Analysis of Lucky Gunner's Handgun Test Data

[C-grunt]

Im not to worried about expansion. I prefer penetration.

From my experience shot placement is #1, penetration is #2, and everything else takes up a distant #3 place.

My department issues 230+P HST in 45, 180 HST in 40, and 124+P Gold Dot in 9mm. They all work with proper shot placement and they dont work very well with poor shot placement. Truthfully I haven't heard of or seen a shooting with the 9mm Gold Dot yet that wasn't bad guy DRT. But that has to do more with it's shorter time as a duty round and the guys shooting it being the more "tactical oriented" officers and making good hits.

Ive seen people survive good hits with quality hollow point 45s and people die from less than ideal hit with ball ammo. My partner had a scene where a guy shot himself through the lower leg with a 40 FMJ and died by the time that police arrived (less than 5 minutes).

 

[Propforce]

Im not to worried about expansion. I prefer penetration.

From my experience shot placement is #1, penetration is #2, and everything else takes up a distant #3 place.

My department issues 230+P HST in 45, 180 HST in 40, and 124+P Gold Dot in 9mm. They all work with proper shot placement and they dont work very well with poor shot placement. Truthfully I haven't heard of or seen a shooting with the 9mm Gold Dot yet that wasn't bad guy DRT. But that has to do more with it's shorter time as a duty round and the guys shooting it being the more "tactical oriented" officers and making good hits.

Ive seen people survive good hits with quality hollow point 45s and people die from less than ideal hit with ball ammo. My partner had a scene where a guy shot himself through the lower leg with a 40 FMJ and died by the time that police arrived (less than 5 minutes).

Then why not just use FMJ?

Your department has obviously done its homework well. All ammo chosen, e.g., the Federal 230 gr HST +P, Federal HST 180 gr 40S&W, and Gold Dot 9mm 124 gr +P, all have excellent expansion and meeting the FBI penetration criteria.

 

[C-grunt]

Hollowpoint expansion not only makes the frontal area bigger it also changes the shape of the front of the bullet. The streamlined design of a FMJ will "slip" through tissue and many times will not damage organs and vessels that it doesn't hit directly. That's why non expanding handgun hunting bullets have a different shape than a standard FMJ. Plus a hollow point has less chance of fully penetrating the bad guy which reduces risk of hitting innocent people. Though Ive seen hollow points exhibit some serious penetration before, even expanded ones.

My point wasn't to say that a good hollow point isn't important. Just that worrying about whether not one expands to .55 inches vs .85 inches really isn't needed. Ive been in the ER room with plenty of gunshot victims and have talked to the doctors (many are gun guys) and they have all agreed with the larger consensus of medical staff. They can't tell the difference between the wounds of the service calibers. Bullets come out so mangled many times its hard to tell what caliber it was even then. Most hollow points Ive seen recovered from bodies did not look like gel test hollow points.

Truthfully though, if I was stuck with using hollow points I wouldn't change my tactics at all. Multiple rounds in the A zone until the threat is gone.

 

[Propforce]

I think a multiple hits until the threat is stopped is a good practice. Under "everything being equal" such as the penetration is acceptable between 12-18 inches, then having bullet expansion is a good thing. It increases the frontal area thereby increasing the probability of hitting major organ/ blood vessels, plus it dumps most of the energy causing greater damages.

But there are rooms for adjustments under these general guidelines. Your department issue is not something you can change but assuming these are your personal defense ammo, what would you change based on this series of test data?

For one, I would question why you would need a +P 230 gr HST when a non +P 230 gr HST will give you a comparable penetration (14.9 vs 14 inches) yet makes a bigger hole? Perhaps you'd like a little more penetration so pick the Win. PDX1 at almost 22 inch penetration but only 36% expansion since it is a "...distant 3rd criteria..."?

The most surprising discovery for me is the .38 spcl 158 gr LSWCHP +P do not expand. I might as well get a 158 gr SWC +P for my j-frame and save a few bucks on ammo.

 

[Propforce]

I remember receiving a list of Winchester in-house factory testing from back around '02, using a S&W M60 "2-inch", and the 158gr +P LHP results for observed expansion were pretty much caliber diameter in most conditions of the test, as I recall.

Yes, this was a popular load back in the revolver days, and it appeared to offer some potential for deformation, and perhaps expansion, even when fired from snubs.

I remember being told by the former head of our firearms training unit (long since retired), back about the same time (early 2000's), that he'd learned of some gel testing results done by a large CA agency in which the softer swaged Remington version of the 158gr +P LHP bullet had apparently demonstrated more potential expansion in the 4LD testing than some other brands tested. I never saw the listed results, myself, but it was his job to remain aware of that sort of thing.

I did observe a hosted "gel test" event where a couple of the .38 Spl loads were allowed to be tried, and from another event hosted at our range (I was busy and couldn't attend that day). Due to the limited results, I eventually decided to replace the 158gr +P LHP loads I'd typically carried with either Rem 125gr +P GS, Speer 135gr GDHP or W-W 130gr RA38B (same as PDX1, according to the W-W LE distributor with whom I spoke) in my own +P capable .38 snubs (and my couple of M&P 340 .357's). The penetration may have fallen shy of the FBI's own 12-in "minimum" for duty ammunition testing in a couple of instances, but then I wasn't carrying my snubs as "duty" weapons, so some trade-off in penetration v. expansion didn't keep me up at night.

I still keep some W-W & Rem 158gr +P LHP (or, LSWCHP, as it used to be called) in my ammo collection, as well as some of the original 125gr +P GDHP, but I've come to prefer the more modern middleweight +P loads made by the major makers.

It's trying to find decent standard pressure JHP loads for my M37-2 which might have good potential for expansion that's been interesting. I won't use +P loads in that pristine M37-2, as it's built on the old, shorter pre-Magnum aluminum frame, and it's one of the factory DAO versions from that canceled overseas LE sale. I've primarily been using a couple of standard pressure 110gr JHP's, and even picked up some Hornady American Gunner 125gr XTP loads to try sometime, but I might have to try some of the W-W "Defend" 130gr JHP's.

Of course, the old style 148gr WC and even the standard pressure 158gr LSWC would still punch .36 holes, or maybe even yaw and cause larger wounding. Who knows? I just won't willingly use RNL.

Several years ago, just before my retirement, I was discussing this with Gary Roberts one day. At that time he was helping a large city agency with some testing & review of using J-frame snubs as secondary weapons. He said that during the range testing it was observed that many of the cops participating did better using standard WC's, compared to using a +P JHP load. The standard pressure 148gr WC's gave most of the cops the ability to get more accurate, faster hits. I didn't keep in touch with him about it, but the thinking at that time seemed to be that it was considered preferable to get better hits with standard WC's (faster, more controllable and more accurate), than slower hits with some heavier recoiling +P JHP (slower, less controllable and less accurate - meaning misses). It's hard to argue with the advantages of getting faster, more accurate and controllable hits on the intended threat target.

Just some thoughts. A short barreled revolver is what it is, and at the end of the day it's not a 4-6" service revolver. Heavier bullet weight than the typical .380 ACP, though.

I seem to recalled there were some discussions on the merits between the 158 gr WC/ SWC that do no expand but penetrate nicely, 18-22 inches, vs the 125-135 gr that expands but only achieved 12-14 inches of penetration. That particular thread concluded the extra 4-8 inches of penetration make a difference needed on obese person to penetrate through to reach internal organs.

It is interesting that you chose expansion with "acceptable" penetration whereas several posted here that they value just the opposite, penetration over expansion.

 

[C-grunt]

I think a multiple hits until the threat is stopped is a good practice. Under "everything being equal" such as the penetration is acceptable between 12-18 inches, then having bullet expansion is a good thing. It increases the frontal area thereby increasing the probability of hitting major organ/ blood vessels, plus it dumps most of the energy causing greater damages.

But there are rooms for adjustments under these general guidelines. Your department issue is not something you can change but assuming these are your personal defense ammo, what would you change based on this series of test data?

For one, I would question why you would need a +P 230 gr HST when a non +P 230 gr HST will give you a comparable penetration (14.9 vs 14 inches) yet makes a bigger hole? Perhaps you'd like a little more penetration so pick the Win. PDX1 at almost 22 inch penetration but only 36% expansion since it is a "...distant 3rd criteria..."?

The most surprising discovery for me is the .38 spcl 158 gr LSWCHP +P do not expand. I might as well get a 158 gr SWC +P for my j-frame and save a few bucks on ammo.

If I were choosing my own defensive ammo Id choose something with a track record of success in shootings. My short list would be HST, Gold Dot, and Rangers. I would also personally choose the heavier 147 grain options for 9mm and stick with 180 for 40 and 230 for 45. Like I said most of the bullets Ive seen did not look like the expanded bullets in gel. Especially if they hit bone.

 

[fastbolt]

I seem to recalled there were some discussions on the merits between the 158 gr WC/ SWC that do no expand but penetrate nicely, 18-22 inches, vs the 125-135 gr that expands but only achieved 12-14 inches of penetration. That particular thread concluded the extra 4-8 inches of penetration make a difference needed on obese person to penetrate through to reach internal organs.

It is interesting that you chose expansion with "acceptable" penetration whereas several posted here that they value just the opposite, penetration over expansion.

I can think of having learned of some shooting incidents where rounds that often seemed to penetrate beyond the "acceptable" distance in gel testing, turned out to perform differently in an actual shooting. In one case I remember where 1 common major maker 180gr .40 JHP that traveled more than 18" in a 4LD test (without expanding), when used in a later shooting was deflected by bones in an arm (remaining trapped in should capsule after being deflected in lower arm), and the other round remained trapped in the pelvic area.

One of our guys came upon a murder victim who had been shot in the COM with a .45 ball round, which was deflected off the anterior ("front") of a shoulder blade, and then traveled downward into the lower torso, remaining inside the body.

Since our choices for duty/off-duty ammunition was subject to concerns about possible perforation of the intended threat, to minimize potential risk to anyone beyond the intended threat, it became common for policy to limit choices to good quality, factory JHP loads for duty use (albeit special purpose ammunition could be approved, subject to review and approval), and it was generally recommended for off-duty carry, as well (if it wasn't a normal "duty" caliber, for which we would usually be able to provide off-duty ammunition).

However, as was pointed out in the FBI paper at the end of the 80's, each shooting incident could be unique, due to the huge variability of conditions, situations and circumstances. It was also commented that both lab testing and street results had their value, and if someone wanted to "prove" some particular result, it was always possible to select (cherry pick) shooting incidents in which the "results" might be shown to vindicate one preference ... as well as a contrary preference.

It's not unusual for shooting enthusiasts on public gun forums to often extol the "virtue" of penetration over expansion. Luckily for all of us, improvements in modern ammunition has given all of us some better options and possible choices for choosing both "duty" and personal defense ammunition.

I'm certainly nobody's "expert", by any means, though.

Personally, I'll almost always opt for the potential of expansion, or at least significant deformation, over sheer penetrative potential. Expansion can create more possibility of the type of wounding capability that might better cause injury to the critical tissues, structures and organs which might result in the "threat" to lose the ability for further volitional actions (meaning the violent actions originally presenting an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death to the defender/victim).

Once upon a time I believed in carrying a .44 Magnum revolver off-duty (it was approved for both optional duty and off-duty usage in revolver days). I originally carried the hot 180gr .44's, although I could only find 240gr JHP's at times, and eventually started carrying W-W 210gr STHP's, which were sometimes considered more of a mid-range load (so to speak). As time passed I became increasingly concerned about the risk of threat perforation (over-penetration, if you will), and finished my days of carrying a .44 loaded with the less potent .44 Spl STHP off-duty. At that point, I figured it was simpler to just carry my Commander. Lighter and less bulky for both IWB and OWB, anyway.

If I were a handgun hunter (I'm not), I'd value heavy bullet weights and bullets designed for deep penetration of game animal skin and anatomy. For self defense against humans (or even feral/dangerous dogs or mountain lions), I prefer to rely upon less powerful loads, with expanding bullet designs.

All of us, whether LE or private citizen, may someday find ourselves having to face the consequences of our choices in ammunition, and while misses of an intended threat are arguably a much more common risk to consider and keep in mind, I still think it's prudent to keep the risks that may occur regarding potential "threat perforation" in mind as well.

We can't ever "call bullets back", after all.

Besides, after a career working in LE, which involved being in situations in and around motor vehicles, and other common hard barrier materials, I'm not someone who stays awake at night worrying about whether my retirement CCW ammunition can "defeat" layers of wood, sheet metal or other hard barriers.

 

[Propforce]

If I were choosing my own defensive ammo Id choose something with a track record of success in shootings. My short list would be HST, Gold Dot, and Rangers. I would also personally choose the heavier 147 grain options for 9mm and stick with 180 for 40 and 230 for 45. Like I said most of the bullets Ive seen did not look like the expanded bullets in gel. Especially if they hit bone.

Yes Sir. That would be consistent with my findings from this series of test data. Heavier weight bullets penetrate & expand better in each of the three calibers.

 

[Propforce]

I can think of having learned of some shooting incidents where rounds that often seemed to penetrate beyond the "acceptable" distance in gel testing, turned out to perform differently in an actual shooting. In one case I remember where 1 common major maker 180gr .40 JHP that traveled more than 18" in a 4LD test (without expanding), when used in a later shooting was deflected by bones in an arm (remaining trapped in should capsule after being deflected in lower arm), and the other round remained trapped in the pelvic area.

One of our guys came upon a murder victim who had been shot in the COM with a .45 ball round, which was deflected off the anterior ("front") of a shoulder blade, and then traveled downward into the lower torso, remaining inside the body.

Since our choices for duty/off-duty ammunition was subject to concerns about possible perforation of the intended threat, to minimize potential risk to anyone beyond the intended threat, it became common for policy to limit choices to good quality, factory JHP loads for duty use (albeit special purpose ammunition could be approved, subject to review and approval), and it was generally recommended for off-duty carry, as well (if it wasn't a normal "duty" caliber, for which we would usually be able to provide off-duty ammunition).

However, as was pointed out in the FBI paper at the end of the 80's, each shooting incident could be unique, due to the huge variability of conditions, situations and circumstances. It was also commented that both lab testing and street results had their value, and if someone wanted to "prove" some particular result, it was always possible to select (cherry pick) shooting incidents in which the "results" might be shown to vindicate one preference ... as well as a contrary preference.

It's not unusual for shooting enthusiasts on public gun forums to often extol the "virtue" of penetration over expansion. Luckily for all of us, improvements in modern ammunition has given all of us some better options and possible choices for choosing both "duty" and personal defense ammunition.

I'm certainly nobody's "expert", by any means, though.

Personally, I'll almost always opt for the potential of expansion, or at least significant deformation, over sheer penetrative potential. Expansion can create more possibility of the type of wounding capability that might better cause injury to the critical tissues, structures and organs which might result in the "threat" to lose the ability for further volitional actions (meaning the violent actions originally presenting an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death to the defender/victim).

Once upon a time I believed in carrying a .44 Magnum revolver off-duty (it was approved for both optional duty and off-duty usage in revolver days). I originally carried the hot 180gr .44's, although I could only find 240gr JHP's at times, and eventually started carrying W-W 210gr STHP's, which were sometimes considered more of a mid-range load (so to speak). As time passed I became increasingly concerned about the risk of threat perforation (over-penetration, if you will), and finished my days of carrying a .44 loaded with the less potent .44 Spl STHP off-duty. At that point, I figured it was simpler to just carry my Commander. Lighter and less bulky for both IWB and OWB, anyway.

If I were a handgun hunter (I'm not), I'd value heavy bullet weights and bullets designed for deep penetration of game animal skin and anatomy. For self defense against humans (or even feral/dangerous dogs or mountain lions), I prefer to rely upon less powerful loads, with expanding bullet designs.

All of us, whether LE or private citizen, may someday find ourselves having to face the consequences of our choices in ammunition, and while misses of an intended threat are arguably a much more common risk to consider and keep in mind, I still think it's prudent to keep the risks that may occur regarding potential "threat perforation" in mind as well.

We can't ever "call bullets back", after all.

Besides, after a career working in LE, which involved being in situations in and around motor vehicles, and other common hard barrier materials, I'm not someone who stays awake at night worrying about whether my retirement CCW ammunition can "defeat" layers of wood, sheet metal or other hard barriers.

Fastbolt,

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful post and real life examples.

Thank you.

 

[Sig Bill]

Excellent observations mate.

Now it'd be interesting what a 10mm and a 9x25 Dillon shows.

(yep, my carry loads)

 

[481]

I seem to recalled there were some discussions on the merits between the 158 gr WC/ SWC that do no expand but penetrate nicely, 18-22 inches, vs the 125-135 gr that expands but only achieved 12-14 inches of penetration. That particular thread concluded the extra 4-8 inches of penetration make a difference needed on obese person to penetrate through to reach internal organs.

It is interesting that you chose expansion with "acceptable" penetration whereas several posted here that they value just the opposite, penetration over expansion.

Not to mention hands and arms that might be in the way of rounds on their way to the target. Expansion vs. penetration is fine balance, too much of either can be a problem....depending upon the circumstances of course.

 

[Propforce]

Excellent observations mate.

Now it'd be interesting what a 10mm and a 9x25 Dillon shows.

(yep, my carry loads)

Yes it will be. Maybe we can request Lucky Gunner to run those tests!

 

[Sig Bill]

Might be a small chance of that as these are not common carry loads.

 

[fastbolt]

Fastbolt,

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful post and real life examples.

Thank you.

De nada.

I may write a lot when discussing such topics, but in actuality, it's a much simpler topic for me nowadays.

I like to remember some of the things I heard said, and read as written, by Bruce Lee when I was a young and eager martial arts practitioner. (I started my formal training a little more than 2 years before his untimely death.)

Such as:

“Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.”

This one particularly reminds me of the perennial "caliber debates" involving duty/service and personal defense calibers. Some modern calibers have demonstrated themselves to be more suitable/adequate for dedicated duty/service roles, and some less powerful calibers (or older American service calibers, like the venerable .38 S&W Special) have demonstrated themselves to remain suitable/adequate for secondary(backup), off-duty or personal defense roles. In other words, some are considered more appropriate for primary service roles, and some older and/or smaller calibers are now considered best relegated to secondary and/or personal defensive roles.

Lots of enthusiasts like to pontificate or proudly proselytize the various "attributes" of various "personal favorites" (or the flavor of the month), or even specific loadings which are outside the standard major maker factory offerings, meaning handloads, or some hot-rodded offerings from smaller, specialty custom ammo makers.

In some respects, my thoughts on the progress of my martial arts pursuits eventually mirrored that of my development as a shooter (especially as I developed as an experienced firearms instructor). My growth, development and experience in both the arts and shooting are easily and quite succinctly explained by Lee's quoted statement, above.

The pendulum has slowly swung back to seeing past the artificially, self-induced differences and carefully created complexities ... in both my arts and my shooting, which makes sense when you stop to consider that on many levels they're basically reflections of aspects of attributes found in each other.

In some important respects, shooting the gun is like making the punch or kick. The caliber and specific ammunition may be little more than the minute variations of technique that may be found in the shaping of a hand or fist, or the way a leg or foot is used to create a kick (or knee strike). In the final analysis, however, it's still just a punch or a kick ... or shooting the gun.

 

[dickydalton]

De nada.

I may write a lot when discussing such topics, but in actuality, it's a much simpler topic for me nowadays.

I like to remember some of the things I heard said, and read as written, by Bruce Lee when I was a young and eager martial arts practitioner. (I started my formal training a little more than 2 years before his untimely death.)

Such as:


This one particularly reminds me of the perennial "caliber debates" involving duty/service and personal defense calibers. Some modern calibers have demonstrated themselves to be more suitable/adequate for dedicated duty/service roles, and some less powerful calibers (or older American service calibers, like the venerable .38 S&W Special) have demonstrated themselves to remain suitable/adequate for secondary(backup), off-duty or personal defense roles. In other words, some are considered more appropriate for primary service roles, and some older and/or smaller calibers are now considered best relegated to secondary and/or personal defensive roles.

Lots of enthusiasts like to pontificate or proudly proselytize the various "attributes" of various "personal favorites" (or the flavor of the month), or even specific loadings which are outside the standard major maker factory offerings, meaning handloads, or some hot-rodded offerings from smaller, specialty custom ammo makers.

In some respects, my thoughts on the progress of my martial arts pursuits eventually mirrored that of my development as a shooter (especially as I developed as an experienced firearms instructor). My growth, development and experience in both the arts and shooting are easily and quite succinctly explained by Lee's quoted statement, above.

The pendulum has slowly swung back to seeing past the artificially, self-induced differences and carefully created complexities ... in both my arts and my shooting, which makes sense when you stop to consider that on many levels they're basically reflections of aspects of attributes found in each other.

In some important respects, shooting the gun is like making the punch or kick. The caliber and specific ammunition may be little more than the minute variations of technique that may be found in the shaping of a hand or fist, or the way a leg or foot is used to create a kick (or knee strike). In the final analysis, however, it's still just a punch or a kick ... or shooting the gun.

I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it. It surely has educated me in a proper manner.

 

[fastbolt]

FWIW, when working as an instructor, I seldom have the time to go into anywhere near the amount of detail as when I'm posting thoughts in training/gun forums. Why? Because I have a couple of issues which prevent it.

Firstly, most of the people attending classes where I've either taught, or assisted teaching, are comprised of people who had to be in attendance. That didn't mean, let alone guarantee, any particular amount of interest or desire, on the parts of some students, to take away anything more from the class than the required "minimum" needed to pass the class and training.

Secondly,there's only so much class time, and very little of that scheduled time may be "extra". You have to adhere to the planned material, and that especially means covering any material that will later appear in any written test. Then, there are the critical legal issues, such as covering the high liability use-of-deadly-force policies for LE, legal updates (as appropriate), basic legal issues (for private citizens, such as CCW licensees). Those things deserve sufficient time to properly cover and address them, and make sure all the people attending the training have had ample exposure to them and the opportunity to learn them (makes notes, etc).

Out on the live-fire range, most of the time is needed to cover the qual/course-of-fire requirements, address student questions they forgot to ask in the class, remediate any issues ... and all the usual things that can unexpectedly slow down a class, such as shooter technique issues, as well as the usual weapon, gear and ammunition problems.

Sure, you can try to slip in some extra training time during hourly breaks, or lunch/dinner breaks, but that's only presuming you aren't otherwise busy with trying to deal with other issues that may have unexpectedly arose during the "class" time. It happens.

Personally, in recent years I've enjoyed being able to hand off primary training responsibility to other instructors, especially most of the younger folks who have needed the experience of taking the reins of running classes and keeping things on track and time. Learning to field the unexpected questions, and then address it in a manner sufficient to handle it, but fast enough not to obstruct the class, can be an art.

Participating in a secondary/support role still allowed me to step in and take over some difficult part (or just a part that seemed difficult for a particular instructor, letting that instructor learn both the answer and manner of delivering the answer). It also allowed me to let my attention roam over the people in attendance, and often be able to spot some carefully controlled confused expression, or someone having a problem that wasn't as easily visible from the front of the room, lectern, podium or whatever.

So, when I've been able to take the time to post some thoughts while participating in some of the various gun enthusiast & training forums, it's allowed me time to follow some train of thought (if I'm lucky).

It's also let me lapse into babbling, too, though.

I've had someone in the business, who I greatly respect, tell me that I need to be publishing much of what I've written, instead of just giving it away for free on forums. I'm thinking about it ...

 

[Sistema1927]

Based on these results I have picked up a couple of boxes of 130 PDX for my 2" .38 Special guns. Still carrying the 158 LSWCHP FBI load in the 4" revolvers, but the test results were farily conclusive that it isn't the best for the shorter barrels.

 

[Propforce]

Based on these results I have picked up a couple of boxes of 130 PDX for my 2" .38 Special guns. Still carrying the 158 LSWCHP FBI load in the 4" revolvers, but the test results were farily conclusive that it isn't he best for the shorter barrels.

I did something similar. I picked up a couple boxes of Ranger 130 gr +P bonded from CDNN. I'd figure put 2 of those in my j frame first, follow by 3 of 158 gr LSWCHP +P

 

[481]

snip-

One added factor: While LG presents it's data in a very accessible form it uses clear synthetic gelatin that is not calibrated block to block. In the FBI, law enforcement and military tests ordnance gelatin is used and each block is calibrated to ensure some uniformity of one block to the next. Law enforcement uses 10% ballistic gelatin and the military 20%. A comparison of the data from LG and that from Brass Fetcher where they use ordnance gel and calibrate it, could be useful.

snipetty snip snip

tipoc,

You bring up a relevant and very significant point. John Ervin, also a member here, as well as being the engineer who is the Brassfetcher.com has done a video located here:




....that calls into question the validity of the synthetic gel being used in the LG tests, by the same manufacturer as that depicted in the video. This introduces an 'unknown' into an already vast sea of variables, something that needs to be borne in mind when looking at this sort of data.

I have also added the screen shot of the video in which the data yielded shows that the synthetic ballistics gel does NOT comply with FBI calibration standards necessary to validate it as a test medium equivalent to 10% or 20% ordnance gelatin.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Is there a consistent correlation between clear gel and calibrated ballistic gel performance? Clear gel is still useful as long as it's consistently over or under ballistic gel.

 

[LawHoc]

Remarkable discussion. Like attending a class.

 

[481]

Is there a consistent correlation between clear gel and calibrated ballistic gel performance? Clear gel is still useful as long as it's consistently over or under ballistic gel.

That's a very good question. I am unaware of any research that establishes any sort of consistency with the differences between the two mediums.

Given the claim made on the manufacturer's website....

...and how it conflicts with Brassfetcher's independent research and findings here....



.....I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to the value of the synthetic gelatin as a valid analog for human soft tissue.

 

[greyling22]

where's the 380 summary?

 

[strambo]

Interesting observations PBlanc,

Here's another perspective I want to throw at you. If we go with the FMJ on both 9mm and 45ACP, in the 1980s too many PD saw Perts hit with the 9mm would not go down. Yet we have many veterans swearing by the 45 ACP from their personal experience even if it's FMJ. It has probably saved their hides a few times.

But the difference is only 0.1" in diameter!!! How do you explain the difference in effectiveness between the 2 calibers?
...

I would first question the conclusion assumed in your statement as it it based on facts not in evidence. "..many veterans swearing by the .45 ACP..." Purely anecdotal with no studies whatsoever or any scientific data. On the Cops in the 80's 9mm side we have very little in the way of studies (but some) and lots more anecdotal stuff. Further, the nature of combat is way different than a LE gunfight.

Now, I'm not saying .45 ball isn't more effective than 9mm ball, I'm saying we have precious little quantifiable evidence that it is.

Bottom line, I want penetration controlled to 12"-18" in 10% gel through 4 layers denim and as much expansion as I can get for caliber. 9mm-.45 ACP quality HPs seem to have very similar "stopping" results in what few studies there are out there.

 

[d'zaster]

I agree, let's see the 10mm summary!