Not meaning to cause a ruckus, but read my prior post.

All this talk about energy is irrelevant unless bullet construction is somehow factored into a mathematical formula, a requirement that none of the formulas {except Taylor, but only sort-of as JPK identifies}.

That is why comparing cartridges by kinetic energy sometimes DOES lead to accurate predictions of performance on game. None of the formulas are always accurate predictors.

Personally, my own favored mathematical formula has always been Elmer Keith's formula, but I have to admit that it too fails at times.

Apart form game shooting, quantifying performance in a repeatable test media is thus my own personal preference, tho it, too fails if consensus cannot be obtained as to what represents proper test media, and obviously it fails to predict performance of un-tested loads which is what the math formulas attempt to do. In the pistol world, Evans, Sanow & Marshall arguments arise even in the face of both street shooting and ballistic media testing.

Use of any mathematical formula is at best a general, "sort-of", "kind-of", "maybe" tool for determining "stopping power", whatever "stopping power" is {need for another agreed-upon definition yet again...

}

In the final analysis, field shooting is the only way to KNOW how a load will perform, and even that requires a fairly large number of shots-on-game in order to form the basis of semi-accurate predictions if an unknown {like a different species of game, radically different shot angle, etc} is injected into the discussion.

Thus the value of cold beer and campfires!!

Discuss away, I'm sure the answer is soon forthcoming!!