Ya, the whole energy dump concept is a bit of a myth and the more that the effects of bullets are studied, the more we realize how they kill. I do find it fiunny that Justin is arguing that a shallow penetrating bullet is more effective when he likes the Berger. The Berger is actually designed for deep penetration at long ranges, creating a wide temporary wound channel. It is the fragmentation (loss of mass) that prevents the Berger from passing right through in many cases but as with all bullets, it's the hole that kills and in the case of the Berger, the secondary damage caused by the fragmentation. After watching the video, I see Justin was just parroting what he saw in the video about ethics. The thing he forgot was to add the phrase long-range.

The Berger is effective at long range because it retains velocity well because of its high BC. It quite simply strikes with more velocity, indeed making it a great long-range choice. That hardly makes other bullets unethical within their performance envelope though.

Energy on its own rarely kills but a hole through vital blood supply or organ always does. Deep penetrating bullets make deep holes and the long wound channel allows for more widely spread area of shock...basically a one-two punch. Just because a bullet doest stop dead inside of an animal does not mean there is not considerable temporary shock to surrounding tissue. That's what deep penetrating bullets do. Trying to meaasure energy dump and equate it to killing power just doesn't work. There is far more going on along the wound channel than a simple energy dump.