I apologize as I tend to get in a bit of debate mindset when it's not required in my opinion.
If I see adequate expansion and 12-18" penetration with 5 shots into Porcine Thorax with zero to two square rib impacts (severs rib) why should I assume this is not indicative of use on the end target?
If I fire 5 shots with a different lot # into a Porcine Thorax and see zero expansion why should I assume this isn't indicative of use on the intended target?
Even more important is I can't get a bullet to expand after multiple attempts on a Porcine Thorax and it expands on gel would you ignore it or use a round that worked in both?
(Admittedly I haven't seen this. This is just going by published test which may well be flawed or be lot to lot variation).
Is there a reason that a bullet that won't expand in hog flesh would in human?
I suspect you're over-thinking things.
If I were going to worry about something that might occur due to some manufacturing variance, I'd hope that any particular cartridge that was coming up under my firing pin had flash holes in the primer pocket; the primer cup had an anvil; the powder wasn't a short-load, etc. Things I also can't see just by looking at it.
When the big ammo names have the capability to make one million rounds every 24 hours (at peak production, which at least a couple of them stated they were doing a few years ago), it's pretty impressive they don't have more mistakes slip through the process.
Now, the newer designed JHP's made to meet LE demands (meaning not talking about older designs or bullets made for handgun hunters), and which are tested with the 4LD scenario? There's a good potential they may resist plugging and still offer robust expansion in carefully controlled lab conditions, but the lab conditions aren't typically designed to test for ballistic "performance" against feral animals or domestic livestock.
Using properly calibrated organic gelatin made to a formula to
simulate pig muscle tissue doesn't mean it was designed to simulate pig hide, nor pig bones, nor pig anatomy. Muscle tissue. Simulant. (As another member pointed out.
)
If you want to get wrapped up around the axle looking at a particular tree, instead of the forest, that's your prerogative. If you're looking to find a particular bullet to use for hog hunting, and not defense against a human attacker, that's another topic.
We've come a long way from the Thompson-LaGarde 'tests' (
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Thompson-LaGarde_Tests ); the LEAA Computer Man (mid 70's); the use of duxseal, modeling clay, wet newsprint & phone books; the fascination with the mythical 'Strasbourg Tests'; and other rather variable ways to try and guesstimate 'ballistic performance'. At least the FBI protocols, combined with the 4LD scenario (not developed by or with the FBI), have given us - and ammunition engineers - a way to try and evaluate different ammunition on a consistently comparative basis.
Meanwhile, shooter ability and skillset is still arguably the primary consideration ... and it's something over which the
shooter has control. You can only work with what you've got, and try to maximize that over which you have some control.
