I understand people feeling doubting ballistic block tests. The ammunition makers indeed develop ammunition to do well in the tests. It may or may not be an accurate representation in tissue and bone.

However I believe it's pretty close since muscle tissue , fat and bone all have measurable density.

But I think some maybe looking at the test results as if they were an actual test on tissue. They of course are not. They are a methodology to test one against the other vs a standard

I think it's safe to assume that a round that expands and penetrates a ballistic gel block the suggest 12-16 inches and can do so piercing denim as well is a superior round to one that cannot.

The way I look at it is its a vs b vs c etc.

Even the Hollywood and the earlier Miami shootouts all had one thing in common. The rounds did not hit anything that quickly incapacitated the BG.

Even though the postmortem reports stated some of the wounds were fatal just not immediately.