Lucky Gunner 38 & 357 ammo video

[SAWBONES]

BTW, I was disappointed by the performance of Remington .38 Special 158gr+P LSWCHP in snubby 2" barrels in Lucky Gunner's tests as regards bullet expansion, even though this "FBI load" has a longstanding reputation for good street-effectiveness.

The Remington bullet is notably softer than the Winchester offering (dunno about Federal's similar load, have no experience with it), and it hits right at POA in my old S&W 649 Bodyguard, so even though other (lighter) loads get better ratings for expansion, I won't use them because they hit low for me.

It's very rare that I'll carry a J-frame S&W for CCW, but when I do, I'll continue to use Remington 158gr+P LSWCHP in that role anyway.

[Nephrology]

FBI-protocol ballistic gelatin approximates the density and viscosity of hog muscle.

Where are you getting this from ?

A human being's torso has elastic skin, pectoral or abdominal muscle, sternum and rib bone, aerated lung tissue, tough elastic great vessels and cardiac muscle; how in the world does anyone consider that all of that equates to hog muscle in predicting bullet performance as regards a defensive shooting?

Even I believed your first assertion, mammalian muscle tissue is pretty much all the same. This is beside the point however, because:

We value gelatin tests because they give reproducible results, but c'mon, beyond taking penetration depth and bullet expansion reliability and expanded diameter as merely-very-approximate indicators of actual bullet performance in human tissue, they really don't predict anything about effectiveness, at least not in any way that we can generalize, or assume any sort of guaranteed applicability.

This has been studied, and you are incorrect. That's why these tests are useful - when done correctly, they have been correlated to actual outcomes in police shootings.

I appreciate Chris' efforts on Lucky Gunner, and am pleased to see that (for instance) Federal HST JHP loads in both 9mm and .45 Auto penetrate and expand well and reliably in their tests, and also in those using FBI protocol gelatin.

You can appreciate somebody's effort and still think they can do better.

[SAWBONES]

No argument.
I just don't see that we should treat these test results as "Gospel".
If you think otherwise, fine.
Thanks for the link.

[Tamara]

It is a very poor choice.

So...and this is an honest question, as I want to learn stuff...I am given to understand that it's better than a lot of the old standbys, like water jugs, wet newspaper, ductseal, and such?

[BehindBlueI's]

Chris is good people.

Chris is a member here. You could ask him.

Both of these.

[Eastex]

I posted it because I appreciate the work that was put into it. I've spent a fair amount of time and thought on what I carry in my J frame. My searching has turned up a lot of stuff from newspaper to pine boards. Most of that is poorly done, they usually only test one or two loads at best and is hardly ever done with more than one revolver so the results are iffy at best. Every now and then though you find some good useable results with proven methodology but those are few and far between, they're usually really hard to find in the Internet haystack and most of time they're fairly outdated.
This test uses the same media for each round tested. It also gives actual chronograph results from both barrel lengths so you don't have to rely on just what's printed on the box. It's also current, and to me that's a big deal. For example, I've read many places where the FBI load is touted. I've also read many places where there is disagreement about what it exactly was. Everyone seems to agree on the bullet but the velocities can vary and there is lots of debate on whose load comes closest to it currently. Saying its a great choice doesn't help me if I don't know which version is being talked about.
Maybe some of these criticisms will move Chris to change his methodology , I don't know. I just hope that it doesn't cause him to regret the work he put into this. In a world that seems to be pushing everyone into the same platform shooting the same 9mm caliber I appreciate the attention and data he gave the 38 and 357.


"Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic"

[scw2]

I understand that this may not be the ideal way to test ballistics, but I thought that was more due to issues with clear gel being a good predictor for temporary and permanent cavitation. This would obviously be less of a factor for pistol rounds, but a factor regardless. I also understood that the penetration and expansion data was relatively good with clear gel with fewer deviation from fully proper ballistic gel. Is that understanding/assumption incorrect?

Assuming my understanding is roughly accurate, the benefit to me is that as a civilian the underlying data isn't always shared. Although I have no reason to doubt Doc's recommendations and have followed them, seeing the results just enhances what DocGKR has been preaching, both in terms of numbers and visually. You quickly get a good idea of average and level of variability in performance of different ammo brands. If nothing else, IMHO it's a great way to counteract Dunning-Kruger and show people why they should listen to DocGKR if they do not already know who he is and why his recommendations matter.

[DocGKR]

Sawbones--Every reputable organization which has analyzed this area, such as that illustrated in the link to the initial report of SDPD's study which eventually reached about 150 OIS, has found the same results--properly conducted 10% gel studies show a very close correlation with actual shooting incident results.

[LearnedHat]

From the first testing series:

"That’s where ballistic gelatin testing comes in. Back in the late 1980s, the FBI began to use blocks of gelatin made from a solution of water and a powdered form of miscellaneous animal parts — called “ordnance gelatin” or “ballistics gel” — as a substitute for living tissue for testing the effects of duty ammunition. Firing bullets into the gelatin gave them some idea of what the bullet could do inside a person — in particular, how deep the bullet could penetrate, and the degree to which the bullet might expand or deform.

Ordnance gelatin isn’t an exact simulation of living flesh. People and animals have skin, bones, tendons, and organs that are all different in terms of hardness and density. These variables can cause bullets to deflect, fragment, or otherwise behave in unpredictable ways. Conversely, ordnance gelatin is homogeneous, and free of internal obstructions, so the way a bullet behaves in gelatin is indicative of a real life best case scenario. Bullets will not always provide the same results on living tissue that we see in gelatin, but we can expect bullets that perform poorly in gelatin to have a lower success rate on humans, and bullets that perform well in gelatin are more likely to overcome some of the unpredictable variables encountered in the real world.

The other advantage of using a consistent medium like gelatin is that it allows for an “apples to apples” comparison between ammo loads. Each block of gelatin has the same physical properties, so bullet A fired into block A can be compared to bullet B fired into block B. This provides a much more scientific and objective method for comparing ammunition loads than anecdotal reports from real life shootings where there are a plethora of unknown variables to consider.


Today, this type of testing is made even easier with the advent of synthetic ballistic materials. The “real” organic ballistics gelatin blocks used by the FBI today are still made from dehydrated animal tissue. They provide accurate results, but they’re time consuming to make and they have to be refrigerated until almost immediately before they are used. And after all of that, the fired bullets are difficult to see through the cloudy, mud-colored organic gelatin.

Synthetic gelatin from the company Clear Ballistics is temperature stable up to 240° F, so the blocks can be shipped directly to the end user without melting or deforming. These blocks are also completely transparent, so the test results can be observed without cutting into the block. Test results using Clear Ballistics blocks come very close to results using organic gelatin, at least for comparing the penetration and expansion properties of handgun bullets. In addition, the convenience of working with the synthetic gelatin allows testing on a scale that is not practical with a substance as delicate and labor-intensive as traditional organic ordnance gelatin."


I like the fact that he has tested over a hundred rounds in 6 different calibers with the same clothing layers and gel blocks ordered from Clear Ballastics. Can at least see the relative differences in performance. Not bad for free info.

[SAWBONES]

Sawbones--Every reputable organization which has analyzed this area, such as that illustrated in the link to the initial report of SDPD's study which eventually reached about 150 OIS, has found the same results--properly conducted 10% gel studies show a very close correlation with actual shooting incident results.

Thanks. I don't at all doubt that there's a correlation.

After all, bullets which make wider and deeper holes do more tissue damage, and are accordingly expected to be more effective in discouraging ongoing aggression from VCAs.

My point was that tissue simulants are simulants.
One sort may be more like a given homogeneous animal tissue than another, as 10% ordnance gelatin apparently more closely approximates hog muscle than does clear ballistic gel.

Vertebrate/mammalian bodies aren't homogeneous, though, being made up of a variety of different tissues, each of which has a different density and elasticity, most of which are not like muscle, so it's not fair to generalize results from studies of soft tissue simulants to all cases, especially if bone is involved.

The WBR Winter 91 study by Wolberg (which I hadn't previously read) compares OIS data regarding bullet penetration and diameter with ballistics gel results, and shows a good correlation. This is certainly a satisfying result, since the implication is that 10% ordnance gel reasonably resembles human soft tissue as far as 147gr 9mm pistol bullet performance goes, and the article does specify that all wounds involving bone were eliminated from the data set.

I was observing that the Lucky Gunner clear ballistics gel results provide useful information similar to the 10% ordnance gelatin results, in terms of being at least similarly derived from use of a homogeneous tissue simulant, unlike the older tests with water, duct seal and soggy newsprint, AND that those results seem to agree closely with the ordnance gel results for the rounds tested, and are probably similarly useful.