I am somewhat intrigued by what someone says is the best, better, or "has worked well for me" when it comes to SD rounds. Especially when it is a new or newer product. While its a simple proposition to determine what will reliably function in a given firearm, or the accuracy level it may achieve, isn't quantifiable information on what will function best in an antipersonnel scenario a bit hard to come by? For a new product, it should be non-existent. Those of us who are experienced hunters, for example, and have used the same rifle round for several seasons and effectively harvested a couple dozen deer with it have more REAL terminal performance data than any new SD handgun round will achieve for probably a long time. And even then, results tend to vary: X number of animals DRT, distances covered by other animals before they drop, damage level to specific organs, blood loss/trail, etc. I successfully harvested a deer this season with a new Hornady product (300 B-O sub-x) and it performed as advertised. Prior to me shooting that deer, I had very little info (all anecdotal) on what to expect. I still consider the product "good enough to continue using", but 1 deer kill isn't much data either. Personally, I don't consider performance data on SD bullets that have been fired into anything but humans more than theory. This is why I always consider shot placement to be "king", assuming the round in question functions reliably in the given handgun in the first place. This is my thought process, Does anyone think that this reasoning is "off"?
