Mojo,
With Respect, I see what you are saying, but I don't agree on discounting ballistics gelatin tests as for entertainment purposes (Online by hobbyists or done by professional agencies such as the IWBA, etc.).
As you mention, the only way to see how a specific defensive load behaves when it strikes a human being is to gather that data directly from a shooting incident. Back in the early 1900's the US War Department commissioned tests to determine what wounding characteristics the Military would best be served by in a pistol caliber (which landed us with the .45, consequently). They shot at cadavers, and later live animals to determine the wounding effects of various calibers and rounds. A lot of that early testing was extremely subjective, and a great deal of it wasn't based on science or medical knowledge at all. The Soviets did the same thing when testing the x39 round when it was being developed. In 1962 when testing the 5.56, the US Govt used live goats, and amputated limbs to conduct similar tests. I digress though...
Terminal Ballistics (I incorrectly stated External Ballistics in my previous post, oops) is definitely still one of those sciences where things can get kind of iffy, but it has seen some significant improvements in testing protocol since those early days (ala
IWBA Specs for instance). While we don't have an exact synthetic medium that matches that of the human body to work with, today's specs are about as good it gets aside from harvesting that real world data. At some point, someone in harms way had to use a cartridge of yet undetermined performance and reliability to gain the real world information that would lead us to tried and proven rounds. Of course the FBI's specs aren't the end all be all of requirements for simply causing enough damage to stop or to kill a threat, but I think they are a rather agreeable starting point. Through continuing to develop the field of Terminal and Wound Ballistics we can ensure that we are using the best performing round for the application. IE: not using older rounds, which while proven and reliable, may provide poorer performance characteristics compared to that of perhaps a more modernly engineering load. While
load y may have performed excellently at stopping threats quickly for dozens of years,
load z (no, not those Hornady Zombie loads
) may perform that same job more reliably and/or efficiently because it's design was based off of the data harvested from the real world encounters of
load y, and for a initial testing, Ballistics media is where it starts. Of course no LE Agency or Military wants to try an experimental cartridge when life or death counts - nor should they be expected to - so if it can provide consistent test results with some sort of ballistic medium, it's much more possible that load will make it into use, and someday gain it's own tried and true track record.
Of course, a Youtuber like TNoutdoors9 who performs these tests as part of his hobby (and thus does not have any background in ballistics of any kind, according to himself), doesn't equal absolute scientific or repeatable real world fact. It's simply a jumping off point, a catalyst really, for folks that are curious about how a particular load performs. Since there are no shortage of self defense ammunition loads out there that claim to do their job better than the next, it's hard for the average joe to gain a concept of how each one may (or not) perform. I really think that's all TN is about - trying to help folks gain a better understanding, not unequivocally prove how deadly and effective a particular round is. I just saw another video of a gent that pumped birdshot in a slab of meat, with what I would interpret as similar intentions. The same thing with the folks who do the milk jugs full of water, phone book, wet pack, etc tests. I can't speak for other folks, but I simply feel more comfortable ascertaining
the possible viability of a round if it is tested in something
approaching a more scientific method.
Like you, I feel the only way to really know how a round is going to behave is when it's actually put into use. Perhaps I over complicate the issue of carry ammo in my head, but I'm constantly looking for new ways to learn about it, much like I do with everything else in the Firearms world. We never quite stop learning!
Just my 2 cents.
Taking anyone who is a hobbyist word for performance is a bit sketchy. 