Wow. I was here yesterday, and I return today to see that a whole lotta something hit the fan. Wow.
Fact of the matter is, as it appears to me, is that a lot of facts have been tossed around, with some citations, on the 357SIG side, and very little on the non side. This is what kills me about these discussions.
I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers. Using scientific method they found that the 357SIG has potential over the 9mm. The article on evaluating wound characteristics in deer comes with pictures of the wound from a .40SW, along with numbers for 9mm and 357SIG.
As to something else: this is the first time that I've seen that .40 Glocks are "dogs." I've never come across someone who told me to steer clear. That is, until today.
If this thread is to go further, we should make citations mandatory
Oh, for the record (because I'm tired of people dogging Wikipedia): in a study a few years ago (5 now that I found the article):
Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.