NineseveN
member
geezer said:
You can say that again!
Oh wait, you did...carry on then.
Losing faith in gel tests
- Thread starter ugaarguy
- Start date
- Status
You can say that again!
Oh wait, you did...carry on then.
OP
OP
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Yes I know Mythbusters isn't scientific, but thats not whats at issue. The show, plus the post by cookekdjr stimulated thoughts and questions that are worthy of discussion. Others here have linked, cited, and stated information relevant to the topic at hand. Let's not forget that we're here to exchange information since we aren't all experts...Umm I mean we're all firearms experts analyzing each other's data 
.
.Nightcrawler
Member
Almost all info on gel tests to be found on the internet points to the same pictures of gel tests on Firearms Tactical. Almost all of that website's references cite works by Martin Fackler.
I'm not trying to discredit any of the above mentioned, but some independent tests to either reinforce or disprove what Fackler/F.A. demonstrates would be nice.
One thing to consider. All because something overpenetrates in gelatin doesn't mean it will exit a human attacker. Bones and denser muscle tissue are considerations, and ones that gelatin can't readily be used to simulate.
I'm not trying to discredit any of the above mentioned, but some independent tests to either reinforce or disprove what Fackler/F.A. demonstrates would be nice.
One thing to consider. All because something overpenetrates in gelatin doesn't mean it will exit a human attacker. Bones and denser muscle tissue are considerations, and ones that gelatin can't readily be used to simulate.
sm
member
I'm a boy, boys play in the dirt. I shoot dirt.
I do the "Scientific Shoot Dirt/Mud Test".
My Mentors and Elders did this, I recall comparing the same bullets recovered from critters and dirt. Pretty darn close.
I get bigger and work in a OR, cannot tell what bullet makes what wound until we get inside. Humm, darn things often times resembled the ones shot in dirt, and other critters the Surgeon and I commented. Then we commented how dirt resembled ones taken from critter...okay so the critter on the table only had two legs...
I appreciate studies and baselines. Still I use what is handy to me to get a baseline to compare by for my needs.
Tire gauges vary, I use mine to keep all 4 tires and spare on my truck to a certain PSI reading.
I use Mom's tire guage on her vehicle.
Our guages read different the same tire being checked. We have respective baselines and use respective gauges to keep respective tires at psi reading.
Someone else's tire is going to read different as well.
Use what you have, get a baseline, then when you use that ctg/bullet in a game critter, compare.
I and others can share taking a bullet of a human body does not always match what folks think...variable exist, variables change results.
Folks shoot building materials to see how a round does to get an idea ...interesting thing is , a difference exists b/t shooting say for instance drywall up against a berm, and drywall actually in place in a bldg.
Same goes for shooting a pane of glass, and the same glass installed in a pane...
Lots of ammo components differ too...
No holy grail in anything...just not.
Me...I am going for tennis shoe shuffle and do my best to NOT get hit...
If I am in immediate danger and no other way, Shot placment and Lady Luck please.
I do the "Scientific Shoot Dirt/Mud Test".
My Mentors and Elders did this, I recall comparing the same bullets recovered from critters and dirt. Pretty darn close.
I get bigger and work in a OR, cannot tell what bullet makes what wound until we get inside. Humm, darn things often times resembled the ones shot in dirt, and other critters the Surgeon and I commented. Then we commented how dirt resembled ones taken from critter...okay so the critter on the table only had two legs...
I appreciate studies and baselines. Still I use what is handy to me to get a baseline to compare by for my needs.
Tire gauges vary, I use mine to keep all 4 tires and spare on my truck to a certain PSI reading.
I use Mom's tire guage on her vehicle.
Our guages read different the same tire being checked. We have respective baselines and use respective gauges to keep respective tires at psi reading.
Someone else's tire is going to read different as well.
Use what you have, get a baseline, then when you use that ctg/bullet in a game critter, compare.
I and others can share taking a bullet of a human body does not always match what folks think...variable exist, variables change results.
Folks shoot building materials to see how a round does to get an idea ...interesting thing is , a difference exists b/t shooting say for instance drywall up against a berm, and drywall actually in place in a bldg.
Same goes for shooting a pane of glass, and the same glass installed in a pane...
Lots of ammo components differ too...
No holy grail in anything...just not.
Me...I am going for tennis shoe shuffle and do my best to NOT get hit...
If I am in immediate danger and no other way, Shot placment and Lady Luck please.
Beachmaster
Member
My point is that you should not base you ammo choice strictly on how it performs in ballistic gel! Gel testing does not take into consideration clothing, hard bones, drugs or adrenaline in the system of the person being shot, etc. Its just another tool for testing, not the only one.
Most regular ammo designed for defense will perform well if you hit the target.
GruntII
member
I am neither a morgue monster or lab animal. Both sets of information have a place in the tool box as does anecdotal evidence and information on the subject shot. Sometimes the darn things expand and sometimes they don't making the same thing important in shooting as in real estate. LOCATION! LOCATION!! LOCATION !!! Pick a round that works in your gun, that you can control, and practice, practice, practice. Shoot he bad guy till he falls from your sights. Personally I like Evan Marshall's work (Don't go spastic and don't try to save me from supposed bad data it won't work.We each must find our own way). Use what makes you comfortable and what you are can shoot well.The weapon and ammo is only maybe 5 % of the mix. I know several old hands who I would go thru a door with if they wanted to carry a ruger MKII and several new coppers I would feel uncomfortable with if they had phasers with wide angle nozzles.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
Suggest you read my post #25 in this thread, which addresses the issues you question above.
Why don't you explain to us, then, the other tools for testing that you allude to, which have been verified and validated?
Gel tests are like "one stop" stats etc; just a guide.
----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Jim March
Member
I think we need to look at who the shooters are!
The vast majority are criminals. Criminals aren't very smart. Very few seek out the best in modern JHP ammo.
Compare with knives used offensively. Most are either kitchen/steak knives of one sort or another, or cheap Pakistani/low-grade Taiwanese/Chinese throwaways, or they're literally homemade (similar to a prison shiv).
The number of people who have been stabbed with anything of decent quality like a Benchmade, Cold Steel, Spyderco, Camillus or whatever is vanishingly small. Most cops will tell you they've neither seen nor heard of a good quality knife turning up as a murder weapon.
Why would we expect anything different of ammo? Will a criminal more likely use Winchester White Box or whatever, or top-grade Speer/Hornady/Cor-Bon/etc?
Answer: they'll buy whatever is cheapest. Might not even be hollowpoint but if it is, there won't be any research behind the selection to get the best ammo for that gun!
Once this "mentality effect" is factored in, I don't think we can use general shooting stats to condemn gel testing or other modern performance evaluations.
The vast majority are criminals. Criminals aren't very smart. Very few seek out the best in modern JHP ammo.
Compare with knives used offensively. Most are either kitchen/steak knives of one sort or another, or cheap Pakistani/low-grade Taiwanese/Chinese throwaways, or they're literally homemade (similar to a prison shiv).
The number of people who have been stabbed with anything of decent quality like a Benchmade, Cold Steel, Spyderco, Camillus or whatever is vanishingly small. Most cops will tell you they've neither seen nor heard of a good quality knife turning up as a murder weapon.
Why would we expect anything different of ammo? Will a criminal more likely use Winchester White Box or whatever, or top-grade Speer/Hornady/Cor-Bon/etc?
Answer: they'll buy whatever is cheapest. Might not even be hollowpoint but if it is, there won't be any research behind the selection to get the best ammo for that gun!
Once this "mentality effect" is factored in, I don't think we can use general shooting stats to condemn gel testing or other modern performance evaluations.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
A third-hand anecdote recovered from the internet does not equal "reports", I'm afraid.
The link (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf) is a report, and it contains actual data. It supports the idea that JHP bullets perform as advertised. Note also that the bullets in the report are of the 147gr variety, which are sometimes reputed to be "going too slow to expand"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
