One of the popular gun rags published an article a few decades ago wherein the author attempted to lend evidence to his theories by shooting through a bank of hardwood dowels. But the noise in his data overwhelmed any statistical evidence.
I wonder if that is the one I remember, which had the author deciding that a moderate velocity range was most important. Too fast and too slow were bad, and bullet shape and construction didn't matter much.
Bruce
As I remember the article I read, which was likely thirty years ago. The author suggested high SD and high RPM. But his targets were far too randomized to offer proof.
My recollection is a bit different (IF I'm referring to the same article). I THINK (am far from sure) that the article was in Guns And Ammo. Anyway, my memory of the test was that it concluded that there really is no such thing as a brush buster. Long, heavy for caliber bullets deflected least but were still likely to badly miss the point of aim. Back in the day we were indoctrinated with the idea that 45/70's, 35 Remingtons, 444 Marlins,and the like would bore through brush, branches, and young Redwoods on their unwavering path to the target. I do my best to be cognizant of any obstruction - even tall grass stems.
