Sometimes I wonder if expanding bullets are truly that much better now than they were as they emerged in the 1970s when I began a shooting career. All sorts of contrived tests we did years ago produced expanded bullets that looked pretty wicked. Only some of these "new-crop" bullets that give the dramatic looking star or saw blade effect really look any better than the expanded bullets of 30-35 years ago and while we may admire the look, are they really better? Did the old designs really give enhanced effectiveness as "stoppers?" Do the current crop of defensive bullets marketed really offer measurably enhanced stopping effectiveness over old designs? Were round nose lead bullets really as bad as they are now made out to be, even if they were "correctly applied," otherwise known as making good hits.
Wish someone with more money than sense would prowl the gun shows gathering quantities of new-old-stock ammunition that is factory loaded with the expanding bullets of yesterday and subject them to the same silly "jello tests" of today. It's entirely possible that today's bullets are perceived to be better based on nothing more than the strength of the marketing that tells us they are better. Contrived tests seem to support effectiveness but is it all "smoke and mirrors?" Gun rag articles are nothing more than ads extolling the benefits of the modern expanding bullet. Forums and gun talk at the range or club further convinces us that we can possess bullets that make our guns equivalent to heavy artillery or death rays.
Rest assured there's some "leg-pulling" involved in modern defensive bullet marketing. Who can say how much?
Is this one of those topics where we aren't suppose to look behind the curtain so much?