500 Grains:

There is something you need to clarify for me?

You state that based on your observation the FN projectile makes a "better" wound cavity than the RN projectile and that the FN projectile penetrates deeper than the RN projectile.

On AR and on different occasion you then claim this is due to a Supercavitation bubble?

Based on the science of cavitation and cavitation regimes projectiles showing stable penetrating phenomena do so based on two principles.

One is due less drag, in part due to more favourable cavitation regimes, the other because of angle of attack stability ( shoulder stabilization).

Now for the asked clarification ?

Supercvitation or simply cavitation leads to reduced drag and that in turn leads to smaller temporary cavities ( temporary cavitation is directly drag related, the bigger the drag the bigger the cavity and vise versa) so that if we assume that supercvitation is in fact a fact in soft solids the FN projectile would have less drag, thus better penetration but the caveat is a smaller cavitation thus not better wound channels ?

So whilst a super cavitating or simply cavitating body penetrates better it does so at expense of drag and a smaller temporary wound channel
( not that temporary wound channel does any harm in soft solids )

So what causes your observed better wound channels,?

surely not better cavitation regimes ????

, could it not be that the FN has better angle of attack stability due to shoulder stabilization ? or alternately that the sharp cutting edges intuitively shows a cleaner more defined wound permanent wound channel. ( in reality though RN projectiles dont have the clean cut appearence of FN projectiles all tissue contacted by the leading edge of the projectile is in fact toast so that the cavities in reality are all the same when observed under the microscope )