Why Ballistics Gel Works and Caliber Arguments are Dumb

[kthom]

This video interview presents what for me is the most intelligent, logical, and seemingly scientific explanation of the correlation between ballistic gel comparisons and results of actual documented results of deaths or stoppages of deadly force applied to the human body.

The value of this knowledge when used to compare bullets and calibers against each other, as well as the correlating actual data from use in deadly force events seems very compelling. I present it to allow you to consider for your own selves and see if it also makes sense to you. If you feel as I have stated above, after having heard what is presented in this video, it will give more credence to my own reaction to this information. Lots of us tend to feel that ballistics gel provides a medium to make some valid comparisons of one bullet or one caliber to another, but that doesn't necessarily translate to actual performace of that round in actual use. It seems that there is a strong correlation between the two, if this information presented is remotely correct!

It also explains very well the difference between handgun rounds and rifle rounds (that exceed 2200 fps of velocity, as well as the limitations for any round fired at less than that velocity. No handgun round that's useful for personal protection can come close to that velocity. You may not change your mind about calibers, and that's OK. We each must decide for ourselves what we carry and depend on. At least, if you haven't seen or heard this information from what should be a reliable source, you will have more information when you make your own choices!

Here is the link to the video:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y[/ame]

 

[bigggbbruce]

If I got in a gunfight today, I'll be tossing 230gr around..

Good enough for me.

 

[Rustyt1953]

 

[fredj338]

Gel is just a tool. Most of us will never get to shoot the dozens of large game animals with just one bullet, let alone the 100s of caliber bullet combinations to make test meaningful. So gel testing is just to compare bullets with each other. There really is no direct correlation to what will happen to the target when the bullet hits a living object.
I have found though that bullets that do well in gel or even wetpack, will do well in living targets. Expansion is very sim but because living things are not homogeneous, penetration is often much greater than gel testing.

 

[nachogrande]

DISAGREE

Ballistic gel isn't on drugs/adrenalin, doesn't possess a will to live/continue fighting, nor move around during the test firing producing unrepeatable angles of entry/exit/paths followed/deflection on bone, among other intangibles.

 

[Warren Sear]

That settles it. No further debate foreseeable.

 

[delcrossv]

Thanks for posting. As I suspected, shot placement is where it's at.

 

[Echo40]

Most of the folks who argue against the legitimacy of Ballistics Gel as a test medium tend to be the sort to turn around and present the results of shooting blocks of wet newspaper, 2x4s, or jugs of water as evidence of the effectiveness/reliability of a cartridge.

 

[Wise_A]

That settles it. No further debate foreseeable.

I see what you did there.

Most of the folks who argue against the legitimacy of Ballistics Gel as a test medium tend to be the sort to turn around and present the results of shooting blocks of wet newspaper, 2x4s, or jugs of water as evidence as of the effectiveness/reliability of a cartridge.

It's all just "Nonsense People Use To Justify Decisions They Already Made". And yes, that includes gel as well.

There are no guarantees, there is no medium that will allow you to divine what will be most effective in the situation you (probably won't ever) find yourself in. You can do everything right, attend the right classes, carry the right gun, and shoot the best ammo very accurately into the right places--and still be killed. Life just ain't fair.

Don't carry trash guns, don't handicap yourself with pointless gear selections, don't carry dumb ammo. You'll be fine. Or not.

 

[Warren Sear]

Thanks for posting. As I suspected, shot placement is where it's at.

I suppose that's true, but not easy to achieve when you are fighting for your life... Or so I've been told.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Orange is my favorite gel...

 

[Rick_A]

Really nothing ground shattering there. It's just a decent overview from some industry experts.

 

[Chief Wiggums]

Clint Smith
"I've been in alot of gunfights , none with a ** block of gell"
"They dont shoot back"

 

[6string]

There's a long history to these sort of tests.
Attached is a diagram for a test that was done in 1899 in Thun, Switzerland, using ballistic clay.
It compares the (then new) 7,65mm Luger with the 44 Russian fired in a S&W #3 revolver, using solid and hollow point ammo.

Jim

 

[Culina]

So basically if I understood what both of them were saying, pistol rounds are all basically the same, except the FN five seven since you can get those in a flavor that delivers more then 2,200 fps

 

[Pisgah]

They both clearly stated the truth -- ballistic gel tests are not an analog to shooting any organism. They are strictly a way to test the performance of one bullet to another -- in ballistic gel.

 

[sigp220.45]

That was actually pretty sensible. Thanks for posting it.

They do say they correlate results in gel to results from police shootings. The last several police shootings I worked involved .40 180 grain HST, and the bullets rooted out by the medical examiner looked very much like the ones recovered from gel.

 

[Steve912]

Most of the folks who argue against the legitimacy of Ballistics Gel as a test medium tend to be the sort to turn around and present the results of shooting blocks of wet newspaper, 2x4s, or jugs of water as evidence as of the effectiveness/reliability of a cartridge.

And don't forget them yetter guys what look at shootin's of actual
hummin beans, where actual calibers, loads and outcomes
be documented.

Why, dat be crazy!

 

[Univibe]

Thanks for posting. As I suspected, shot placement is where it's at.

Shot placement and penetration.

That's why I carry Q4318 NATO ball on the mean streets.

 

[Rastoff]

Great video. I shows that I've been right all along:

1. The most important aspect of any gun used for self-defense is functional reliability. If it don't work, nothing else matters.
2. You must be able to use the gun effectively. If you can't shoot it well or won't practice with it because it's uncomfortable, get one in a caliber that you can shoot well with and will practice with.
3. Shot placement trumps caliber. In fact, caliber is really a pointless discussion when it comes to self-defense. Pick the caliber/gun that you like and practice a lot with it.

These three things are the most important part of picking a self-defense gun. Size and weight is far down the line.

 

[Ribwizzard]

Just too many people that refuse any real world data that is going to show that larger caliber handguns are more capable,

 

[JayFramer]

If all things are equal (and they almost never are), bigger bullets don't necessarily tend to work better.

It's where you put them.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

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.

 

[peterGun]

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

 

[sotexas]

Thanks for the link. It explains how one manufacturing group conducts their tests and recovers their results. Found the video to be informative

 

[stansdds]

That was an excellent video! Thank you for posting.

 

[kthom]

I suppose that's true, but not easy to achieve when you are fighting for your life... Or so I've been told.

Shoot! If it was easy, anybody could do it!

 

[kthom]

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!

 

[CB3]

Thanks for the link. It explains how one manufacturing group conducts their tests and recovers their results. Found the video to be informative

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.

 

[sotexas]

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.

I was only referencing Federal and I am aware that the FBI protocol is the standard