How do you test handgun ammo penetration/expansion?

[.cheese.]

wetpack

 

[GRB]

The cheapest and most effective way is to read the results of people who have published the results of their proper testing. Shooting phone books, water bottles, and a side of roast are all fun times but they're not an accurate test, that is why we have ballistic gelatin.

The reason we use ballistic gelatin is not because it is the proper medium in which to test the effectiveness of ammunition that gives valid results relative to any intended target type, but rather because it is frowned upon to use live test subjects in most cases. Logically it would be best to use live test subjects, especially of the same variety that you plan to shoot with the ammunition. In that way you could - with enough test subjects, and enough repetition of the experiment across many variables -ultimately arrive at core scientific conclusions about the true effectiveness of any round relative to its intended purpose.

Results of tests wherein bullets have been fired into ballistic gelatin do not in any way, for testing purposes, resemble the real life results you would get by firing into a chest cavity or gut or head of a game animal, or person for self defense rounds. Muscle, fat, bone mass, an overcoat over all of that, a body contortion, movement, all make for very different results than that which would be had from ballistic gelatin. We use ballistic gelatin as a poor substitute for the real thing because the real thing would be too expensive, more variable and too controversial. Nonetheless real live test subjects would be the best medium, and ballistic gel is used not because it is a better medium scientifically but a more agreeable one socially.

Of course there have been ballistic tests run on live subjects throughout the years. Several years ago some tests were run in Mexico on self defense ammo using pigs as test subjects. Pigs were used because of relatively close resemblance to human anatomy. I don't think the testing was done in all that much of a scientific manner; but it could have been scientific, and the results would then probably have told a lot more about the ballistic results of ammo being fired into living flesh than would tests in ballistic gelatin. There also have been countless quasi-scientific test run on varmints by true advocates of the varmint hunting sport. If my memory of history lessons serves me correctly tests, or at least studies of effects of bullets, on humans have been conducted to some extent by less than munificent governments.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Ben86]

I agree. Ballistic gelatin, wetpacks, water, animals, etc. are guides as to what the bullet probably will do in a human body.

But, even if you could use live humans (pedophiles maybe ) as test subjects it still will not tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the bullet will do in a different person/situation. Such is the nature of terminal ballistics. You can never 100% rely on it to work like its supposed to. You simply have a good idea. That's where good tactical training comes in.

 

[Soybomb]

Results of tests wherein bullets have been fired into ballistic gelatin do not in any way, for testing purposes, resemble the real life results you would get by firing into a chest cavity or gut or head of a game animal, or person for self defense rounds. Muscle, fat, bone mass, an overcoat over all of that, a body contortion, movement, all make for very different results than that which would be had from ballistic gelatin. We use ballistic gelatin as a poor substitute for the real thing because the real thing would be too expensive, more variable and too controversial. Nonetheless real live test subjects would be the best medium, and ballistic gel is used not because it is a better medium scientifically but a more agreeable one socially.

Could you cite some studies that have shown this to be the case? I'd like to read about the cases in which people have found gelatin was not an accurate tissue simulant.

While its a popular drum to beat, its simply not true. Time and time again gelatin has shown to be a good tissue simulant. An excellent place to start your reading might be Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147gr Subsonic Jacketed Hollowpoint Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant, Wolberg, Eugene J., International Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Winter 1991. In this study Eugene Wolberg measured wounds left in bodies by the local PD and compared their performance to the rounds performance in ballistics gelatin. Gelatin results were accurate.

If you don't mind I'd let Dr Roberts tell you about bones in gelatin

Testing with ribs embeded in gel has been done and the results published by the IWBA, FBI, and RCMP--as the presence of ribs didn't significantly alter test results, they are no longer included in test protocols.

Would you actually advise the poster that newspaper or water will be as accurate a predictor of performance as ballistics gel?

 

[Ben86]

Ballistic gel is the most accurate non-tissue gauge of performance. Wet newspaper, water and puddy are decent cost-effective alternitives that will give you a "good idea" of the bullets performance.