If all else remains equal, even your precious KE, the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper. Period. End of discussion.
The problem with that statement is that it is predicated upon an impossibility, i.e. "all else remains equal, even ... KE" ... but somehow we can change mass (or weight) without altering them.
There is no such state of affairs possible in the universe we inhabit.
You cannot have two objects exhibiting all of the same factors: size, shape, velocity, & KE ... but differing only in mass (or weight). It's
impossible, as mass, velocity and KE are linked.
Any logic which depends upon the existence of an impossibility is meaningless.
That's just reality. That's the universe we all live in, whether we like it or not, and whether we understand it or not. It's
inescapable. A failure to understand this simple truth is a failure to understand this topic at its most elementary level.
Taylor's formula was intended as a way to compare big bore cartridges utilizing heavy, non-expanding bullets to each other. When expanding bullets or high velocity, small bore cartridges come into the mix, it's simply not applicable.
It's not a problem of range or scale. Taylor's formula is nonsense, and does not even repeatably predict the terminal ballistics of rifle cartridges. Every attempt to replicate Taylor's data has failed. That's just a fact.
This article gets it pretty much right: LINK
"... Promotion of this formula is a prime example of the careless way in which a quasi-scientific method is seized upon, even though the originator may reject that purpose to which it is put.
Taylor’s use of bullet diameter, instead of cross sectional area, is in fact mathematically incorrect, as a bullet having twice the diameter to a smaller one has in fact more than twice the cross sectional area. ..."
The last part of that quote is important, as it exhibits clearly that Taylor did not even understand the most basic physical properties involved ... kind of a common thread in this discussion.
It's always interesting when a math/physics nerd thinks he knows better about terminal ballistics.
For the record, I am a test engineer and metrologist, which means I am sort of an expert in how you measure things. I don't simply sit behind a computer all day doing math. Most of the time I have my hands on real things, figuring out how they really work, how to make them work better (or determining why they don't). Call me whatever name you choose, if it makes you feel better. I find it amusing when people who don't understand physics think they understand terminal ballistics (which can be said plainly without stooping to the level of schoolyard name-calling). My participation here is not a matter of chest-puffery or one-upmanship.
Whatever your pet hypothesis is, it cannot operate contrary to the physical laws of the known universe. That's not open to debate, unless we're talking miracles and magic.