More in support of the point(s) that you are making with regard to the Clear Ballistics Gel product is that it lacks the correct density (0.999 ≥ ρ ≤ 1.043 g/cm³) to properly drive projectile expansion resulting in an over-representation of maximum terminal penetration depth. Ultimately, projectile expansion is directly dependent upon dynamic pressure which is determined solely by the Bernoulli* equation, PDYNAMIC = ½ρV². In the specific case of the Clear Ballistics Gel product, its density, 0.824 g/cm³, falls outside of the correct range of density needed to correctly initiate and drive projectile expansion.
In almost every imaginable example that you might produce—
—the expanded diameter of identically constructed projectiles fired into the Clear Ballistics Gel product is significantly smaller than that of those fired into shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin; leading us right back to an over-representation of maximum terminal penetration depth.
In other words, you are claims are correct in every aspect of their content.
Finally, the Clear Ballistics Gel product fails to shear-validate in accordance with the presently accepted standard (of a .177-caliber steel BB fired from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 ± 15 fps into 10% ordnance gelatin resulting in a penetration depth of 8.50 ± 1.00 cm) that correlates to both mammalian soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. That is a tremendous problem. The process of shear-validation is important because it ensures that the gelatin has the correct viscosity so that it will properly represent the viscous drag components that dominate projectile deceleration in the non-cavitation velocity regime (which is less than 750 fps for a BB). BBs are used because they are spherical; if the BB ''tumbles'', geometric uniformity is ensured because the sphere is symmetric on all axes (x, y, z) . If a test medium cannot be confirmed to behave properly in the low-velocity regime, then that test medium cannot be expected to reliably and accurately duplicate projectile performance as it would occur in mammalian soft tissues.
*Note: Bernoulli's equation, proposed in Hydrodynamica written in 1738, has withstood the test of time. I think that it rests on pretty solid ground 285 years later having never been disproved.
Indeed.
It seems that one of the basic points of disagreement is whether someone is choosing a particular gun, caliber & ammunition combination which would pass scrutiny for modern Duty Weapon, or chooses something for a specific situational context which may not meet those current standards.
Sure, like any other firearms instructor I've heard ad nauseam opinions and fervent proclamations that ONLY weapons, calibers and ammunition should be selected for self defense which meets the prevailing FBI testing protocols for Duty ammunition, and how personal defense situations for private persons and LE ought to be considered the same in many respects. Well, Yes, No & Maybe. There's always going to be the potential for a shift in situational context that may skew things a little shy of the 'golden standard' of Duty ammunition ballistic performance.
This is why the venerable .380ACP (and .38 S&W SPL) can still find itself accepted in LE circles as a Secondary Duty and Off-duty choice, even if the specific ammunition issued or authorized may not meet the FBI protocols for Duty ammunition. Nobody in modern LE circles would think to belt on a .380ACP for a primary Duty weapon. (The .38 S&W SPL is a different subject, and not germane to this thread topic.) That doesn't mean someone who carries a common Duty caliber as a primary working gun can't be adequately served with carrying a .380ACP as a Secondary weapon/caliber while On-duty, though, on their off time, when they aren't out actively looking to find and intervene in on-view criminal activity every minute of every hours. Risk assessment and exposure can vary.
I usually think of .380ACP as being "Minimally marginal". For lack of bullet weight, if nothing else. Then, of course, there's also the potential for reduced penetration (especially if a bullet expands) which may not meet the 'standard' for Duty ammunition. The compromises are pretty well known and understood these days. (Side-stepping the shooter-involved compromises of actually shooting the diminutive .380's sufficiently well.
)
Many folks have already made up their minds when it comes to the .380ACP. Hell, the only reason I stopped avoiding use of the caliber (for approx 25 years?) was because the LCP and Bodyguard came along. (I ignored the KelTec P3AT
, for reasons of my own.) The new small & reliable .380's offered me something my J-frames didn't, which was to fit in some shorter and tighter jeans pockets (holstered) that wouldn't conceal my J's. Not everyone wishes to stuff a "Full-Size Fighting Handgun" in their waistband on their own time, especially not the current trend of AIWB. I have a short torso and I can't sit, bend or crouch and engage in heavy exertion with something digging into my abdomen and groin. Maybe if I were taller waisted.
Anyway, the known compromises of the .380ACP, and it's ammunition choices, are something for any particular person to consider for themselves. There are certainly days and anticipated situations where I leave the LCP's in the safe and grab one of my J's, with their heavier bullet weights (and their not-so-insignificant advantages inherent in a nicely crafted revolver DA/DAO trigger press
).
Oh yeah, last but not least, if a caliber (Like the .380) falls within the category of being "minimally marginal", the user's skills
better not do likewise. Better be a bit ahead of the curve in that regard, I'd think.
www.youtube.com
