Non-scientific hobbyist entertainment with synthetic gel.

[the Schwartz]

@the Schwartz

I think where we might disagree (I say might because I just don’t know at this point because I haven’t tested) is different versus MEANINGFULLY different.

My current preparation isn’t exacting to 3 significant digits. So if a different expanding bullet performs within 10% of what it would in organic, that’s likely going to be good enough for me and not require reformulation.

For handguns, what I have now is better than 10% synthetic because that stuff overpenetrates by up to 35% on the police one testing.

What I have now is in the ballpark.

So if I test different bullets and they’re still within 10% spread of organic, I’ll call that “good enough” and better than the standard commercial synthetic.

Is there a significant difference from a statistical standpoint? Sure. But is is a meaningful difference? Not to me.

A significant amount of additional testing employing bullets with differing expansion ratios (expanded diameter divided by initial diameter) and impact velocities in your titrated CBG version will be necessary to confirm your hypothesis that what you have is ''in the ballpark'' [say ±5% of ordnance gelatin performance]. Such testing would likely be best conducted where you shoot multiples of the same loading into several blocks the CBG product and 10% ordnance gelatin at the same time for the sake of direct comparison. We could get into statistical measures of acceptable/predictable error, confidence intervals and the like, but we'll not go there since we are keeping this thread all non-scientifical except when I dare to go there.

I'm sure that @5pins can lend a solid perspective as to what is meaningful based upon his personal experience with the CBG product and why he has switched from CBG to 10% ordnance gelatin. 5pins' latest exploration of other sources of organically-derived gelatins as valid test mediums is an especially promising option for those wishing to pursue testing in organically derived gelatin at the amateur level.

[the Schwartz]

As clarification:

I do not think that will easily reproduce across a wide variety of velocity, such as 500 fps and 3000 fps.

But if I’m preparing a standard around 950, then will it work reasonably well for handguns in the 950-1100 fps range?

Will it work for different bullet types in those ranges?

Is there a bare organic gel database available with results of commercially available rounds? Brass Fetcher maybe? Any other resources for this? Do they list the model of gun used?

You might try the 10% ordnance gel data produced by ShootingTheBull410 and more recently by @5pins at general-cartridge.com

Brassfetcher also has some data taken in 10% ordnance gelatin but you'll have to sort through those videos carefully because some of Ervin's test data is also taken from 20% concentration ordnance gelatin more commonly used in foreign military testing.

I'm not sure if either source has organized their test data in easily referenced tabular form, so it might be upon you to undertake that task for your needs.

[JCN]

A significant amount of additional testing employing bullets with differing expansion ratios (expanded diameter divided by initial diameter) and impact velocities in your titrated CBG version will be necessary to confirm your hypothesis that what you have is ''in the ballpark'' [say ±5% of ordnance gelatin performance]. Such testing would likely be best conducted where you shoot multiples of the same loading into several blocks the CBG product and 10% ordnance gelatin at the same time for the sake of direct comparison. We could get into statistical measures of acceptable/predictable error, confidence intervals and the like, but we'll not go there since we are keeping this thread all non-scientifical except when I dare to go there.

I'm sure that @5pins can lend a solid perspective as to what is meaningful based upon his personal experience with the CBG product and why he has switched from CBG to 10% ordnance gelatin. 5pins' latest exploration of other sources of organically-derived gelatins as valid test mediums is an especially promising option for those wishing to pursue testing in organically derived gelatin at the amateur level.

I think the criticisms of 10% CBG are valid as they grossly overpenetrate by 30%+ so that part isn’t in question.
If a 15% CBG were available would that have changed things? Maybe, maybe not.

For a casual hobbyist, I would accept +/- 10-15% as “good enough” but totally agree that for Mil/LEO published standards and testing that organic gel should be and always be the gold standard.

You might try the 10% ordnance gel data produced by ShootingTheBull410 and more recently by @5pins at general-cartridge.com

Brassfetcher also has some data taken in 10% ordnance gelatin but you'll have to sort through those videos carefully because some of Ervin's test data is also taken from 20% concentration ordnance gelatin more commonly used in foreign military testing.

I'm not sure if either source has organized their test data in easily referenced tabular form, so it might be upon you to undertake that task for your needs.

Brassfetcher does (see table above) but not the loads I have on possession except for the 45ACP HST.

ShootingTheBull was the set of videos (“ammo quest”) that I was using as the standard for this test (the video linked above).

@5pins wasn’t interested in cross comparing, but I’ll see if I can dig out any tests he’s done with ammo I have in the stockpile.

[the Schwartz]

I think the criticisms of 10% CBG are valid as they grossly overpenetrate by 30%+ so that part isn’t in question.
If a 15% CBG were available would that have changed things? Maybe, maybe not.

For a casual hobbyist, I would accept +/- 10-15% as “good enough” but totally agree that for Mil/LEO published standards and testing that organic gel should be and always be the gold standard.



Brassfetcher does (see table above) but not the loads I have on possession except for the 45ACP HST.

ShootingTheBull was the set of videos (“ammo quest”) that I was using as the standard for this test (the video linked above).

@5pins wasn’t interested in cross comparing, but I’ll see if I can dig out any tests he’s done with ammo I have in the stockpile.

Sounds like fun....

Except for the Dremeling fingernails stuff.

[JCN]

Looks like 5pins tested:

380 ACP out of an LCP.
Fiocchi XTP and Underwood XTP+P

I have that gun and those rounds.

Unfortunately those look like the only Vyse gel tests that I have ammo and guns at home for.

@5pins can you tell me what your cold bore process is? Do you warm up the gun first with the target group and then go gel?

When I test the gel in the future, I’ll probably run a few target ammo rounds through it first.

The warmed up 3” barrel 9mm 147gr HST+P went 13” which is what ShootingTheBull got with that gun and penetration in organic.

[JCN]

[5pins]

Looks like 5pins tested:

380 ACP out of an LCP.
Fiocchi XTP and Underwood XTP+P

I have that gun and those rounds.

Unfortunately those look like the only Vyse gel tests that I have ammo and guns at home for.

@5pins can you tell me what your cold bore process is? Do you warm up the gun first with the target group and then go gel?

When I test the gel in the future, I’ll probably run a few target ammo rounds through it first.

The warmed up 3” barrel 9mm 147gr HST+P went 13” which is what ShootingTheBull got with that gun and penetration in organic.

I don't warm up the gun or ammo, just shoot it as is.

[JCN]

I don't warm up the gun or ammo, just shoot it as is.

But do you shoot your groups first and then go to the gel?

I think my 28 degree cold bore was probably excessive.

Probably doesn’t matter so much for regular carry guns that will be near body temps.

[5pins]

But do you shoot your groups first and then go to the gel?

I think my 28 degree cold bore was probably excessive.

Probably doesn’t matter so much for regular carry guns that will be near body temps.

Sometimes, but not normally.

[JCN]

So these were some of the other loads that had online organic gel data that I had on hand with guns to match what was used in the testing.

@WDR had suggested that the ~15% gel preparation would only be valid for the 9mm HST and require reformulation to reasonably work for other types of ammunition.

My supposition was that it would work reasonably well for similar velocity ammunition and “good enough” for a hobbyist.

I had room in the same gel block to shoot 230 grain normal pressure HST 45 ACP out of a 5” barrel and compare to the data Brass Fetcher had published.

They got 13.6”

Mine penetrated to 12”



What I take from that:
1. Even though the clear gel is less dense, it can still give results with less penetration than organic gel.
2. The larger bullets might not be as similar and might not be as faithful.
3. I might have made this preparation a little thick (I was trying to show that it wouldn’t overpenetrate).
4. It’s still less than 15% off from what they got.

I then shot the Underwood XTP+P in 380 ACP that @5pins shot in Vyse.

Those results turned out pretty spot on.

He got one shot at 11.75 inches and another at 10.75 inches.

I got 11.5 inches.



What I take from that:
1. Still not overpenetrating compared to organic, showing that even though less dense it’s pretty consistent in slowing bullets down at least as well as organic when it comes to this range of velocities when the right preparation is mixed.
2. Even the two shots 5pins took in organic had ~10% shot to shot variability in penetration. That’s just the nature of the beast.
3. The gel I made to test 9mm HST was faithful to 380 ACP XTP, so it’s reasonable to believe it’ll work pretty well across a range of different bullet weights and construction in this set of velocities.


There are probably other conclusions others could make and alternate hypotheses that could be made.

This is just prelim and I think the ~15% gel is a pretty good handgun testing medium (for me) as a hobbyist and I don’t think it requires changing preparation across different similar velocity loads.

I’m off to cut the bullets out and measure expansion. Will post up when I’m done.