If I shoot the clear gel with a BB and the penetration is too deep, I will remelt the block and mix in more dense gel before running the test.Originally Posted by 03RN
What term would you use for that?
For the organic gelatin there is a formula for correcting BB distance to results but that’s unknown scaling in clear gel.
As clarification, there are some super open minded people here too.
And even some of the closed minded ones have really good knowledge that I love to learn from.
That I think is a test of a true student.
Can you learn from something despite feelings and bias? Can you separate your ability to learn from your ego.
That’s something that has diminished in the snowflake era, but they’re only hurting themselves if they want information presented “just in the way they want it.”
For what it’s worth I think I understood the point of the thread, and I do find it interesting. We’re seeing if .380 has meaningfully different performance out of a revolver than out of a similarly sized auto, while being more controllable than similar velocity options, similar to JCN’s observations with 9mm revolvers. Given that the round’s major limitation is attainable velocity, that question makes sense to me, and I think we were on track for that before the “guns are for murder and .380 bad” derail.
An interesting thread. The op is not endorsing 380's in revolver or pistol. I don't understand his ballistic data, but like one guy told me when we had the day or two to talk shit on the"festivus", I'm a confused old man. Being a gentleman, I PM'ed him to tell him to pack mud. Oops. Thread drift.
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.
I always shame my ballistic gelatin instead of giving it validation. It needs to understand that we’re not friends, it’s just testing media.
Thread needs positive waves, Moriarty. This .pdf has a treatise on double-action shooting written by none other than Bob Nichols as an offering to the revolver gods:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSLp6rv2rMcgK6...est%201951.pdf
Starts on file page 131.
Why not just get real gelatin and do real testing?
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?
Reply With Quote