shouldn't that be a desired outcome?
Let's not mix things.
I was only responding to your comment that being concerned about over-penetration was laughably absurd. I don't think it is.
So with brand X, known to be low penetration and a loved one standing behind the perp... You'd take the shot? Not me.
So...you're saying there's a guy in front of you, he's about to shoot you dead, and you're not going to take the shot? Well, as this isn't ST&T, let's just let that one go...
Absent that scenario I want two holes per round if I can get it
Why? A person shot in the chest bleeds into the chest; not sure how he's going to bleed out any faster with an exit wound.
Or were you planning on using his blood trail to track him?
Arrows and bullets are different. If an arrow shaft remains in the wound, it can act to slow bleeding (a standard first-aid principle is that you do not remove knives or arrows from those injured by them).
However, a bullet that penetrates to (but not through) the far-side skin has done as much as it needs to; having it penetrate completely through likely buys you nothing good.
no other deer standing behind.
That's the great thing about hunting: we can pass up a shot that risks wounding a second animal. In SD, if you pass up a shot, well, I'm not sure how your being dead is necessarily going to help that person behind your attacker--but that's up to you.
When hunting, I have selected rounds that I expect to stop underneath the far hide without completely penetrating. Not so I can then take a shot with an animal behind my target...but because I might not have seen the animal behind my target.
Similarly, I'd like to pick a SD round that, if it does completely penetrate an attacker, has very little energy left over--and I'd prefer that it doesn't exit. I can't select a perfect bullet that I know will do that every time; but I can set that as my goal, and choose accordingly.
YMMV.