I have began to wonder, given my experiences with my own back-yard tests, if the gel-testing data we are seeing is realistic in a sense. Most of the gel shoots happen at very close distances. With a pistol round, in the capacity of a police or self-defense shooting, this is very realistic and applicable. Further, gel replicates tissue very well, as has been shown. But is the METHOD of testing realistic when extrapolated to anything but 0-12 yard shootings?
I began questioning this, as I started testing shotgun slugs in water jugs. Water jugs are probably one of the most "expansion inducing" targets you can shoot. Rounds that do mediocre in tissue or gel will often expand amazingly, picture perfect, in water. Also of note, SWIFT bullet company uses water tanks for their testing, as well! They seem to be turning out bullets that work in the real world, too.
So I fired some rounds into water jugs. Federal Truball LR, at 25 yards, was first.
25 yards is NOT a long shot for a slug, in fact, 25 yards is now within "buckshot range" for many, with the Flite Control wads now used.
My Federal Truball expanded to...0.763" at the widest point. I then tested Hydrashok LR, which expanded to an average of 0.8"
This is NOT what federal's published gel data suggests should happen. Not even CLOSE.
I am left with 3 possibilities.
1# The LE packaged ammo I got from an LE distributor is defective.
2# For slugs, and no other round I've tested, water doesn't cause expansion.
3# The data collected by Federal was generated at a much closer distance than the 5 yards at which I shot.
I tend to lean strongly toward #3, which brings me full circle to my topic header. Is gel testing realistic for the typical use of the ammunition? In pistol calibers, I would say "absolutely", but regarding rifle and shotgun slug? I raise questions.