first 38+p HST test I have seen

[5pins]

As the owner of General Cartridge blog, I agree that Clear gel is not the same as real ordnance gel. I starting shooting Clear gel mostly as a hobby and to satisfy my own curiosity. I only started the blog to help me track what I was doing and I felt that other people would find it interesting. I use Clear gel because it’s cheap and easy. I would like to try real gel at some point but the time and expense involved doesn't make it possible right now.

I will concede that my tests are armature and should be viewed in that light. However, most people don’t have access to the professional testing and the testing I do is simply one more bit of information for people to use but should not be seen as definitive.

I can’t explain why Mr. Gun n' Gear and my results are so different but I will say I find it odd that something expanded to such a large diameter, at such a low velocity, penetrated that deep. If you look at some of my 9mm tests, like the Federal 135gr +P tac bonded, you will see that it had a much higher average velocity, and expanded less, but had less penetration then the .38 HST’s he tested. The penetration I got, with the .38 HST, in my test is more consistent with what one would expect. I don’t expect we will see 16 inches of penetration in real gel when we see the professional results come out.

[DocGKR]

The BB test is technically block "validation" rather than "calibration".

[Tokarev]

The BB test is technically block "validation" rather than "calibration".

Good point. If nothing else it would help validate the various clear gel tests. Give us a more apples to apples comparison as it were.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

I will concede that my tests are armature and should be viewed in that light. However, most people don’t have access to the professional testing and the testing I do is simply one more bit of information for people to use but should not be seen as definitive.

Yes that's how I see your data. One more piece of reference.

Let me ask the hive mind this; if a bullet expands well and penetrates well in Clear Gel does that not mean it will likely behave well in actual shootings? While the same bullet(s) might expand and penetrate differently in real VS synthetic gel do the two not share a commonality as a repeatable test bed?

Actually I'm more interested in how a bullet performs when fired through clothing VS fired into bare gel. While the bare might give a good indication of what a bullet is capable of under ideal circumstances that probably isn't good for anything other than academic discussion. I'm more interested in whether or not the bullet gets plugged or has a velocity that's too low to expand through the heavy clothing. That's probably where Clear Gel is at its best.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

"...if a bullet expands well and penetrates well in Clear Gel does that not mean it will likely behave well in actual shootings?"

To the best of my knowledge and unlike properly fabricated 10% ordnance gel, none of the synthetic simulants have been correlated with damage in actual tissue.

"While the same bullet(s) might expand and penetrate differently in real VS synthetic gel do the two not share a commonality as a repeatable test bed?"

I am unaware of any legitimate test facility or organization that uses synthetic gel for assessing terminal performance....in some quarters that might be considered a clue....

[Tokarev]

The video is linked but here's some info that's on Brass Fetcher's actual website.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Syntheti...20Gelatin.html

If this info is true across the board and consistent from one block of CB gel to the next it would indicate that ammo that's within the FBI spec in CB could likely be a failure in real gel. Still, I think CB has some value to see if a bullet will work as expected when fired through clothing or if it becomes plugged and fails to expand. Again, that's what I think CB is best used for.

It would be interesting to see someone with access to both types of gel to test multiple types of ammo through barriers to see what impact barriers have on performance and test results.

[DocGKR]

About the only time I find synthetic gels useful is for are backing body armor in testing.

[revchuck38]

I don't question that 10% gel is preferred. However, testing using it is pretty much restricted to current law enforcement calibers. In my case, I wanted to know how full power .357 Magnum 158 grain JHPs from a 4" barrel compare so I could choose one to use in my S&W M681. My search-fu was too weak to find that info using calibrated 10% gel, so I ended up relying on Lucky Gunner's tests in clear gel. Those tests at least gave me a way to compare loads in the same medium. FWIW, I went with the Remington version.

If anyone can supply a link for such a comparison done with 10% calibrated gel, it'd be worth a beer.

[the Schwartz]

The video is linked but here's some info that's on Brass Fetcher's actual website.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Syntheti...20Gelatin.html

If this info is true across the board and consistent from one block of CB gel to the next it would indicate that ammo that's within the FBI spec in CB could likely be a failure in real gel. Still, I think CB has some value to see if a bullet will work as expected when fired through clothing or if it becomes plugged and fails to expand. Again, that's what I think CB is best used for.

It would be interesting to see someone with access to both types of gel to test multiple types of ammo through barriers to see what impact barriers have on performance and test results.

I agree with you.

Having seen what John Ervin, Mech. Eng. (BrassFetcher) did with regard to comparing the terminal performance of bullets fired into Clear Ballistic Gel and 10% ordnance gel, esp.with what he discloses at 18:45 in the vid you attached, it seems that along with this page

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Syntheti...20Gelatin.html

there exists considerable fluctuation even within the CBG product making it 'suspect' at best. The variable 'skew' seen in the data in tables 1-6 on Brass Fetcher's page is a pretty good demonstration of why there is concern with what it (CBG) actually does and raises more questions than answers IMO.

IIRC, I seem to remember Doc mentioning that the CBG product also exhibits similar issues with rifle rounds, but cannot for the life of me remember what thread that was mentioned in.

[Tokarev]

If I can get my organic gel production worked out and make another block or two I'll give this ammo a try. It will be interesting to see how my results compare to these.