assembly line or in QC has a cold and allowed sever hundred or thousand guns to ship that are sub par? You are holding onto a notion that the Kimber Solo was positively reviewed when in fact there where problems with it. Did you consider the possibility that the examples that were reviewed were actually good guns, and that issues developed in full fledged production mode?
If I've learned anything about gun reviews, whether they be professionally done, or done by an armature, all they indicate for quality, accuracy, and reliability is that the particular example reviewed exhibited certain traits. A copy anyone else acquires may be better or far worse than the reviewed gun. Guns are individuals, and only buying or testing a gun yourself is the only reliable way to determine if a gun is worth your money or not. The gun reviewers are trying to give us their impressions, not tell you what your impression should be.
And if you're going to do a head to head test, bring in the trusted tried and true standards. The "test" I was talking about with the water buckets was not only useless, but it didn't include Gold Dot, Ranger, or HST. Now isn't that convenient to have a head to head test of available HPs, then leave out the best three rounds on the market? The cold hard truth is that testing those rounds in gel against the known standards would have made them look bad. I just wish I could remember which magazine put out that buyer's guide. I normally don't like to name names, but those guys owe me ten bucks.
Three best according to who? You? Why should I or anyone care what you think? Tests using water jugs, or 2x4s, or car doors are valid, so long as the ammo is tested in the same way. If you don't feel it is a good test, that's fine. Find an article where the test is conducted in a way you think is more relevant.
Ballistics gel is a valid test if used with all the test ammo in one particular study, but if you think it is the truth regarding how a bullet is going to act in a human or animal body, I think you need to ponder that. Different densities of bodily tissues like skin, muscle, tendons, and organs are going to affect the path and way a bullet reacts, though it may be in a small way, depending on the cartridge and bullet type. Also, living things on land tend to have bones in them that will deflect, deform, and have an effect on the expansion of a bullet. Gel is designed to reflect how a bullet MAY act in a consistent soft tissue, pending perfect bullet placement. We use it because we don't know how else to test ammo short or shooting up freshly thawed corpses to see what kind of tissue damage occurs.
Reports of bullet expansion and penetration are far more relevant when they come from hunters.
And again, listen to your customers. I'm not saying put hunting stories in a tactical rag, but when you have a bunch of people all over the internet all screaming the same thing, listen to them! This isn't even close to the first discussion I've seen on this very topic, and the universal complaint is that the mags have become blatant advertisements with very little useful information. When your target market no longer trusts your advice, you have a serious problem, especially when they feel they can get trustworthy information for free in other places.
They are listening. The fact that they are still in business demonstrates that. Also, how many constitutes a bunch? I doubt that a few vocal complainers on the internet represent a significant portion of their market given that they are still in business. If it is in fact a significant portion of their readers, the readers will stop buying, and the publication will fail. Capitalism is great that way.
Personally, I take gun reviews with a grain of salt. I use them as a reference point for guns I'm interested in, but until I shoot those guns myself, I make no real judgment. If you feel the information is useless, that's fine. I guess you better test the guns you care about yourself to be safe. Please share your results as I'm sure many of us would like to read those results.
On a side note, Wil Terry made an excellent point in post #19. There is a fair amount of good load data that is shared in gun mags. For hand loaders or reloaders to ignore that seems like throwing good info out the door. I have a few articles on reloading a particular cartridge that I tore out and saved before tossing the magazine.
