Originally Posted by
jd950
That is true. On the other hand, this is the ammunition forum, so it would seem to me that discussing ammo performance and characteristics, and changes in a particular brand's performance over time is an appropriate topic here. I feel it is reasonable and worthwhile to discuss a particular loading when knowledgeable start talking about a load that has been well-regarded for years and is "on the list" and say things like:
"I'm not a fan and neither was the range staff due to some issues in shootings with it"
"I watched the 147 HST go through auto glass and lodge base first only a few inches into the gel. The original loading was known for opening to a very large diameter. The new version isn't opening as large or at all after heavy clothing. Something that seems to be happening on our streets as well."
"We were seeing some them not expanding and pass throughs. We had several shootings with them since we switched to the 9mm. I don’t have an exact number. We wanted something more consistent."
"This used to be my go-to recommendation for short 9mm pistols. For several years. Now, not so much. I used to be able to do demo test shots in my small pistols class to show what we want to see from a good bullet design. Typically in Clear Gel, which I use just as an illustration, the HSTs and Gold Dots expand nicely through four layer denim, run the length of the block, and stop on the "clothing" I have on the back side to catch them. Over the past year I've been seeing failures from the 147gr HST, as in they completely fail to expand, thus act like a FMJFP."
So, yes, it is the shooter that matters more than the ammo, but if a "recommended" load has been changed by the mfr and now is likely to fail to expand in real world scenarios, then that is a discussion well-suited to the forum.
Besides, many people have to spend their own money on ammo, and if a shopper is standing in the store with a box of brand X in one hand and brand Y in the other and they both are going to cost that shopper something like $.80 per round, and one of those brands now sucks, then I suspect that shopper would like to know this stuff, and if he or she is going to make a decision based on Doc's "list" and one of those rounds really should not be on that list anymore, then we are doing a disservice to that person by not discussing the situation.