Ah. I've alraedy read most of what the Firearms Tactical Institute has to say about M&S. It reads as an op-ed column. I've already formed my own conclusions, and it seems like a very biased site. They do, however, advocate sending the M&S book to an unbiased source, and I applaud them for this. Thank you for providing the links. I wish more people could.
I will concede on the goat tests: I won't say they didn't happen, but I am also skeptical because I cannot find the information myself, nor the data sets. The paper referenced in the Courtney et al. papers shows no author, which piques my alarm.
I would post another paper that I found on arxiv.org, but it strikes me that Courtney et al. seem to have no validity to you. Am I mistaken on this?
All in all, I don't care to press it any further. I contributed what I could, and I'll leave it at that rather than conjecture on things that are now outside my area of knowledge.
It is frustrating, because there really is a lack of evidence regarding one caliber over the other. I don't totally buy into gelatin tests as a panache for handgun testing. It's a start, of course, but it doesn't take hydrodynamics into account at all. Speaking of, what is your opinion on pressure wave theory?
Also, in regards to the method of testing handguns in deer...what do you think of this? And is there a rebuttal against this paper?