Ammo Tests Documenting Ammunition in Gel

Years ago I looked up "Mouse" data for my 38 and 9mm weapons as well as looking at what the "Bull" had to offer with ammo his supporters sent to him to test out in a 3" 9mm.

It is nice to see gel test, mostly if not the clear jel and the tan stuff made with pig parts that is more like the FBI materials.....
unless the new clear has been improved.

The Tennessee gentleman uses the Pig gel in his test, also an interesting site.
 
Shot placement trumps everything else. Just ask that stalwart of tactics, Joe Biden. But I understand the need for gel tests by the ammo engineers. They need to have something to be able to quantify their bullet designs. I think what happens is that the shooting community tends to fixate on those results to predict how efficiently a bullet will perform in a human when they really only predict how a bullet will act in ballistic gel. There are so many factors in a gunfight that will never be able to be accounted for by any type of static test. That’s why you cannot just say that you should use any particular bullet or caliber based on the gel test alone. And when you factor in all of the politics involved in the decision of what gun and load should be selected by a large agency like the FBI, there is precious little real information that is applicable to individuals. For me, I like to look at the gel tests from the real ballistic engineers, like that Federal guy. Most of the YouTube stuff is narcissists with a video camera and an internet connection and should be dismissed on its face. I stick to the idea that big bullets make big holes and little bullets make little holes and shot placement is the most important factor in a gunfight.
 
Last edited:
Again, people not understanding the reason for gel tests. chief38 got it. They're designed to compare bullets. You take bullets that have a solid track record in actual shootings, shoot those in gel, and that becomes the model performance ammo designers aim for (pun intended... ;) ). The 12-18" parameter popularized by the FBI isn't based on actual penetration in people. A round that meets that parameter is more likely to penetrate deeply enough in people to be effective while minimizing the risk for overpenetration.

The gel is a standardized method for comparison, something you can't get with meat models because of all the possible variation in tissue density/elasticity, bone density, organ placement, level of decay, etc. Not to mention any variation between dead tissue and living tissue.

Personally, I prefer to know how rounds perform in actual shootings, which is why I use Gold Dot and HST ammo. They've established a solid track record in the calibers I use. But gel tests can be valuable if you remember they're designed as a means of standardized comparison, and a measure of potential performance in real world situations.
 
ContinentalOp said:
Again, people not understanding the reason for gel tests. chief38 got it. They're designed to compare bullets. You take bullets that have a solid track record in actual shootings, shoot those in gel, and that becomes the model performance ammo designers aim for (pun intended... ;) ). The 12-18" parameter popularized by the FBI isn't based on actual penetration in people. A round that meets that parameter is more likely to penetrate deeply enough in people to be effective while minimizing the risk for overpenetration.

The gel is a standardized method for comparison, something you can't get with meat models because of all the possible variation in tissue density/elasticity, bone density, organ placement, level of decay, etc. Not to mention any variation between dead tissue and living tissue.

Personally, I prefer to know how rounds perform in actual shootings, which is why I use Gold Dot and HST ammo. They've established a solid track record in the calibers I use. But gel tests can be valuable if you remember they're designed as a means of standardized comparison, and a measure of potential performance in real world situations.
Click to expand...


You have me wondering if there are any rounds with a solid track record that perform poorly in gel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cmj8591 said:
Shot placement trumps everything else. Just ask that stalwart of tactics, Joe Biden. But I understand the need for gel tests by the ammo engineers. They need to have something to be able to quantify their bullet designs. I think what happens is that the shooting community tends to fixate on those results to predict how efficiently a bullet will perform in a human when they really only predict how a bullet will act in ballistic gel. There are so many factors in a gunfight that will never be able to be accounted for by any type of static test. That’s why you cannot just say that you should use any particular bullet or caliber based on the gel test alone. And when you factor in all of the politics involved in the decision of what gun and load should be selected by a large agency like the FBI, there is precious little real information that is applicable to individuals. For me, I like to look at the gel tests from the real ballistic engineers, like that Federal guy. Most of the YouTube stuff is narcissists with a video camera and an internet connection and should be dismissed on its face. I stick to the idea that big bullets make big holes and little bullets make little holes and shot placement is the most important factor in a gunfight.
Click to expand...

Yes, learn to shoot well. Far, far more important than sterile bullet testing, but it requires a lot of work. Because of that necessary effort, shooting skill always seems to take a very secondary place, if it's even mentioned at all. There is likely a usefulness to gel shooting, though limited and lesser it may be.
 
pittpa said:
You have me wondering if there are any rounds with a solid track record that perform poorly in gel.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen results myself, but I have read that the .38 Special 125gr Nyclad performed better in the street than the gel results would suggest. Since I favor street results, I've carried Nyclads before, still have a few boxes left, and it's still my first choice for a low-recoil self defense load. Unfortunately, it was discontinued a few years ago.

Some people have said that the Speer 135gr SB-GDHP +P barely meets the FBI standards in some gel tests, and fails in others, but it has an excellent track record in actual shootings and as a result is typically the number one recommended snubby load. It's what I currently have in my 642s.

Those are the only ones I can think of offhand that may qualify.
 
Gel will never be a standardized method of testing until the gel everyone uses is itself standardized...its PR hype until then and acting like it means a damn thing about how any given shot is going to effect any given threat is totally bogus. Its certainly not the end all be all of choosing a carry ammo.
 
uncleted327 said:
Gel will never be a standardized method of testing until the gel everyone uses is itself standardized...its PR hype until then and acting like it means a damn thing about how any given shot is going to effect any given threat is totally bogus. Its certainly not the end all be all of choosing a carry ammo.
Click to expand...

But its visually entertaining as opposed to dry, boring charts and graphs.

As hairless apes we are visual creatures, probably rooted in that part of our African ancestor's brain as they descended from the trees and stood upright to watch for predators a million years ago.
 
The problem with relying on "streets" as a source is how many things can be misrepresented; both intentionally and unintentionally.

You see something happen, but you dont know why it happened.

Or worse

You see something happen, but because it doesnt meet your biases, it didnt happen

The link I posted above (and below) shows a comparison of Duxseal, an intact swine carcass, and a block of calibrated 10% bloom rated ordnance gelatin. Dr Fackler (RIP) is the shooter. FirearmsID.com - Ballistic Gelatin

And then we have the work of Gene Wolberg, at San Diego County. He pulled bullets, in this study, the Winchester 147gr JHP (Super-X), fired by LE into badguys. He measured the bullet penetration and expansion of the rounds pulled from bodies. Then fired the same bullet into proper gelatin.

http://www.lignod.com/winchester_9mm.pdf


Here's another pertinent link:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a446543.pdf
 
Muss Muggins said:
Then why don’t we just use pig carcasses?
Click to expand...

Bullet penetration on living animals and dead ones is very different.

Living tissue is much more resistant to penetration.

before live animal penetration test were banned in the US pigs were the animal of choice.
 
Last edited:
ruggyh said:
before live animal penetration test were banned in the US pigs were the animal of choice.
Click to expand...

And goats

We used goats at the Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston, TX. Combat Casualty Care Course, I was an instructor there. Way back when.

Used anesthetized goats and fired single .223 round into their hindquarters so docs could practice wound debridement on living tissue.

Healty tissue twitches when you cut around the wound, so you get a fell of how to clean it up.

Did a dozen other operative procedures after that, all the while keeping animal alive and under sedation.

Oh yeah, we had 60 Minutes crews hanging around, and protestors.

Just another day on the job for us. Camp Bullis TX was our real base where we did lots more fun things like rappelling and explosions, field work, good times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SGT ROCK 11B
Short Barrel Ammunition?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Autonomous
Autonomous
C
Crazy ammo manufacturing in "Serbia" (Actually Pakistan).
Replies
2
Views
583
Nick B
N
ISCS Yoda
Ammunition choice - dead horse, maybe - J frames only - .38 Specials only
2
Replies
35
Views
864
ISCS Yoda
ISCS Yoda
Narragansett
Steel Cased Ammo
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
old tanker
old tanker
Narragansett
Ammo Scams
Replies
17
Views
1K
rwsmith
rwsmith

Latest posts

Back
Top