We're definitely getting warmer.
I could do without the marketing hype and the cartoonish depictions.
But, they did at least conduct the same type of test on 4 different bullets and discuss the results.
While this was a simple demo for marketing, a real study would delve a good bit deeper.
What they didn't provide in the video...
- rifle and barrel specs including length and twist
- cartridge specs and load data
- environmental conditions include temp, pressure, altitude, wind
- muzzle velocity for each sample
- distance to target
- impact velocity
Also, it was nice to see the ruler added to the high speed video to indicate penetration distance.
But, I'd also like to have seen some measure of the outward expansion of the ballistics gel due to hydrostatic shock. That might be as simple as freezing the frame at the maximum expansion of the block as well as the maximum expansion of the wound channel and then quantify those results.
They discuss weight retention, but it wasn't measured or reported.
You might want several controls to ensure consistency. E.g. same weight/diameter bone +/- some tolerance.
... and then no less than 30 samples for each bullet at the same distance and/or muzzle or impact velocity.
Then, repeat the whole thing at different distances or impact velocities.
It's a non-trivial feat. But, the results would be very interesting to me.
If I didn't have a day job, I'd champion a board to test and certify bullets as such.
You might find a few under-performers and a few over-performers. But, I think it'd be a more objective way to sort out the BS. And, most bullets will do well within some set of parameters.
Perhaps you design a slightly different test method for varmint bullets? It's not really relevant for target bullets. ...although with a published methodology, independent persons might want to evaluate the SMK. ...certainly Sierra or the US Gov won't condone it.
While the people that really care are in the minority, I think the bullet makers could put a marketing spin on useful information thus putting pressure on the competition to get their bullets tested. Or, perhaps it'd be better not to accept funding or fees from the ammo industry?
Does anybody care?
Or, are internet popularity poles the preferred method for gauging bullet performance?