Guy Sagi writes about HST and Hydra Shok

[the Schwartz]

Here is, for reference, the variables that may be encountered when using grocery store gel:

https://www.customcollagen.com/ballistic-gelatin/

Also, I appreciate the costs associated with doing these types of tests. One reason I haven't been doing much myself...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

It ain't cheap, that's for sure.

In the small amount that I have done, I have discovered that it is difficult to work with but worth the effort.

I, too, appreciate the effort and generosity of those who do this sort of work and post their results online.

I hope that everyone realizes the expense that is involved when they begin telling those who do this what they want to see tested next.

[5pins]

Also, I appreciate the costs associated with doing these types of tests. One reason I haven't been doing much myself...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Tell me about it. I have one test left, then I need to buy a new batch.

[the Schwartz]

Tell me about it. I have one test left, then I need to buy a new batch.

Looking forward to it!

[jetfire]

I guess I'd be mad too if people bought Clear Ballistics and shot it instead of buying a book about shooting water and then doing a bunch of math

[the Schwartz]

Classic projection—

I guess I'd be mad too if people bought Clear Ballistics and shot it instead of buying a book about shooting water and then doing a bunch of math

—but not very ''classy''.

Nowhere in this thread has terminal ballistic testing in water been mentioned until you brought it up.

Thank you for defaulting to your usual childish antics. Some things (and people) never change.

I've provided evidence supporting my arguments without attacking anyone. Where's your evidence supporting whatever the Hell you are claiming and can you present it without engaging in a personal attack?

If you have a problem act like an adult and take it to PM instead of whining and shitting all over threads in the technical forum.

[jetfire]

lots of words

I guess I made my original point too hard to understand.

For what it's worth I agree that using clear ballistics gel to try and create information that correlates to 10% ordnance gel is dumb.

The difference is I think there's value in having a ton of information collected about how bullets act when shot into an allegedly consistent and controllable medium. Look at this way; we've had 10% gel for like a jillion years, but before clear ballistics people were still shooting bullets into all kinds of shit like modeling clay (done that), wet phonebooks (done that too) etc etc. Now, with the exception of one YouTube who shoots old groceries, all those dudes now shoot clear ballistics, which means that the consumer who is trying to make a decision on whether to buy Federal HST or some junk round can say "well in this two tests using the same medium the HST did better."

What it's done is create an 80% solution that answers the average joe's question without requiring them to become an actual expert in terminal ballistics, and as someone who writes for the average consumer, I'm a fan of that.

Regardless, you're right that I was intemperate and shitty in my first response. You didn't deserve that, and I apologize.

[Tokarev]

I guess I made my original point too hard to understand.

For what it's worth I agree that using clear ballistics gel to try and create information that correlates to 10% ordnance gel is dumb.

The difference is I think there's value in having a ton of information collected about how bullets act when shot into an allegedly consistent and controllable medium. Look at this way; we've had 10% gel for like a jillion years, but before clear ballistics people were still shooting bullets into all kinds of shit like modeling clay (done that), wet phonebooks (done that too) etc etc. Now, with the exception of one YouTube who shoots old groceries, all those dudes now shoot clear ballistics, which means that the consumer who is trying to make a decision on whether to buy Federal HST or some junk round can say "well in this two tests using the same medium the HST did better."

What it's done is create an 80% solution that answers the average joe's question without requiring them to become an actual expert in terminal ballistics, and as someone who writes for the average consumer, I'm a fan of that.

Regardless, you're right that I was intemperate and shitty in my first response. You didn't deserve that, and I apologize.

What is still an unknown, to me at least, is how Clear Gel performs from one block to the next. If the blocks are consistent in batch to batch and year to year then the ammo tests should have some validity. Its own unique standard in this case. Not apples to apples with 10% organic but at least apples to apples with other tests done in clear gel.

The other unknown is how many times CB can be reused and stay within whatever parameters it had when new. Can it be used half a dozen times and still produce results that are comparable to when the block was new?


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Velo Dog]

YouTuber Guns&Cars use to do side-by-side testing in both organic Knox and 10% Clear Ballistics gel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kBbL5BehE


The issues with Clear gel are especially problematic when testing marginal cartridges like 380 Auto.

The 9mm results were more comparable and beneficial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNX2bAXgiUM

[jetfire]

What is still an unknown, to me at least, is how Clear Gel performs from one block to the next. If the blocks are consistent in batch to batch and year to year then the ammo tests should have some validity. Its own unique standard in this case. Not apples to apples with 10% organic but at least apples to apples with other tests done in clear gel.

Yeah, that is the biggest question I think. I'm operating from the possibly incorrect assumption that CB has some measure of quality control and that their blocks are consistent from batch to batch. If they are, then do have a consistent test medium and the data set becomes valid on its own as a "this is what bullets do in Clear Ballistics." However, if the blocks aren't consistent from batch to batch, then you do get garbage data.

But the only way we'd know if they were all consistent would be if every YouTuber that shot them calibrated them first.

Stil, it's a lot better thank shooting old groceries

In the police one article that was posted, the author noted that after the block was melted down and re-used, it calibrated differently than when it was fresh from the store.

[the Schwartz]

Good questions.

What is still an unknown, to me at least, is how Clear Gel performs from one block to the next. If the blocks are consistent in batch to batch and year to year then the ammo tests should have some validity. Its own unique standard in this case. Not apples to apples with 10% organic but at least apples to apples with other tests done in clear gel.

I have three different samples of the CBG product that date back to 2014. They look the same, but they are not. Under FTIR spectroscopy, none of the three samples are identical to one another insofar as their composition. The elastomer and other components of the product (plasticizers, paraffinic processing oils, aromatics, etc.) vary across all of the samples; probably a result of using different suppliers when specific components become unavailable or an unannounced change in product formulation. In any event, it is not conducive to the consistency that is needed to ensure the repeatability of the polymer for comparison against other data taken from other tests in CBG. In other words, it is probable that test data taken from one lot of CBG are incomparable to that taken from another lot of CBG. So much for the 'apples-to-apples' comparison that some say CBG offers.

The other unknown is how many times CB can be reused and stay within whatever parameters it had when new. Can it be used half a dozen times and still produce results that are comparable to when the block was new?

Thermal degradation in polymers is well-known. It is unlikely that the CBG product is immune to the process of thermal degradation. The primary mechanism in the thermal degradation of polymers is called 'scission'; a twenty-five dollar word for 'cutting' or breakage. When polymers (like the triblock copolymer found in the CBG product) are heated repeatedly, the carbon chains, which are crosslinked by hydrogen atoms, break or shear at random locations along the chain. An abundance of hydrogen on the carbon chain leads to the formation, through random scissions, of volatiles which vary in size from one carbon atom in length to many carbon atoms in length. Scarcity of hydrogen on the main carbon chain causes formation of monomers by ''unzipping'' the ends of the original carbon chain. This process continues at the new ends formed by random scissions. It continues with repeated thermal cycling of the polymer. This is why the CBG product (and all others) 'yellow' over repeated thermal recycling. This degradation leads to changes in the density, elastic and compressive strength, and clarity of the thermally recycled polymer. CBG's claim that their product can be recycled and reused 8 - 10 times and ''will stay within calibration'' is dubious at best—



—as it depends upon how aggressively the polymer is (over)heated and for how long the batch is held over the minimum melt temperature. Over just a few remelt/recast cycles, depending upon how much (and how long) the batch is overheated, even blocks drawn from the same lot may deviate from one another considerably. Discoloration of the CBG product occurs much earlier than the tenth remelt/recast cycle, too. There are many such examples found on media (Youtube) where those using the CBG product report discoloration as early as the second or third remelt/recast.

In light of all of these issues, the ability of the CBG product to provide an 'apples-to-apples' comparison—even against other test data taken from CBG—is at best questionable.