How do we deal with conflicting information about carry ammo performance, and have confidence in our ammo of choice? (especially regarding snub nose revolvers or other short barrel, lower velocity handguns)

I carry an snubbie LCRx with 1.87" barrel. I was over the moon when I found a box of the much coveted Speer Gold Dot "Short Barrel" 38 +P. The internet consensus seemed to be that those are the experts' choice for a little revolver. But then I came across some online articles critical of that load, such as this one, complaining about lack of expansion:http://ift.tt/2uDxzfq some YouTube videos also seemed to show there could be a problem. Now this runs contrary to what tnoutdoors9 found a little while back, where the same load did great out of his S&W snubbie, but that was only one shot tested:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k890Rio2oBYFast forward to this year and we have Lucky Gunner doing a large multifaceted test of .38 and .357 here:http://ift.tt/2w3rzQv basically confirmed that the Gold Dot in this configuration does not reliably expand, at least in the standard test format with gel medium, etc. Surprisingly enough, the "old" Remington Golden Saber rounds all expanded well in everything they shot them out of. So my Gold Dots went back in the safe and now I'm carrying the Remingtons.But at the end of the day, the information on the Gold Dots is still conflicting. Some sources found good expansion. Others did not. So to the point of this thread, how do you personally decide which ammo to carry when there doesn't seem to be a consensus, or when the consensus is now in question after later testing? This same question applies for any handgun format where expansion is dependent on bullet design due to low velocity, like .380 acp, etc. via /r/CCW http://ift.tt/2uDByst