I disagree with your disagreement, the design is to kill not look pretty for an after picture. Where did it fail to meet the design?
I'm not too sure what you're getting at here. I (nor you in the post that I responded to) never said anything about a bullet being designed to "look pretty for an after picture".
If an accubond at above the recommended minimum impact velocity doesn't expand (for whatever reason) after going through bone and lungs and acts like a FMJ, but the animal dies after running several hundred yards did the bullet act as it was designed to? I'd say "no", despite it killing the animal.
Likewise if that same accubond opens up way too quickly and fails to penetrate a scapula, acting more like a varmint grenade, but a small fragment or the core separates and finds its way through to the windpipe or lung and kills the animal after it runs several hundred yards, would you say that accubond worked as it was designed to?
If you say "yes" to both of these scenarios then why do bullet manufactures give details about design such as X% weight retention, designed for penetration through heavy bone, etc.? I've never seen a bullet designed simply to "kill".
Edited to add: I'm not saying these are common scenarios with accubonds....I am just using them as possible examples to illustrate my point.
