Yo, @JCN and @the Schwartz, the OP said:
I don't think he needs anyone to explain the scientific method or fight for his honor.
Yo, @JCN and @the Schwartz, the OP said:
I don't think he needs anyone to explain the scientific method or fight for his honor.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
@the Schwartz
I didn’t say you were dumb.
I didn’t say your work was dumb.
You’re a very smart guy and the work you do is very important.
I’ll even give you credit for the the context of:
Anything worth doing (as a profession that people are depending on your results) is worth doing well.
I agree with that statement 100%.
But do you think that applies to hobbies and hobbyists?
And do you think any of us besides you consider our work to be above the level of hobbyist?
I'm going to have to start using a caveat when using Clear Ballistics gel. My intention when testing a field or woods load is not to test them as a traditional defense round, and I don't think anyone should view it that way. I am intending to compare how one load performs to another in a medium that is relativity consistent. I'm only interested in seeing how much penetration a non-expanding bullet will achieve. The gel is not meant to represent anything besides a testing medium.
I use clear gel because of cost and the fact that I can't make more than two blocks of 250A gel at a time. I usually need three or four blocks when I do these tests.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
Thank you 5 pins
Thank you The Schwartz
But yet Wayne Dobbs did for testing his new wadcutters and I think that’s just fine.
I take it as a quick ballpark medium.
If his testing had 12” in clear gel, I would want it validated in organic gel.
But something that goes 15” in clear gel isn’t going to fail sub 12” in organic gel I would wager and even so, Border Patrol goes down to 10” penetration acceptable.
I don’t think Wayne was lazy or remiss. And even though it’s clear gel it gives me the information I was looking for.
His wadcutter also performs in the ballpark of the semi Underwood in the video above as would be expected. So confirmation all around. Not “totally worthless.”
That's quite a leading question!
Clearly, you're projecting upon me a perspective that is yours. I have neither the desire nor the time to resolve your issues as that sort of thing is entirely out of my wheelhouse.
You've clearly got some weird sort of an axe to grind. That's not my problem.
Let's simply part company before the Mods have cause to intervene, shall we?
Last edited by the Schwartz; 11-26-2022 at 06:38 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.
I came here looking for discussion of this load.
I got nearly none of that in three pages.
The ''search'' function to the rescue!
https://pistol-forum.com/search.php?searchid=15032759
''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.
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.
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