Why Ballistics Gel Works and Caliber Arguments are Dumb

[Wise_A]

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.

On the contrary, I think that gel tests are the most over-used, poorly-interpreted data points used by the "enthusiast" CCWer. But I guess it's a lot easier to look at pretty pictures and discuss "wound channels" in gel than it is to actually drag your backside to the range and practice some.

 

[Ziggy2525]

On the contrary, I think that gel tests are the most over-used, poorly-interpreted data points used by the "enthusiast" CCWer. But I guess it's a lot easier to look at pretty pictures and discuss "wound channels" in gel than it is to actually drag your backside to the range and practice some.

From what I recall from the Fackler video I mentioned a couple posts earlier, ordnance gel was designed to test the effect the gel has on the bullet - specifically penetration and expansion, not the effect the bullet has on the gel - things like temporary wound cavity and tissue damage.

It’s interesting to see internet gel testers go on at length about the temporary wound cavity in gel when it was never meant to test that. It doesn’t have the same elasticity and tear strength as living tissue, only kind of/sort of the same density.

 

[Ribwizzard]

I just dont get it.
Everytime someone mentions one ( of many) means of measuring potential ( key word) of a particular round, we get post after post of ....."That's nonsense, it's all about shot placement " . ........" No, your wrong, it's about penetration "......" No your both wrong, it's about how you hold the gun"........and it just goes on and on and on.

What part about there are multiple ways to evaluate, and by using the knowledge we get from each of them, we can select the best round suited for our application???????
To say its marketing or hogwash is ridiculous, it's all valuable information.

 

[Ribwizzard]

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.

Please explain , with all things being equal , including shot placement, any instance where smaller caliber handgun ammunition produces more effect than larger. Not talking about exotic stuff traveling at rifle velocity either. Let's keep it to .22, .380, 9mm, .40, .45 acp. Standard common ammo.
Hitting the exact same target in the exact same spot, what advantage does that .380 have over the .45acp?

 

[Ziggy2525]

....
What part about there are multiple ways to evaluate, and by using the knowledge we get from each of them, we can select the best round suited for our application???????
To say its marketing or hogwash is ridiculous, it's all valuable information.

True. Gel only tests bullet performance. It's only one aspect of a defensive shooting. It's an entire system with a handgun, the ammunition, the human shooting the handgun, the thing being shot by the hand gun, where the thing being shot is hit, and if it's a human being shot, the clothing that person is wearing.

Somebody posted the FBI justification for going to 9mm in the knock down/stopping power thread that was locked. From what I read, my paraphrase of the reasoning is - agent accuracy isn't very good in real world shootings so the FBI chose to use more, smaller, less effective rounds over fewer, larger, more effective rounds. More rounds means more chances to hit something. Seems like they took a training issue and tried to solve it with statistics.

From what I've seen floating around the internet from the FBI and Army Ballistics Lab, when you only consider the bullet performance, penetration is #1 and expansion is secondary. At a given velocity, heavier bullets penetrate better than lighter ones.

 

[BB57]

Please explain , with all things being equal , including shot placement, any instance where smaller caliber handgun ammunition produces more effect than larger. Not talking about exotic stuff traveling at rifle velocity either. Let's keep it to .22, .380, 9mm, .40, .45 acp. Standard common ammo.
Hitting the exact same target in the exact same spot, what advantage does that .380 have over the .45acp?

All things are never equal and the differences are in the ability to hit the exact same spot with a heavier versus lighter recoiling cartridge/pistol combination, and in the number of hits that can be made in a given amount of time.

For example, I switched from .45 ACP to 9mm Luger for personal concealed carry when I played around with timed targets and realized that I could consistently score three A zone hits with a 1911 in 9mm Luger compared to just two A zone hits in the same amount of time with a 1911 in .45 ACP.

Less recoil made for faster follow up shots with the same degree of accuracy, and with advances in reliable 9mm hollow points making the switch made sense. Jeff Cooper is long gone, but I suspect if he were still around, he'd see the benefits in the overall speed, accuracy and power triangle with modern hollow points, as opposed to hardball ammo. He probably would not admit it, but he'd see it.

---

Jeff Cooper hard ball comparisons and biases aside, it's true that a .45 ACP hollow point expanded to 1.5x original diameter will punch a hole with a cross sectional area 0.36 square inches compared to just 0.22 square inches for the 9mm Luger expanded to the same 1.5x original diameter.

Consequently, with two .45 ACP holes you have 0.72 square inches of frontal area. However with three 9mm holes you've got .66 square inches of frontal area. It's not a big difference, and the nod still goes to the .45 ACP until you consider wound cavity volume, since the 9mm Luger gives you three wound tracks rather than two.

Assuming instant expansion for comparison purposes and 15" penetration for both cartridges, those three slightly smaller 9mm Luger holes produce 29.7 cu in of wound track volume compared to just 21.6 cu in for two .45 ACP wound tracks. The 9mm Luger has a clear advantage.

You also have 10+1 capacity in a single stack 9mm 1911 compared to 8+1 in a .45 ACP 1911, and with a Hi Power or CZ 75, you have 15+1 capacity, which again equates to more shots in any given time frame, where more than 9 rounds are fired.

----


Consider the .357 Mag versus the .41 Mag and .44 Mag. The .44
and .41 Magnums' recoil is severe enough that in police use both were loaded down - .44 Special and the equivalent of modern .40 S&W (200 gr at 1050 fps) in the case of the .41 Magnum police loads (210 grains at 1050 fps).

Even then, there are advantages in shooting a .357 Mag K frame compared to an N frame in .41 Mag or .44 Mag. For one, the N frame grip doesn't fit my hand.

 

[CB3]

[\QUOTE] At a given velocity, heavier bullets penetrate better than lighter ones.[/QUOTE]

True only for ball ammo.

When you add bullet expansion the design of the bullet will dictate penetration as much as caliber or weight, at least in gel.

The size of expansion, the retained weight of the bullet and the symmetry of the expansion all effect depth of penetration.

The goal is adequate penetration with maximum damage, rather than maximum penetration (completely through) with less tissue damage.

Remembering that for pistol bullets the temporary wound cavity does not equate to effectiveness, an expanded 115 grn 9mm @.70” going 13” deep will typically be more effective than a 230 grn .45 ACP FMJ that penetrates 28”.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Remembering that for pistol bullets the temporary wound cavity does not equate to effectiveness, an expanded 115 grn 9mm @.70” going 13” deep will typically be more effective than a 230 grn .45 ACP FMJ that penetrates 28”.

Just out of personal curiosity, where can I find the database of dead fellas shot with the former and live fellas shot with the latter? Asking for a friend . . .

(Edit: I’m looking around the Buffalo Wild Wings where I’m watching the Masters, and I don’t see anybody 13 inches deep at the chest level, much less 28 inches. Just sayin’ . . . )

 

[sniper]

Useful information!

Great presentation! It answers questions I have had for decades! I have been confused by the different claims of self-defense efficiency, and have come to the conclusion that standardized, proven ammo from one of the established manufacturers is the way to bet.

The "boutique" ammomakers are just that....until their products are proven to be effective and reliable in the real world. BUT..."Expen$ive!" you say...and "I can load my super, whiz-bang/scorched earth/Dinosaur hunting rounds (or better)for ~$_____% (fill in the blank) less!" Yes.

Ammo, even from not so experienced reloaders can be excellent, is fun to make and shoot (The more we shoot, the better we get!) and may fail at the same rate as manufacturers' offerings, but...for serious use, that is not the way I prefer to bet!
Your opinion may vary.

 

[sniper]

Would you trust a source that can't spell "amount" correctly? And where are the ammunition manufacturers in the pie chart?Bill

Some really smart and educated people can't spell worth beans!

 

[Wise_A]

Remembering that for pistol bullets the temporary wound cavity does not equate to effectiveness, an expanded 115 grn 9mm @.70” going 13” deep will typically be more effective than a 230 grn .45 ACP FMJ that penetrates 28”.

(Edit: I’m looking around the Buffalo Wild Wings where I’m watching the Masters, and I don’t see anybody 13 inches deep at the chest level, much less 28 inches. Just sayin’ . . . )

The shootin' fools scientists figured out that ammunition that was proven, in the real world, to be really effective generally penetrated a certain distance in ballistics gelatin. Can't remember how far precisely, so to save me a Google, let's just say 13".

So they concluded that if a particular loading didn't expand reliably and also penetrate at least 13", it probably wasn't effective. This is a lot easier than "field-testing" the ammunition, so to speak. They're not saying a load that penetrates 13" of gel will penetrate 13" of Angry Dude, or that penetrating 13" of Angry Dude is even necessary.

Pretty much all major-brand defensive ammunition in common midrange cartridges is now built to meet this minimum standard (for better or worse), so arguing over what brand is best strikes me as sort've foolish. Figure out what's reliable in your pistol, and shoot it.

If anything, I would say that the major problem is now an over-emphasis on expansion in the mind of the consumer. Sure, if your 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP ammunition doesn't expand reliably, that's a problem. But in some weaker cartridges, like .380 or .38 Spl, expansion might be counter-productive if it inhibits real-world penetration. In other words, the fact that your .32-caliber 19-grain Snyper-X Zip-Booms pancake out to the size of a silver dollar is completely irrelevant if they fail to penetrate deep enough to hit something important. You'd have been better off with a simple, standard-weight hardcast roundnose or FMJ.

And yes, I'm also ripping on underweight, low sectional density ammunition as well.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Duly noted. . .

Edit: None of what you typed means anything in the real world. Relax and carry . . .

The shootin' fools scientists figured out that ammunition that was proven, in the real world, to be really effective generally penetrated a certain distance in ballistics gelatin. Can't remember how far precisely, so to save me a Google, let's just say 13".

So they concluded that if a particular loading didn't expand reliably and also penetrate at least 13", it probably wasn't effective. This is a lot easier than "field-testing" the ammunition, so to speak. They're not saying a load that penetrates 13" of gel will penetrate 13" of Angry Dude, or that penetrating 13" of Angry Dude is even necessary.

Pretty much all major-brand defensive ammunition in common midrange cartridges is now built to meet this minimum standard (for better or worse), so arguing over what brand is best strikes me as sort've foolish. Figure out what's reliable in your pistol, and shoot it.

If anything, I would say that the major problem is now an over-emphasis on expansion in the mind of the consumer. Sure, if your 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP ammunition doesn't expand reliably, that's a problem. But in some weaker cartridges, like .380 or .38 Spl, expansion might be counter-productive if it inhibits real-world penetration. In other words, the fact that your .32-caliber 19-grain Snyper-X Zip-Booms pancake out to the size of a silver dollar is completely irrelevant if they fail to penetrate deep enough to hit something important. You'd have been better off with a simple, standard-weight hardcast roundnose or FMJ.

And yes, I'm also ripping on underweight, low sectional density ammunition as well.

 

[fredj338]

Please explain , with all things being equal , including shot placement, any instance where smaller caliber handgun ammunition produces more effect than larger. Not talking about exotic stuff traveling at rifle velocity either. Let's keep it to .22, .380, 9mm, .40, .45 acp. Standard common ammo.
Hitting the exact same target in the exact same spot, what advantage does that .380 have over the .45acp?

There is no ballistic advantage with a 380 over any service caliber. Just not enough mass & vel. Within service calibers, all pretty close in energy so we look at final exPanded dia. A good. 9mm jhp will be a better bet than a 45 rnfmj. Get a bullet to go say 65cal, penetrate more than 12", all pretty close.

 

[Ribwizzard]

A friend of mine was shot 3 times with a 9mm outside a bar, spent about a month in the hospital fighting for his life. I have had many discussions with him about the incident.
The first two shots, he didn't even know he was hit at at first, bullets went straight through him, he said it wasnt until a few seconds later that he felt a burning sensation. Becouse he was still standing there seemingly unaffected, the shooter fired a third, that wedged in near his spine. Said he felt that one turn him slightly.
I have also had conversation with a lady shot with .45 acp in upper thigh, she described it as if someone hit her with a baseball bat, and it took her off her feet.
What does this mean? Possibly nothing at all, but maybe instead of counting dead people, we should be talking more to survivors as to how the shot effected them. If my friend had been the attacker, he still would have had time to deliver I'll intentions, the lady was knocked off her feet.

 

[Old cop]

A friend, who survived being shot in the chest w/a .45 ACP, told me it felt like he had been slammed w/a telephone pole. He was reloading his .38 in the midst of a gunfight w/armed robbers when he was hit.

 

[Ribwizzard]

And that makes a valuable statement!
For a smaller caliber to carry the same energy, you got to sling it much faster. I believe a faster bullet is more likely to over penetrate, so now you rely on bullet technology to mushroom the bullet so as to deliver the energy to the target instead of passing through it.
And that's the advantage of the big, slow, .45acp.

The disadvantage is it will not penetrate bear hide in order to get to vital organs . Now your back to speeding up the bullet again to get the penetration. .44 magnum

 

[American1776]

Just out of personal curiosity, where can I find the database of dead fellas shot with the former and live fellas shot with the latter? Asking for a friend . . .

(Edit: I’m looking around the Buffalo Wild Wings where I’m watching the Masters, and I don’t see anybody 13 inches deep at the chest level, much less 28 inches. Just sayin’ . . . )

I think the theory behind having a bullet that expands and penetrates 12" is that some of our defensive shots will take a path other than the front to back position on the attacker. For example, an attacker might move sideways, with your bullet entering his upper arm or hip, having to pass through muscle and bone, possibly at a diagonal (longer) path, before entering the chest cavity and having to hit a vital. This apparently happens frequently enough to warrant a foot deep penetration for many so-called 'experts'.

I'm not an expert, but that's the theory I've read.

 

[686-380]

Now, that's just funny right there. I don't care who you are!

Just out of personal curiosity, where can I find the database of dead fellas shot with the former and live fellas shot with the latter? Asking for a friend . . .

(Edit: I’m looking around the Buffalo Wild Wings where I’m watching the Masters, and I don’t see anybody 13 inches deep at the chest level, much less 28 inches. Just sayin’ . . . )

I hope I never have to draw and discharge my firearm, regardless of what I'm carrying at the time.

I can tell you that the caliber won't matter as much as my mental preparedness and my fitness routines.

Even then, I could end up coming up short.

My quality of life is fantastic though, so I'm happy with my choices.

 

[Ziggy2525]

There is no ballistic advantage with a 380 over any service caliber. Just not enough mass & vel. Within service calibers, all pretty close in energy so we look at final exoanded dia. A good. 9mm jhp will be a better bet than a 45 rnfmj. Get a bulletvto go say 65cal, penetrate more than 12", all pretty close.

From the stuff I’ve looked it doesn’t seem like much difference in lethality, but if the bullets don’t pass through, a 230 gr .45 @ 900 fps should thump you a lot harder than a 90 grain .380 @ 1,000 fps.

 

[fredj338]

What does this mean? Possibly nothing at all, but maybe instead of counting dead people, we should be talking more to survivors as to how the shot effected them. If my friend had been the attacker, he still would have had time to deliver I'll intentions, the lady was knocked off her feet.

Means very little because living things all react diff to bullet impacts. Much of it has to do with the living things mental state at time of impact. Bullets in soft tissue will often show little or no reaction. Bullets that hit bone show a lot more reaction. You get secondary fragments thru the are & the bone transmits some energy thur the bone mass, both magnify the wounding.