Schwartz's model clearly allows the entry of differing bullet weights, velocities and recovered diameters which would produce entirely different yields.
I think if you re-read the quoted section, you'll see what I actually said. It certainly had nothing to do with claiming his model wouldn't allow the entry of differing bullet weights and velocities nor that it wouldn't produce different yields for differing inputs. Obviously it does and I haven't claimed otherwise.
If you apply the model to a .45-caliber 230 gr. FMJ at 850 fps and a 9mm 124 gr. FMJ at 1120 fps, both of which are "outwardly identical",
How is a .451" bullet weighing 230grains and traveling at 850fps "outwardly identical" to a bullet with a diameter 22% smaller, that is 46% lighter and going 32% faster?
That's an awfully huge misrepresentation.
It's not a misrepresentation at all. Which of those assumptions "carefully characterizes the material strength of the bullet"? It's a stretch to say that they "characterize the material strength of the bullet" at all, let alone that they do so carefully. Basically all the information he gets about the material strength of the bullet is from the deformation measurement, and even that's subject to the assumptions you list.
This is not correct. The model also uses the mass of the bullet and its impact velocity to calculate penetration and permanent cavity mass.
It IS correct in the context of the sentence you quoted. Here it is again with emphasis added.
"What I didn't understand before reading the book was that he wasn't even using penetration figures from the water testing, he's only using the expanded bullet diameter created by firing into water."
I understand that he's using the mass and impact velocity and my comments elsewhere in this thread make that plain. I correctly listed the parameters he uses twice in post 177 of this thread.
What I was pointing out is that the only input he uses that is actually derived from the water testing is the expanded diameter.
With all due respect, I could not help but notice that you'd managed to completely "side-step" answering these questions in your latest response.
My last post contained nearly 200 words devoted to addressing the use of a correlation coefficient to attempt to validate the model results.
Besides, if you go back to the context of my original comment, it was this: "You have to have some sort of empirical data, provided by water penetration testing in this case, to give you some inkling of how to quantify those things."
That is a true statement. The model requires the expanded bullet diameter and retained bullet weight derived from empirical data that is generated by the water testing.
Frankly, I'm impressed that his results are as good as they are given the limited inputs to the model. I think that if he had included penetration figures from the water testing, instead of just taking the expanded diameter and retained weight from the testing results he could have made the model outputs even better.