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...Originally Posted by Tokarev
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.
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
https://www.federalpremium.com/ammun...ber/38-special
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
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.
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
Reply With Quote