That's a fair question, but what are you basing that on? Isn't it just as questionable to ignore the claims by dismissing it without knowing? You might want to contact Columbus PD LEO/LEO firearms instructor Greg Ellifritz who spent ten years collecting the data for this study and see what he has to say about it.

The data was collected in this century so I would imagine that the vast majority of guns were either snubbies which lose their ballistic advantage because their short barrels have no advantage over 9mm (see MAC's video comparing them) or .357 SIG semi auto pistols (particularly popular in certain law enforcement agencies like state police). I'm sure some of these were long barrel revolvers, but to say 90% of them were in the 21st century is a logical leap in my opinion. It is a valid logical leap, in other words, I think it's a good question, but I think it's a poor basis of dismissing an LEO's hard work without inquiring about it.

Remember, the .357 SIG is NOT a .357" bullet like the .357 Magnum, it's a .355" (9mm) bullet designed to mimic the 125 grain .357 MAGNUM LAW ENFORCEMENT LOADS that were most popular after decades of use. While .357 SIG loads are on average less powerful than .357 Magnum loads (526 vs 574 ft. lbs.), .357 SIG is more than capable of delivering this energy without over penetrating (e.g. my 636 ft. lbs. of my 65 grain Underwood XD bullets which deliver a larger permanent wound channel than any .357 Magnum hollow point).

If Ellifritz didn't feel he had enough .357 SIG data, he likely would have pointed this out as he did in the study regarding other calibers. It's still a valid question, however, but as I pointed out, that may have been a valid conclusion 30 years ago, but in this century it is far less certain. Finally, even if that is the case, the .357 SIG was designed to mimic the best LEO .357 Magnum loads which are not the most powerful ones as over penetrating will result in sacrificing any ballistic advantage a more powerful load has. For example, if you note in the study, .44 Magnum fails to incapacitate 13% of the time tied with 9mm and .40 S&W despite having double the energy. That's because so much of it leaves the body as the bullet passes through. As one medical examiner pointed out in an article, he never personally saw a .357 caliber bullet leave the body and he never saw a .44 Magnum stay in one.

So what you're saying about 90% of the results likely being .357 Magnum is certainly worth investigating, but it is far from likely in my opinion. And even if it was true, that might mean .357 SIG is even underestimated as a .357 SIG bullet is going to deliver much more energy than a .357 Magnum snub nosed revolver.

What is great about .357 SIG is exactly what is great about 9mm. In my opinion the .355" diameter is more efficient and generating power (remember, k.e. = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared which is why a premium is placed on velocity). This is because 9mm bullets are lighter and have a greater BC (ballistic coefficient) which means that they are more aerodynamic than larger diameter bullets but they don't drop off in performance as we see with smaller rounds like .32 ACP and .25 ACP which fail to incapacitate approximately 35-40% of the time compared to 9-13% of the time like 9mm, .357 SIG, .357 Mag, .40 S&W and .44 Magnums as indicated in the study. Are you starting to see a pattern emerge?