Short barrel 9mm defense ammo

[cosermann]

... the Clear Ballistic Goo.

I feel like the goo has set the Internet back 20 yrs in this area.

These days when I come across an article, YT vid, etc., purporting to test a particular load, I'm disappointed the vast majority of the time after taking a look only to find out they used the goo.

[the Schwartz]

I feel like the goo has set the Internet back 20 yrs in this area.

Unfortunately, the 'net is awash in such bilge.

These days when I come across an article, YT vid, etc., purporting to test a particular load, I'm disappointed the vast majority of the time after taking a look only to find out they used the goo.

Yep! It's kind of like finding the puppy that your parents got you for Christmas lying dead under the Christmas tree. /sardonic humor

[03RN]

Neither have I.

In fact, when tested from barrel lengths of 4.49" (Glock 17), 4.01'' (Glock 19), and 3.1'' (S&W Shield Plus) in correctly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin that shear validates within correct range (8.5±0.4cm), the Federal 9mm 147-grain HST provides excellent performance through four layers of 16-ounce/yd² denim in accordance with the IWBA specifications as seen in the attached video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw

When it is easy enough to use either 10% ordnance gelatin or water—both of which are proven soft tissue simulants—to obtain valid test results, it appears that both physical and intellectual laziness are significant factors that drive such individuals to rely upon the Clear Ballistic Goo.

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

[0ddl0t]

Neither have I.

In fact, when tested from barrel lengths of 4.49" (Glock 17), 4.01'' (Glock 19), and 3.1'' (S&W Shield Plus) in correctly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin that shear validates within correct range (8.5±0.4cm), the Federal 9mm 147-grain HST provides excellent performance through four layers of 16-ounce/yd² denim in accordance with the IWBA specifications as seen in the attached video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQg_D7mcVRw

He didn't test the expansion using the shield.

The only youtube test I'm aware of is this ~10 year old one from shootingthebull (note he had 975fps where TNoutdoors 9 had 933 fps):

When it is easy enough to use either 10% ordnance gelatin or water—both of which are proven soft tissue simulants—to obtain valid test results, it appears that both physical and intellectual laziness are significant factors that drive such individuals to rely upon the Clear Ballistic Goo.

I'll take the additional data seeing that 147 hst bullets from 3" barrel pistols are very likely just above the expansion threshold in the "properly calibrated test" and reasonably conclude they may not expand:

• Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).
• At distances greater than 10 feet (Elijah Dickens neutralized a threat at 120 feet which may lower 9mm bullet velocity as much as 10%)
• With ammunition that has been stored under less than ideal circumstances: carried for years in sweaty & humid conditions, left in the trunk of a car in subzero weather and suddenly called to action (there is a ~50fps difference between 135°F ammo and 20°F ammo), etc.

[the Schwartz]

I really wish he actually tested the 3" barrel.

I think I might need to shoot some from my 2" m10 into water @900fps to test out the bottom end of velocity.

I'd very much like to see that.

Pictures if you do, please.

[03RN]

I'd very much like to see that.

Pictures if you do, please.

Will do. I might try to work up a little faster load. I just ordered some be-86 which might help

[LOBO]

Thanks so very much for the help fellows.

I'll probably run a test (accuracy, felt recoil, etc.) between the standard and +P 124 gr HST ammo in my G43X. Then I'll order a case and forget about it

Chris

[Shawn Dodson]

Against increasingly fatter perpetrators with much lower average tissue densities than the average 1970s-1990s soldier for which 10% ordnance gelatin was calibrated (the whole reason the IWBA came up with the 4 layers of denim test was because CHP was seeing failures to expand when shooting 80s & 90s fat guys. 2020s fat guys are much fatter).

Type 250A ordnance gelatin was calibrated to match penetration in swine rear leg muscle.

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force. Depending on the cartridge, the inertial force involved ranges from several hundred pounds to thousands of pounds resistance to bullet passage.

Whereas the different densities of various soft tissues is the result of shear force. The shear force resistance to bullet passage is less than 50 pounds. Shear force doesn't become a factor in bullet penetration until the bullet is near the end of its penetration path and has slowed substantially.

The huge difference between inertial force resistance and shear force resistance is the reason why criticism about "homogenous ordnance gelatin" is irrelevant.

Calibration of properly prepared Type 250A ordnance gelatin, with a BB fired at 590 fps penetrating 8.5 centimeters +/- 9 millimeters, verifies the gelatin possesses the same shear force resistance at lower velocities as typical soft tissues.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin is 90% water.

There are more hard barrier test events (windshield glass X2, sheetmetal, plywood, sheetrock) than the heavy clothing test event in the FBI's test series. Back in the day, this situation inadvertantly encouraged ammo manufacturers to design bullets that penetrated well against hard barriers than to design bullets that reliably expanded after passing through clothing. This flaw led CHP and Duncan MacPherson to develop the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

[0ddl0t]

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force.

Agreed. Since inertia is directly proportional to mass and mass is directly proportional density, we can reasonably summize a bullet will experience ~10% less inertial force in the first 3 inches of fat than in the first 3 inches of ordnance gel (fat having ~10% less density).

[the Schwartz]

Type 250A ordnance gelatin was calibrated to match penetration in swine rear leg muscle.

The overwhelming force resisting bullet penetration in soft tissues is inertial force. Depending on the cartridge, the inertial force involved ranges from several hundred pounds to thousands of pounds resistance to bullet passage.

Whereas the different densities of various soft tissues is the result of shear force. The shear force resistance to bullet passage is less than 50 pounds. Shear force doesn't become a factor in bullet penetration until the bullet is near the end of its penetration path and has slowed substantially.

The huge difference between inertial force resistance and shear force resistance is the reason why criticism about "homogenous ordnance gelatin" is irrelevant.

Calibration of properly prepared Type 250A ordnance gelatin, with a BB fired at 590 fps penetrating 8.5 centimeters +/- 9 millimeters, verifies the gelatin possesses the same shear force resistance at lower velocities as typical soft tissues.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin is 90% water.

There are more hard barrier test events (windshield glass X2, sheetmetal, plywood, sheetrock) than the heavy clothing test event in the FBI's test series. Back in the day, this situation inadvertantly encouraged ammo manufacturers to design bullets that penetrated well against hard barriers than to design bullets that reliably expanded after passing through clothing. This flaw led CHP and Duncan MacPherson to develop the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

Thank you for your clarification as to why 10% Type-250A ordnance gelatin is a valid soft tissue simulant. There appear to be multiple competing 'narratives' being propagated across the 'net—driven either by ignorance of technical matter and/or an agenda intended to discredit the medium for certain commercial purposes—that need to be countered with a factual account of why ordnance gelatin is a valid test medium.

Unfortunately, the latter motivation seems to have been a large driver of the low quality—and misleading—test videos swamping the 'net today.