Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87

Thread: Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part I

  1. #11
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    The linked article in question appears to have so many flaws and accuracy errors as to render it irrelevant: https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...mFBGUHw79F9s0a. I wish the author had picked up the phone and called someone like Buford Boone, Scott Patterson, Mark Minisi, Sal Fanelli, or me and discussed the topic and history prior to writing....
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  2. #12
    And it's not like you are hard to find.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    I would choose either of the designs based upon their performance in the 10% ordnance gelatin and/or in water. Both of these tissue analogs have long histories as valid terminal ballistic test mediums.
    So you would completely ignore data that doesn't fit neatly into an academic paradigm?

    I'm not just talking about clear gel. You'd also recognize no difference in terminal performance between this 147 gold dot from 3" barrel:
    Name:  147gd.jpg
Views: 319
Size:  3.9 KB

    and this 124 +P gold dot from a 3" barrel?
    Name:  124gd.jpg
Views: 323
Size:  3.8 KB

    (taken from: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/g4...denim.1662442/ )
    Last edited by 0ddl0t; 11-14-2019 at 11:12 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    So you would completely ignore data that doesn't fit neatly into an academic paradigm?
    Yes—

    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    I'm not just talking about clear gel. You'd also recognize no difference in terminal performance between this 147 gold dot from 3" barrel:
    Name:  147gd.jpg
Views: 319
Size:  3.9 KB

    and this 124 +P gold dot from a 3" barrel?
    Name:  124gd.jpg
Views: 323
Size:  3.8 KB

    (taken from: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/g4...denim.1662442/ )
    —especially if it involves relying upon shooting assorted grocery items (fruits, vegetables, deli-meats, etc.) to validate/legitimize testing conducted in the (still unproven) clear, synthetic gel.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 11-14-2019 at 12:10 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    to validate/legitimize testing conducted in the (still unproven) clear, synthetic gel.
    The motivation isn't to validate one particular medium, it is to ensure the ammunition is robust enough to function properly through a wide range of conditions.

    If you are so wed to ordnance gel, I bet you could replicate the 147 gold dot's short barrel shortcomings by adding additional layers of clothing, or increasing the distance to the gel block, or chilling the ammo in a sub zero freezer before shooting.

    Otherwise all you see is ~16" of penetration & ~0.56" final expansion and think it is comparable or even favorable to HST's 14" of penetration and .62" expansion without realizing you're just *barely* over the gold dot's expansion threshold.

  6. #16
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    So you would completely ignore data that doesn't fit neatly into an academic paradigm?
    We have a system that's proven to correlate to real world results. We have multiple alternatives that are not. I don't see why I would give them equal weight. Until one of the multiple "others" proves a correlation it's just noise clouding the signal.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    I'm not just talking about clear gel. You'd also recognize no difference in terminal performance between this 147 gold dot from 3" barrel:
    Name:  147gd.jpg
Views: 319
Size:  3.9 KB

    and this 124 +P gold dot from a 3" barrel?
    Name:  124gd.jpg
Views: 323
Size:  3.8 KB
    I'd recognize terminal performance in assorted melons. I would not use that to draw any conclusions for terminal performance in people who are not made of melons.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    The motivation isn't to validate one particular medium, it is to ensure the ammunition is robust enough to function properly through a wide range of conditions.

    If you are so wed to ordnance gel, I bet you could replicate the 147 gold dot's short barrel shortcomings by adding additional layers of clothing, or increasing the distance to the gel block, or chilling the ammo in a sub zero freezer before shooting.

    Otherwise all you see is ~16" of penetration & ~0.56" final expansion and think it is comparable or even favorable to HST's 14" of penetration and .62" expansion without realizing you're just *barely* over the gold dot's expansion threshold.
    Actually, I am "wed" to the scientific method which rules out introducing an entire host of unknown variables (esp. dubious, uncorrelated test mediums like fruits, vegetables, deli-meats, etc.) into terminal ballistic testing/evaluations. No need to "re-invent the wheel"--10% ordnance gelatin and water do all that is needed.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 11-14-2019 at 05:57 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  8. #18
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Actually, I am "wed" to the scientific method which rules out introducing an entire host of unknown variables (esp. dubious, uncorrelated test mediums like fruits, vegetables, deli-meats, etc.) into terminal ballistic testing/evaluations. No need to "re-invent the wheel"--10% ordnance gelatin and water do all that is needed.
    So you no longer ever encounter ammo that did not expand in the real world despite working well in gel or water?

    Failures to expand in the real world is why the FBI added the heavy clothing test and continued failures to expand is why CHP/IWBA went further and switched to 4 layers of heavy denim. Obviously 4 layers of heavy denim is not realistic attire or a valid tissue simulant, but it helped improve testing and subsequent bullet designs. Still, by no means is it the end of the road.

    While these tests work pretty well for duty-sized guns, problems continue to exist at the boundaries (both from carbine length barrels and from micro pistol-sized barrels). The examination of these anomalies - using the scientific method - has value.
    Last edited by 0ddl0t; 11-14-2019 at 06:47 PM.

  9. #19
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    While these tests work pretty well for duty-sized guns, problems continue to exist at the boundaries (both from carbine length barrels and from micro pistol-sized barrels). The examination of these anomalies - using the scientific method - has value.
    A bullet out of it's designed speed envelope isn't going to work as designed. The answer isn't that somehow short barrels need different testing methods. The answer is to test the bullets in the same fps range that they leave the shorter/longer barrel from in the same protocols that "normal" barrel lengths are tested at, which is done.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    So you no longer ever encounter ammo that did not expand in the real world despite working well in gel or water?
    When did I ever say that? (Note: I didn't and haven't; not here in this topic thread or anywhere else)

    Prior to this point in this thread, we've been discussing the validity/relevance of test mediums. I've confined my commentary specifically to that topic, so I am not sure how it is that you've suddenly come to the conclusion that I am now disputing the validity/relevance of placing intermediate material barriers (such as those used in the FBI test protocols) in front of any valid terminal ballistic test medium (10% gel or H2O) for the purpose of evaluating their effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    Failures to expand in the real world is why the FBI added the heavy clothing test and continued failures to expand is why CHP/IWBA went further and switched to 4 layers of heavy denim. Obviously 4 layers of heavy denim is not realistic attire or a valid tissue simulant, but it helped improve testing and subsequent bullet designs. Still, by no means is it the end of the road.

    While these tests work pretty well for duty-sized guns, problems continue to exist at the boundaries (both from carbine length barrels and from micro pistol-sized barrels). The examination of these anomalies - using the scientific method - has value.
    I get the sense that you are attempting to make a point, but "moving the goal posts" in terms of the subject (test mediums ===> barriers) being discussed makes whatever point you are attempting difficult to discern.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •