Well, I'll take some heat on this but Sherman Bell's tests are also malarkey. They're 'better than nothing', perhaps, but anyone with any knowledge of testing and statistics would know that his tests are too uncontrolled and have too small a sample group to be meaningful.
No heat from me, just an observation. Sherman Bell himself points out that his data is not exhaustive, it is just the results of that test on that particular gun. His work remains the best that we have because doing destructive testing on a large sample of a limited resource isn't possible.
