Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 196

Thread: JCN’s Taurus 380 Snubbie review

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    Why not carry a Glock 20 AIWB?
    Why not just take classes with revered instructors rather than practicing at home?

    Same reason. Convenience.

    But pause and think about this:

    Is clear gelatin FAKE testing?
    Is it non-real testing?
    Is it as useless as shooting bullets into the air and guessing?

    What about wetpack and ballistic clay?
    Are those unreal as well?

    The PF bias you’re touting is a little closed minded.

    You can get meaningful information from wetpack, ballistic clay and clear gel.

    You just can’t extrapolate it to mean what organic gel means from the FBI database.

    It’s “real” testing and when you run your own internal controls like comparing one round directly against another, it has quite a bit of utility.

    It’s just not FBI organic gel.

    Clear gel is way more convenient. I’ll probably run one organic gel block to compare against my denser prepared clear gel mixture. But if it’s not comparable, I’ll just treat it like wetpack and ballistic clay as a comparative testing media without hanging my hat on absolute numbers.

    Does that make sense?

    I'm all for a guy doing whatever he wants and spending his money and time doing what's fun for him.

    And just seems like for the effort using real gel would give you more real answers.

    I believe wet pack or straight water testing using formulas to adjust for the medium would be far more accurate than clear gel.

    I believe the problem with clear gel is it does not give linear results so one cannot compare two projectiles with each other Even of the same weight and diameter.

    I think there's a fair amount of information by SMEs on this website concerning the validity of clear gel when testing projectiles.

    Once again if it's something you want to do..... knock yourself out and have fun doing it and please post the results.

  2. #62
    Oh yeah and the Glock 20 offers nothing over other service calibers when using quality ammunition as an anti-personnel piece of equipment

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Navin Johnson View Post
    I'm all for a guy doing whatever he wants and spending his money and time doing what's fun for him.

    And just seems like for the effort using real gel would give you more real answers.

    I believe wet pack or straight water testing using formulas to adjust for the medium would be far more accurate than clear gel.

    I believe the problem with clear gel is it does not give linear results so one cannot compare two projectiles with each other Even of the same weight and diameter.

    I think there's a fair amount of information by SMEs on this website concerning the validity of clear gel when testing projectiles.

    Once again if it's something you want to do..... knock yourself out and have fun doing it and please post the results.
    I think the PoliceOne test of gel was pretty definitive but so far I have not seen anyone test denser clear gel.
    If it correlates well with organic gel, then good!

    Right now the criticism around clear gel could be answered by density, but might not be.

    I think comparing two ammunition against each other would still give direct comparison results.

    They may or may not reflect FBI testing, but I’d be willing to make an organic gel block to do it once or twice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin Johnson View Post
    Oh yeah and the Glock 20 offers nothing over other service calibers when using quality ammunition as an anti-personnel piece of equipment
    But then why do revolver people carry 357 magnum over 9mm from snubbies?

    @03RN can’t possibly agree with you here otherwise he might opt for an 8 shot 9mm fighting revolver like I tested.

    Faster reloads, faster splits and according to Navin, nothing benefiting something more than 9mm...

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    @Navin Johnson

    Also keep in mind for something like 9mm Gold Dot and HST there is a ROBUST database of both organic and clear gel live tests and the results are consistent in their differences.

    A little more penetration and less expansion in clear gel, but the differences aren’t crazy different.

    Could the differences be corrected with denser clear gel?

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here

    HST example

    Also for @Navin Johnson

    Some of the criticism of clear gel is that the quality control isn’t good for “calibration” and a lot of the criticism might be corrected by this.

    Check out these organic versus clear gel 4 layer denim tests.

    Ammoquest was very rigorous in his organic gel testing.
    Lucky Gunner also is very rigorous in their clear gel testing.

    But look at how close the results are:

    Federal HST+P organic gel:
    Name:  E608C00E-6C55-48E8-845C-BF47755F83D8.jpg
Views: 200
Size:  43.1 KB
    Name:  CDB7F87E-34AE-48F9-9382-3A238CCBFC76.jpg
Views: 194
Size:  36.8 KB

    But look at the velocities. We know that manufacturers can have different powder from batch to batch.

    Compare that with almost identical results from the 973 fps regular HST in clear
    Name:  B4D35CC4-ED6D-4419-BCDB-159761284D46.jpg
Views: 197
Size:  55.6 KB

    Name:  C0619D0A-FDA2-49E4-9CAF-6E174B89ECFE.jpg
Views: 193
Size:  16.5 KB

    If you add 30 fps...

    Name:  7BD30A49-84CC-4E76-A92E-D66D7ED7FDA9.jpg
Views: 198
Size:  55.2 KB

    You can say that the clear gel data “isn’t real,” but seems to me with some actual calibration of the gel density (and velocities of your ammo) it might be quite useful.

    I could also just test any new rounds against my stock of HST+P as a benchmark.

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here

    Variables

    IMO, there are too many variables to care about a couple inches of penetration difference.

    I've chrono'd 147 +P HST out of my 2" Korth Sky Marshal and it was 1000 fps. Out of a LCR9 it was 1020 and out of a P365, 1030 fps.

    That's more than the Shooting the Bull / Ammoquest velocity out of a duty weapon.

    There's enough variability from ammo batch to batch and gun to gun to really try and get more than a general sense of performance in civilian testing.

    In that vein, sometimes clear gel for the convenience is "good enough."

    When I was testing bare clear gel versus 4LD, the denim tests always had more penetration (but were a pain to pick pieces of denim out of the block before remelting).

    So I ran bare gel testing knowing that was kind of minimum performance. FBI rounds had to pass 12" on that test as a minimum so why not start there?

    20% gel block and BB gun on order and will be interesting to see if I can get similar performance. Depending on how warm it is outside, I may or may not do the organic gelatin test.

    I'll post results, but I fully expect people who don't want to get anything from it to not.

  7. #67
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    I never had ballistic gel. For pipsqueak calibers like .22's through the 380, I would shoot into cans of dog food. I recorded which rounds would burst the cans and which would not. I lost the data and forgot the results. I think I recall never having a burst can. Then I concluded that Jeff Cooper was correct when he placed these rounds into the same category. He said they could kill but do not stop attacks from others reliably.

  8. #68
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Why can't we just enjoy a fun thread? PF is made up of above average "gun intelligence people", and I think we are capable of differentiating between fun and serious testing. If useful info comes out of the fun stuff, then great.


    PF is the best place on the net, but if it does have one serious flaw, the contempt that some SMEs or others have for the questioning of "expert opinion" is that flaw. It's ok to have alternative views and questions of authority. Especially if done in a proper manner.

  9. #69
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    Exactly. I’m not endorsing 380. Just putting velocity data out there and commenting on shootability (which is something gun nerds often forget to describe when talking about ballistics).

    The videos of 380 tests are old and are NOT scientific. They’re just anecdotal and take them FWIW.



    I don’t think that’s correct either. Because we have no idea if a distance in clear gel is valid or corresponds to anything meaningful. The VALIDITY of the information comes from the actual test and comparison to traditional gel.

    Maybe we find out that 2” BB penetration in clear gel is equivalent to 3” in organic gel.

    By the strict definition of “calibrate” it is reasonable to call shooting a BB in a “check” of the system.

    Attachment 71197
    You can calibrate a tool or gauge. You can't calibrate gel. You just need to start over again. Thats not the same thing.

    When I check the glucometers at work every week Im not calibrating them. If they fall outside the reference range I have to toss them. I am validating them. You can calibrate certain scales but not all.

    This really wasn't meant to be an argument, sorry

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by 03RN View Post
    You can calibrate a tool or gauge. You can't calibrate gel. You just need to start over again. Thats not the same thing.

    When I check the glucometers at work every week Im not calibrating them. If they fall outside the reference range I have to toss them. I am validating them. You can calibrate certain scales but not all.

    This really wasn't meant to be an argument, sorry
    Read the actual definition of the word “calibrate” I posted above.
    Checking is considered calibration. You can’t adjust it with a dial, but you can adjust it.

    And also see the actual quote as describing calibration of gel from the article:

    https://www.police1.com/police-produ...FBGUHw79F9s0a/

    The gelatin must be calibrated by the user (by firing a 0.177” steel BB into the gelatin at a velocity of 590 +/- 15 feet per second, and checking for penetration depth between 2.95 – 3.74 inches) immediately before it is used, and rejected if it fails. The gelatin deteriorates quickly, is temperature sensitive and can be messy to work with.”

    My description of calibrate is appropriate with regards to gel. What you do at work does not bear on the discussion.

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
  •