Non-scientific hobbyist entertainment with synthetic gel.

[the Schwartz]

Thanks man, I think for the military / law enforcement / ammunition manufacturer that there is no reason to deviate from the pure FBI protocol in the full form. They have the resources to be able to do this with dedicated facilities and personnel and the database and expertise that has been accrued is only valid in the medium tested.

But for the hobbyist that might just be curious if their pocket pistol can generate enough velocity to expand a projectile (for example HST works, but Gold Dot doesn’t faithfully in short barrels) or to test random new loads and cartridges (like the Xtreme Defender) or to test penetration from atypical, non-duty guns (like a 1” barrel Taurus View), the clear gel has distinct advantages in convenience.

I mainly set out to debunk some of the erroneous conclusions that some purists misattribute to all synthetic gel rather than the too thin 10% clear ballistic preparation commercially sold.

Myth: synthetic gel overpenetrates and underexpands compared to 10% organic gel and always will because of reduced density.

JCN: False. Despite reduced density, the chemical properties of ~15% synthetic gel allow more expansion and less penetration than 10% organic gel when testing 230gr 45ACP out of 5” barrel.

Attachment 97896

Attachment 97897

Attachment 97897

Myth: If you made a gel preparation that worked with one bullet / load, you’d have to make separate formulations for each load you wanted to test.

JCN: False. When testing other handgun cartridges, 380 ACP, 9mm and 45 ACP all performed reasonably faithfully to their organic gel counterparts in the same ~15% synthetic gel.


Truth to criticism: synthetic likely won’t be faithful to organic across a large range of velocities because of the way the medium works differently ar different velocities compared to organic. But across an 850-1100 fps spread it looks like it’s holding up so far.

Will test with slower and faster to see where things fall apart but will need organic gel testing to corroborate.

Forgot the other one:

Myth: Synthetic gel is less consistent shot to shot

JCN: Synthetic gel is extremely consistent from shot to shot but has more sensitivity to compromised borders so follow up shots have to be spaced appropriately widely apart.

It seems that you set out to prove a concept that you ''knew'' was the solution (that CBG in a ''15% version'' would somehow solve the issues that are so well-documented by so many SMEs in the field) before you actually started any testing. It was definitely not scientific, so you have that going for you.

If you've ever wondered why major domestic ammunition manufacturers who supply our nation's law enforcement agencies (and some of our military) don't use the CBG here's why.

Each and every one of your ''conclusions'' flies in direct contradiction to the research of these SMEs—

1.) Lucian C. Haag (in the AFTE Journal, Spring 2020 52;2) who addresses the issue further in the following excerpt from that article—

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



2.) John Ervin, Mech. Eng. of Brassfetcher whose video "Clear Ballistics Gel vs 10% Gelatin'' demonstrates that a simple linear conversion between the Clear Ballistics product and 10% ordnance gelatin does not exist—



3.) Dr. Gary K. Roberts—

Clear Ballistic Gel is not a "consistent and controllable medium".

It is quite utterly useless from a terminal ballistic analysis perspective.

the Clear Ballistics folks may be the bomb; unfortunately their product is NOT accurate, repeatable, and does not offer valid terminal ballistic data. Period.

4.) The excellent 3-part article published by Lt Col (ret) Mike Wood from PoliceOne.com—

https://press.hornady.com/assets/sit...risons-1-3.pdf




By titrating the ''10%'' and ''20%'' versions of the CBG product to get the results that you desired, you have not proven that the CBG product in its ''new and improved!'' form possesses the physical qualities that make it a valid soft tissue simulant (density, internal sonic velocity, and bulk modulus).

Instead, you've simply adjusted the location of the slope-intercept of the CBG's impact response profile all the while failing to recognize that the terminal ballistic performance of all projectiles that strike and pass through the CBG product in any ''concentration'' will always diverge significantly from their respective performance in 10% concentration ordnance gelatin. Your sample size is also very small and does not even rise to the level of statistical significance.

And, despite some really insightful perspective by another member who stated that if you change the projectile or its velocity, that you will be forced ''to start all over, from essentially 'nowhere' again.'', you've chosen to ignore that wisdom, too.

That does not sound like proof. It sounds like shameless confirmation bias.

The truth does not have to be scientific, but it does have to be true all of the time.

[DMCutter]

@JCN, if you're going to try out higher velocities, I vote for some 62 grain Gold Dot or Federal Fusion from a 14.5" or 16" barrel, e.g., an MCX. That would be a good one for super slow mo video.

[Clusterfrack]

As a professional scientist in a field adjacent to all this, I really appreciate your perspective. Here are some thoughts:

1. A linear conversion does not need to exist for a physical model to be calibrated or provide useful information. A common approach, especially in the case of complex dynamics, is to bound the calibration (e.g. a 3 point calibration) and estimate the magnitude of the error.

2. @DocGKR's concerns are more troubling. If CBG cannot be made repeatable, that's pretty much game over. Why is CBG not consistent while OG is?

3. To what extent do the results of OG deviate from observations of terminal ballistic effectiveness?

It seems that you set out to prove a concept that you ''knew'' was the solution (that CBG in a ''15% version'' would somehow solve the issues that are so well-documented by so many SMEs in the field) before you actually started any testing. It was definitely not scientific, so you have that going for you.

If you've ever wondered why major domestic ammunition manufacturers who supply our nation's law enforcement agencies (and some of our military) don't use the CBG here's why.

Each and every one of your ''conclusions'' flies in direct contradiction to the research of these SMEs—

1.) Lucian C. Haag (in the AFTE Journal, Spring 2020 52;2) who addresses the issue further in the following excerpt from that article—

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



2.) John Ervin, Mech. Eng. of Brassfetcher whose video "Clear Ballistics Gel vs 10% Gelatin'' demonstrates that a simple linear conversion between the Clear Ballistics product and 10% ordnance gelatin does not exist—



3.) Dr. Gary K. Roberts—




4.) The excellent 3-part article published by Lt Col (ret) Mike Wood from PoliceOne.com—

https://press.hornady.com/assets/sit...risons-1-3.pdf




By titrating the ''10%'' and ''20%'' versions of the CBG product to get the results that you desired, you have not proven that the CBG product in its ''new and improved!'' form possesses the physical qualities that make it a valid soft tissue simulant (density, internal sonic velocity, and bulk modulus).

Instead, you've simply adjusted the location of the slope-intercept of the CBG's impact response profile all the while failing to recognize that the terminal ballistic performance of all projectiles that strike and pass through the CBG product in any ''concentration'' will always diverge significantly from their respective performance in 10% concentration ordnance gelatin. Your sample size is also very small and does not even rise to the level of statistical significance.

And, despite some really insightful perspective by another member who stated that if you change the projectile or its velocity, that you will be forced ''to start all over, from essentially 'nowhere' again.'', you've chosen to ignore that wisdom, too.

That does not sound like proof. It sounds like shameless confirmation bias.

The truth does not have to be scientific, but it does have to be true all of the time.

[JCN]

@the Schwartz you’re exactly the opposite.

You’re not listening to anything other than your opinion and completely ignoring that I specifically referenced the articles that you brought up especially the Police1 one.

The criticisms of clear ballistic gel that you continue to bring up are mainly criticisms of the 10% product and not synthetic gel as a medium.

I’m agreeing with you that organic is and should always be the gold standard.

For handguns, 15% clear gel seems to be:

1. Way more reasonable than 10%
2. Close enough (for me) to organic for my use.

[JCN]

As a professional scientist in a field adjacent to all this, I really appreciate your perspective. Here are some thoughts:

1. A linear conversion does not need to exist for a physical model to be calibrated or provide useful information. A common approach, especially in the case of complex dynamics, is to bound the calibration (e.g. a 3 point calibration) and estimate the magnitude of the error.

2. @DocGKR's concerns are more troubling. If CBG cannot be made repeatable, that's pretty much game over. Why is CBG not consistent while OG is?

3. To what extent do the results of OG deviate from observations of terminal ballistic effectiveness?

#1 thank you

#2 is it CBG or the commercially prepared 10% that isn’t calibrated consistently that’s the issue. Or is that the clear gel seems to be way more sensitive to adjacent structure compromise leading to the lucky gunner variability.

Both of those I proposed methodology to correct and avoid that inconsistency.

#3 above my pay grade

[the Schwartz]

As a professional scientist in a field adjacent to all this, I really appreciate your perspective. Here are some thoughts:

1. A linear conversion does not need to exist for a physical model to be calibrated or provide useful information. A common approach, especially in the case of complex dynamics, is to bound the calibration (e.g. a 3 point calibration) and estimate the magnitude of the error.

2. @DocGKR's concerns are more troubling. If CBG cannot be made repeatable, that's pretty much game over. Why is CBG not consistent while OG is?

3. To what extent do the results of OG deviate from observations of terminal ballistic effectiveness?

Yes, I am aware that a linear conversion is not the only way to to establish equivalence and similitude. Since Haag's analysis only addressed the non-cavitation regime in which velocity to penetration depth is linear, I didn't see the need to address the aspect of nonlinear impact response modeling which occurs in the cavitation regime. We agree.

As to the extent that '' results of OG deviate from observations of terminal ballistic effectiveness'', I am looking at this strictly through the lens of the FBI test protocols' requirements.

[JCN]

And, despite some really insightful perspective by another member who stated that if you change the projectile or its velocity, that you will be forced ''to start all over, from essentially 'nowhere' again.'', you've chosen to ignore that wisdom, too.

Again, you’re not listening. Or even paying attention to anything except your bias.

In order to address that criticism, I specifically tested 380 and 45 ACP with the same gel I standardized with the 9mm and the results are similar to the organic.

My 380 matched 5pins organic exactly.

The 45 ACP fell short which speaks to your comment but my qualification is that “that 15% difference is good enough for a hobbyist” and will continue to try and parse out whether it’s velocity or size that’s causing the underpenetration.

By testing with 10mm, I might be able to get a sense of it.

[the Schwartz]

@the Schwartz you’re exactly the opposite.

You’re not listening to anything other than your opinion and completely ignoring that I specifically referenced the articles that you brought up especially the Police1 one.

The criticisms of clear ballistic gel that you continue to bring up are mainly criticisms of the 10% product and not synthetic gel as a medium.

I’m agreeing with you that organic is and should always be the gold standard.

For handguns, 15% clear gel seems to be:

1. Way more reasonable than 10%
2. Close enough (for me) to organic for my use.

Nope. I am listening to the opinions of experts which are based upon actual research.

You're ignoring the fact that in order to establish dynamic equivalence between soft tissue and a valid simulant, that both must possess the same, or close to the same, density, internal sonic velocity, and bulk modulus.

[JCN]

Nope. I am listening to the opinions of experts which are based upon actual research.

You're ignoring the fact that in order to establish dynamic equivalence between soft tissue and a valid simulant, that both must possess the same, or close to the same, density, internal sonic velocity, and bulk modulus.

I’m not ignoring that fact.
I’m embracing that fact.

You’re not listening.

I’m agreeing that in order to be the same ACROSS A WIDE RANGE OF CONDITIONS, the material must be close to the same. Synthetic gel is not.

What I’m proposing is that by adjusting the composition, I can get something that’s reasonably close in a narrow range of velocities.

Testing 380 ACP, 9mm and 45 ACP it surely seems reasonable.

I don’t expect it to behave similarly with 500 fps BBs and 3000 fps 5.56 which is supporting and acknowledging your points.

I’ve said that repeatedly.

And I brought up that the behavior of the large, slow 45 ACP seems to be more negatively affected than the 380 with regard to the deviation.

Which is also supporting and acknowledging the difference.

The part that you’re missing is the “good enough” portion of this.

I’m NOT saying that it’s going to work exactly like organic.

I AM saying that the results might be more applicable than just 9mm HST (as is borne out by testing 380).

[the Schwartz]

Again, you’re not listening.

Sure I am. It seems that you wish to have it both ways. Actual proof of concept in complex dynamic behavior like this requires many, many, many more data points than you have, or are likely to produce, in this endeavor. Either this is ''not scientific and for entertainment only!'' (like it is now) or this endeavor is an attempt to legitimately (that's science!) validate the linear and non-linear impact response dynamics of a material that has significant issues attributed to it through prior research.

In order to address that criticism, I specifically tested 380 and 45 ACP with the same gel I standardized with the 9mm and the results are similar to the organic.

OK, so at present you've got what? Five shots in each of three calibers in a very narrow velocity band for a total of 15?

My 380 matched 5pins organic exactly.

So, there's one out of three. You're batting 0.333.

And to make the other projectiles comply with your opinion, you had to alter the alteration of the titration of two CBG products.

The 45 ACP fell short which speaks to your comment but my qualification is that “that 15% difference is good enough for a hobbyist” and will continue to try and parse out whether it’s velocity or size that’s causing the underpenetration.

As was pointed out to you in post #46 of this thread by another poster, it is both velocity and expansion (size).

I've also made the exact same point several times that since the Bernoulli equation which determines how/why dynamic pressure is produced (velocity and density), that because the density of the CBG stuff is less than that of water (which you even confirmed right here in this thread!), the CBG stuff is clearly incapable of matching the dynamic pressure (which drives projectile expansion) that the same projectile at the same velocity would encounter in actual 10% ordnance gelatin.