Is there one place, not just approved loads list, but for all data at various times of DrGkr 4 layer I can find? There are bits and pieces on multiple sites with same loads different lots on multiple dates, and older bare gel IWBA data.
Is there one place, not just approved loads list, but for all data at various times of DrGkr 4 layer I can find? There are bits and pieces on multiple sites with same loads different lots on multiple dates, and older bare gel IWBA data.
The cited source (Haag, and others Ervin, J. of Brassfetcher and Lt. Col. Mike Wood of policeone) have proven independently of one another that there is no way to establish a valid 1:1 conversion between test data taken from the CBG product and that any attempt at regression analysis results in a divergent relationship between the two. This means that any ''comparisons'', ''similarities'', ''hunches'', or ''clues'' that you might have are phantoms or wishful thinking no matter how ''sure'' you feel about them.Originally Posted by DanTheWolfman
Your insistence that some sort of ''similarity'' exists between the CBG product and 10% ordnance gelatin suggests otherwise.
''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.
One of the very few instances where watching Paul Harrell have a senile fit and shoot his groceries may be preferable.
Maybe.
not fighting....is it available somewhere without paying $50
And did they try 4 layer and inserting a 1/4" Medium Density Fiberboard 2 or 3" in, which lowers the penetration in the lower density cbg, and comparing it to Real Gel 4 layer results? Because without it as I pointed out in the video smaller diameter higher velocity bullets ie 9mm penetrate WAY farther like 1.5x so. I'd say the numbers I presented seem to indicate a somewhat acceptable inference to be made within the parameters of of say the percentage differences in one lot to the next in real gel would show.
Are you a member of the IWBA involved in ballistics testing? How much correlation +-5% Real Gel 4 layer difference would have to be shown for correlation to be acceptedable as a reference since that seems to be about the variance from one lot to the next (and acceptable variance in barrel length differences 3.5-4.5" in most the calibers? though under 3.5" as now commonly carried can very much greater with many bullets outside hsts).
You're ignoring the numbers I gave w/ a blind eye because your mind is already made up. Tell me how much more would be sufficient? HST, Gold Dot, Critical Duty are the most known loadings with data on them after all.
Regardless, I compiled the Official Data in the video.
If you would like to tell me where ALL of DrGkr compiled pistol caliber 4 layer data is with test dates please enlighten me. Otherwise that is hard to compile in different places and with same ammo different lots tested at different times. I've done some of that in the past.
How are your Bill Drill and FAST Drill times?
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
lol....relate to terminal ballistics how? You can get good at whatever drills you do often.
I'm of equal time with A/B zone hits on multiple shoot and move drills on multiple ie 2 or 3 targets w either 9mm or .45...and soon to be in .40 now getting back into it once i refamiliarize with the recoil impulse and new pistol trigger breaks a bit better.
Engagement total elapsed time and hits similar 9 or .45 as stated various platforms makes little difference.
You do your Bill drills standing static. I'll keep moving and doing my drills thanks. I'm not a Grand Master but I can shoot. I regularly do a multiple attacker retreat drill 2by2by2 while scooting back 1x1x1x headshots 7-7.5 seconds. I consider that more valid to most common none LE scenarios.
Neither of which have anything to do with terminal ballistics. .40 will not make a discernable difference in appropriately weight pistols after 2-3 more trips. Only .357 mag slows split times considerably on one target. But run multiple targets multiple transitions and even then total elapsed time is very similar.
Train how you fight. You do you, and I'll do me. I really don't care if your schlong is bigger, unless you can actually show me You not only have the higher skill but can teach me how to improve effectively.
Are you claiming a .40 hst doesn't do 1.65x Tissue Crush or a .45 HST doesn't do 2.11x more? And one is incapable of close enough performance difference in the different calibers of choosing?
Inferences are not proof. Perhaps you can explain how a barrier material would cause the CBG product to behave any differently than it normally would and how that difference would cause it to correlate more closely to 10% ordnance gelatin under such conditions? That sounds like a tremendous inference. As we now know, inferences prove nothing.
Incorrect. I am ignoring irrelevant data obtained from the CBG product and comparisons of that irrelevant data made to a legitimate terminal ballistic test medium based upon the findings of several independent researchers and SMEs. I made up my mind based upon the cited sources' conclusions in addition to some of my research, rather than upon a set of baseless assumptions and inferences.
Providing more irrelevant CBG ''data'' and comparisons will change nothing because the CBG product has been shown to be insufficient as a soft tissue simulant by the sources that I've cited earlier.
So far, you've offered a lot of assumptions about the similarity of the CBG product to 10% ordnance gelatin. When can we expect your (linear or non-linear) regressive analysis of both materials demonstrating the claimed convergence in terminal performance representation that you are claiming?
''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.
This is the place where, for people like you and I, it's wiser to learn from actual SMEs and BTDT folks than falsely thinking we've come up with something that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum all over the internet, bringing up long-debunked myth and folklore that this site is a haven from. This seems more like it belongs in the Glock Talk Caliber forum or whatever.
Show me the numbers. Do the math. What is acceptable variance +-% lot to lot, and in varying barrel lengths? What is the % difference in the numbers I gave vs Official Numbers? What is the difference to the average of the same loads tested multiple times IWBA 4ld? IF it falls within lot variations +- then.......
I asked because those numbers are likely to have more bearing on your outcome than the terminal ballistic numerology you are engaging in.
You are currently failing basic social awareness. If you go read several dozen posts on this forum, then read your posts, you will find that yours are very different in tone, content and value. You are an outlier. The analogy would be if you walked into a bar where people are having polite, thoughtful conversations and you walked in wearing a clown outfit and started loudly telling tasteless jokes while letting rip some flatulence. Your behavior is similar to what I see on lots of martial arts related forums, which is why most of them are a complete waste of time.
There are places like Arfcom and The Firing Line where your contributions might be valued. The signal to noise ratio here is much better.*
* Engineers among us would point out that the signal to noise ratio would be best described as “higher” but this has led to confusion in the past, thus I tend to default to “better.”
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
