Underwood .38 Spl 150gr Wadcutter in Clear Ballistics Gel

[5pins]

https://generalcartridge.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/20221122_130242.jpg?w=840

Test Gun: S&W M442
Barrel length: 1 7/8 inches.
Ammunition: Underwood .38spl 150gr Wadcutter (Item 732)
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Velocity average: 806fps

https://general-cartridge.com/2022/11/23/underwood-38-spl-150gr-wadcutter-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

[Navin Johnson]

Always thought UW and BB WC’s were to hot for bi—peds not to mention recoil. However in a heavier gun would be better than a SWC for woods walking.

[1Rangemaster]

It’s clear ballistics gel-no clothing, barriers, etc.
Underwood got a little of my money, and after vetting, these rounds are in my occasionally carried .38 Smith snub. All things considered, it seems a good alternative. The Underwood ammo is high quality.

As always, YMMV…

[5pins]

It’s clear ballistics gel-no clothing, barriers, etc.
Underwood got a little of my money, and after vetting, these rounds are in my occasionally carried .38 Smith snub. All things considered, it seems a good alternative. The Underwood ammo is high quality.

As always, YMMV…

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

[the Schwartz]

It should also be noted by those seeking legitimate test protocols that even when used for tests using non-expanding projectiles, the Clear Ballistics Gel product misrepresents (significantly exaggerates) maximum terminal penetration depth.

[1Rangemaster]

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

Understood, sir. I was looking for a solid snub load, and for me, I found it.
If I can arrange a 6-8 inch barrel, I might (with a backup) try it on destructive wild pigs.

[JCN]

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.


Understood, sir. I was looking for a solid snub load, and for me, I found it.
If I can arrange a 6-8 inch barrel, I might (with a backup) try it on destructive wild pigs.

Here’s in 20% gel compared to the Underwood SWC.


https://youtu.be/6R51xQQNeWo


It should also be noted by those seeking legitimate test protocols that even when used for tests using non-expanding projectiles, the Clear Ballistics Gel product misrepresents (significantly exaggerates) maximum terminal penetration depth.

We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think clear gel is “worthless.”

We get it man.

I still like it for comparative testing against a known gold standard.

I’ll usually shoot 9mm Gold Dot as the control and compare against that.

Even organic gel is a simplified estimate on what might work in a real shooting when you add a ton of extra variables like bone and non-muscle structures.

I’ve gone to using 20% clear gel for convenience and transport.

[03RN]

Here’s in 20% gel compared to the Underwood SWC.


https://youtu.be/6R51xQQNeWo



We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think it’s “worthless.”

We get it man.

I still like it for comparative testing against a known gold standard.

I’ll usually shoot 9mm Gold Dot as the control and compare against that.

Even organic gel is a simplified estimate on what might work in a real shooting when you add a ton of extra variables like bone and non-muscle structures.

I’ve gone to using 20% clear gel for convenience and transport.

What are you comparing? Bullets expand and penetrate different in clear gel. Clear gel is not a consistent media either.

[JCN]

What are you comparing? Bullets expand and penetrate different in clear gel. Clear gel is not a consistent media either.

You might as well stop reading, because nothing I say is going to convince you to keep an open mind to what I’m saying.

You have your mind made up already.

For other people reading:

Ballistic science is a science and the work that Schwartz et al have done is admirable and has advanced the field.
For this, organic gelatin is the gold standard.

For the civilian owner and tester, ballistic testing is mainly for enjoyment and mental masturbation.

We are testing to make ourselves feel better and don’t plan on actually shooting these loads in real self defense.

All of the testing of “AmmoQuest” was pretty much worthless because he could have just picked Gold Dots or HST and called it a day because the testing was already done and validated both in real world use and in rigorous ballistic testing.

For enjoyment, entertainment and hobby testing (which is what I do), my thoughts are the following:


1. The ballistic standards are rigorous and scientific… but they’re meant as a ballpark approximation for what will probably work well in real world shootings where there are heterogenous target densities and variable intermediate barriers.

2. What that means to me is that there’s fudge factor and “good enough is good enough,” both in my personal requirements and in the test results. My testing isn’t so that ammo can be approved for agency use or in offensive LEO work.

3. In that video, I wanted to get a sense of how overpenetration mitigation with semi-wadcutters might fare. It’s a interesting comparison to just a lower velocity wadcutter like a Federal. But it’s just mental masturbation. Doesn’t matter to me that clear gel isn’t homogenous. Because the target use (self defense) isn’t homogenous either.

[03RN]

You might as well stop reading, because nothing I say is going to convince you to keep an open mind to what I’m saying.

You have your mind made up already.

For other people reading:

Ballistic science is a science and the work that Schwartz et al have done is admirable and has advanced the field.
For this, organic gelatin is the gold standard.

For the civilian owner and tester, ballistic testing is mainly for enjoyment and mental masturbation.

We are testing to make ourselves feel better and don’t plan on actually shooting these loads in real self defense.

All of the testing of “AmmoQuest” was pretty much worthless because he could have just picked Gold Dots or HST and called it a day because the testing was already done and validated both in real world use and in rigorous ballistic testing.

For enjoyment, entertainment and hobby testing (which is what I do), my thoughts are the following:


1. The ballistic standards are rigorous and scientific… but they’re meant as a ballpark approximation for what will probably work well in real world shootings where there are heterogenous target densities and variable intermediate barriers.

2. What that means to me is that there’s fudge factor and “good enough is good enough,” both in my personal requirements and in the test results. My testing isn’t so that ammo can be approved for agency use or in offensive LEO work.

3. In that video, I wanted to get a sense of how overpenetration mitigation with semi-wadcutters might fare. It’s a interesting comparison to just a lower velocity wadcutter like a Federal. But it’s just mental masturbation. Doesn’t matter to me that clear gel isn’t homogenous. Because the target use (self defense) isn’t homogenous either.

It's not about keeping an open mind.

Just say I like shooting clear gel because it's fun. That's enough.

[mtnbkr]

*Why* is clear gel not consistent? What makes it inconsistent? Is this a batch-to-batch issue or a shot-to-shot one?

As a manufactured non-organic product, one would expect the consistency to be better, so what makes it inferior?

I'm curious because this keeps getting brought up, but nobody ever explains the hows and whys.

Chris

[JCN]

It's not about keeping an open mind.

Just say I like shooting clear gel because it's fun. That's enough.

I don’t think it’s fun. Which is why I’m telling you that there was no point in responding with a closed mind.

For other people:

Say I took a single velocity measurement with a LabRadar and compared it in a gross way to a different reading in different temp in different humidity at different sea level and at different muzzle distance.

I can compare them in a gross way that still is educational without it being scientific.

Like 150 9mm Syntech is in the 800-900 fps range whereas 147 HST is in the 1000-1100 fps range and I can make some generalizable inferences that guide my choices in consumption and utilization.







*Why* is clear gel not consistent? What makes it inconsistent? Is this a batch-to-batch issue or a shot-to-shot one?

As a manufactured non-organic product, one would expect the consistency to be better, so what makes it inferior?

I'm curious because this keeps getting brought up, but nobody ever explains the hows and whys.

Chris

And also how that consistency and lack of consistency is modified and mitigated by the remelting process that we use to reformulate and reconstitute blocks.

When I initially bought my 20% block, my original thought was to add some to a 10% block and heat and mix to get something closer to 12% but more consistent with the organic gel BB calibration. I even bought a BB gun to help test.

But quickly I figured, “what’s the point?”

And 20% clear gel is easier to use and transport.

So I usually will run a 9mm Gold Dot as an internal control of penetration and say “good enough” based off that for any new ammo I test.

Does it really matter if something penetrates 30 inches in clear 10% or 26 inches in organic? Not to me because both grossly overpenetrate for my use.

[Crazy Dane]

We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think clear gel is “worthless.”

We get it man.



This^^

I have used clear gel; it gave me a cost-effective solution to that task I was trying to accomplish. I didn't need results to prove to anything to anyone but me. I used it to develop a reduced recoil/velocity load for my aging father to hunt deer with. There are bullets that didn't expand that were well within their advertised expansion range. Maybe if I had used wet phone books or a box of zip lock bags filled with water, I would have gotten better results.

[the Schwartz]

Here’s in 20% gel compared to the Underwood SWC.


https://youtu.be/6R51xQQNeWo



We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think clear gel is “worthless.”

We get it man.

I still like it for comparative testing against a known gold standard.

I’ll usually shoot 9mm Gold Dot as the control and compare against that.

Even organic gel is a simplified estimate on what might work in a real shooting when you add a ton of extra variables like bone and non-muscle structures.

I’ve gone to using 20% clear gel for convenience and transport.

I am sorry that the presentation of factual material in this thread bothers you enough to cause you to react in the manner that you chose.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right.

There are quite a few of us here who prefer to hold to that standard and I count myself fortunate to number amongst those notable individuals.

If you take issue with other's reliance upon scientifically valid test protocols it's not an ''us'' problem.

It's a ''you'' problem.

[JCN]

Just as an FYI to the general populace

97637

[JCN]

Anything worth doing is worth doing right.

This IMO is dumb.

I said that you do great work and I think your standard is admirable.

This is your field of work. I’m not saying it’s not awesomesauce and I have no problem with that.

You’re a 5 star chef.

But you know, there’s a time for chicken nuggets.

[JCN]

Re: anything worth doing is worth doing right…

Are you a ripped triathlete?

Are you a top level marksman?

When you last ate a meal, was it of gourmet quality?

Life is about compromise in a world of finite resources, time being the most valuable one.

[the Schwartz]

Anything worth doing is worth doing right.


This IMO is dumb.


Re: anything worth doing is worth doing right…

Are you a ripped triathlete?

Are you a top level marksman?

When you last ate a meal, was it of gourmet quality?

Life is about compromise in a world of finite resources, time being the most valuable one.



I am sure that those (military and law enforcement personnel) whose lives depend upon conducting scientifically-valid terminal ballistic research would beg to difffer with you.

There's a tremendous difference between legitimate scientific research and goofing off in one's own backyard. Doing the former correctly is extremely important. In the case of the latter, it doesn't matter at all. That's a huge distinction.

And, as many here might note, I didn't have to use the term "dumb" when referring to another's thoughts in the process of explaining that distinction.

[JCN]

I am sure that those (military and law enforcement personnel) whose lives depend upon conducting scientifically-valid terminal ballistic research would beg to difffer with you.

There's a tremendous difference between legitimate scientific research and goofing off in one's own backyard. Doing the former correctly is extremely important. In the case of the latter, it doesn't matter at all. That's a huge distinction.

Of course. That’s exactly what I said.

I’m glad you are rigorous in your scientific work because that work is super important and lives depend on it.

For me as a hobby, good enough is good enough.

That’s literally what I said.

Which begs the question of why you continuously project your context on hobbyists.

Do you think 5pins is testing so a military org can run wadcutters?

I think you’re great and the work you do is great.

But it’s inappropriate to apply that to hobbyist endeavors.

[the Schwartz]

Of course. That’s exactly what I said.

I’m glad you are rigorous in your scientific work because that work is super important and lives depend on it.

For me as a hobby, good enough is good enough.

That’s literally what I said.

Which begs the question of why you continuously project your context on hobbyists.

Do you think 5pins is testing so a military org can run wadcutters?

I think you’re great and the work you do is great.

But it’s inappropriate to apply that to hobbyist endeavors.

Your commentary, especially, ''Which begs the question of why you continuously project your context on hobbyists'', and ''But it’s inappropriate to apply that to hobbyist endeavors.'' suggests that you might be assigning to me issues that are your own and not mine.

Unfortunately, I am unable to help you with those.

This conversation is no longer productive and it's beginning to circle the drain, so I'll not participate here any further.

[Hambo]

Yo, JCN and the Schwartz, the OP said:


I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

I don't think he needs anyone to explain the scientific method or fight for his honor. :rolleyes:

[JCN]

the Schwartz

I didn’t say you were dumb.
I didn’t say your work was dumb.

You’re a very smart guy and the work you do is very important.

I’ll even give you credit for the the context of:
Anything worth doing (as a profession that people are depending on your results) is worth doing well.

I agree with that statement 100%.

But do you think that applies to hobbies and hobbyists?

And do you think any of us besides you consider our work to be above the level of hobbyist?

[5pins]

I'm going to have to start using a caveat when using Clear Ballistics gel. My intention when testing a field or woods load is not to test them as a traditional defense round, and I don't think anyone should view it that way. I am intending to compare how one load performs to another in a medium that is relativity consistent. I'm only interested in seeing how much penetration a non-expanding bullet will achieve. The gel is not meant to represent anything besides a testing medium.
I use clear gel because of cost and the fact that I can't make more than two blocks of 250A gel at a time. I usually need three or four blocks when I do these tests.

[Navin Johnson]

Thank you 5 pins

Thank you The Schwartz

[JCN]

I'm going to have to start using a caveat when using Clear Ballistics gel. My intention when testing a field or woods load is not to test them as a traditional defense round, and I don't think anyone should view it that way. I am intending to compare how one load performs to another in a medium that is relativity consistent. I'm only interested in seeing how much penetration a non-expanding bullet will achieve. The gel is not meant to represent anything besides a testing medium.
I use clear gel because of cost and the fact that I can't make more than two blocks of 250A gel at a time. I usually need three or four blocks when I do these tests.

But yet Wayne Dobbs did for testing his new wadcutters and I think that’s just fine.

97643

I take it as a quick ballpark medium.

If his testing had 12” in clear gel, I would want it validated in organic gel.

But something that goes 15” in clear gel isn’t going to fail sub 12” in organic gel I would wager and even so, Border Patrol goes down to 10” penetration acceptable.

I don’t think Wayne was lazy or remiss. And even though it’s clear gel it gives me the information I was looking for.

His wadcutter also performs in the ballpark of the semi Underwood in the video above as would be expected. So confirmation all around. Not “totally worthless.”

[the Schwartz]

the Schwartz

And do you think any of us besides you consider our work to be above the level of hobbyist?

That's quite a leading question!

Clearly, you're projecting upon me a perspective that is yours. I have neither the desire nor the time to resolve your issues as that sort of thing is entirely out of my wheelhouse.

You've clearly got some weird sort of an axe to grind. That's not my problem.

Let's simply part company before the Mods have cause to intervene, shall we? :cool:

[Elwin]

I came here looking for discussion of this load.

I got nearly none of that in three pages.

[JCN]

I came here looking for discussion of this load.

I got nearly none of that in three pages.

Well naturally, because the discussion was DOA as soon as 5pins started off with that worthless clear gel!

[the Schwartz]

*Why* is clear gel not consistent? What makes it inconsistent? Is this a batch-to-batch issue or a shot-to-shot one?

As a manufactured non-organic product, one would expect the consistency to be better, so what makes it inferior?

I'm curious because this keeps getting brought up, but nobody ever explains the hows and whys.

Chris

The ''search'' function to the rescue!

https://pistol-forum.com/search.php?searchid=15032759

[JCN]

The ''search'' function to the rescue!

https://pistol-forum.com/search.php?searchid=15032759

Clicking on that link dead ends, it might be a cache thing.

Also waiting for the reconciliation of your thoughts on Wayne Dobbs using just clear gel in testing his wadcutters.

97647

Did Wayne “not do it right?”

Or did he do a “good enough” job for what was being tested.

I’m voting the latter, while your comments suggest you’d believe the former.

Oh and also: jetfire

[the Schwartz]

Clicking on that link dead ends, it might be a cache thing.

Also waiting for the reconciliation of your thoughts on Wayne Dobbs using just clear gel in testing his wadcutters.

97647

Did Wayne “not do it right?”

Or did he do a “good enough” job for what was being tested.

I’m voting the latter, while your comments suggest you’d believe the former.

Oh and also: jetfire

Given who you've ''mentioned'' in the post quoted, it's obvious that you're attempting to stir the pot. Out of respect for the forum owner, I'd ask that you please confine your attempts to do so to PM.

[jetfire]

Lol nah

[5pins]

Clicking on that link dead ends, it might be a cache thing.

Also waiting for the reconciliation of your thoughts on Wayne Dobbs using just clear gel in testing his wadcutters.

97647

Did Wayne “not do it right?”

Or did he do a “good enough” job for what was being tested.

I’m voting the latter, while your comments suggest you’d believe the former.

Oh and also: @jetfire (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=67)

No, he did not do it right. Not if the goal of the test was to determine if this type of ammunition was suitable for carry.

I understand your point of using clear gel as a hobby testing medium. However, if you are using the test results to promote its use to others then yes you're doing it wrong.


There's a reason I stopped using and got rid of clear gel in my testing. As I explained in my previous post, I only use it now for my field loads.
Take my latest post on the Rem .38 158gr LHP. I conducted this test using the Winchester version a few years ago in clear gel and got vastly different results. I'm aware that the Winchester and Remington loads are not identical, but I expect they will perform similarly. But the Winchester bullet went through over 7 inches more of clear gel with very little expansion. It was worse in the clothing covered gel.

[JCN]

No, he did not do it right. Not if the goal of the test was to determine if this type of ammunition was suitable for carry.

I understand your point of using clear gel as a hobby testing medium. However, if you are using the test results to promote its use to others then yes you're doing it wrong.


There's a reason I stopped using and got rid of clear gel in my testing. As I explained in my previous post, I only use it now for my field loads.
Take my latest post on the Rem .38 158gr LHP. I conducted this test using the Winchester version a few years ago in clear gel and got vastly different results. I'm aware that the Winchester and Remington loads are not identical, but I expect they will perform similarly. But the Winchester bullet went through over 7 inches more of clear gel with very little expansion. It was worse in the clothing covered gel.

Your results in 10% clear gel are consistent with the Police 1 article.

Where the conclusion is:

If the formula for the clear synthetic could be altered to provide performance equivalent to that of 10% calibrated gelatin, it would be the runaway favorite for this kind of work. Legions of manufacturers, law enforcement agencies and individual hobbyists would cheer in unison to have a ready-made, temperature-stable clear gelatin that accurately replicated the troublesome organic gelatin. It would be a huge win for all of us to see that happen.


Which then begs the question of:

We know that 10% clear gel is too thin. Which leads to overpenetration. So it’s not appropriate to compare against 10% organic gel.

But what about a denser preparation? If the molecules don’t weigh the same, 10% by weight is meaningless if the properties are related to the particle number and geometry rather than the weight.

I know for a fact that 20% synthetic gel does not penetrate as far as 10% organic.

As a hobby endeavor I’ll do some testing.

[Tokarev]

Your results in 10% clear gel are consistent with the Police 1 article.

Where the conclusion is:

If the formula for the clear synthetic could be altered to provide performance equivalent to that of 10% calibrated gelatin, it would be the runaway favorite for this kind of work. Legions of manufacturers, law enforcement agencies and individual hobbyists would cheer in unison to have a ready-made, temperature-stable clear gelatin that accurately replicated the troublesome organic gelatin. It would be a huge win for all of us to see that happen.


Which then begs the question of:

We know that 10% clear gel is too thin. Which leads to overpenetration. So it’s not appropriate to compare against 10% organic gel.

But what about a denser preparation? If the molecules don’t weigh the same, 10% by weight is meaningless if the properties are related to the particle number and geometry rather than the weight.

I know for a fact that 20% synthetic gel does not penetrate as far as 10% organic.

As a hobby endeavor I’ll do some testing.As users have reported; aside from Clear Gel not being analogous to 250A, it is also not consistent from one block to the next. And I don't think anyone has established any sort of standard for how many times a block can be melted and re-used before it no longer has its original properties.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[JCN]

As users have reported; aside from Clear Gel not being analogous to 250A, it is also not consistent from one block to the next. And I don't think anyone has established any sort of standard for how many times a block can be melted and re-used before it no longer has its original properties.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Agreed.

But I think we also agree that the Clear Gel density is fundamentally off if they’re trying to compare 1:1 with organic gel.

So regardless of inconsistency, it’s all skewed thin (which is a bigger issue).

The company says melting 8x but who knows if that’s actually accurate.

In my head, I’m curious if the density was adjusted could the synthetic gel be reasonable in a narrow velocity application.

Basically is the product so flawed as to be unworkable, or is the main criticism around the thin density of what’s being advertised as an organic gel analog.

My internal hope is that if increasing the synthetic gel percent by 3-5% gives workable product, maybe the company would adjust their density of what they’re selling (but probably not).

I’m just curious, though, about what the limitation of the molecule is versus the limitation of what’s sold commercially (that we can agree is too thin for a 1:1 comparison).

[mtnbkr]

it is also not consistent from one block to the next.
That sounds like a manufacturing issue.

What is the manufacturer's view on improving consistency and maybe developing a translation protocol between this and organic gel?

I think this is important because the Clear Ballistics product *seems* more accessible and easier to manage for folks who want to do some testing without a lot of hassle.

Chris

[Tokarev]

Agreed.

But I think we also agree that the Clear Gel density is fundamentally off if they’re trying to compare 1:1 with organic gel.

So regardless of inconsistency, it’s all skewed thin (which is a bigger issue).

The company says melting 8x but who knows if that’s actually accurate.

In my head, I’m curious if the density was adjusted could the synthetic gel be reasonable in a narrow velocity application.

Basically is the product so flawed as to be unworkable, or is the main criticism around the thin density of what’s being advertised as an organic gel analog.

My internal hope is that if increasing the synthetic gel percent by 3-5% gives workable product, maybe the company would adjust their density of what they’re selling (but probably not).

I’m just curious, though, about what the limitation of the molecule is versus the limitation of what’s sold commercially (that we can agree is too thin for a 1:1 comparison).I think I've posted this before. In my opinion clear gel could become sort of its own standard if and when the company could make blocks consistent from one batch to the next. Whether or not it is an approximation of 10% 250A is kind of beside the point. It wouldn't have to fully represent 250A if it replicated itself from block to block.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[5pins]

My guess is that clear gel would have made it more consistent and correlate better by now if they could. If you look over their patent, it notes several “various experiments” to get to the formulation it has now.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070116766A1/en

Basically, clear gel is a reformulation of “candle gel”.

https://thecandlemakersstore.com/candle-making/candle-wax-and-gel/penreco-gels.html

[JCN]

That sounds like a manufacturing issue.

What is the manufacturer's view on improving consistency and maybe developing a translation protocol between this and organic gel?

I think this is important because the Clear Ballistics product *seems* more accessible and easier to manage for folks who want to do some testing without a lot of hassle.

Chris


I think I've posted this before. In my opinion clear gel could become sort of its own standard if and when the company could make blocks consistent from one batch to the next. Whether or not it is an approximation of 10% 250A is kind of beside the point. It wouldn't have to fully represent 250A if it replicated itself from block to block.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I think it would be mechanically easy for them to produce a 15% synthetic gel that might give closer numbers to 10% organic gel.

[JCN]

My guess is that clear gel would have made it more consistent and correlate better by now if they could. If you look over their patent, it notes several “various experiments” to get to the formulation it has now.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070116766A1/en

Basically, clear gel is a reformulation of “candle gel”.

https://thecandlemakersstore.com/candle-making/candle-wax-and-gel/penreco-gels.html

Great find on the patent and the candle gel!

As to the former, I think they “can” do it but like vitamin companies with lower QC compared to drug quality production it comes down to cost and effort and whether it’s “worth it” to put in the extra cost and expense.

[Tokarev]

I think it would be mechanically easy for them to produce a 15% synthetic gel that might give closer numbers to 10% organic gel.

I don't think they'd ever be able to make an exact replication simply because we're dealing with two different materials. But "close enough" would be fine if the CB blocks could be consistent from batch to batch.

Maybe another way to look at all this is the overall data it provides the consumer. If a bullet performs well in 250A and also does well in Clear Gel it may be a very good choice for defense. On the other hand, a bullet that maybe only meets penetration depth or fragments in one type of gel and not another may not be the best load to choose.

[JCN]

I don't think they'd ever be able to make an exact replication simply because we're dealing with two different materials. But "close enough" would be fine if the CB blocks could be consistent from batch to batch.


I agree with this. Which is why I think the best hope is to make a density that works similarly at a set range of narrow velocities (like 900-1200) that might be just a decent analog for pistol type things.

My ~15% gel is cooling now and I hope to run out and test it this afternoon

[Willard]

OP, Thanks for the info. I picked up several boxes of this stuff when it was on sale at Midway. Appreciate your posts.

Not trying to poke anyone else here, but the OP went to personal expense to provide info to the hive that you can take or leave. He didn't have to do that and if you don't like it, do something better. Don't just complain where his information doesn't meet what you think it should be. Fill in the gap. Detracting comments unnecessary.

It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down & if you don't have something nice to say, don't say nothing. YMMV.

[the Schwartz]

My guess is that clear gel would have made it more consistent and correlate better by now if they could. If you look over their patent, it notes several “various experiments” to get to the formulation it has now.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070116766A1/en

Basically, clear gel is a reformulation of “candle gel”.

https://thecandlemakersstore.com/candle-making/candle-wax-and-gel/penreco-gels.html

We have made the same guess, 5pins.

The CBG product is composed of a triblock copolymer that has been plasticized by a paraffinic processing oil (ParaLux 700 according to a few leaked invoices that made their way around the 'net several years ago). In other words, the CBG product is reformulated gel candle.

The primary reason that the CBG product can never reproduce the pressure response to impact that 10% ordnance gelatin or water can is because it is not possible to formulate it to a density that is higher than its chief constituent components. An in order to correctly represent a bullet's expansion and penetration depth, the simulant must have the same density as what it is simulating.

According to the Bernoulli equation, PDYNAMIC = ½ρV², besides impact velocity, density is the only material property that effects the dynamic pressure that occurs at impact. So, if the density of whatever test medium is being used does not match that of human soft tissues, it cannot accurately reproduce the pressure of the two proven tissue simulants.

The triblock copolymers used in the CBG product have a density range of 0.89 to 0.92 g/cm³.
The paraffinic processing oil used in the CBG product have a density range of 0.85 to 0.87 g/cm³.

In comparison—

10% ordnance gelatin has a density range of 1.029 to 1.039 g/cm³.
Water has a density of 0.999 g/cm³.
Soft tissue has a density range that varies from 1.050 g/cm³ for human muscle, to 0.985 g/cm³ for adipose tissue, with a composite density of the human body 1.043 g/cm³. (Mast, D. et al, 2000)

So, no matter what ratio of triblock copolymer and paraffinic processing oil is used, any possible set of blending proportions that could be used to make the CBG product can never exceed the density of its densest component which would be 0.92 g/cm³.

To say otherwise is the equivalent of claiming that 1 x 1 = 1.2 It doesn't.

Unfortunately, there will never be a simple linear ''conversion'' of results obtained in the CBG product to their equivalent in 10% ordnance gelatin, noted below—

Lucien C. Haag (in the AFTE Journal, Spring 2020 52;2) who addresses the issue further in the following excerpt from that article—

97682

[Elwin]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

[JCN]

Regarding the density of the 20% block, I’ll again direct attention to the same load shot by the OP in 10% gel that went 25 inches…


https://youtu.be/6R51xQQNeWo

Goes about 14 inches in the 20% block. So it seems to me it’s denser than water and denser than organic gel.

97716

I’m sure there are other potential explanations but that’s the most logical one to me.

It’s also much tougher and harder to tear apart.

I can tear 10% clear gel by hand and it’s floppy.

The 20% hurts my rotator cuff to tear and I usually have to saw at it with a serrated chef’s knife.

[WDR]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

If you don't find loads like 135gr +P Gold Dot, or 130gr +P Ranger Bonded objectionable, you might tolerate the Underwood or Buffalo Bore loads too. Those two loads, and maybe the 110gr Barnes DPX load are the only ones that seem to relatively reliably expand from 2" sunbs... and they are on the cusp of not working, IMHO. The 110gr Critical Defense might fit in here too.

FWIW, I carry those two loads (GD/Ranger Bonded) in my 442, and as reloads, despite it being a "handful" mostly because its what I have on hand, and it works from speedloaders/strips. I have carried my own wadcutter reloads, but I'd prefer a factory load if it was easily obtainable, had sealed primers, and didn't cost as much as, or more than JHP loads. Since its pretty hard to source both JHP and factory wadcutter loads right now, unless you want to pay a mint, I stick with what I have.

The whole point of wadcutters in snubs was reduced recoil and making the guns more shootable. It was a bonus that they crushed (slightly) more tissue than RN/FMJ/JHP (that didn't expand from 2" guns), and penetrated adequately. When you start edging back into "full charge wadcutter" territory, you lose the shootability aspect, and maybe gain a bit more penetration. The higher velocity really isn't buying you anything you'd need, unless barriers are an issue (say, auto glass or sheet metal)... and even then a snubby full of wadcutter isn't the best tool for that task, even if it is hard cast high velocity stuff. The higher velocity is costing you shootability/accuracy/follow up speed.

Only you can decide if the juice is worth the squeeze for your situation.

[JCN]

Elwin
WDR

I think an LCR9 at 17 ounces is the best trade off if you’re looking for something potent.

It makes 9mm velocities like a P365 and is pretty shootable.

The hot underwood 38 is more blasty and worse ballistically so it’s not my favorite.

I also have a 2.5” Night Guard that can shoot 38/357 and 9mm so it’s easy to compare in the same weight gun.

This is 357 that doesn’t ballistically do more than 9mm except make fireballs (out of this short of a barrel).

97721

[Chuck Whitlock]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

My thoughts....
The +P Gold Dots and Rangers are fine out of steel snubs, and painful out of lightweight snubs.

I'll be flying to the Midwest in January, and will be taking my SP101 and my M37.
The initial loads will be Gold Dots (or perhaps Remington 125 gr. Golden Sabre) in the SP101 and 148 gr. WC in the M37.
Reloads will be speed strips with Gold Dots, because that's what I have on hand and they slip into chambers easier than WCs. If I wind up having to shoot those out of the M37, I will just have to grit my teeth and bear it.

I want to try out some 110 gr. Barnes and 110 gr. Critical Defense as reloads. I've also considered standard pressure Hornady 158 gr. XTPs for reloads. I have no illusions of expansion, but they ought to shoot to the sights, slip into chambers, and the noses wouldn't deform in pockets and whatnot like lead SWCs would.

[Totem Polar]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

I’ll respond to #3 above, only because I’ve shot both the underwood and BB 150 gr full wadcutters alongside the 135gr GDHP+P on several occasions in different revolvers. The recoil across all 3 loads, IMHO, is pretty darn close—which makes me just go with the GDHP. I don’t really see any advantage to the hotter 150 wadcutter loadings, unless one lives in NJ or uses an airweight J as a “black bear gun.” Neither of which I ever plan on doing.

TL/DR there isn’t anything the hot 150s do that either the GDHP+P or a serious “outdoorsman” load, eg. either boutique maker’s 158 gr +P semi wadcutter at 1250, won’t do better. JMO.

[jetfire]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

Out of a steel frame revolver those would be fine, since they're fairly similar to something like a 135gr +P Gold Dot. But at that point, it makes more sense to just carry the Gold Dot instead. The primary point of wadcutters isn't their shape; it's that out of small, light revolvers they're easier to shoot well and get hits with vs something else.

When picking a defensive revolver load for a snub these are my priorities in order:

1. Does it hit to the sights on a fixed sight gun - if the gun has a dot or adjustable sights, this can be ignored
2. Does the round meet the FBI standards for penetration
3. Can I place two accurate hits to the high center chest and a follow up headshot from concealment in what I deem to be an appropriate time, from concealment, on command
4. Is the recoil/muzzle blast penalty too excessive for my personal use case/could it inhibit me from getting good hits

You'll notice that bullet shape and expansion aren't on this list, because out of a snub they're not nearly as important as putting rounds on target. Or, as Uncle Pat allegedly said "even 158gr LRN killed guys pretty good if you shot them where it mattered."

[03RN]

Unless I'm carrying in the woods I carry my HST reloads (147@930fps). In the woods I like swc or WC depending on my gun. My 2" m10 shoots like a Lazer with WC. Mostly for more penetration if by chance I need it vs an aggressive animal. Shooting small tasty animals with WC also leaves more meat behind.

As for the recoil I prefer heavier loads because I don't have any air weight j frames so it's less of a deal. My bill drills with autos vs magnum revolvers vs heavy 38s in steel k snubs are so close that it's really not worth worrying about.

[JCN]

Unless I'm carrying in the woods I carry my HST reloads (147@930fps).

That’s interesting because that’s almost the exact same ballistics that I was shooting in a tiny pocket 9mm. :D

[03RN]

That’s interesting because that’s almost the exact same ballistics that I was shooting in a tiny pocket 9mm. :D

Except I get to use a custom 3" revolver made by the late Karl Sokol. I have no use for pocket guns since I have 20+ years of building a power lifters ass.

I think I could get a little more velocity with better suited powders but I do what I can with what I can get and it's still within the 147s hsts abilities.

I'm also sure you can out shoot me with that pocket gun if I'm shooting that 3" k frame but I can out shoot myself with a k frame vs pocket sized gun

[GAP]

I would normally apologize for this being off topic given that the OP is talking about field use, but given the circumstances…

What are peoples’ thoughts on the spicier wadcutters (Underwood and Buffalo Bore) for carry with lightweight LCRs and J Frames? Too much recoil to be worth it? Recoil worth it because of some counterbalancing advantage? Comparisons to the “decent for short barrel” JHPs like 135gr Gold Dot?

From my 642 the recoil levels are like this:

Federal 148gr GMM Wadcutter < Winchester 130gr Ranger +p < Speer Gold dot 135gr +p < Buffalo Bore 150gr Wadcutter

The wadcutters shoot a little high and the +p options both shoot to my fixed sight.

I personally like the rangers the best. I wouldn’t care to shoot the BB from a j-frame ever again.

[Wonder9]

This has been my J-frame load since the Ranger & GD-SB are unobtainium, and it's guaranteed penetration.

Doesn't lead bad and not bad at all in a steel-frame J. A little obnoxious in an Airweight, but not like Underwood's Keith SWC +P load.

[UNK]

My thoughts....
The +P Gold Dots and Rangers are fine out of steel snubs, and painful out of lightweight snubs.

I'll be flying to the Midwest in January, and will be taking my SP101 and my M37.
The initial loads will be Gold Dots (or perhaps Remington 125 gr. Golden Sabre) in the SP101 and 148 gr. WC in the M37.
Reloads will be speed strips with Gold Dots, because that's what I have on hand and they slip into chambers easier than WCs. If I wind up having to shoot those out of the M37, I will just have to grit my teeth and bear it.

I want to try out some 110 gr. Barnes and 110 gr. Critical Defense as reloads. I've also considered standard pressure Hornady 158 gr. XTPs for reloads. I have no illusions of expansion, but they ought to shoot to the sights, slip into chambers, and the noses wouldn't deform in pockets and whatnot like lead SWCs would.

How many inches is that sp101?

[Chuck Whitlock]

How many inches is that sp101?

https://ruger.com/products/sp101/specSheets/5720.html

[D-der]

Federal 158gr LSCW shoot to poa in my 101 and high in my LCR,
I'd have no problem with the BB in the 101 but, pass with the LCR.
Federal 148 GM WC shoot right to the sights from my LCR
at 7 yds's I just received my order of std velocity WC's from
Lost River today, anxious to give them a try, from what I've
read in another post, maybe 50fps or so more velocity...
Hoping poi is the same as the Federal's.
If time and weather permit's this weekend, maybe I'll run em
over the chrono.