Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Organic gelatin Vs Clear Gel

  1. #1

    Organic gelatin Vs Clear Gel

    In the thread on Guy Sagi writes about HST and Hydra Shok turned a bit into a Clear gel Vs real gel debate. I thought I would start a new thread focused on that topic.

    I ran across this conference paper on difference between 250A organic ballistics gel and Clear Ballistic gel I thought some here would find interesting.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322871471_Clear_Ballistics_GelR_High_Speed_Retardi ng_Force_Analysis_of_Paraffin-Based_Alternative_to_Gelatin-based_Testing_of_Lead-Free_Pistol_Bullets

    I think this quote, at the end, sums it up nicely.

    Earlier publications using high speed video retarding force analysis have
    quantified the energy loss during penetration and also the expected probability of
    incapacitation given a hit, P(I/H), for various loads [2, 4-5]. However, the
    reasonableness of that analysis depends on the penetration depths and retarding forces
    in Clear Ballistics GelŽbeing comparable with calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. The
    significant differences between Clear Ballistics GelŽand calibrated 10% ballistic
    gelatin would render such estimates and comparisons misleading.
    As a result of the significant differences between Clear Ballistics GelŽand
    calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, it is recommended that results from testing in Clear
    Ballistics GelŽ not be used for testing and selecting of loads for duty use, self-
    defense, or hunting applications
    . Results from testing in Clear Ballistics GelŽ might
    be used to identify promising candidates for further testing in calibrated 10% ballistic
    gelatin, which remains the best available standard for wound ballistics testing
    www.general-cartridge.com

    We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.

  2. #2
    Damn that's some fine internet sleuthing right there!

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Old man yelling at cloud OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Haven't read the paper yet, but will just note that Michael Courtney has been poking around the ballistics world for quite some time. He's best known for his external ballistics work, and has a paper where he proposes a unique stability formula for predicting in-flight yaw or instability of bullets. Not necessarily considered authoritative by all SMEs, but generally worth being familiar with IMO.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  4. #4

    Additional reference sources for those interested....

    There is a significant body of peer-reviewed research that confirms that the synthetic (polymer) gelatins are completely worthless for the purpose of evaluating the terminal ballistic performance of handgun and rifle ammunition as they would perform in soft tissues.

    Here are two such examples...

    International Journal of Legal Medicine: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1831-7

    From page 2 of the cited source:
    Alternative synthetic materials have been used and reportedly produce similar results as gelatine without the need to condition at a particular temperature (e.g. PermaGel™, Clear Ballistics GelŽ). Claimed advantages include the ability to melt and re-use these materials without detrimental effect to the physical and mechanical properties (within limits). However, literature has reported that these materials produce different DoP and damage when compared to gelatine blocks [21, 22]. Evidence of ageing after one re-melt has also been reported, and burning within the blocks (which is not observed in gelatine blocks) is observed post-testing due to the composition of the material [21, 23].
    Another source, by Lucien C. Haag, addresses very specifically and extensively the comprehensive deficiencies that exist with the Clear Ballistics Gel product in the AFTE Journal, Spring 2020, 52;2—

    https://afte.org/store/product/afte-...l-52-no-2-2020

    From page 77 of the cited source:
    There is much to be deduced from an inspection of Figure 13, which provides multi-point BB penetration plots into samples of 10% and 20% Clear Ballistics at room temperature versus Std. OG (ordnance gelatin) at 4°C. As was the case with Perma-Gel, the slopes for the Clear Bballistics targets are much steeper than that of Std. OG with the plot for the 10% Clear Ballistics intercepting and crossing the Std. OG plot at about 460fps. This is the only point at which the two media are equivalent insofar as BB penetration. The non-paralleling slopes of the Clear Ballistics product(s) versus Std. OG means that there can be no simple, mathematical means to translate BB penetration values for one medium into those of the other.
    As it stands, there are at present only two valid tissue simulants. The first is water which can be used to determine projectile expansion and, with the proper application of mathematical formulae (MacPherson, D. 1995 and 2005 and Schwartz, C. 2012), maximum terminal penetration depth and predictions of the permanent wound volume and damaged tissue mass. The second is properly prepared shear-validated Type-A 250 Bloom strength 10% ordnance gelatin.

    Anyone who continues to assert otherwise is fooling only themselves.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 05-09-2022 at 07:14 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. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  5. #5
    Internet research aka general googling seems to show that 250 bloom pork-based gel has a viscosity of 43.0 + 6.0 mps. Beef-based is 48.0 + 7.0 mps. It would also seem that pork is made from skin while beef is made from bone.

    Does any of this mean anything from a ballistic standpoint?

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    Internet research aka general googling seems to show that 250 bloom pork-based gel has a viscosity of 43.0 + 6.0 mps. Beef-based is 48.0 + 7.0 mps. It would also seem that pork is made from skin while beef is made from bone.

    Does any of this mean anything from a ballistic standpoint?

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
    No.


    The numerical values that you are quoting are the respective viscosities of the solution itself prior to completion of the molding process. Because organically-based gelatins derived from different sources (bovine, porcine, marine, etc.) are subject to different manufacturing processes ('acid' and 'alkali' hydrolysis resulting in the production of collagen), viscosity of the resulting solution(s) will differ across production sources but, final Bloom strength is not necessarily a function of the solution's viscosity. Shear-validation of each individual gelatin block conducted prior to testing ensures that each block provides the same specified shear response and removes that variable from the test.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 05-10-2022 at 09:12 AM.
    ''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

  7. #7
    I made the decision to remove most of my testing I have done using Clear Gel. Clear gel simply doesn’t correlate well with organic ballistics gel, and to leave my postings up would be a disservice to people using my information when picking what round they want to use when protecting themselves. Field loads, handloads, and other oddball stuff will remain.
    www.general-cartridge.com

    We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 5pins View Post
    I made the decision to remove most of my testing I have done using Clear Gel. Clear gel simply doesn’t correlate well with organic ballistics gel, and to leave my postings up would be a disservice to people using my information when picking what round they want to use when protecting themselves. Field loads, handloads, and other oddball stuff will remain.
    Realizing that you have invested several hundred hours of your personal time in amassing the Clear Ballistics Gel data, that had to have been a painful decision to make. Just the same, I commend you for your commitment to providing an accurate portrayal of terminal ballistic performance to your audience. I would offer for your consideration that by that one simple act, the value of your remaining content (10% ordnance gelatin testing) rises above that offered by those who are willing to compromise by using the CBG stuff.
    ''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

  9. #9
    Old man yelling at cloud OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  10. #10
    www.general-cartridge.com

    We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.

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
  •