As for this McPherson guy I don't really care. I haven't read his stuff and I don't intend too. I have a strong enough applied physics background to walk on my own feet and I am more than aware that scientist seem to forget the most basic laws and tweak things to fit their agenda. Case and point global warming, you have some scientist saying it's real and man made, some say it's real but a natural cycle of the planet and others say it does not exist at all.
Why limit yourself? MacPhersen is the real deal with regards to terminal ballistics and is certainly not lightly regarded.
With the length of your diatribe, I would say you are the one is a bit bent out of shape. You're cherry picking your research material. I would seriously suggest reading MacPhersen.
Not trying to be argumentative, but you really are presenting only one side of the debate here. I don't know many in the know who put much stock in energy as a way of rating lethality.
I have nothing against expanding bullets, my only issue with them are their unreliability at the limited velocities we can attain with our revolvers (this obviously doesn't apply to single shot "pistols" chambered in rifle cartridges). They don't always expand, and when they don't they make a poor solid. If I am starting at a half-inch in diameter, I see no benefit to expansion, especially when a heavy bullet with a large meplat does considerable damage to flesh.
