Until it becomes legal and ethical to test live ammunition on live humans, there will be no controlled experiments on the ability of a cartridge to do anything. Moreover, humans being used in such an experiment must be, somehow, convinced to attack during the experiment, and somehow, all of them must attack with equal determination.
The next best thing is results from one load, used repeatedly, against real bad guys. Some LE agencies will have this information, due to using standardized weapons and ammo. The problem is, this info is not readily available to the public. One thing that is not so easily suppressed is the collective unhappiness of a group of officers with their mandated ammo. My employer did not have one single mandated duty cartridge until 1997, but all the rookies had to start with a .357 sixgun, and use it for their first year of service, until
about 1994. I started policin' in 1984, and during the time from '84 to '97, only heard one complaint about how a 125-grain .357 performed, and it was
third-hand info from an officer with an agenda. (He worshipped the 1911 and
.45 ACP; yes, we had those working with us, who thought any officer that did
not immediately switch to the 1911 at the end of his rookie year was just not
a man.)
Keep in mind that when Texas DPS switched to 357 SIG, one big reason was a collective residual affection for the .357 Magnum, which had been standard before the agency switched to the P220. Texas LEOs collectively tended to
really like the way the .357 Mag had performed over time.
Nowadays, there have been enough shootings with the .40 S&W, to date, LEOs are largely happy with it.
Moreover, for those who accept M&S, the better .40 and .45 loads in the M&S data were within mere points of the .357 Mag data, well WITHIN the point spread that M&S themselves claimed was their acceptable margin. (I no longer
recall what that margin was.)
Let's also keep in mind that the M&S data is now OUT OF DATE. Ammo technology has marched onward.
My wife has an M.D. After her name, works as a forensic investigator for a very large county's M.E., and sees more death scenes than most homicide detectives. She has told me that all good JHP ammo does quite well today,
when well-placed, and expands reliably. Before anyone claims that pathologists are seeing bodies only at the morgue, I will repeat that my wife works as a forensic investigator, and sees death scenes. Examination of blood spatter evidence is a science, and tells an investigator how fast and how far a bleeding person moved from point of injury to point of death. (Yes, "spatter" is correct.)
As I have said recently, in this thread pr another here, my wife has commented on the impressive wound channels caused by the Short Barrel Gold Dot .357 Mag, and the 357 SIG in recent shootings. (I don't recall the brand of the 357 SIG, but all of them are very close in spec.)
My take on all of this is that the .357 Magnum is a very good defensive cartridge, but with today's bullet technology, the other common duty cartridges are darn good, too. Shot placement is paramount, regardless.
The next best thing is results from one load, used repeatedly, against real bad guys. Some LE agencies will have this information, due to using standardized weapons and ammo. The problem is, this info is not readily available to the public. One thing that is not so easily suppressed is the collective unhappiness of a group of officers with their mandated ammo. My employer did not have one single mandated duty cartridge until 1997, but all the rookies had to start with a .357 sixgun, and use it for their first year of service, until
about 1994. I started policin' in 1984, and during the time from '84 to '97, only heard one complaint about how a 125-grain .357 performed, and it was
third-hand info from an officer with an agenda. (He worshipped the 1911 and
.45 ACP; yes, we had those working with us, who thought any officer that did
not immediately switch to the 1911 at the end of his rookie year was just not
a man.)
Keep in mind that when Texas DPS switched to 357 SIG, one big reason was a collective residual affection for the .357 Magnum, which had been standard before the agency switched to the P220. Texas LEOs collectively tended to
really like the way the .357 Mag had performed over time.
Nowadays, there have been enough shootings with the .40 S&W, to date, LEOs are largely happy with it.
Moreover, for those who accept M&S, the better .40 and .45 loads in the M&S data were within mere points of the .357 Mag data, well WITHIN the point spread that M&S themselves claimed was their acceptable margin. (I no longer
recall what that margin was.)
Let's also keep in mind that the M&S data is now OUT OF DATE. Ammo technology has marched onward.
My wife has an M.D. After her name, works as a forensic investigator for a very large county's M.E., and sees more death scenes than most homicide detectives. She has told me that all good JHP ammo does quite well today,
when well-placed, and expands reliably. Before anyone claims that pathologists are seeing bodies only at the morgue, I will repeat that my wife works as a forensic investigator, and sees death scenes. Examination of blood spatter evidence is a science, and tells an investigator how fast and how far a bleeding person moved from point of injury to point of death. (Yes, "spatter" is correct.)
As I have said recently, in this thread pr another here, my wife has commented on the impressive wound channels caused by the Short Barrel Gold Dot .357 Mag, and the 357 SIG in recent shootings. (I don't recall the brand of the 357 SIG, but all of them are very close in spec.)
My take on all of this is that the .357 Magnum is a very good defensive cartridge, but with today's bullet technology, the other common duty cartridges are darn good, too. Shot placement is paramount, regardless.