Holy ''false negatives'', Velo Dog!Originally Posted by Velo Dog
The first video is a real eye-opener. Huge failure rate for the CBG stuff.
Not surprised though. Thanks for the links.
Holy ''false negatives'', Velo Dog!
The first video is a real eye-opener. Huge failure rate for the CBG stuff.
Not surprised though. Thanks for the links.
''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.
What's the punchline? I clicked on the first video, but 35 minutes is too damn long..
TL;DR
380 Auto stinks.
Clear gel stinks.
380 Auto tests in Clear gel are worthless.
Taken with the proverbial 'grain of salt' since I didn't see any evidence of shear-validation in either test medium in the videos that Velo Dog provided...
Take away: The Clear Ballistics Gel produces lots of 'false negatives' compared to testing conducted in 10% ordnance gelatin.
A 'false negative' occurs when a JHP fails to expand in the CBG product even though it expands as it should in the proven test medium (10% ordnance gelatin) which would lead to the erroneous rejection of a JHP based on that criterion.
Or what Velo Dog said...
Last edited by the Schwartz; 04-28-2022 at 12:45 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.
I know he said it was 50 degrees out but having your gel blocks setting in the sun while you ramble on can't be helpful. I see that in a lot of videos, like that, and CB is sensitive to temperature despite what he kept saying in the video. Also in his other videos he is practically begging CB to donate their gel to him.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
This doesn't look like a "80% solution" to me...I only wished I had switched to Vyse organic gel sooner, the difference is clear.
Here is a picture of a test I did comparing Federal Hydra-Shok's in both Vyse gel and Clear gel. The Clear gel rounds expanded less and penetrated an average of 7 inches more.
Those tests in 380, even less. Quite an eye opener.
Last edited by TiroFijo; 04-28-2022 at 05:59 PM.
Your post reminded me of something that I noticed along with the fact that neither of the two test mediums showed signs of being shear-validated.
Many of his test rounds went much deeper than they should've in the ordnance gelatin.
I'll bet that you noticed that, too.
''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.
Perhaps his testing improved along with his editing, but this video is also worth a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtqoJxFKZYc
Clear Ballistic Gel is not a "consistent and controllable medium".
It is quite utterly useless from a terminal ballistic analysis perspective.
About the only use we have found for synthetic gels is as a backing for body armor during testing.
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
That's a field that I have been following with great interest for the last five years.
For those unfamiliar with the developments, the exploration of triblock copolymers as test medium in the evaluation of BABT is discussed in the attached 'white paper'—
Comparative Assessment of Behind Armour Blunt Trauma, Mauzac et al, Ministère de l’Intérieur, CR.pdf
''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.
Reply With Quote
