That man has some very good educational information,
but due to the differences in shear and tensile properties of paper, the method of testing in phonebooks is not demonstrative
of wound channels in living tissue.
Then you have guys who do water jug tests, that do not simulate living tissue and provide no modeling for permanent wound channels.
For my testing, put me in the water jug camp for a variety of reasons.
1. They are quick and easy to prepare.
2. They are cheap. Mine are free since they would otherwise be in the trash.
3. They are very consistent as a test medium.
4. Bullets that expand or come apart or fail to expand in water often behave the same in flesh. I have identical bullets taken from flesh and water jugs and they look very much alike. I've also had bullets come apart in both water and flesh.
You say water jug tests " provide no modeling for permanent wound channels", That is true enough if you want to measure wound channels, but if you just want to get an idea of a load's potential to do damage, water jugs can help. In my experience a bullet that explosively destroys more water jugs also leaves larger wound channels. Some loads I've tested have blown up the first jug but just left entrance and exit holes leaking in the remainder of the jugs. Probably an indicator those loads would not leave wide wound channels.
Personally, I don't care for wet or dry paper or dirt/clay/sawdust as a test medium - or even gelatin for that matter. None are identical to flesh and all are much more work than water jugs. Gelatin is great for the lab, but I don't shoot in a lab. When it comes to flesh, there is also a big difference. A bullet that takes down an antelope with authority may not do so well on larger game.
Had hoped to do a big water jug shoot this year but life got in the way. I probably have close to 100, but they will keep until next spring or summer.
