Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part I

[the Schwartz]

I'm thinking they won't let me back on the range if I did that. It's two miles from the house, really convenient. I'm picturing a video played completely straight, "Please note I'm filling the authentic pinata with vanilla pudding. NOT INSTANT, this is real vanilla pudding I'm using as my ballistic material. My authentic pinata is from Wal-Mart and was made in China. My Winchester Model 1200 has a 26 inch barrel, is full choke, and kicks like a mule. The Hornady slugs are totally badass."

As you are probably aware, I was kidding. Not about hating vanilla pudding (I really do), but shooting something like that on your range. I'd hate to see anyone kicked off of their shooting spot for something like that.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have not tested it, nor am I aware of anyone who has. I personally don't test through barriers I'm unlikely to encounter as a civilian.

So the backbone of your claim is based on an autopsy not matching the test results of which you don't actually know what the results were? Do you see that as potentially problematic to your claim? Unless one assumes all of the other tests besides bare and 4LD are superfluous and done just for funsies? Passing the entirety of the protocols = real world correlation. Auto glass testing results are pretty similar to bone strike results, that sort of thing.

Do you have evidence there was a change after the FBI tested it, but before it reached consumers?

Other than the common knowledge that crates of contract reject ammo that was sold to the civilian market, pictures showing obvious differences between individual bullets, and insider chatter about serious QC issues? No, nothing personally.

The recalled G2 still performed well from Glock 17s in 10% ordinance gel...

We're back where we started. That tells you how it performs at that fps range. It doesn't tell you how it performs at faster or slower fps ranges. The answer to finding that out is the proper testing procedures done at the fps range in question, not shooting a pinanta filled with pudding.

[JAD]

What danger exists in selecting ammunition that passes both the traditional FBI/IWBA tests and still shows valid expansion in alternative media?[/B]
...

Generally if you mix bad data with good data the admixture is bad. Tests on uncontrolled media produce bad data.

[KellyinAvon]

As you are probably aware, I was kidding. Not about hating vanilla pudding (I really do), but shooting something like that on your range. I'd hate to see anyone kicked off of their shooting spot for something like that.

Oh I would never do this on a range. Out in the country? That's a whole other matter. I'm so wanting to do this, the hard part would be not laughing in the video.

[the Schwartz]

Oh I would never do this on a range. Out in the country? That's a whole other matter. I'm so wanting to do this, the hard part would be not laughing in the video.

Giggling maniacally before, during, and after shooting your pudding-filled pinata would only enhance the value of such a video.

[0ddl0t]

So the backbone of your claim is based on an autopsy not matching the test results of which you don't actually know what the results were? Do you see that as potentially problematic to your claim? Unless one assumes all of the other tests besides bare and 4LD are superfluous and done just for funsies? Passing the entirety of the protocols = real world correlation. Auto glass testing results are pretty similar to bone strike results, that sort of thing.

The bullet in question struck no bone until it came to a rest - barriers did not affect its lack of expansion.

Other than the common knowledge that crates of contract reject ammo that was sold to the civilian market, pictures showing obvious differences between individual bullets, and insider chatter about serious QC issues? No, nothing personally.

Have a link to this "common knowledge" of crates of G2 reject ammo being sold to civilians? Seems like the sort of thing that could end consumer confidence in a brand...

I'm aware of Federal selling lower grades of green tip ammo, but those packages had identifiers on the SKU.

We're back where we started. That tells you how it performs at that fps range. It doesn't tell you how it performs at faster or slower fps ranges. The answer to finding that out is the proper testing procedures done at the fps range in question, not shooting a pinanta filled with pudding.

And at that same fps it failed to perform in clear gel. Hobbyists using clear gel are what exposed the issue to the public...

Generally if you mix bad data with good data the admixture is bad. Tests on uncontrolled media produce bad data.

That's true if mixing data. Here the data is siloed. If a bullet passes traditional fbi/iwba tests, then it is supposedly good to go, right? So what difference is it to John Moses Browning if I subselect only those with blue primer sealant or only those that expand when shot through a cantaloupe?

[Caballoflaco]

Have a link to this "common knowledge" of crates of G2 reject ammo being sold to civilians? Seems like the sort of thing that could end consumer confidence in a brand...

?

Check the g2 gold dot thread here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post954900

[KellyinAvon]

Giggling maniacally before, during, and after shooting your pudding-filled pinata would only enhance the value of such a video.

You mean like, "BU-WA-HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

I don't know about posting videos, I'll have to ask my children about it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Have a link to this "common knowledge" of crates of G2 reject ammo being sold to civilians? Seems like the sort of thing that could end consumer confidence in a brand...

There's at least two threads on this very forum dealing with the matter. One's already been linked for you by another helpful poster.

So what difference is it to John Moses Browning if I subselect only those with blue primer sealant or only those that expand when shot through a cantaloupe?

For you? Nothing. I often argue these points not to change the poster's mind. I realize it's tilting at a windmill as the real goal is validation, not learning or a critical examination of the belief. You've been presented with what I would consider compelling counter-arguments while failing to mount an effective defense for your position. I do so for those who might be a blank slate, wander in, and find your fruit salad based testing compelling if it's not countered with facts. If they then also decide fruit salad testing is the way to go, at least they had the opportunity to hear the counterpoint. Carry RIP ammo if you like, absolutely nothing to me until you try and convince others how great it is.

[0ddl0t]

There's at least two threads on this very forum dealing with the matter. One's already been linked for you by another helpful poster.

I must have misunderstood. I am aware Speer sold reject ammo very clearly marked "training ammo only" "not for duty use." I am not aware of Speer selling QC reject ammo in normal defensive/LE packaging to unwitting consumers (i.e. the initial run of G2 that wound up recalled).

I do so for those who might be a blank slate, wander in, and find your fruit salad based testing compelling if it's not countered with facts.

And that is why I post here, so folks might be aware of the downsides taking only the word of unquestioned experts, rather than doing any validation testing of their own:

"The Speer 9 mm 147 gr G2 is very good performing barrier blind ammunition! In fact modern 9 mm ammo like the G2 performs so well, that many large LE agencies are having no issues giving up larger caliber handguns in favor of easier shooting, more durable, higher capacity 9 mm handguns that offer terminal performance that only a few years ago was only possible with larger calibers like .40 S&W and .45 Auto."
Dr. Gary Roberts 2014