Underwood .38 Spl 150gr Wadcutter in Clear Ballistics Gel

[5pins]

Test Gun: S&W M442
Barrel length: 1 7/8 inches.
Ammunition: Underwood .38spl 150gr Wadcutter (Item 732)
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Velocity average: 806fps

https://general-cartridge.com/2022/1...allistics-gel/

[Navin Johnson]

Always thought UW and BB WC’s were to hot for bi—peds not to mention recoil. However in a heavier gun would be better than a SWC for woods walking.

[1Rangemaster]

It’s clear ballistics gel-no clothing, barriers, etc.
Underwood got a little of my money, and after vetting, these rounds are in my occasionally carried .38 Smith snub. All things considered, it seems a good alternative. The Underwood ammo is high quality.

As always, YMMV…

[5pins]

It’s clear ballistics gel-no clothing, barriers, etc.
Underwood got a little of my money, and after vetting, these rounds are in my occasionally carried .38 Smith snub. All things considered, it seems a good alternative. The Underwood ammo is high quality.

As always, YMMV…

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

[the Schwartz]

It should also be noted by those seeking legitimate test protocols that even when used for tests using non-expanding projectiles, the Clear Ballistics Gel product misrepresents (significantly exaggerates) maximum terminal penetration depth.

[1Rangemaster]

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

Understood, sir. I was looking for a solid snub load, and for me, I found it.
If I can arrange a 6-8 inch barrel, I might (with a backup) try it on destructive wild pigs.

[JCN]

I was testing it as a "field" or "woods" load, not a carry load. I use clear gel because I'm only comparing penetration of non-expanding bullets.

Understood, sir. I was looking for a solid snub load, and for me, I found it.
If I can arrange a 6-8 inch barrel, I might (with a backup) try it on destructive wild pigs.

Here’s in 20% gel compared to the Underwood SWC.

It should also be noted by those seeking legitimate test protocols that even when used for tests using non-expanding projectiles, the Clear Ballistics Gel product misrepresents (significantly exaggerates) maximum terminal penetration depth.

We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think clear gel is “worthless.”

We get it man.

I still like it for comparative testing against a known gold standard.

I’ll usually shoot 9mm Gold Dot as the control and compare against that.

Even organic gel is a simplified estimate on what might work in a real shooting when you add a ton of extra variables like bone and non-muscle structures.

I’ve gone to using 20% clear gel for convenience and transport.

[03RN]

Here’s in 20% gel compared to the Underwood SWC.





We get it man, organic gel is the gold standard.

Purists think it’s “worthless.”

We get it man.

I still like it for comparative testing against a known gold standard.

I’ll usually shoot 9mm Gold Dot as the control and compare against that.

Even organic gel is a simplified estimate on what might work in a real shooting when you add a ton of extra variables like bone and non-muscle structures.

I’ve gone to using 20% clear gel for convenience and transport.

What are you comparing? Bullets expand and penetrate different in clear gel. Clear gel is not a consistent media either.

[JCN]

What are you comparing? Bullets expand and penetrate different in clear gel. Clear gel is not a consistent media either.

You might as well stop reading, because nothing I say is going to convince you to keep an open mind to what I’m saying.

You have your mind made up already.

For other people reading:

Ballistic science is a science and the work that Schwartz et al have done is admirable and has advanced the field.
For this, organic gelatin is the gold standard.

For the civilian owner and tester, ballistic testing is mainly for enjoyment and mental masturbation.

We are testing to make ourselves feel better and don’t plan on actually shooting these loads in real self defense.

All of the testing of “AmmoQuest” was pretty much worthless because he could have just picked Gold Dots or HST and called it a day because the testing was already done and validated both in real world use and in rigorous ballistic testing.

For enjoyment, entertainment and hobby testing (which is what I do), my thoughts are the following:


1. The ballistic standards are rigorous and scientific… but they’re meant as a ballpark approximation for what will probably work well in real world shootings where there are heterogenous target densities and variable intermediate barriers.

2. What that means to me is that there’s fudge factor and “good enough is good enough,” both in my personal requirements and in the test results. My testing isn’t so that ammo can be approved for agency use or in offensive LEO work.

3. In that video, I wanted to get a sense of how overpenetration mitigation with semi-wadcutters might fare. It’s a interesting comparison to just a lower velocity wadcutter like a Federal. But it’s just mental masturbation. Doesn’t matter to me that clear gel isn’t homogenous. Because the target use (self defense) isn’t homogenous either.

[03RN]

You might as well stop reading, because nothing I say is going to convince you to keep an open mind to what I’m saying.

You have your mind made up already.

For other people reading:

Ballistic science is a science and the work that Schwartz et al have done is admirable and has advanced the field.
For this, organic gelatin is the gold standard.

For the civilian owner and tester, ballistic testing is mainly for enjoyment and mental masturbation.

We are testing to make ourselves feel better and don’t plan on actually shooting these loads in real self defense.

All of the testing of “AmmoQuest” was pretty much worthless because he could have just picked Gold Dots or HST and called it a day because the testing was already done and validated both in real world use and in rigorous ballistic testing.

For enjoyment, entertainment and hobby testing (which is what I do), my thoughts are the following:


1. The ballistic standards are rigorous and scientific… but they’re meant as a ballpark approximation for what will probably work well in real world shootings where there are heterogenous target densities and variable intermediate barriers.

2. What that means to me is that there’s fudge factor and “good enough is good enough,” both in my personal requirements and in the test results. My testing isn’t so that ammo can be approved for agency use or in offensive LEO work.

3. In that video, I wanted to get a sense of how overpenetration mitigation with semi-wadcutters might fare. It’s a interesting comparison to just a lower velocity wadcutter like a Federal. But it’s just mental masturbation. Doesn’t matter to me that clear gel isn’t homogenous. Because the target use (self defense) isn’t homogenous either.

It's not about keeping an open mind.

Just say I like shooting clear gel because it's fun. That's enough.