Organic gelatin Vs Clear Gel
In the thread on Guy Sagi writes about HST and Hydra Shok turned a bit into a Clear gel Vs real gel debate. I thought I would start a new thread focused on that topic.
I ran across this conference paper on difference between 250A organic ballistics gel and Clear Ballistic gel I thought some here would find interesting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322871471_Clear_Ballistics_GelR_High_Speed_Retardi ng_Force_Analysis_of_Paraffin-Based_Alternative_to_Gelatin-based_Testing_of_Lead-Free_Pistol_Bullets
I think this quote, at the end, sums it up nicely.
Quote:
Earlier publications using high speed video retarding force analysis have
quantified the energy loss during penetration and also the expected probability of
incapacitation given a hit, P(I/H), for various loads [2, 4-5]. However, the
reasonableness of that analysis depends on the penetration depths and retarding forces
in Clear Ballistics GelŽbeing comparable with calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. The
significant differences between Clear Ballistics GelŽand calibrated 10% ballistic
gelatin would render such estimates and comparisons misleading.
As a result of the significant differences between Clear Ballistics GelŽand
calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, it is recommended that results from testing in Clear
Ballistics GelŽ not be used for testing and selecting of loads for duty use, self-
defense, or hunting applications. Results from testing in Clear Ballistics GelŽ might
be used to identify promising candidates for further testing in calibrated 10% ballistic
gelatin, which remains the best available standard for wound ballistics testing
Additional reference sources for those interested....
There is a significant body of peer-reviewed research that confirms that the synthetic (polymer) gelatins are completely worthless for the purpose of evaluating the terminal ballistic performance of handgun and rifle ammunition as they would perform in soft tissues.
Here are two such examples...
International Journal of Legal Medicine: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1831-7
From page 2 of the cited source:
Quote:
Alternative synthetic materials have been used and reportedly produce similar results as gelatine without the need to condition at a particular temperature (e.g. PermaGel, Clear Ballistics GelŽ). Claimed advantages include the ability to melt and re-use these materials without detrimental effect to the physical and mechanical properties (within limits). However, literature has reported that these materials produce different DoP and damage when compared to gelatine blocks [21, 22]. Evidence of ageing after one re-melt has also been reported, and burning within the blocks (which is not observed in gelatine blocks) is observed post-testing due to the composition of the material [21, 23].
Another source, by Lucien C. Haag, addresses very specifically and extensively the comprehensive deficiencies that exist with the Clear Ballistics Gel product in the AFTE Journal, Spring 2020, 52;2
https://afte.org/store/product/afte-...l-52-no-2-2020
From page 77 of the cited source:
Quote:
There is much to be deduced from an inspection of Figure 13, which provides multi-point BB penetration plots into samples of 10% and 20% Clear Ballistics at room temperature versus Std. OG (ordnance gelatin) at 4°C. As was the case with Perma-Gel, the slopes for the Clear Bballistics targets are much steeper than that of Std. OG with the plot for the 10% Clear Ballistics intercepting and crossing the Std. OG plot at about 460fps. This is the only point at which the two media are equivalent insofar as BB penetration. The non-paralleling slopes of the Clear Ballistics product(s) versus Std. OG means that there can be no simple, mathematical means to translate BB penetration values for one medium into those of the other.
As it stands, there are at present only two valid tissue simulants. The first is water which can be used to determine projectile expansion and, with the proper application of mathematical formulae (MacPherson, D. 1995 and 2005 and Schwartz, C. 2012), maximum terminal penetration depth and predictions of the permanent wound volume and damaged tissue mass. The second is properly prepared shear-validated Type-A 250 Bloom strength 10% ordnance gelatin.
Anyone who continues to assert otherwise is fooling only themselves.