ballistic gel alternative

[gotigers]

I want to test several loads. This will not be a scientific test. Data exactly like FBI gel test is not needed, but i want something that will give me consistant results. With consistant results i will be able to compare my results with published results. Gelatin is not cheap and i have several loads to test.

I want to compare cavity results more than bullet expansion.

I have read of some people using a corn starch/water mix, cardboard/water mix, paper/water mix and phone books soaked in water.

Any of those vialbe or are there others?

Edit: Another reason i want an alternative, i want something less sensative to temperature. Transporting gelatin to my range in the heat of summer would be problematic.

[BLR]

I want to test several loads. This will not be a scientific test. Data exactly like FBI gel test is not needed, but i want something that will give me consistant results. With consistant results i will be able to compare my results with published results. Gelatin is not cheap and i have several loads to test.

I want to compare cavity results more than bullet expansion.

I have read of some people using a corn starch/water mix, cardboard/water mix, paper/water mix and phone books soaked in water.

Any of those vialbe or are there others?

Edit: Another reason i want an alternative, i want something less sensative to temperature. Transporting gelatin to my range in the heat of summer would be problematic.

Well, first off, startch-water is shear thickening. So that wont work.
Cardboard-water has compressible fibers in it (the cellulose, as it stands) at a significantly large volume fraction. So that wont work. And the binder used in the cardboard, is a non Newtonian fluid also. So there's that.
Paper-water is basically the same as above, with slightly less compressablility.

You want to test the cavity, ok. Pick a medium that mimics tissue. Gel or water. For gel, if it is a relative comparison, you have only to calibrate or find a way to normalize the results.

Proper ballistic analysis is more than shooting calibrated jello and comparing expanded bullets and penetration depth.

[gotigers]

Snip

Proper ballistic analysis is more than shooting calibrated jello and comparing expanded bullets and penetration depth.

I completely understand that. I said, my test will not be a scientific test. This info will be to help me be more comfortable with my choices.

Let me be more specific about what i want to accomplish. I have a stamp coming for a 10.5" SBR and will eventually have a suppressor. I want to use this for home defense. I have read everything i can find about 5.56/.223 terminal ballistics including Dr. Roberts writings. Since this weapon will be used in my home, i want a non-barrier blind bullet or as close to it as i can get. I believe a heavy OTM will be what i want. However, i have shot enough to know that no two barrels shoot ammo the same. I want to test several rounds from my barrel to find the best round my needs.

Maybe i am overthinking it, but i enjoy shooting and this gives me a reason to shoot lots of different ammo.

If ballistic gel is the only real choice, so be it. I couldn't find any real alternative on google, but I figured there is no harm in asking. I don't have a lab and i am paying for this out of my pocket. Gel is only one of the tests i will be conducting.

Thanks for the input.

[secondstoryguy]

Its not ballistic gel but I've found that shooting deer and hogs with my defensive ammo has given me some good unofficial data on its terminal performance. The byproduct of the "testing" is very yummy.

[Archimagirus]

I have often thought about this subject myself. Coming at the problem from a foodies perspective, you might want to look at Agar Agar. While this is an overly simplistic comparison, it is basically vegetarian gelatin. It is derived from seaweed and more stable across a wider range of temperatures than gelatin. There is also the molecular gastronomy route of using sodium alginate and calcium chloride to make a room temperature gel without heat.

All of these options may, or more probably may not, be more cost effective than standard ballistic gelatin.

[Byron]

No experience with it personally, but there's always this stuff: http://clearballistics.com/

It doesn't solve the cost issue, but it addresses the temperature sensitivity issue.

[ToddG]

My guess -- and I cannot speak for DocGKR -- is that if a cheap, easy, durable alternative to properly calibrated ballistic gelatin existed, he'd be using it instead. If some other medium provided results that correlated strongly with ballistic gelatin data then the expense and difficulty of dealing with the ballistic jello would be unnecessary.

[gotigers]

My guess -- and I cannot speak for DocGKR -- is that if a cheap, easy, durable alternative to properly calibrated ballistic gelatin existed, he'd be using it instead. If some other medium provided results that correlated strongly with ballistic gelatin data then the expense and difficulty of dealing with the ballistic jello would be unnecessary.

true, that is the rub. I don't expect perfect results.

[DanH]

I would think the answer to your dilemma would depend on just how scientifically valid you intend your results to be. The famous, or infamous, Box o'Truth (a series of water-filled milk jugs) does have one advantage over wet phone books, and that is that it is a consistent standard that can be maintained through many gun and ammo types.
As long as you don't make the mistake of comparing the results to the results obtained by ballistic gelatin tests, you can use any consistent, reproducible medium your heart desires. The main thing to keep in mind is that the results of water-jug-type tests can't be compared to anything but other water-jug-type tests.

[BLR]

I would think the answer to your dilemma would depend on just how scientifically valid you intend your results to be. The famous, or infamous, Box o'Truth (a series of water-filled milk jugs) does have one advantage over wet phone books, and that is that it is a consistent standard that can be maintained through many gun and ammo types.
As long as you don't make the mistake of comparing the results to the results obtained by ballistic gelatin tests, you can use any consistent, reproducible medium your heart desires. The main thing to keep in mind is that the results of water-jug-type tests can't be compared to anything but other water-jug-type tests.

In reality, ballistic gel isn't as true or valid a stimulant as most would believe. It is more a consistent, repeatable medium that often gives a microscopically similar penetration depth as live tissue.

The problems are many fold, and often not discussed. Ballistic gel is, from a scientific standpoint, wonderfully consistent, inexpensive, and available. It is totally homogeneous, and as such there is much debate as to how good of a hydraulic stimulant it actually is for ballistic tests.

Tissue, and for that matter water and ballistic gel, are mostly incompressible fluids, with varying levels of complexity. I don't think anyone would have issue with that statement. The problem is, and this has not been effectively addressed with any publications I am aware of, that the fluid properties (I am using the term "fluid" here liberally) have not been studied between the most common mediums. Especially in the supersonic range (that is, the supersonic velocity in the medium). What is the compressability of gel vs tissue vs water? What kind of tissue? What concentration of gel? Again, the crush, cut and tear properties of tissue are not as similar to gel as many would have believed. The gel is really a means to make a "solid" water, and not much more. What is the tensile strength of gel vs tissue?

There are some parafins on the market, and some silicone compounds that are being studied, but these also have their own issues. I am aware of some tests that use gum arabic as a tensile modifier for ballistic gel, and those results are questionable. Once you start getting scientific, questions arise like shear strength, tensile strength, elasticity, tear strength, apparent/microscopic viscosity, energy transfer rates, strain rates, and so on.

So, my recommendation, which is worth exactly what you are paying for it, would be to define the performance you want from the projectile. Is it 12" of penetration in a person after penetrating x/y layers of clothing? If so, use water. It will be as close as anything to giving you valid results. And be correlatable with previous studies.

ETA: If you are looking for a good initial treatise on ordnance gelatin, here you go: http://sem-proceedings.com/09s/sem.o...on-Loading.pdf
(I take some issue with the use of the term "crack" in describing the tearing of the gel, as crack propagation is distinctly different that the mechanism seen in that article, IMHO. Just food for thought.)