Speer Gold Dot G2 147 grain PT 9mm

[GRV]

I'm curious between two trains of thought;

Either the run of bullets John has are somehow defective (wouldn't be the first such premium LE duty ammo to fail to expand if this is the case).

Or; There is something in the differences between the clear gel and FBI spec gel that allow this anomaly to occur in the polymer tipped handgun bullets. If this is the case it also wouldn't be the first time someone discovered that weird shit happens when you shoot bullets into stuff.
[...]

I think the point dove brought up is very interesting. It makes me wonder which is more critical in the causing expansion of the G2 in gel, velocity window or the elastomer. I wonder if variance in the density of the elastomer could cause complete failure to expand. If the proper expansion of the round is completely reliant upon the elastomers calibrated density, (within velocity threshold) I don't know that I would want to rely upon it. Doc, can you shed light upon any of this without breaking any NDA's?

Another thing going through my mind is that there seems to be a lot of variation in body composition. Fat, flabby person; average person; hard, muscular person, etc. I'm no expert on ballistics gel, in fact I have no experience at all with it, but my first inclination is to think that it, at best, can only simulate one point on the spectrum. I also wonder what materials are closer in variance: ballistics gels or different bodies. I realize the snafu with gels is that if you don't have a standardized product then you have no idea what you're really looking at and you might as well be shooting into a box of leftovers from whatever's on today's specials menu at the local restaurant. However, the human body strikes me as a relatively high-variance thing, and I know first hand that science and engineering models are just that, models, and that every model is only of limited usefulness.

What I'm wondering now is if the G2 has been designed to ace the test, inadvertently or not. You all know how it goes with standardized tests, PFTs, etc. The best way to ace them is to learn how to take them, not necessarily by being amazing at the fundamentals supposedly being tested. If that's what is happening here, then the G2 would be a demonstration in the limitations of current FBI testing protocol. It wouldn't be the first time the FBI came to such a conclusion after some difficult fact-facing in the field: that the test is flawed. The "high-tech" feel of the G2 seems gamey enough to make this possibility not seem farfetched, and we really don't have a ton of hard field data on PT ammo in general, if I understand correctly.

Bear in mind, this is all armchair fun---unqualified pondering. I have no experience with ballistics gel, and I think we are all getting ahead of ourselves. First we should wait to see the data, which should be showing up in the next few months I'd imagine. Beyond that, I agree with the sentiment echoed by a few here that it'd really be wise for anyone thinking about switching to wait on a good deal of hard field data. We already have awesome candidates for carry ammo with battle-proven pedigrees; is anyone really hurting for something better? The FBI has basically made the decision to beta-test this new idea, and we should be extremely grateful for that, because that means we'll get to see a ton of data, data that none of us could generate, for free and without taking the risk. Meanwhile though, it is fun to pass the time playing Sherlock Holmes, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some more homebrew tests

I too am curious about the role of the 54226/54227-GOV issue here.

[Sparks2112]

I spoke with an engineer at ATK. He was VERY concerned about my test results. I'm sending him some of my ammo to see if he can duplicate my results. Glad to see them taking this seriously.

[El Cid]

I spoke with an engineer at ATK. He was VERY concerned about my test results. I'm sending him some of my ammo to see if he can duplicate my results. Glad to see them taking this seriously.

Does your ammo have product number 54226 or 54227 on the box?

[DocGKR]

dove--Please review the Wolberg SDPD study comparing autopsy results in OIS incidents with effects in 10% ordnance gelatin.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gel at 4 deg C is not some kind of magical secret; it has been the industry standard now for 30 years for good reason.

[Jeep]

I spoke with an engineer at ATK. He was VERY concerned about my test results. I'm sending him some of my ammo to see if he can duplicate my results. Glad to see them taking this seriously.

When you do the test again, perhaps it would be good to use the 4 layers of denim as well (my assumption being that you didn't use it in the first test)? That might be an important variable.

[El Cid]

As a follow-up to my post about the G26 hitting 10" high with the G2 ammo, I spoke with Eric at Trijicon and he mentioned a LEO in GA has done a bunch of research on the matter. On his recommendation I installed a standard HD rear and a .245" high HD front. As you can see the group is where it needs to be at 25 yards.

[JBP55]

For a G19 the standard HD rear is.231 and the front is .215. You changed the height of the front sight by .030 which would change your POI approximately 5" at 25 yards.
What happened to the other 5"?

[Jay Cunningham]

That's what she said.

[Sparks2112]

When you do the test again, perhaps it would be good to use the 4 layers of denim as well (my assumption being that you didn't use it in the first test)? That might be an important variable.

I told him how I tested the rounds in question, and the results I got with my control rounds. He said "They shouldn't be doing that." or something along those lines. In hearing some of the results they've gotten in their testing, including an interesting one involving a G26, I believe him.

Curious to see what the problem ends up being.

[El Cid]

For a G19 the standard HD rear is.231 and the front is .215. You changed the height of the front sight by .030 which would change your POI approximately 5" at 25 yards.
What happened to the other 5"?

The sights used the other day were the Trijicon"regular" night sights (GL01), not HD's. The target I posted is with HD rears and the taller HD front. I asked them about what would work if I switched to HD's - not what front would fix the older sights.