Underwood .38 Spl 150gr Wadcutter in Clear Ballistics Gel

[the Schwartz]

Clicking on that link dead ends, it might be a cache thing.

Also waiting for the reconciliation of your thoughts on Wayne Dobbs using just clear gel in testing his wadcutters.

Attachment 97647

Did Wayne “not do it right?”

Or did he do a “good enough” job for what was being tested.

I’m voting the latter, while your comments suggest you’d believe the former.

Oh and also: @jetfire

Given who you've ''mentioned'' in the post quoted, it's obvious that you're attempting to stir the pot. Out of respect for the forum owner, I'd ask that you please confine your attempts to do so to PM.

[jetfire]

Lol nah

[5pins]

Clicking on that link dead ends, it might be a cache thing.

Also waiting for the reconciliation of your thoughts on Wayne Dobbs using just clear gel in testing his wadcutters.

Attachment 97647

Did Wayne “not do it right?”

Or did he do a “good enough” job for what was being tested.

I’m voting the latter, while your comments suggest you’d believe the former.

Oh and also: @jetfire

No, he did not do it right. Not if the goal of the test was to determine if this type of ammunition was suitable for carry.

I understand your point of using clear gel as a hobby testing medium. However, if you are using the test results to promote its use to others then yes you're doing it wrong.


There's a reason I stopped using and got rid of clear gel in my testing. As I explained in my previous post, I only use it now for my field loads.
Take my latest post on the Rem .38 158gr LHP. I conducted this test using the Winchester version a few years ago in clear gel and got vastly different results. I'm aware that the Winchester and Remington loads are not identical, but I expect they will perform similarly. But the Winchester bullet went through over 7 inches more of clear gel with very little expansion. It was worse in the clothing covered gel.

[JCN]

No, he did not do it right. Not if the goal of the test was to determine if this type of ammunition was suitable for carry.

I understand your point of using clear gel as a hobby testing medium. However, if you are using the test results to promote its use to others then yes you're doing it wrong.


There's a reason I stopped using and got rid of clear gel in my testing. As I explained in my previous post, I only use it now for my field loads.
Take my latest post on the Rem .38 158gr LHP. I conducted this test using the Winchester version a few years ago in clear gel and got vastly different results. I'm aware that the Winchester and Remington loads are not identical, but I expect they will perform similarly. But the Winchester bullet went through over 7 inches more of clear gel with very little expansion. It was worse in the clothing covered gel.

Your results in 10% clear gel are consistent with the Police 1 article.

Where the conclusion is:

If the formula for the clear synthetic could be altered to provide performance equivalent to that of 10% calibrated gelatin, it would be the runaway favorite for this kind of work. Legions of manufacturers, law enforcement agencies and individual hobbyists would cheer in unison to have a ready-made, temperature-stable clear gelatin that accurately replicated the troublesome organic gelatin. It would be a huge win for all of us to see that happen.


Which then begs the question of:

We know that 10% clear gel is too thin. Which leads to overpenetration. So it’s not appropriate to compare against 10% organic gel.

But what about a denser preparation? If the molecules don’t weigh the same, 10% by weight is meaningless if the properties are related to the particle number and geometry rather than the weight.

I know for a fact that 20% synthetic gel does not penetrate as far as 10% organic.

As a hobby endeavor I’ll do some testing.

[Tokarev]

Your results in 10% clear gel are consistent with the Police 1 article.

Where the conclusion is:

If the formula for the clear synthetic could be altered to provide performance equivalent to that of 10% calibrated gelatin, it would be the runaway favorite for this kind of work. Legions of manufacturers, law enforcement agencies and individual hobbyists would cheer in unison to have a ready-made, temperature-stable clear gelatin that accurately replicated the troublesome organic gelatin. It would be a huge win for all of us to see that happen.


Which then begs the question of:

We know that 10% clear gel is too thin. Which leads to overpenetration. So it’s not appropriate to compare against 10% organic gel.

But what about a denser preparation? If the molecules don’t weigh the same, 10% by weight is meaningless if the properties are related to the particle number and geometry rather than the weight.

I know for a fact that 20% synthetic gel does not penetrate as far as 10% organic.

As a hobby endeavor I’ll do some testing.

As users have reported; aside from Clear Gel not being analogous to 250A, it is also not consistent from one block to the next. And I don't think anyone has established any sort of standard for how many times a block can be melted and re-used before it no longer has its original properties.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[JCN]

As users have reported; aside from Clear Gel not being analogous to 250A, it is also not consistent from one block to the next. And I don't think anyone has established any sort of standard for how many times a block can be melted and re-used before it no longer has its original properties.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Agreed.

But I think we also agree that the Clear Gel density is fundamentally off if they’re trying to compare 1:1 with organic gel.

So regardless of inconsistency, it’s all skewed thin (which is a bigger issue).

The company says melting 8x but who knows if that’s actually accurate.

In my head, I’m curious if the density was adjusted could the synthetic gel be reasonable in a narrow velocity application.

Basically is the product so flawed as to be unworkable, or is the main criticism around the thin density of what’s being advertised as an organic gel analog.

My internal hope is that if increasing the synthetic gel percent by 3-5% gives workable product, maybe the company would adjust their density of what they’re selling (but probably not).

I’m just curious, though, about what the limitation of the molecule is versus the limitation of what’s sold commercially (that we can agree is too thin for a 1:1 comparison).

[mtnbkr]

it is also not consistent from one block to the next.

That sounds like a manufacturing issue.

What is the manufacturer's view on improving consistency and maybe developing a translation protocol between this and organic gel?

I think this is important because the Clear Ballistics product *seems* more accessible and easier to manage for folks who want to do some testing without a lot of hassle.

Chris

[Tokarev]

Agreed.

But I think we also agree that the Clear Gel density is fundamentally off if they’re trying to compare 1:1 with organic gel.

So regardless of inconsistency, it’s all skewed thin (which is a bigger issue).

The company says melting 8x but who knows if that’s actually accurate.

In my head, I’m curious if the density was adjusted could the synthetic gel be reasonable in a narrow velocity application.

Basically is the product so flawed as to be unworkable, or is the main criticism around the thin density of what’s being advertised as an organic gel analog.

My internal hope is that if increasing the synthetic gel percent by 3-5% gives workable product, maybe the company would adjust their density of what they’re selling (but probably not).

I’m just curious, though, about what the limitation of the molecule is versus the limitation of what’s sold commercially (that we can agree is too thin for a 1:1 comparison).

I think I've posted this before. In my opinion clear gel could become sort of its own standard if and when the company could make blocks consistent from one batch to the next. Whether or not it is an approximation of 10% 250A is kind of beside the point. It wouldn't have to fully represent 250A if it replicated itself from block to block.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[5pins]

My guess is that clear gel would have made it more consistent and correlate better by now if they could. If you look over their patent, it notes several “various experiments” to get to the formulation it has now.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070116766A1/en

Basically, clear gel is a reformulation of “candle gel”.

https://thecandlemakersstore.com/can...reco-gels.html

[JCN]

That sounds like a manufacturing issue.

What is the manufacturer's view on improving consistency and maybe developing a translation protocol between this and organic gel?

I think this is important because the Clear Ballistics product *seems* more accessible and easier to manage for folks who want to do some testing without a lot of hassle.

Chris

I think I've posted this before. In my opinion clear gel could become sort of its own standard if and when the company could make blocks consistent from one batch to the next. Whether or not it is an approximation of 10% 250A is kind of beside the point. It wouldn't have to fully represent 250A if it replicated itself from block to block.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I think it would be mechanically easy for them to produce a 15% synthetic gel that might give closer numbers to 10% organic gel.