Originally Posted By: Zee
I brought it up because we had new data. Complete with pics and what not.

Up until that point, we just had numbers on paper and speculation. With the taking of the antelope, we had a new, revised basis of discernment.

Maybe YOU had new data. There is absolutely NOTHING new here. It may be new to those doing the experimenting, because they are new to hunting with revolvers (which is my impression based on past discussions) and are trying to apply rifle/specialty pistol concepts to revolvers but it is not new. Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith were hunting with the .357 long before any of us were born. This path is well traveled, the fact that 'some' don't have a map is irrelevant. How much data do you need to know that a 158gr .357 bullet at .38Spl velocities is inadequate for big game? How many pictures of wounded critters do you need to know that shooting them at ranges so long you have to account for 50" of drop is irresponsible?


 Originally Posted By: Zee
I think the journey to find the point of failure is what many of us here are trying to do.

And "failure" can be somewhat subjective in how the results are interpreted.

Blowing up on the outside, I would consider failure.
Coming apart on the inside after adequate penetration and internal damage, I do not consider a failure.
Poking a hole all the way through with little to no damage to the internal organs, I would consider a failure.

Consideration as to isolated incidents or continuous occurrences must be taken into account.

And thorough documentation must be gathered if either side is to prove their position. Thorough!! A picture of a bullet fragment without visual reference as to what was struck, how far, at what angle, and at what speed, etc.........

Complete data is how you prove a point. Partial data collected is just that..........partial data.

"The difference between screwing around and science is..........writing it down." Or, in other words........complete data.

Failures are not subjective at all and your post here is way to simplistic. What is and isn't considered failure is entirely dependent on what the bullet/load 'should' have done. A 35gr .223 would be expected to blow up on impact. A 400gr .450/.400 Woodleigh solid would not. A varmint load that does not expand is a failure. A big game load that explodes is a failure. A cast bullet that shatters is a failure. A jacketed hollowpoint that is shot into a ballistic testing medium (that is tougher than live flesh) and does not expand at all is a failure.

"Consideration as to isolated incidents or continuous occurrences must be taken into account."
How many failures are acceptable when the outcome of a $10,000-$20,000 hunt hangs in the balance?