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.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.
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.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.
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.