Here’s some interesting gelatin tests with common handgun SD rounds:

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge...-defense-ammo/

I have yet to meet a person that was made of gelatin.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Me either, but what’s that have to do with performing repeatable comparisons of bullet performance, then evaluating the results against a standard that’s been found to be an effective way to identify rounds that do work for self defense against real humans, not ones made of gelatin?

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Ballistic gel tests are nice indicators of the relative performance of ammo, but they should not be considered as the ultimate indicator of how that ammo will perform outside of such tests.

I picked my ammo on how it was reported to work for Police. New York PD reported they were happy with the way Speer Gold Dot 135gr. +P stoped the bad guys. Good enough for me.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

It’s also one of only a couple .38 special rounds tested in the link in the OP that passed the FBI penetration/expansion criteria. Sort of an interesting coincidence, no?

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I understand they were having problems getting live human volunteers for the test. I can see why.

Long post.

When I started seeing posts on gun forums about the whole "the FBI test said this, the FBI test said that" I dug into it a bit. As a layman, this is my take on the "FBI gel test". Also, seems like there's a few retired FBI agents on the board. Maybe they'll chime in.

The FBI wanted a way to identify pistol rounds that would perform well in shootings. They did three things.

1) They identified rounds that were known good performers like the .357 magnum SJSP and .45 ACP JHP.

2) They had the science guys create a repeatable medium (ordnance gel, not ballistic gel - they're different) with a density kind of/sort of similar to human tissue. It wasn't supposed to be an exact replica, but enough like human tissue that expansion would be similar to human tissue. Better than using wet phone books or bottles of soda.

3) They came up with a number of tests to test penetration under various conditions (through sheet metal, through clothing, etc.). From what I recall reading, the 4 layer denim test was added latter based on some Calif. police dept testing.

They found against clothing that the known good rounds penetrated 12" to 18" in the calibrated ordnance gel and expanded to something like .5" or .6". They said if a new round passed that test, it would LIKELY also perform well against a human threat.

The test was designed to only look at the impact of the gel on the bullet, not the bullet on the gel , and only on expanding bullets. When you see people compare the damage a round does to the gel ("look at that stretch cavity") the gel wasn't designed for that kind of test. Also with non-expanding rounds like the Lehigh Xtreme Defender, it will test penetration, but the gel wasn't designed to evaluate tissue destruction. That's not saying they're not great bullets, but from what I understand, that's not what the gel was designed for.

That's what I found as a layman when I looked into the "FBI test." Always looking for better info. Flame away.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Sigh. Lighten up fellas, I was just having some fun.


Me too. The day we stop learning, is the day we die. Some people have died long before they were buried.

Yes, I was poking fun in my last post, but I also find it funny that we put so much value in a test using a medium that is only marginally representative of a bad guy. Think about it, the standard for penetration in gel is 18" to be considered an effective round. Why is that? Most people aren't 18" thick. The reason is, if it penetrates that much in gel, then it might penetrate enough in a bad guy.

They use gel because it's easy to see what the round did.

Years ago they did testing with pig cadavers. That's a far better analog to a human. The problem is it's difficult to see all the damage. Also, from a testing perspective, it's not consistent from pig to pig. And, pigs are expensive.

So, they use gel. It's consistent, it's easy to see the bullet track and it's relatively inexpensive.

The point of this diatribe? We put too much value in testing like this. Every round tested in that article will do the job. Every round that will fit in the chamber of your gun will do the job. If we spent as much time practicing as we do reading articles like this, we'd be far more effective with our guns and the slight differences in rounds wouldn't matter at all.

If you do an honest, no kidding correlation to find the significant difference between one hollow point vs another, you'll find there isn't one.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Good points. There's a video on YouTube of Martin Fackler when he was at the Army Wounds Ballistic Lab at Letterman discussing how they did do the correlation of ordnance gel to the performance on pig cadavers when they were developing the recipe for the gel. Also, IIRC, the Army tested penetration/expansion on live (anesthetized) goats and got similar results to the ordnance gel.

ETA - one of the things I remember from the Fackler video is if you can’t get both penetration and expansion in a round, pick penetration over expansion.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Way back I remember the goat test..............
so did a lot of animal lovers.

At least we have not been marched on by Jello lovers, yet !!

Gotta go with Rastoff on this one.

If you haven't met a person made of gelatin ... what planet are you on?

__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy

OK, now that's just funny right there.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

You see them on CSPAN all the time.

I found it curious that the .38 Special data didn't include +P 158 grain LSWCHP, which has been a standby for many of us for a long time. I've carried it for twenty years, and trust it, though increasingly there are nay-sayers.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

many thanks for posting this. saved for future reference.

Anyone else read about the Thompson-LeGrand tests? Wouldn't be able to those tests nowdays. Also I don't think any of the rounds tested were even soft point let alone hollow point. But we got the .45 ACP out of it.

Thing to remember about all of this, don't just look at the averages, go into every test that interests you and look at the performance of each of the five bullets in the test. Then compare them to tests from other sources, LuckyGunner did this before and had a better setup all in all for their main page of comparison, as well as Youtube, ammunition manufacturers, ect. Bullets don't respond to aggregate averages, each bullet performs on its own, and the bullet that might end the fight to save your life is the one that will count, not the 60% that worked in the gel test, and might be the failing round that fails in real life like how it failed the IWBA minimums 40% of the time in the blocks.

As for "any round will do the job" I disagree. If this wasn't an issue, there woudldn't be the work in this field that there is, bullets can and do fail to stop people NOT always because of shot placement, but because poor loads and bullets will, themselves, fail. Talking about shot placement is the ONLY thing is changing the subject and not discussing the one at had, terminal ballistics. Saying "any round will do" is often sour grapes by people who defend poor choices after empirical evidence says that choice is inferior to others, or simply a poor choice. If you are going to actually take the time to choose high end self ammunition, at least take it seriously.

As for gel, it is the only standard medium we have for consistent results. Meat does not work as tissue breaks down after death, after an animal on the rack, or the roast in the package, sits long enough it breaks down to the point its not like a real animal, and its skin and connective tissues are not there. Veal or high end steer that has been on a rack for three weeks is going to react different than a roast you carve out of a bull that you had to shoot yesterday. Pork will behave differently enough from lamb or beef that it might affect results. Rather than being a "better" medium for tests than gel, it is vastly inferior. Barring live test subjects, it is the best we have.

Lastly, come into this with an open and analytical mindset, not one of defending your cartridge/bullet choices. These tests are useful scientific material if you are open to understanding them.

Some good info there, thanks.

__________________
No baby we aint

ln 1873 the US ARMY wanted a 45 caliber round capable of penetrating

a horse @ 100 yards and killing an lndian on the other side.

The end result was a 255gr conical lead boolit @850fps delivered by

Sam Colts' Model P SAA... After almost 150 years the 45 COLT is still

KING.. lts still the ''GOLD STANDARD'' by which all other handgun rounds

are judged... ln fact that same mindset was the GOAL for the 45ACP....

Minus the horse tho. l don't know about you, but the proof of the 45's

performance to ME is the MILLIONS of DEAD lndians, Germans, Japanese,

Viet Kong, Chinese, Koreans, lraqis, Filipinos, and COUNTLESS bad guys

over the past 150 years. All these dead guys CAN'T be wrong

I choose my carry ammo based solely on internet polls of "What's the 'best' carry ammo?"

That was also a reason that I chose that load for my 640-1.


OH, I had forgotten about that test. I still have the book that contains the results. Yep, that was back when I was studying the "one shot stop" and searching for that magical caliber/bullet. LOL!

The reason for the 12-18" standard is that is has to allow for shots from imperfect angles, such as the side, that have to penetrate arm muscle and bone and still get through the ribs and get to the necessary soft tissue (organs) to have effect.

Placement is still the first and foremost consideration. A heck of a lot of shots to non-vital areas might make an offender bleed to death in 20 minutes, but that doesn't help when they get off the last shot or stab that kills someone 10 seconds into the last 1200 seconds of their life.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I always look for this as well. The FBI liked it just fine.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the "FBI load" today. Remington Winchester and Federal all made versions of it, but there's always debate about whether the original FBI load fell under the modern 20,000 psi SAAMI pressure limit for .38 Special +P and whether current copies perform like the original. And of course the composition of the lead alloy
, the shape of the cavity and the lubricant are all important factors.

It would be great to see how modern factory .38 Special +P 158 gr LSCWHP loads compare to more modern hollow point loads.

I used their contact section to drop them a line and asked for the modern versions of these loads to be included. If enough of us ask, maybe they'll update it to include at last one of them.

Not in the above test, but I thought the Remington HTP 158 grain +P LSWCHP was Remington's modern version of the FBI load.

Luckygunner tested the Remington HTP here (you have to scroll down a bit) ...
Lucker Gunner Revolver Test

It didn't expand from a 2" barrel, but did pretty good from a 4" barrel. Also, almost the exact same result for the Winchester Super-X 158 grain +P LSWCHP.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I've seen that. I have some of the older, livelier Remington FBI load, before they watered it down a bit; but what I carry these days in a 2" J-frame is Buffalo Bore's standard pressure version of the load, which clocks identically to the good old Remington but with reduced flash and a gas-checked bullet. I use it in a 4" K-frame as well.

The +P BB rendition is near low-end .357 velocity, and my arthritic hands don't handle that much recoil anymore.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

THANKS FOR SHARING THIS, jtcarm.....

IT IS THE MOST EXHAUSTIVE, AND INFORMATIVE TEST OF SD AMMO, THAT I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED........

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

I carry a Hornady 125 XTP .357 Magnum load that gives me 1,200 fps in my 2 1/2" Model 66 and 686+. It's in the sweet spot for good expansion and optimum penetration, and it's still fairly light recoil for a .357 Magnum load.

I've been playing with Hornady's swaged 158 gr LSWCHPs load in .38 Special brass at velocities of 960 fps in the same K and L frame .357 Magnum revolvers. 7.5 grs of HS-6 gets me the 960 fps in a 2.5" Model 686+ but it's probably running well above the .38+P pressure spec at around 25,000 psi, so it's a .38 +P+ or .38/44 load, and would be a ".357 Magnum revolver only" load.

The recoil velocity, impulse and energy are almost identical, and the points of impact are close so it's a great low cost practice round. At that velocity I've found I need to use Liquid Alox to augment the lube that is on them or I get excessive leading after about 12 rounds. Two light coats of Liquid Alox gives me great accuracy and no leading.

But, I'm also curious how well that load would perform in ballistic gel as the Hornady bullet is basically a complete unknown in terms of expansion. It's a soft lead swaged bullet, but the cavity is small relative to the bullets used in the other FBI loads. I may have to explore this with some gel tests of my own.

Thanks for the link. The results are interesting. What bothers me about them is the number of hollow points that had very little deformation. I hope that is a result of the use of the gelatin, but how do we know? How do the bullet manufacturers test their products?

__________________
Tom

There is a very specific protocol for making the gelatin and firing the rounds through the various barriers. I've seen it; I think Gary Roberts has discussed it in one or more posts on forums more directed at cops and to some extent the military (different needs and goals, different training, so often not the same performance attributes are being sought).

Plug this search into your favorite search engine and see what you get: "Gary Roberts ballistics". I didn't take the time to read the results, but I am sure you would find a lot of useful information/guidance there, likely including the specific test protocols.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

One of these days I'm sure we'll encounter hostile extraterrestrial lifeforms of similar consistency which will render such test 100% indicative of the sort of results one can expect from ammunition against said creatures.

That being said, until the day comes in which the prison system becomes so hopelessly crowded that registered sex offenders are used for ammo testing, Ballistics Gel is the most useful test medium we have available.

I use gel tests and police selection when I consider my self defense ammo.

Here is a very good explanation of who, why, and how ballistic gel is used and considered the standard.

http://www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/Ba...n%20Report.pdf

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Lets face it..........

when the smoke clears, it depends if you are lucky enough to survive the battle.

Good or bad bullets......
number of bullet hits....
or just dumb luck or the man upstairs, helping out........

If you get to see the next sunrise..............
you did well.

I would rather walk away if possible , but..........
if not, tight groups to all.

I did Google "Gary Roberts Ballistics" and found way too much information. I did, however, read a discussion of 9mm tests that indicated the Hornady HP being tested failed the test. No problem. The Hornady rep brought in replacement ammo and it passed.
My concern is not the use of gelatin, but whether all these sources are doing it the same way with the same materials. A great source of data would be the slugs removed from perps that were shot by police with known ammo. I think the agencies would find that valuable. Can you officers comment?

__________________
Tom

Yeah, a LOT of politicians fit that gelatin description, IMO

Not an officer, but from what I read, when they did the original testing, that was how they identified the initial "good" rounds they built the gel testing around. Autopsy results and field reviews.

But... moving forward from that, without some kind of standardized testing, how would that work as bullet technology improved and you wanted to understand how a new round performed compared to the existing ones? How would LEA's know whether to select or reject a new product without some standardized test before they were even willing to use the new design in the field?

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I just carry what the local cops are carrying, because I can usually snag a couple hundred rounds every year or so. Lately, it's Hornady Critical Duty 9mm 135 Grain FlexLock and Hornady .223 55 Grain TAP URBAN . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I recently witnessed a demo of Buffalo Bore’s two different LSWCHP loads, standard and +P.

The test was a 16” block of clear gel behind four layers of denim. A second block was behind the first. All loads shot from 2” J-frames.

IIRC, both penetrated around 18”.
I do remember the expansion: the +P was pretty impressive (wish I’d snapped a pic). The standard pressure expanded just a little.

For point of reference, here’s a pic of the BB .38 special using the Barnes 110 lead-free bullet. The +P 158 LSWCHP expanded almost the same diameter, maybe a hair less:

IMG_0186.jpg
IMG_0187.jpg

I’ve read the Buffalo Bore +P best duplicates performance of original FBI load.

Gel tests are always fun to look at and review the results.

I usually carry a J frame and my carry round is the ubiquitous Remington 125 gr SJHP +P that can be sourced all over. Have shot tons of it and rotate my carry ammo regularly. Affordable, goes bang and likely to perform as well as anything else out of a snub.

I am ok with Boutique/High performance ammo out of a revolver since you do not need to shoot that much to prove reliability. The only concern for me is sourcing more when you need it.

I would never buy one box of high performance ammo and put it in my wonder pistol and think I am good to go. Recently, a buddy of mine stoked his G27 with Hornady Critical Duty (local police use it) ammo and thought it was good to go. Second magazine had a round hang up on the feed ramp. Not saying anything about the gun or ammo than whatever you carry in a pistol shoot a ton of it! For me I like at least 300 rounds of trouble free operation. I use Remington 115 JHP and WWB 147 gr in my 9mms and Remington or WWB 180gr in my 40s.

Here is are a couple videos that relate to this topic. I don't agree with everything Paul Harrell says but he does approach topics with a lot of Common Sense.

A question for the "old FBI load" lovers... If the old FBI load was so great why isn't the FBI still using it?

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

They no longer issue 38s. ?

But if the .38 with the 'Old FBI Load" was so effective they would not need .40s, .45s or 9mm in plastic guns.
6 rounds of the "Old FBI Load" should be more than enough.
Look at the money that they could have saved.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

They have compared autopsy to gel tests, thus why there is enough faith put into the gel tests because soft tissue performance is usually quite close. The other problem with autopsy is that it only looks into the people the bullets worked on, it doesn't tell the story of the bullet that failed. That poor performing, under penetrating bullet that was shot at a flat angle with a short depth to vital and well placed right into the heart puts a man on a slab in one instance, and Johnny Shill will poke his finger into the short wound channel and chortle "Hurr it killed dis guy, gud performer, hurrr" while another suspect who was shot with the bullet going through the arm before hitting the torso at a wrong angle and not putting him down is sitting in the emergency room getting stitches and its the cop/civilian using the poor performing round whos on the slab next to the guy your poking your finger into.

I remember the saying somewhere that "Fate is claiming all your successes and none of your failures". Autopsies are only done on bullets that work well, and even then they must be taken with a grain of salt. So, the bullet worked this time, but what happens if the situation changed? The bullet was lodged in the man's heart, but it was an ideal shot and angle, you can also surmise that if circumstances were even a little different the bullet would have stopped short of the heart and things might have ended completely different. Saying that "in this case the bullet worked, so it proves the bullet is great 100%" is just nonsense confirmation bias. Its the kinda idiocy 22lr people use to defend poor choices, "well it dun killed this guy, must be a good cartridge choice hurr hurr", always looking at the success and never claiming a single failure.

Wither it be examinations of dead, wounded, or gel blocks, we must still bring in objective mindsets and ANALYZE the results and not just +1 or -1 the results. Maybe a poor bullet worked in this case, but even the evidence in this successful +1 case of the bullet shows evidence it could have failed and is a poor performer. Maybe a good bullet that fails to stop an attacker will show signs that it has great potential by the way it did work even though it hit nothing vital due to shot placement and one would count it as a -1 on its record for "shots to stop". Analyze WHAT the bullet did, not just if the guy is on the slab or not as "proof enough".

Also, legal red tape makes autopsy and medical records sometimes hard to access, privacy and sealed documents. Also many autopsies don't detail much of what is of interest to the field of terminal performance, some coroners aren't even medical people at all. You might get something use out of a doctor who pulled a slug from someone, but the paper trail may be useless. Gel blocks have none of these issues.

Gel blocks are thus a useful and accurate enough testing medium to use for purposes of evaluating and testing new ammunition before it hits the streets. If they fail on the streets then back to the drawing board after the fact. If they sync up with the successful gel tests as billed by the manufacturer it both validates the round and the gel tests.

But, of course, don't let all that fool you into thinking the tests have any value because YOUR choice of round didn't do well in them.

FBI requirements for a carry gun and ammo are different than a civilian. Most civilian "gunfights" are over after a few shots are fired, while the FBI might get into a protracted battle.

And remember all the FBI research since the 80s (I've read all of it I can find) says the key to stopping a bad guy is a hit to the central nervous system, so penetration and shot placement are the most important factors by far. 9mm penetrates plenty, so LEAs have moved back down to 9mm from 40 S&W, and standard 9mm ballistics are not all that different from the FBI load.

As a civilian, I carry revolvers. If I were a LEO and was in the business of stopping bad guys, I'd carry a high capacity auto, a BUG, and a bunch of magazines.

Did you notice the " " ? I was trying to poke some fun at the "Old FBI Load" is the greatest thing since sliced bread folks.

For the record, I carry either a 9mm or .45ACP with HST or Gold Dots.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

Or under the influence of drugs; e.g., PCP.

Semis have rendered revolvers obsolete.

There are a couple good points in here.

First, the key word is "might". FBI agents and LEOs in general tend to go into places looking for potentially armed criminals, execute warrants, etc, where there is a potential for multiple suspects and protracted engagements. However, a few years ago the FBI studied 12 years of agent involved shoots and found that 75% involved 3 shots or less at 3 yards or less and revised their qualification course accordingly.

That other 25% however is still significant as the Q course includes 10 rounds fired at the 15 yard line, another 10 rounds at the 25 yard line as well as a mandatory reload in the middle of the 8 rounds fired in 8 seconds at the 7 yard line.

But none the less even today, the old 3" Model 13 would seem to suffice a least 75% of the time, and probably closer to 90% of the time with no need for a reload.

Second, armed citizens should not be going into scary places looking for bad people but instead should be using good judgement and good situational awareness to avoid those situations. They also won't be kicking in doors, and are unlikely to be facing multiple assailants. Consequently, a 5, 6 or 7 shot revolver is still a very viable option for self defense.

Well obsolete, no, less useful, yes. Never underestimate a good shooter with a revo, kill you just as dead, just as fast. He will just take a little bit longer to reload. Where the revo shines is raw power. A 44mag or heavy 45colt in the hands of a skilled shooter, delivers a lot of whack for those 6rds.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO