Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: An attempt at math: clear vs. organic

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Not that I don't ''get'' your humor....because I do...but...in all seriousness...

    If using shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin poses to much investment (time & effort), there's always using water since it is also a valid soft tissue simulant.

    With any of the three mathematical bullet penetration equations that are available (Q-model, mTHOR algorithm, and MacPherson WTI) prediction of maximum penetration depth and wound cavity volume is easily accomplished. All that is required for using water as tissue simulant is a chronograph, something to hold water bagsóor a dozen Ĺ-gallon paperboard milk/juice cartons lined up nice 'n straightóa decent set of calipers, and a reloading scale to weigh the recovered bullet.
    So, Iím pretty sure you know which target of groceries I was referencing, but just so thereís no confusion, it wasnít water.

    Maybe Iím being overly cranky about this whole thing. Maybe Iím just lazy. Itís just that for me, thereís already really good info here on PF. Itís good enough that I donít really think I need to do my own ballistic testing to find good ammo. That frees up time for me to spend my range time working on putting the bullets where they need to go. Iím all in favor of those that want to and are willing to put in the effort to good science based testing, it moves the technology forward. I just personally get no satisfaction from trying to do my own testing.

    Again, none of this was meant to bag on you, but I think you knew who I was referring to from the jump anyway.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Luminiferous ∆ther
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    So, Iím pretty sure you know which target of groceries I was referencing, but just so thereís no confusion, it wasnít water.

    Maybe Iím being overly cranky about this whole thing. Maybe Iím just lazy. Itís just that for me, thereís already really good info here on PF. Itís good enough that I donít really think I need to do my own ballistic testing to find good ammo. That frees up time for me to spend my range time working on putting the bullets where they need to go. Iím all in favor of those that want to and are willing to put in the effort to good science based testing, it moves the technology forward. I just personally get no satisfaction from trying to do my own testing.

    Again, none of this was meant to bag on you, but I think you knew who I was referring to from the jump anyway.
    I see what you did in that last sentence.

    "bag on me"? 🤣😂🤣😂

    Of course I knew to whom you were referring (the Harrell "let's go shoot-a-bag-full-a groceries" Youtube series) and, no, I never took any of what you wrote as disputing the validity of water as a tissue simulant.

    I simply "put it out there", for those interested in doing their own terminal ballistic testing, that water testing is an easier option for anyone who might be interested in pursuing the science.

    I also never got the impression that you were "bagging" on me. 😊
    ''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. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

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
  •