What is the point of bare gel testing?

[314159]

Testing against bare gelatin, on the face of it, seems to be applicable to shooting felons in swimsuits (or less).

I am guessing (!) the real world point of it is related to there being no significant difference between bare gel and a light layer of cloth during tests.
Is that the point of it?

[lyodbraun]

I'm thinking it establishes a base line under the most ideal and perfect conditions...

[Beat Trash]

It gives you a baseline. Every ballistic workshop I've attended started with a bare gel test, but went on to include various other barrier tests. From light clothing, heavy clothing, sheet rock, car windshield.

When comparing different rounds, you need to look at all of the data. You should also decide what environment you will be working in. For example, performance through safety glass isn't that big of a deal for a gun who's purpose is defense within the home (Home Defense), but it's definitely a consideration for a State Police Agency who's Troopers spend most of their workday conducting traffic stops on the freeway.

Conducting an appropriate ballistic workshop takes time and effort as well as money. The gel blocks aren't cheap and you go through several of them testing various rounds. This is why guys like Dr. Gary Roberts who are willing to post their results is so helpful to those trying to make an informed decision and lack the resources to conduct their own testing.

[jellydonut]

The point of bare gel is to have comparable results between rounds. It is not to simulate the round's behavior on a clothed target.

If you start adding in more factors than the gel itself your results become less comparable for each factor you add. These are two entirely different tests with different goals.

[HCM]

Testing against bare gelatin, on the face of it, seems to be applicable to shooting felons in swimsuits (or less).

I am guessing (!) the real world point of it is related to there being no significant difference between bare gel and a light layer of cloth during tests.
Is that the point of it?

Never had to fight a naked dude ? I have.

Plus it gives a baseline of performance like everyone else said.

[orionz06]

Every experiment needs a control to establish the baseline.

[Oukaapie]

Never had to fight a naked dude ? I have.

I usually have to pay extra for that!

[DocGKR]

Good answers. Bare gel is a control and baseline. If a round fails or is inconsistent in bare gel, it is likely going to be a poor choice. The tests which offer the most information are typically 4 layer denim (much better than heavy clothing) and automobile windshield. Those are key to demonstrating the terminal performance potential of a given load.

[Unobtanium]

A bullet in gel is reproducible. That's why. It fails to capture so many intangibles. But it IS infinitely reproducible with good scientific method being adhered to.

[314159]

Baseline and a control make excellent sense, thanks.

Of course HCM's response and a few clips of shirtless idiots is an excellent response also...

[Beat Trash]

Never had to fight a naked dude ? I have.

Plus it gives a baseline of performance like everyone else said.

My first Police Intervention/Death in Custody was a naked man. Fighting naked guys are almost always ugly. They're naked for a reason (absolutely nothing to do with sex).

[BehindBlueI's]

Testing against bare gelatin, on the face of it, seems to be applicable to shooting felons in swimsuits (or less).


I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it got me to thinking how many people shot I've seen who were shirtless. Given how many urban yoots remove their shirt to fight, junkies stripping off their clothes due to internal overheating, etc. it's actually a reasonably routine occurrence.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Good answers. Bare gel is a control and baseline. If a round fails or is inconsistent in bare gel, it is likely going to be a poor choice. The tests which offer the most information are typically 4 layer denim (much better than heavy clothing) and automobile windshield. Those are key to demonstrating the terminal performance potential of a given load.

And that's exactly the two events I consider as telling whether a load is viable or not.

[JohnO]

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it got me to thinking how many people shot I've seen who were shirtless. Given how many urban yoots remove their shirt to fight, junkies stripping off their clothes due to internal overheating, etc. it's actually a reasonably routine occurrence.

Yes but how many junkies and yoots are comprised of nothing but bare gelatin?

[jellydonut]

Again, the point of the gelatin is not to be 100% analogous to a living thing, it is meant to be a consistent method of measuring penetration.

You cannot model a living body replete with different tissues, bone, and everything else, and expect to have repeatable, comparable results.

These are two different things you are trying to do, and you need a different medium for each purpose.

[TiroFijo]

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it got me to thinking how many people shot I've seen who were shirtless. Given how many urban yoots remove their shirt to fight, junkies stripping off their clothes due to internal overheating, etc. it's actually a reasonably routine occurrence.

I would guess that a felon wearing a thin cotton shit or well worn T-shirt (which comprises a high percentage of cases in tropical countries) is closer to bare gel than 4 layer denim...

[5pins]

I would guess that a felon wearing a thin cotton shit or well worn T-shirt (which comprises a high percentage of cases in tropical countries) is closer to bare gel than 4 layer denim...

Yes. In my test, one layer of cotton T-shirt had no effect on the bullets performance compared to bare gel.

[jd950]

Yes but how many junkies and yoots are comprised of nothing but bare gelatin?

From the neck up, quite a few.

Oh, wait, you mean from a ballistic testing standpoint. Never mind.