>>64404147
>I don't think we should just take any seminal work as gospel
True, but Dr. Gary Roberts has decades of experience. The Navy trusts him, the FBI trusts him, hundreds of law enforcement agencies trust him, and Stanford School of Medicine trusts him. He is the GOAT of terminal ballistics due to many years of fixing people who were shot in the face.
>>64404147
>from what I have seen online modern .380 HPs are fairly consistent and get decent penetration.
If the barrel is long enough, it will, but most people aren't carrying a Colt M1903, Beretta Cheetah, Girsan clone of the Cheetah, S&W Shield EZ, etc.; instead, they are carrying tiny pocket pistols with barrels that are less than 3", and then the penetration (not so important, as it will reach vitals at less than 12") and expansion (very important to maximize energy on target) wil suffer greatly as the doc said.
>It's pretty fucking hard for any bullet to not be lethal, within reason of course.
Of course, but seeing how fast self-defense situations go, I want projectiles with very effective terminal ballistics because, to me, incapacitation is even more important than lethality for my chances of survival.
>>64404319
>Ballistic gel is a poor substitute for a human, but it's a standardized one that allows comparison.
True.
>>64404393
>most .380 defensive loads of reasonable barrels
And most .380 users are not carrying a reasonable length of barrel.
>shot placement is far and beyond the most important factor, followed by penetration to make said shots count.
I'd say expansion beats penetration in order of importance; any bullet that stops after hitting a vital will transfer more energy to the target than a bullet that kept going and exited the target. One of the reasons that people are obsessed with ballistic gel testing is because we can see permanent wound cavities (and temporary wound cavities if we record the test, but those are less important).
