The stretch you're observing from these Phillips bullets and the permanent cavity left in its wake, bears no resemblance to those caused by rifle service rounds, much less expanding rifle rounds.
Nobody said it does. Why would you think anyone here thinks that?
The mention of Lehigh's sub 2000 fps stretch cavity was raised...
They do cause a stretch cavity to some degree; so does any other bullet, of any design. That doesn't mean anyone thinks handgun bullets perform like rifle bullets, or that the stretch cavity is severe enough to cause permanent damage. I think you may be seeing what you want to see in this conversation, not what is actually being said, because you've already made up your mind on the topic.
GunGeek, I thought you were talking about permanent crush cavity, since you said you wanted an expanded bullet for a larger wound channel; that is what I was addressing. If you were talking about stretch cavity - water jugs and gelatin do a great job of simulating that IMO. My testing has been in water jugs and wet paper, not gelatin, but there's plenty of gelatin testing videos online. I'm also testing these at high velocity, not watered down 1100-1200 fps loads.
Testing the ED bullet in either one shows performance comparable to good hollow points, but different shaped cavities (both stretch and permanent).
Expanding hollow points, as you know, tend to have a small entry, then a large ballooned area with lots of damage, then a relatively small wound channel after that, like the picture above. The Lehigh ED in comparison tends to create a more linear cavity, that tapers off gradually as bullet velocity drops. The maximum cavity diameter is not quite as big as that caused by a Gold Dot or HST in my experience, but runs a lot deeper/farther into the target. Does that make sense? Maybe the best comparison is to say it's like a fast WFN bullet that trades off some penetration for a larger wound channel. (a significantly larger wound channel, in my experience).
