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.