Trying to recall some of it./QUOTE]
You have complained that Fackler's analysis is old (so, in fact, is the Bernoulli Theorem)
And outdated. And based on slow moving low energy bullets. And wrong.
You said that his assertion that lung shots are not important in effective physical stops is "stupid"--but you did not provide a reason
I did repeatedly. It's up thread. You actually use it in your next point, except I said nothing about a "slight increase". Those are you words.
You opined that as slight increase in bleeding from the capillaries of a punctured lung would be meaningful in stopping a charging attacker at close range
Again, I never said "slight increase". The goal is either blood loss or CNS. If a person is choosing to shoot for the thoracic cavity, that rules out CNS. The more blood loss the faster, the better. You can argue faster followup shots, but the first one from the holster is the most important, and by then the target will only be closer. The bigger the target (angularly speaking) the less recoil recovery is a factor. I already explained all this.
You said that the little lines emanating into the surface of the temporary cavity in gel somehow show permanent damage
I said those were permanent to the gel block. And they're not "lines", they're tears. The block was torn, and significantly so. But more significantly with more powerful cartridges than with the 9mm loads.
You misunderstood the import of the Ellifritz data, and believed that the small calibers "outperformed" the large
I didn't misunderstand it. I just ignored it. Like you have repeatedly ignored information I have presented. But do I believe smaller calibers outperform larger ones? At the same velocity, with the same or similar bullet design, I believe the opposite is true. You're the one pushing the narrative that smaller calibers are just as good.
You keep bringing hunting into it
You put a lot of stock in "per round" effectiveness, apparently indicating a belief in one-shot encounters
I don't believe in a one shot encounter. I believe that more velocity and more energy creates a larger wound. I believe this because I have seen evidence of it, and the concept makes perfect sense.
You refuse to accept the observations of forensic medical personnel who say that there is little discernible difference in wounding by different service rounds
I don't refuse to accept they have seen what they have seen. I refuse to accept that
all handgun bullets only crush tissue directly in front of them, because that is all they have seen. Again, because handgun hunters know better.
Now, that last one is certainly counterintuitive to the lay person. If there were a difference in larger bullets, would it outweigh the advantages of reduced recoil?
Would a smaller bullet with less recoil outweigh the advantages of a larger bullet's frontal surface area? Because that's how you end up carrying a .22lr.
Oh and as far as sighting that paper again, you're wrong. The paper I sighted this year was not the paper I sighted last year. The one I sighted last year was, this time, sighted by mavracer. So you're wrong on that too.