first 38+p HST test I have seen

[xcop]

Clear gel w/o heavy clothing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgGjNQ_hhIQ

[LtDave]

Seems like Decent expansion and penetration. Unfortunately, in 3 of my guns it’s POI is between 3” to 4.25” to the right at 15 yards.

[Doug MacRay]

Interestingly, the velocities were slower and penetration less out of the 4" than the snub nose. Either way it performed well from both pistols.

[WDR]

I'd still like to see some data from real 10% gel, including barriers. I think DocGKR said we might see that some time this fall... here's to hoping.

[Schmetallurgy]

I'd still like to see some data from real 10% gel, including barriers. I think DocGKR said we might see that some time this fall... here's to hoping.

Yeah, ever since poring over the LuckyGunner Clear Ballistics Gel test results from that huge series they did, I'm pretty much done putting any stock in that stuff. Just seemed too off from what you see from factory and other credible 10% tests results.
On one hand it was a hell of a commendable project, on the other it seems like a damn shame they put all that effort in when I'm left thinking, "Wait, that doesn't seem right at all."

[xcop]

People seems to agree Shooting the Bull410 did a good job on ammo testing. Here he compares 10%gel and clear ballistics with a few different rounds. Worth a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kjcoFaobeo

[Doug MacRay]

Here's another 10% OG vs 10% CG comparison video from BrassFetcher that shows significantly deeper penetration in cleargel. So fairly significant differences between the results from the two videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pqPBnSYTIc

[xcop]

[QUOTE=Doug MacRay;641867]Here's another 10% OG vs 10% CG comparison video from BrassFetcher that shows significantly deeper penetration in cleargel. So fairly significant differences between the results from the two videos.

Brassfetcher makes money doing ballistic gel tests. Doesnt mean he isnt 100% honest but a fact to consider.

I also wonder if differences occur when you reuse the Clear Ballistics. I know as a user it starts a yellow color shift even when reused once.

Anyway for me it is impossible to make let alone refrigerate and transport 10% so BFD if penetration turns out to be too much. I compare 2 rounds in same material on the same day with the same handgun. If it allows too much penetration as some say then it should effect both.
Just factor in what some say is 20% error in penetration if concerned so 15 inches becomes 12
I have not tested rifle or shotgun.

Does it take the place of 100% controlled 10% real gel testing NO!

[Eagle1*]

good video, it actually looks like an inverted wadcutter.

[cathellsk]

Any update on this load? I’ve picked up a few boxes from Cabelas and it shoots good out of my 442 and doesn’t smack the palm as bad as the NYPD load.

[xcop]

https://generalcartridge.wordpress.com/2017/11/20/federal-38-spl-p-130gr-hst-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

[Tokarev]

Interesting that Mr Gear gets quite a bit different results than The General. Both used Clear Gel.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[WDR]

Interesting that Mr Gear gets quite a bit different results than The General. Both used Clear Gel.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Maybe there is something to what DocGKR has been saying about all these new "gel" test mediums and their lack of (repeatable) scientific value...

[Tokarev]

Are the guys using Clear Gel checking their blocks with a BB before testing?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[WDR]

Are the guys using Clear Gel checking their blocks with a BB before testing?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The BB test really only applies to real 10% gel.

I don't think there are any established standards when it comes to the new gel products. Which, like I said... is probably part of the problem. Don't get me wrong, this stuff still may give you an idea of performance, but I don't think it's scientifically valid, and I much prefer to see real deal 10% gel tests in a controlled environment. So far, I don't think anyone has published or posted and 10% gel tests of this new .38 HST... which is one reason I hesitate to carry it. DocGKR said something about releasing some test info this past fall, but I have not seen it yet.

The other reason is that the first five rounds I put through my 442 patterned, rather than grouped. I've been very busy with home life and work, so I have not got out to try it again. In the meantime, I've been shooting and carrying RA38B that I got for under $16/box.

[Sigfan26]

I’m just throwing this out there, but Federal doesn’t list the .38 Special HST on their website anymore (and that’s why I picked up 120 rounds)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

https://www.federalpremium.com/ammunition/handgun/caliber/38-special


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

The BB test really only applies to real 10% gel .

Why do you say that? I'd think the BB test would at least show that the block(s) are relative to each other.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[WDR]

Why do you say that? I'd think the BB test would at least show that the block(s) are relative to each other.


The BB test is used to "calibrate" the 10% gel... IIRC the penetration numbers (for the BB) have to meet a certain depth range for the results to be considered valid. There is a way to account for blocks that the BB over/under penetrates, but I think that equation is only going to be valid for 10% ordinance gel. I don't think there is a standard for the other gels on the market as far as BB penetration depth. I hate to use wiki as a source:

"To ensure accurate results, immediately prior to use, the gelatin block is "calibrated" by firing a standard .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a gun chronograph into the gelatin, and the depth of penetration measured. While the exact calibration methods vary slightly, the calibration method used by the INS National Firearms Unit is fairly typical. It requires a velocity of 183 ± 3 m/s (600 ± 10 f/s), and a BB penetration between 8.3 and 9.5 cm (3.25 to 3.75 inches).

In his book Bullet Penetration, ballistics expert Duncan MacPherson describes a method that can be used to compensate for ballistic gelatin that gives a BB penetration that is off by several centimeters (up to two inches) in either direction. MacPherson's Figure 5-2, Velocity Variation Correction to Measured BB Penetration Depth, can be used to make corrections to BB penetration depth when measured BB velocity is within ±10 m/s of 180 m/s. This method can also be used to compensate for error within the allowed tolerance, and normalize results of different tests, as it is standard practice to record the exact depth of the calibration BB's penetration."

I've never done any ballistics testing that'd be considered scientifically valid, and I've never used 10% ordinance gel. I've shot a lot of bullets into water for grins and satisfying personal curiosity, but I'm not employed in the field or anything like that. I just know that DocGKR has said in the past that the new gels do not correlate with genuine 10% stuff in a meaningful way. Therefore I do not trust their results to be as accurate as real deal 10% tests. It does not mean the "tests" are bunk... or anyone is trying to pull wool over anyone's eyes... it just means the results are not really "science"...

BB testing a Clear Ballistics block may give you a baseline to work from when comparing to other Clear Ballistics blocks, but it does not equate to 10% gel results. I don't recall anyone calibrating a block in any of the various youtube "gel" videos I've ever watched. Maybe someone is doing it. But I have never seen it.

For the record, I don't even really trust data the ammunition manufacturers put out about their own ammo. And I assume they are using genuine 10% gel in their testing ( since that is the required test for the FBI). It's too easy to cherry pick data to get the results you want. If their data is verified by other independent testing, then I feel a bit better about it.

We are getting a bit away from the topic of the thread, but I do hope Doc will chime in if he can about any tests he's seen or conducted on the .38 HST load.

[Tokarev]

BB testing a Clear Ballistics block may give you a baseline to work from when comparing to other Clear Ballistics blocks, but it does not equate to 10% gel results. I don't recall anyone calibrating a block in any of the various youtube "gel" videos I've ever watched. Maybe someone is doing it. But I have never seen it.


Yes. I was wondering about calibration of the synthetic gel. Granted there's no way to "correct" a block that fails the BB test but it would help give a better correlation between one block and the next if they were tested. This certainly might explain why General and Mr Gear saw such different results.

Also, I am surprised at the level of "unprofessional" testing shown by Guns and Gear. He couldn't have found a sheet of plywood or something to set his blocks on?



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[5pins]

As the owner of General Cartridge blog, I agree that Clear gel is not the same as real ordnance gel. I starting shooting Clear gel mostly as a hobby and to satisfy my own curiosity. I only started the blog to help me track what I was doing and I felt that other people would find it interesting. I use Clear gel because it’s cheap and easy. I would like to try real gel at some point but the time and expense involved doesn't make it possible right now.

I will concede that my tests are armature and should be viewed in that light. However, most people don’t have access to the professional testing and the testing I do is simply one more bit of information for people to use but should not be seen as definitive.

I can’t explain why Mr. Gun n' Gear and my results are so different but I will say I find it odd that something expanded to such a large diameter, at such a low velocity, penetrated that deep. If you look at some of my 9mm tests, like the Federal 135gr +P tac bonded, you will see that it had a much higher average velocity, and expanded less, but had less penetration then the .38 HST’s he tested. The penetration I got, with the .38 HST, in my test is more consistent with what one would expect. I don’t expect we will see 16 inches of penetration in real gel when we see the professional results come out.

[DocGKR]

The BB test is technically block "validation" rather than "calibration".

[Tokarev]

The BB test is technically block "validation" rather than "calibration".Good point. If nothing else it would help validate the various clear gel tests. Give us a more apples to apples comparison as it were.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

I will concede that my tests are armature and should be viewed in that light. However, most people don’t have access to the professional testing and the testing I do is simply one more bit of information for people to use but should not be seen as definitive.

Yes that's how I see your data. One more piece of reference.

Let me ask the hive mind this; if a bullet expands well and penetrates well in Clear Gel does that not mean it will likely behave well in actual shootings? While the same bullet(s) might expand and penetrate differently in real VS synthetic gel do the two not share a commonality as a repeatable test bed?

Actually I'm more interested in how a bullet performs when fired through clothing VS fired into bare gel. While the bare might give a good indication of what a bullet is capable of under ideal circumstances that probably isn't good for anything other than academic discussion. I'm more interested in whether or not the bullet gets plugged or has a velocity that's too low to expand through the heavy clothing. That's probably where Clear Gel is at its best.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

"...if a bullet expands well and penetrates well in Clear Gel does that not mean it will likely behave well in actual shootings?"

To the best of my knowledge and unlike properly fabricated 10% ordnance gel, none of the synthetic simulants have been correlated with damage in actual tissue.


"While the same bullet(s) might expand and penetrate differently in real VS synthetic gel do the two not share a commonality as a repeatable test bed?"

I am unaware of any legitimate test facility or organization that uses synthetic gel for assessing terminal performance....in some quarters that might be considered a clue....

[Tokarev]

The video is linked but here's some info that's on Brass Fetcher's actual website.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Synthetic%20Gelatin/Synthetic%20Gelatin.html

If this info is true across the board and consistent from one block of CB gel to the next it would indicate that ammo that's within the FBI spec in CB could likely be a failure in real gel. Still, I think CB has some value to see if a bullet will work as expected when fired through clothing or if it becomes plugged and fails to expand. Again, that's what I think CB is best used for.

It would be interesting to see someone with access to both types of gel to test multiple types of ammo through barriers to see what impact barriers have on performance and test results.

[DocGKR]

About the only time I find synthetic gels useful is for are backing body armor in testing.

[revchuck38]

I don't question that 10% gel is preferred. However, testing using it is pretty much restricted to current law enforcement calibers. In my case, I wanted to know how full power .357 Magnum 158 grain JHPs from a 4" barrel compare so I could choose one to use in my S&W M681. My search-fu was too weak to find that info using calibrated 10% gel, so I ended up relying on Lucky Gunner's tests in clear gel. Those tests at least gave me a way to compare loads in the same medium. FWIW, I went with the Remington version.

If anyone can supply a link for such a comparison done with 10% calibrated gel, it'd be worth a beer. :)

[the Schwartz]

The video is linked but here's some info that's on Brass Fetcher's actual website.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Synthetic%20Gelatin/Synthetic%20Gelatin.html

If this info is true across the board and consistent from one block of CB gel to the next it would indicate that ammo that's within the FBI spec in CB could likely be a failure in real gel. Still, I think CB has some value to see if a bullet will work as expected when fired through clothing or if it becomes plugged and fails to expand. Again, that's what I think CB is best used for.

It would be interesting to see someone with access to both types of gel to test multiple types of ammo through barriers to see what impact barriers have on performance and test results.

I agree with you.

Having seen what John Ervin, Mech. Eng. (BrassFetcher) did with regard to comparing the terminal performance of bullets fired into Clear Ballistic Gel and 10% ordnance gel, esp.with what he discloses at 18:45 in the vid you attached, it seems that along with this page

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Synthetic%20Gelatin/Synthetic%20Gelatin.html

there exists considerable fluctuation even within the CBG product making it 'suspect' at best. The variable 'skew' seen in the data in tables 1-6 on Brass Fetcher's page is a pretty good demonstration of why there is concern with what it (CBG) actually does and raises more questions than answers IMO.

IIRC, I seem to remember Doc mentioning that the CBG product also exhibits similar issues with rifle rounds, but cannot for the life of me remember what thread that was mentioned in.

[Tokarev]

If I can get my organic gel production worked out and make another block or two I'll give this ammo a try. It will be interesting to see how my results compare to these.

[Tokarev]

Another test in Clear Ballistics:

http://www.guns.com/review/ammo-review-federals-spicy-hst-micro-38-spl-snub-nose-load/

[5pins]

From 11.5 to over 16 inches in CB gel? That's a pretty big spread.

[Tokarev]

From 11.5 to over 16 inches in CB gel? That's a pretty big spread.

Their chrono'ed velocities were quite a bit higher than yours.

[5pins]

I'm throwing in the BS flag. There is no way they were getting almost 1200fps with that load. Federal list it at 890fps, they don't list a barrel length, I got an average 828fps. Somethings not right.

[Bucky]

I'm throwing in the BS flag. There is no way they were getting almost 1200fps with that load. Federal list it at 890fps, they don't list a barrel length, I got an average 828fps. Somethings not right.

Those velocities shouldn't be that hard to achieve. ;)

http://eshop.mjlmilitaria.com/WebRoot/BT4/Shops/BT4345/54EF/5556/52A3/16FA/72A7/0A0C/05ED/2BCE/IMG_2660.JPG

[Tokarev]

Those velocities shouldn't be that hard to achieve. ;)

http://eshop.mjlmilitaria.com/WebRoot/BT4/Shops/BT4345/54EF/5556/52A3/16FA/72A7/0A0C/05ED/2BCE/IMG_2660.JPGLol. Good one!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[revchuck38]

Those velocities shouldn't be that hard to achieve. ;)

http://eshop.mjlmilitaria.com/WebRoot/BT4/Shops/BT4345/54EF/5556/52A3/16FA/72A7/0A0C/05ED/2BCE/IMG_2660.JPG

My mutha said that to me...once.

[Tokarev]

My mutha said that to me...once.

Shoots through schools!

[Frank R]

Why is the temperature of the block not being factored in with the results?

[5pins]

The fact that is was 94 degrees and sunny makes me wonder if the block was left in the sun or a hot car. That may explain the deep penetration.

[Chuck Haggard]

I shot a couple into a Clear Gel block the other day while I was testing different ammo. Through four layers of denim I got partial expansion and 9-10" of penetration.

I'll stick with WCs.

[Tokarev]

I shot a couple into a Clear Gel block the other day while I was testing different ammo. Through four layers of denim I got partial expansion and 9-10" of penetration.

I'll stick with WCs.Any chrono data?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[5pins]

I just got an email form Clear Ballistics and they said the temp, of the block, should be between 70 to 85 degrees. It sounds possible that the block may have gotten too warm.

[Tokarev]

Here's my test in organic gel.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?t=29816

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk