Ribwizzard
Member
Just too many people that refuse any real world data that is going to show that larger caliber handguns are more capable,
Why Ballistics Gel Works and Caliber Arguments are Dumb
- Thread starter kthom
- Start date
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
My experience with firearms goes back to the 1960's. Other than a few handloaders making their own there were no hollow-points. Revolver ammunition was almost exclusively lead round-nose. Semi-auto pistol ammo was almost exclusively full metal jacket.
Ammunition makers routinely published the results of their testing, which reported how many 1" pine boards were penetrated by each ammunition offering.
During the 1970's we saw the rapid rise of higher performance handgun ammunition, almost always featuring lighter weight hollow-point bullets at significantly higher velocities than previous types. Testing methods usually used clay or wet paper (newsprint or phone books soaked with water) to compare relative performance of different ammo types. At the same time we saw increasing reports of function problems with some of the new ammunition types in many common handguns.
More recently the trend has been toward so-called "ballistic gelatin". The argument in favor of this method has always been to provide a consistent medium for repeatable results in testing and comparison (but no one seems to notice that there are several sources and multiple formulations for ballistic gelatin).
Regardless of the testing methodology or medium used the results are valid only as a means of comparing certain ammunition types, specific lot numbers, fired in specific firearms, performed at certain distances on the exact same day, time, temperature, ambient humidity, and other variable factors involved in each testing session.
During and after the Second World War the US military conducted extensive testing of various ammunition types using goats, sheep, pigs (living and dead) as well as human cadavers. I have no way of knowing, but I speculate that the results obtained were no more consistent or reliable than pine boards, clay, or ballistic gelatin.
Pick what you want to rely on. For me the choice will always be absolute reliability first, then everything else as lesser priorities.
Ammunition makers routinely published the results of their testing, which reported how many 1" pine boards were penetrated by each ammunition offering.
During the 1970's we saw the rapid rise of higher performance handgun ammunition, almost always featuring lighter weight hollow-point bullets at significantly higher velocities than previous types. Testing methods usually used clay or wet paper (newsprint or phone books soaked with water) to compare relative performance of different ammo types. At the same time we saw increasing reports of function problems with some of the new ammunition types in many common handguns.
More recently the trend has been toward so-called "ballistic gelatin". The argument in favor of this method has always been to provide a consistent medium for repeatable results in testing and comparison (but no one seems to notice that there are several sources and multiple formulations for ballistic gelatin).
Regardless of the testing methodology or medium used the results are valid only as a means of comparing certain ammunition types, specific lot numbers, fired in specific firearms, performed at certain distances on the exact same day, time, temperature, ambient humidity, and other variable factors involved in each testing session.
During and after the Second World War the US military conducted extensive testing of various ammunition types using goats, sheep, pigs (living and dead) as well as human cadavers. I have no way of knowing, but I speculate that the results obtained were no more consistent or reliable than pine boards, clay, or ballistic gelatin.
Pick what you want to rely on. For me the choice will always be absolute reliability first, then everything else as lesser priorities.
size and weight (of gun) can influence one’s desire to carry and practice with said gun.
functionality and or ballistic performance matter less when gun isn’t carried religiously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
functionality and or ballistic performance matter less when gun isn’t carried religiously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. It explains how one manufacturing group conducts their tests and recovers their results. Found the video to be informative
It's my considered opinion that every shooting of a living organism is mostly just an example of one unique event. Yes, there are and can be similarities, but there are just so many variables (not the least of which is the shooter!) that about all we can say for certain is what happened in this single unique event. We pay our money, take our chances, try to own the gun that we can do the best shooting with when we practice, and hope and pray for the best if the flag ever flies for us. Thankfully, we don't get much practice or experience when we are overdosed on adrenalin! And in personal protection events, we almost always start out behind, since that event is usually precipitated by the action of the predator. But what ever we do has a better chance of helping than doing nothing at all!
Actually, since the FBI developed this protocol and set these standards over two decades ago, almost every reputable bullet/ammunition maker conducts tests and recovers bullets this way since the results are direct and comparable. They may use other testing protocols also, but the standard FBI tests are the baseline for everyone in the industry. No other test results have the same validity or deep, comparable data set as the FBI protocols.
It is not just one manufacturing group as you infer. This is practically universal.
When I worked for Barnes Bullets we had numerous tests that were simpler, faster and more cost effective. However, when we wanted to market our bullets to military, law enforcement or the public, we went to the effort and expense to use the full FBI protocol as the standard for comparison. I know for a fact the other major manufacturers in the industry do also—and have conclusions that are either the same or very similar to what was stated on the video.
686-380
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2013
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 703
I agree that ballistic gelatin is just a tool...one that is extremely easy to obtain and use. I prefer Clearballistics.com's stuff. They explain their methodology for penetration verification, according to FBI protocol. Basically, if a steel bb penetrates 3" IIRC, it's good.
One of my most popular ammo videos is for .380 in Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense and Federal HST.
Are they the bombdiggety? Well, I suppose it's up to the observer. I mean, a belly gun, after all...
One of my most popular ammo videos is for .380 in Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense and Federal HST.
Are they the bombdiggety? Well, I suppose it's up to the observer. I mean, a belly gun, after all...
bigggbbruce
Member
For the last 35 years I have carried somewhere around 30 different guns of different calibers.
In all that time I have thought about my gun/caliber, bullet type. Never have I pulled my gun and fired a round in self defense.
So if the day ever comes I'll just depend on the gun I have with me and the round in the chamber.
CA Escapee
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 836
Would you trust a source that can't spell "amount" correctly? And where are the ammunition manufacturers in the pie chart?
Bill
"Ammo"unt.
If you watch any part of the video, watch from 3:00 to 4:00, it explains the part that so many people keep getting wrong when they start bashing data mined from actual shoots.
Ballistic gel testing is about getting reliable and comparable data.
However, the performance standards law enforcement agencies (primarily the FBI) and manufacturers seek to achieve in ballistic gel were developed based on determining what loads worked consistently well in real world shoots, and then seeing how those loads performed in ballistic gel.
The ballistic gel standards have no inherent validity. Without that initial data from real world shoots, there would be no ballistic gel standard.
Ballistic gel testing is about getting reliable and comparable data.
However, the performance standards law enforcement agencies (primarily the FBI) and manufacturers seek to achieve in ballistic gel were developed based on determining what loads worked consistently well in real world shoots, and then seeing how those loads performed in ballistic gel.
The ballistic gel standards have no inherent validity. Without that initial data from real world shoots, there would be no ballistic gel standard.
As I have long maintained, all we as private citizens are trying to accomplish is making that nice fella decide he’s got something better to do at the moment than attack me or mine. Putting a couple of anything in the ten ring is generally sufficient to accomplish that . . .
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
I'm sure this will get eye rolls, but there's a video on Youtube of an interview with Martin Fackler explaining how ordnance gel came about.
Initially they were shooting pork rumps because they were seeing bullet performance using pork rumps similar to the info they gathered from autopsies of real-life shootings. They would buy the pork rumps from a butcher in San Francisco. Buying the pork was expensive and pork rumps didn't have the consistent density that was needed for testing.
So it was sort of a two step process.. pork rumps gave results close to what they were seeing in human tissue from field surveys, but pork rumps were too expensive and inconsistent, so they developed ordnance gel to consistently mimic the density of pork rumps.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
This can all be summed up in one word 'marketing'. In fact I believe the word has already been used by a member who worked for a bullet company. It's the same reason that high performance cars are tested against each other, and the results published. While it may be science it is the science of selling to the public. Convincing the public they need a car with 1,000 horsepower to go to the store.
Not quite.
Marketing is not always convincing someone to buy something they don’t need. Barnes marketed bullets to our military. They will buy on comparative performance and cost. Barnes had more expensive products, and our marketing began with FBI gel tests to show advantages that justified higher prices for better 5.56 ammo.
Only special groups got issued this high end stuff, because they had a more defined need, more frequent use, and more robust budgets. The field results exceeded expectations and supported increased sales.
When you really need to put the target shooting at you down quickly, and you do it often, you want the best terminal performance bullets you can afford.
Whether that attitude transfers to an individual member of the public for his/her pistol defense is a personal decision. Marketing will try to convince folks that a certain product has advantages, but given low risk factors and limited budgets, many folks realistically buy what they can afford. FBI gel tests do not make one reach into one’s wallet to shell out thousands of dollars. They give information to make informed decisions for those who care.
A majority of those who carry don’t really seem to care, or even know about ballistic testing, and they live their happy lives adequately prepared for the eventuality that will never occur anyway. High end bullet marketing has no impact on them.
Similar threads
