Frustrated by total lack of academic rigor: gel results particularly .22, .25

[Polecat]

Those truncated solids is what they should load the .25 with optimized for reliable penetration! The little hollowpoints seem gimmicky in the .25. How about a Federal Punch .25!

[No.6]

Punch is actually so soft that it expands when fired from a 10/22 into gel:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...imfire-report/

I'm having very good results with this combo on thick-skinned woodchucks; DRT or two steps at most. (sort of apologies for reviving ancient thread, but it was the best fit and had this very helpful photo)

[Velo Dog]

sort of apologies for reviving ancient thread, but it was the best fit

Since you did, I'll also add something to this old thread



The problems with synthetic gel are most clearly exposed when testing low-powered cartridges or exotic bullet designs.

[the Schwartz]

Since you did, I'll also add something to this old thread



The problems with synthetic gel are most clearly exposed when testing low-powered cartridges or exotic bullet designs.

Thanks for posting the video.

It is nice to see that some YouTubers are beginning to realize that the Clear Ballistics Gel goo is absolutely worthless as a test medium.

Here's another video by a different YouTuber who has also been using shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin. His results are similar to those of 22plinkster.

[Polecat]

Those look like repackaged “stinger” I mean “ stanger” just an observation.

Guys keep your eyes out for any punch .25 vids, as I haven’t seen any yet. I was pumped that they actually released it this year! On the box it is basically a 45 gr solid at 825 FPS.

[Dov]

I'm having very good results with this combo on thick-skinned woodchucks; DRT or two steps at most. (sort of apologies for reviving ancient thread, but it was the best fit and had this very helpful photo)

From carbine/rifle length barrel?

[No.6]

Yes, sorry for unclarity -- that exact combo (Ruger 10/22 + Punch) COM hits on the latest woodchuck (obviously head targets would be almost round-agnostic). I didn't cut the chuck to retrieve the round but it didn't go through.

[feudist]

Thanks for posting the video.

It is nice to see that some YouTubers are beginning to realize that the Clear Ballistics Gel goo is absolutely worthless as a test medium.

Here's another video by a different YouTuber who has also been using shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin. His results are similar to those of 22plinkster.

Thanks for linking that.
I just went through a bunch of his videos, concentrating on the pistol tests and especially the results from Heritage Barkeep with the 2 inch barrel.
His results seem to indicate a fairly consistent penetration depth of 14-16 inches with a wide variety of .22 loads from the 2 inch barrel, and 17-19 inches from the 4 inch barrel. Expansion was usually nil to some minor upset, and mostly from the 4 inch barrel. Even the best performing hollowpoints were 50-50 in showing any expansion.
My surprise takeaway was that even the most mundane loads, for example the Blazer 40 grain lead round nose solids(17 inches from the Barkeep), handily meet the recommended 12 inch minimum.

I guess I was surprised that the 10% Ordnance gel penetration results were generally deeper and more consistent than the Clear ballistics tests such as by LuckyGunner. I was expecting penetration to be much less for even the best rounds, say in the 5-6 inch range.

Caveat: His format is a bit disorganized, and it is not always clear which round he is talking about. He provides no tabular results at all so you have to grind through the entire(somewhat rambling) video.
But, it is unique in using apparently properly calibrated gelatin and 4 layer denim tests.
Annoyingly, in the most comprehensive test he does he either didn't do the BB calibration or fails to mention it. I never saw BBs in any of the shots of the gel. In the more recent ones, he explicitly shows calibration and notes discrepancies. He is careful to keep the gel at the correct temperature.

Question: in such an apparently uncalibrated test are the results completely invalid? This was the test that showed virtually all loads clustering at the same general depth for each barrel length. Weighed against the properly calibrated tests, the results seem remarkably similar.
The video in question:

[the Schwartz]

Thanks for linking that.
I just went through a bunch of his videos, concentrating on the pistol tests and especially the results from Heritage Barkeep with the 2 inch barrel.
His results seem to indicate a fairly consistent penetration depth of 14-16 inches with a wide variety of .22 loads from the 2 inch barrel, and 17-19 inches from the 4 inch barrel. Expansion was usually nil to some minor upset, and mostly from the 4 inch barrel. Even the best performing hollowpoints were 50-50 in showing any expansion.
My surprise takeaway was that even the most mundane loads, for example the Blazer 40 grain lead round nose solids(17 inches from the Barkeep), handily meet the recommended 12 inch minimum.

I guess I was surprised that the 10% Ordnance gel penetration results were generally deeper and more consistent than the Clear ballistics tests such as by LuckyGunner. I was expecting penetration to be much less for even the best rounds, say in the 5-6 inch range.

Caveat: His format is a bit disorganized, and it is not always clear which round he is talking about. He provides no tabular results at all so you have to grind through the entire(somewhat rambling) video.
But, it is unique in using apparently properly calibrated gelatin and 4 layer denim tests.
Annoyingly, in the most comprehensive test he does he either didn't do the BB calibration or fails to mention it. I never saw BBs in any of the shots of the gel. In the more recent ones, he explicitly shows calibration and notes discrepancies. He is careful to keep the gel at the correct temperature.

Question: in such an apparently uncalibrated test are the results completely invalid? This was the test that showed virtually all loads clustering at the same general depth for each barrel length. Weighed against the properly calibrated tests, the results seem remarkably similar.
The video in question:

Yes, I agree that his format is rather disorganized. That's a common issue with most of the amateur ammunition testing found on YouTube and other social media.

The short answer to your question above is 'yes'.

A more qualified answer is in order.

Without shear validation to confirm that the 10%-concentration ordnance gelatin has the correct viscosity (≈15,200 cp), there is no way to know if the viscous drag component in the low velocity (non-cavitation) regime is being properly represented. That the bullets group consistently in 10% ordnance gelatin even though it has not been shear-validated is testament to ordnance gelatin's consistency; however, like any precision instrument it must be ''calibrated'' against some known standard of reference—penetration of a .177-caliber steel BB fired at 591 ± 13 fps to a depth of 8.5 ± 0.4cm—so that test results are comparable to other test results obtained in the same test medium.

Even if 10% gelatin shear-validates ''out-of-spec'', it is possible to correct (mathematically) penetration data using the very simple equation on page 260 of Duncan MacPherson's book, Bullet Penetration.

There's a well-established procedure for mixing, molding, and using 10% ordnance gelatin. Why anyone would undertake the technical burden of making it only to ignore the final step (shear validation) is a mystery to me.

If the process of mixing, molding, and ensuring consistency of the final product is too much, testing in water offers an ''easy button'' of sorts in that it requires no messy mixing, refrigeration, or shear validation.

Simply line up four or five ½-gallon paperboard beverage cartons backed by a few old towels, place a chronograph ten feet in front of the test set up and take the shot. After recovery of the test bullet, just ''plug in'' the average expanded diameter, retained mass, and the impact velocity of the bullet to any of the five existing bullet penetrations equation of your choice.

[Polecat]

That was interesting and encouraging, thanks for that video link!