seeking ballistic gel test results with 147 gr loads from a glock 43

[0ddl0t]

how do the two differ? clear gel too dense?

One has been correlated with living animal and human tissue; one has not.

Here is a comparison of typical defensive handgun speed projectiles. In it, clear gel is very highly correlated with organic gel:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kjcoFaobeo

Here is another test, but the clear gel was not properly calibrated:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=KizfONaOVV0

The results diverge as you start getting into rifle type velocities:
https://youtu.be/KizfONaOVV0

[medic15al]

Here is a comparison of typical defensive handgun speed projectiles. In it, clear gel is very highly correlated with organic gel:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kjcoFaobeo

Here is another test, but the clear gel was not properly calibrated:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=KizfONaOVV0

The results diverge as you start getting into rifle type velocities:
https://youtu.be/KizfONaOVV0

I really appreciate the info. Thanks!

I was curious as to why the bullets looked about the same but kept hearing there are discrepancies in performace.

[Navin Johnson]

I really appreciate the info. Thanks!

I was curious as to why the bullets looked about the same but kept hearing there are discrepancies in performace.

So again....what LE/Military organization uses "Shootingthebull410's" data for ammunition selection?

[DocGKR]

"In it, clear gel is very highly correlated with organic gel"

No, it is not.

"I was curious as to why the bullets looked about the same but kept hearing there are discrepancies in performace (sic)."

About the same, is not the same; there are in fact problems that prevent the synthetic gel from providing useful data--hence why NO professional ballistics facilities use it for testing (although the synthetic gels can be useful backers for armor testing).

[0ddl0t]

"In it, clear gel is very highly correlated with organic gel"

No, it is not.

Did you watch the video?

.................................................. ....OG......................CB
.45 acp 230gr hst +p 4.6"bbl.......0.841, 13.25......0.756, 14.0
.45 acp 185gr hcd 3.3" bbl...........0.667, 11.5.......0.635, 11.5
.45 lc 165gr hcd 2" bbl.................0.662, 11.25.....0.617, 12.5
.380 acp 90gr gd 3.5" bbl............0.530, 9.0.........0.515, 9.5
22lr 30gr as 3.5" bbl.....................0.357, 9.0.........0.350, 9.5
.410 360gr # 00bs 6.5" bbl...........0.40, 17.5.........0.40, 17.6
.410 180gr # 4bs 6.5" bbl.............0.24, 10.4.........0.24, 10.5

Pearson Correlation Coefficients:
Expansion (excluding buckshot): 0.9972 (R^2 .9944)
Expansion (including buckshot): 0.9979 (R^2 .9958)
Penetration: 0.9944 (R^2 .9888)


[x] highly correlated

Again, that is for fairly conventional defensive ammo at conventional handgun speeds using clear ballistics gel that has been verified to fall within FBI penetration specs for a 590fps .177bb

[DocGKR]

I most certainly did.

I also participated in the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Team where all terminal ballistic test formats (including test media, computer modeling, static vs. dynamic methods, etc...) were assessed to determine which best replicated the actual damage patterns seen in living tissue. When the JSWB-IPT analyzed this information in aggregate, the test protocol that was found to most closely correlate with actual shooting results and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers--static 10% gel testing.

Looking at hobby videos with a few test shots does not equal laboratory testing with over 10,000 test shots.

Of course you are free to rely on any method you want and can choose to believe whatever you feel like...

For more information, please review: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....in-water/page2

[0ddl0t]

Looking at hobby videos with a few test shots does not equal laboratory testing with over 10,000 test shots.

Of course you are free to rely on any method you want and can choose to believe whatever you feel like...

For more information, please review: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....in-water/page2

I merely pointed out that within some reasonable constraints (typical handgun velocities, conventional types of ammunition), the results in calibrated clear gel have a very high mathematical correlation to the results in ordinance gel. And by "results" I mean whether the expansion and penetration meet FBI & IWBA specs. Your own post in the above link seems to concur:

Perma-gel and other synthetic polymer simulants can provide a reasonable result for bullet penetration and expansion, but under-represent bullet yaw, fragmentation, and stretch effects.

Clear gel simulates something that simulates something else. It is a copy of a copy and as such, some finer details get lost. But it is so much easier and more cost effective to work with, it makes a fantastic screener to weed out obviously unacceptable defensive handgun ammunition (something I find particularly useful when dealing with short barreled pocket pistols which often fail to properly expand highly regarded duty ammo, especially through heavy denim).

If after screening you then want to split hairs over which of the top performers is best (or of you want to test some new unconventional wonder ammo), by all means bring out the 250A.

[DocGKR]

If one is going to go to the time and expense to test, it makes more sense to do it right and get good data which can be compared with the vast quantity of information collected over the past 30 years rather than doing a mediocre attempt which looks pretty, but is not as accurate or useful...

[the Schwartz]

I merely pointed out that within some reasonable constraints (typical handgun velocities, conventional types of ammunition), the results in calibrated clear gel have a very high mathematical correlation to the results in ordinance gel. And by "results" I mean whether the expansion and penetration meet FBI & IWBA specs. Your own post in the above link seems to concur:


Clear gel simulates something that simulates something else. It is a copy of a copy and as such, some finer details get lost. But it is so much easier and more cost effective to work with, it makes a fantastic screener to weed out obviously unacceptable defensive handgun ammunition (something I find particularly useful when dealing with short barreled pocket pistols which often fail to properly expand highly regarded duty ammo, especially through heavy denim).

If after screening you then want to split hairs over which of the top performers is best (or of you want to test some new unconventional wonder ammo), by all means bring out the 250A.

Dr. Roberts has accurately defined the issues involving the use of Clear Ballistics Gelatin and all similar bio-mimetic co-polymer PAGs (physically associating gels).

Dynamic pressure, which drives bullet expansion and plays a role in determining the maximum penetration depth of bullets tested in it, is lower in Clear Ballistics Gelatin (which uses a urethane based elastomer and a plasticizer; a paraffinic oil) than it is in the two other acceptable test media, 10% ordnance gelatin and water because the density of Clear Ballistics Gelatin, approximately 865 kg/m³

For example, if we take a hypothetical JHP moving at 1,250 fps (381 m/s) through water and 10% gelatin, we get the following pressure values that drive the expansion of our hypothetical JHP-

For water: Pressure = ½ρ_TV² = ½ x 999.972 kg/m³ x (381 m/s)² = 72,578,467.75 N/m²

For 10% gelatin: Pressure = ½ρ_TV² = ½ x 1,040 kg/m³ x (381 m/s)² = 75,483,720.0 N/m²

which is very close indeed.

However, contrasting these computed values with those derived in Clear Ballistics Gelatin, we see that the peak dynamic pressure produced in Clear Ballistics Gelatin is much less than (83.2% less) that seen in 10% ordnance gelatin-

For Clear Ballistics Gelatin: Pressure = ½ρ_TV² = ½ x 865 kg/m³ x (381 m/s)² = 62,782,132.5 N/m²

This decreased dynamic pressure translates to less bullet expansion and increased penetration depths for any given test arrangement in Clear Ballistics Gelatin.

The relationship between test results obtained in Clear Ballistics Gelatin and the other two valid test mediums is non-linear, which means that a simple conversion factor does not exist.

[Ed L]

I merely pointed out that within some reasonable constraints (typical handgun velocities, conventional types of ammunition), the results in calibrated clear gel have a very high mathematical correlation to the results in ordinance gel. And by "results" I mean whether the expansion and penetration meet FBI & IWBA specs. Your own post in the above link seems to concur:

Clear gel simulates something that simulates something else. It is a copy of a copy and as such, some finer details get lost. But it is so much easier and more cost effective to work with, it makes a fantastic screener to weed out obviously unacceptable defensive handgun ammunition (something I find particularly useful when dealing with short barreled pocket pistols which often fail to properly expand highly regarded duty ammo, especially through heavy denim).

If after screening you then want to split hairs over which of the top performers is best (or of you want to test some new unconventional wonder ammo), by all means bring out the 250A.

You do realize that you are lecturing one of the top wound ballistic experts in the business.