When it comes to handgun ammunition selection, following shot placement, I was always told that penetration was the most important factor in bullet performance. I'm only considering tests results from Doc Roberts (and a few select others). We know they used proper testing protocol and their results are valid.
Now, keeping calibers the same and after passing through various barriers, once the bullet reaches the 12" to 18" window and stops, does where it stops matter? At this point (bullet is within the 12" to 18" range), do we start to look at other factors when making a carry decision? Factors such as expanded diameter, retained weight, accuracy in your gun and in your hands, or availability and cost that translates to supply and practice?
If where the bullet stops does matter, what is the sweet spot? Is 17" better than 15"? Is 15" better than 13"? Or, on the other hand, is 13" with very large expansion and full retained weight better than 17" with less expansion or some jacket separation?
I'm not looking to nit pick my ammo choices. After much reading of Doc's posts and the posts of several others, followed by range testing in my guns, I have settled on HSTs in my 9mm and WCs in my airweight. I understand practice is still the key to performance, and I'm not looking at changing things. I simply wanted to understand what the performance data really means. I've frequently wondered if more penetration (within that 6" window) was always better, or if all we want is ammunition that reaches a certain minimum without over penetrating, and anything within that range was equaslly as good.