Best media for hollow point testing

The best is to test on what you will be shooting the bullets with, everything from 10-20% gel and wet paper to water will change the results.

Cheap and simple is 5 or 6 one gallon milk jugs of water in a tight row. A defense round for humans should penetrate at least two jugs, a defense round for bears needs to penetrate four.
You could also add some wet paper or clothing in front for a little more realism.

troy fairweather said:

The best is to test on what you will be shooting the bullets with, everything from 10-20% gel and wet paper to water will change the results.

Click to expand...

Any "scientific" test will be most accurate when it is conducted under conditions that duplicate the conditions it is being tested FOR, whenever possible. If the intended use is against some type of organic material, then an organic media would be the best media for the experimentation.

Well a couple of fellas once shot people. So either that or something like pigs or better yet a roughly human sized primate.

jeepnik said:

Well a couple of fellas once shot people. So either that or something like pigs or better yet a roughly human sized primate.

Click to expand...

Use bigfoot? That's at least two human sized primates.

Leather couch skin
Pork chop pectoral
Pork rib
Bag-of-Oranges "lung tissue"
Pork ribs
Four layers of T-shirt in the front, 4 layers on the back

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EminentScornfulConure-mobile.mp4

Use the "new and improved high tech fleece" bullet stop

jeepnik said:

Well a couple of fellas once shot people. So either that or something like pigs or better yet a roughly human sized primate.

Click to expand...

In the states, the only place that ''roughly human-sized primates'' can be found are zoos. I am sure that if the OP asks his local zoo's administrators politely, they will welcome him into the facility and extend all of the necessary courtesy to him.

C0untZer0 said:

Leather couch skin
Pork chop pectoral
Pork rib
Bag-of-Oranges "lung tissue"
Pork ribs
Four layers of T-shirt in the front, 4 layers on the back

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EminentScornfulConure-mobile.mp4

Use the "new and improved high tech fleece" bullet stop

Click to expand...

Inflation with the cost of meat now-a-days.. Ramen noodles may need to be substituted.

As an engineering problem, then engineering methodology probably will best answer the question.
You will want a repeatable medium for testing.
Which suggests against natural products, as they tend to not be identical.
Even water jugs will introduce some variables based on how the jug was made, its shape, thickness, etc.
That suggest using something that can be made, and made the same way at different times.

In days of old, the go-to was Durham's Water Putty. This was a clay & paper product used to seal up wall and floor penetrations by pipe and conduit for fire control. You add water and the dry powder becomes a soft clay like material.

It was pretty cool as it would "set up" with ginormous holes blasted in it from bullet impact. If you used the same half-gallon or gallon jug to mix it, and the same mount of water every time, you got a pretty consistent result. Now, the stuff is opaque, so it was hard to see the bullet track through it.

Enter gelatin. Relatively inexpensive, not hard to make at home, repeatable if you did things like use the same amount of water at the same temperature in the same container every time.

The new clear gelatins are great, too. Unlike the organic gelatins (and, especially "ballistics" gel), the clear ones do not need to be held at a given temperature, and will not go rancid if you store them wrong (ballistics gel needs to be held at like 60-62°F, and will "spoil" if allowed to get above 75-78°F [and it stanks ]).

You pick what works best for you. I know a dude who swears by shooting phone books. Mind, he ought an auctioned-off storage unit that had a couple thousand Dallas White Pages phone books in it, too. Does a Dallas Phone book "simulate" anything--well, a phone book. But, if you have one load and it responds to a phonebook one way, then another round can be fired into a similar phonebook and be artichokes to artichokes.

All media.

481 said:

In the states, the only place that ''roughly human-sized primates'' can be found are zoos. I am sure that if the OP asks his local zoo's administrators politely, they will welcome him into the facility and extend all of the necessary courtesy to him.

Click to expand...

OP ask for "best" media. Short of shooting humans the best would be a human sized primate. And even then, human sized primates tend to be much stronger and tougher than humans.

CapnMac said:

The new clear gelatins are great, too. Unlike the organic gelatins (and, especially "ballistics" gel), the clear ones do not need to be held at a given temperature, and will not go rancid if you store them wrong (ballistics gel needs to be held at like 60-62°F, and will "spoil" if allowed to get above 75-78°F [and it stanks ]).

Click to expand...

Maybe not.

While it might offer the benefits (a lower technical 'burden') that you describe, the Clear Ballistics Gel® product has been found by several independent sources to be deficient in its ability to correctly represent the terminal ballistic performance (expansion, penetration depth) of test bullets as they would be expected to behave in human tissue.

Here is a small sample of the large body of available evidence (cited below):

#1.) (PDF) Clear Ballistics Gel®: High Speed Retarding Force Analysis of Paraffin-Based Alternative to Gelatin-based Testing of Lead-Free Pistol Bullets (researchgate.net) (Courtney, M., et al, 2017)

Snippet from source #1:

Earlier publications using high speed video retarding force analysis have quantified the energy loss during penetration and also the expected probability of incapacitation given a hit, P(I/H), for various loads [2, 4-5]. However, the reasonableness of that analysis depends on the penetration depths and retarding forces in Clear Ballistics Gel® being comparable with calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. The significant differences between Clear Ballistics Gel® and calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin would render such estimates and comparisons misleading. As a result of the significant differences between Clear Ballistics Gel® and calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, it is recommended that results from testing in Clear Ballistics Gel® not be used for testing and selecting of loads for duty use, self-defense, or hunting applications. Results from testing in Clear Ballistics Gel® might be used to identify promising candidates for further testing in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, which remains the best available standard for wound ballistics testing.

Click to expand...

#2.) The use of gelatine in wound ballistics research | SpringerLink (Carr, DJ, et al, 2018)

Snippet from source #2:

Alternative synthetic materials have been used and reportedly produce similar results as gelatine without the need to condition at a particular temperature (e.g. PermaGel™, Clear Ballistics Gel®). Claimed advantages include the ability to melt and re-use these materials without detrimental effect to the physical and mechanical properties (within limits). However, literature has reported that these materials produce different DoP and damage when compared to gelatine blocks [21, 22]. Evidence of ageing after one re-melt has also been reported, and burning within the blocks (which is not observed in gelatine blocks) is observed post-testing due to the composition of the material [21, 23].

Click to expand...

#3.) AFTE Journal Vol 52 No 2 (2020) | AFTE (Haag, Lucien, C., et al, 2020)

Snippet from source #3:

There is much to be deduced from an inspection of Figure 13, which provides multi-point BB penetration plots into samples of 10% and 20% Clear Ballistics Gel at room temperature versus Std. OG (ordnance gelatin) at 4°C. As was the case with Perma-Gel, the slopes for the Clear Ballistics targets are much steeper than that of Std. OG with the plot for the 10% Clear Ballistics intercepting and crossing the Std. OG plot at about 460fps. This is the only point at which the two media are equivalent insofar as BB penetration. The non-paralleling slopes of the Clear Ballistics product(s) versus Std. OG means that there can be no simple, mathematical means to translate BB penetration values for one medium into those of the other.

Click to expand...

#4.) Comparing FBI ballistic gelatin with synthetic ballistic gelatin (police1.com) (Wood, Mike, Lt. Col. ret., 2020)

Snippet from source #4:

• The clear synthetic gelatin currently demonstrates a tendency to limit bullet expansion and increase bullet penetration, compared to FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin. Based on our limited sample, this tendency seems to apply irrespective of bullet manufacturer, materials, design, construction, weight, pressure, or velocity. It seems that bullets penetrate significantly more in the clear synthetic, even when acceptable variations in organic gelatin penetration depth are accounted for.
• The clear synthetic gelatin currently does not appear to be a suitable substitute for FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin if the bullets will be measured and evaluated according to FBI performance standards. Because the bullets we tested behaved so differently in the clear synthetic gelatin versus the 10% calibrated organic gelatin, it’s not appropriate to use the FBI standards ‒ which were designed to be applied to 10% calibrated organic gelatin – to measure bullet performance in the clear synthetic product.
  In example, it’s inappropriate to measure and evaluate bullet penetration according to the FBI protocol (which rewards bullets that penetrate between 12” and 18” in 10% calibrated gelatin and penalizes those that fall outside this window) when bullets may routinely penetrate an extra 6” in the clear synthetic. If we did apply FBI standards to the clear synthetic, we might “pass” a bullet that normally fails the FBI protocol because it doesn’t penetrate deeply enough. Conversely, we might “fail” a bullet because it over penetrates in the clear synthetic, even when it normally passes the FBI protocol because by remaining within FBI penetration limits.
• There is no apparent “conversion” between data derived from 10% organic gelatin and the current version of the clear synthetic. Unfortunately, our limited test doesn’t indicate a conversion “shortcut” is likely. It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal “rule of thumb.” Perhaps a skilled mathematician could derive a constant from a more complete sample, but we’re not seeing one lurking in the data.

Click to expand...

#5.) Clear Ballistics VS 10% gelatin - YouTube (Brassfetcher, John Ervin, Mech Eng., 2014)

From the linked Brassfetcher video:

The following IWBA Wound Ballistics Review articles all use water as a test medium:

WBR Vol 3 No 1 page 13
“Water Testing .38 Special +P Hollow Points”
Ronald L. Jones

WBR Vol 5 No 2 page 21
“Simplified Bullet Effect Testing”
Martin L. Fackler, MD

WBR Vol 1 No 3 page 38
“The Effect of Bullet Nose Shape on Expansion”
Gus Cotey, Jr.

WBR Vol 4 No 1 page 30
“The Limitations of Water-Filled Cardboard Cartons in Predicting Bullet Penetration”
Gus Cotey Jr.

481 said:

has been found by several independent sources to be deficient in its ability to correctly represent the terminal ballistic performance (expansion, penetration depth) of test bullets.

Click to expand...

That's a comparison of engineering values. The industry standard remains the organic gelatin, which for labe purposes can be made and held at correct temperatures and conditions.

So, a testing laboratory is specifically not recommended to use the clear material to test results.

I was thinking of OP, though, who is testing "at home" not a laboratory. OP wants to know how Mould #n bullet reacts versus Mould #m, "at home." So, for OP's convenience, the clear gel will be much, much easier to cast up and use. Far more repeatable, too.

It was not my intention that OP generate industry-level statistics (nor my impression that such was required).

If OP was keen to measure factory bullets, they could be shot into his medium, which would allow a more uniform comparison. Comparing on-the-box and/or published data to data measured by oneself is always a tussle.

CapnMac said:

That's a comparison of engineering values. The industry standard remains the organic gelatin, which for labe purposes can be made and held at correct temperatures and conditions.

Click to expand...

Yep, and that was exactly my point—anything worth doing is worth doing right. Dismissing an entire class of research out of hand is a mistake that a lot of amateurs make in this field.

There is one standard gelatin analog that is correct; properly prepared (and shear-validated) 10%-concentration ordnance gelatin. That is equally the case for 'factory' and 'home-made' bullets.

CapnMac said:

I was thinking of OP, though, who is testing "at home" not a laboratory. OP wants to know how Mould #n bullet reacts versus Mould #m, "at home." So, for OP's convenience, the clear gel will be much, much easier to cast up and use. Far more repeatable, too.

It was not my intention that OP generate industry-level statistics (nor my impression that such was required).

If OP was keen to measure factory bullets, they could be shot into his medium, which would allow a more uniform comparison. Comparing on-the-box and/or published data to data measured by oneself is always a tussle.

Click to expand...

Unless the test medium (in this case, the Clear Ballistics Gel) possesses physical properties (density, internal sonic velocity, bulk modulus) that are very similar to those of mammalian soft tissues, test results (expanded diameter and penetration depth) obtained in the test medium cannot be expected to be comparable to what would be expected to occur in mammalian soft tissues. More to the point, if the test medium's density does not match that of mammalian soft tissues, it will fail to produce the correct pressure that is responsible for driving the projectile's expansion. In that case, the expansion of the test bullet will be proportionally lower (or greater as the case may be) and the maximum penetration depth will differ accordingly since the former plays a significant role in determining the latter. If those two parameters are incorrect then the test is effectively meaningless.

As for ''repeatability'', the manufacturer of the Clear Ballistics Gel product routinely alters the formulation of their product thereby rendering any hope of consistency 'moot'. The manufacturer provides no information to the consumer about how those alterations should be accounted for either.

Find a farmer with a dead cow/horse shoot it. Dig bullet out and haul the carcass off. Wet newspaper, clay, water, or find a giant dog and get into some shenanigans while trying to test those rounds in said dog. (please don’t shot dogs this was the premise of a movie from the 90s. The name escapes me) Post the results.

gobsauce said:

Use bigfoot? That's at least two human sized primates.

Click to expand...

You will be holding onto your testloads for a very long time.

Paul Harrel's meat targets seem to give a reasonable impression. I'd think you could just take a few shots at a pork shoulder and it will give you a solid idea if you are getting clean through and throughs, or if it makes a 3" exit hole or larger. maybe set the target in front of a full 5 gallon water jug, and you'll likely get a few bullets at least to see if they are expanded properly or broken into bits.