We're back to my original concern about the nature of gel tests. But concerns about databases can't be disregarded, either.
FBI Ballistic Gel is meant to simulate swine tissue, not humn tissue and bone. (Swine tissue and human tissue seem to be very similar; but the physiology is clearly different.) The Strausborg Tests used almost 600 LIVE (large, 150-160 lb.) goats to evaluate handgun round performance -- blood pumping in the target changes things, too, and affect incapacitation time -- something that GEL tests can't really address. (Were someone to try to do something LIKE the Strausborg tests today PETA would be on it like flies on...) The test results are interesting. Here's a link:
http://guninstructor.net/Strasborg_Tests.pdf These results are based on 1990 ballistics, and there have been improvements since then.
The Strausborg tests were focused on hitting the lung for quickest incapacitation -- so that may be the flaw of those tests. But all "kills" were followed by necropsies to evaluate the nature of the damage.
One of the interesting findings of the Strausborg tests was that the quickest bleed out came from using fragmenting rounds that didn't penetrate as deeply as other rounds. The study also found, however, that when ribs were struck, expanding rounds didn't expand well -- but still caused more lung damage than rounds that missed the ribs.) It should be noted, too, that in these tests, some .380 rounds from 3.65" barrels performed better than some .38 Special rounds from 2" barrels.
Tests that show permanent wound channels in a media that do NOT approximate the size and shape of that channel through the CONTENTS of the human body. You must make inferences. But, until something better is found -- perhaps like the body simulations used in the "Deadliest Warrior" TV series -- may remain the best we've got.
I would argue that looking at FBI Ballistic Gel test results is a bit like evaluating a sports car's performance based solely on horsepower and torque measurements on a dynamometer -- without addressing handling, braking, and the general roadability of the vehicle. It doesn't tell you how the car will perform on the road -- but it does tell you about potential, and you shouldn't ignore potential.
The Ellifritz data base records the results of actual shooting; those results are also of questionable value: we don't don't know anything about shot placement, the rounds used, the size of the guns/barrel lengths, or the proficiency of the shooters, etc. Interpolating from that data base is like looking at a bunch of car race results without knowing anything about the tracks upon which the races were run, whether they were run by amateurs or pros, the level of the competition, or the types of cars in the races. But it seems foolish to disregard the better performance of some rounds and the poorer performance of others just because we don't know all of the underlying variables.
It has been argued that
we should shoot the largest caliber we shoot well. I agree. But,that's a tough proposal to address for someone with a limited budget and limited experience. Picking the proper weapon for self-defense/home-defense or concealed carry is a bigger challenge than these discussions fully address, and those facing the challenge ought to have better options than is generally available, today. For some of us, finding the best response to the "largest caliber we shoot well" is an exercise that has taken us years and a lot of money to achieve. It ought not be so time-consuming and expensive.
A proper gun SIMULATOR might help us get answers more quickly -- but even that doesn't predict real world outcomes. A friend mentioned encountering such a simulator recently in Virginia, where the device was flexible enough to shoot and feel LIKE a variety of different guns, handguns and long guns, including recoil. Such an installation is probably far too expensive to ever be widely available...
What are our other options? How about looking at a number of factors, and making decisions based on those factors. How you weight the various parts is up to you, but it would point you toward some guns, and guide you away from others -- and keep you from wasting time and money on certain weapons or rounds that might be a bad match for the shooter.
- Shooting results for a database that uses proper terminology and methodology. The Ellifritz study is flawed, but better than anything I've seen, thus far. (There were 1705 people shot in that study.) It does have too many unanswered questions for many critics.
- Performance results (FBI Ballistic Gelatin) for specific rounds using a variety of barrel lengths. I repeat my earlier reservation: shooting rounds into a swine tissue simulation isn't the same as shooting rounds into bodies with thin and thick bones, nervous systems, vital blood-filled organs. But its better far than shooting paper, by far. It shows relative round potential.
- Recoils calculations for those same rounds in a variety of barrel lengths and gun weights. This has been discussed here or on other forums, and it's an imperfect calculation -- as ergonomics and frame materials change FELT RECOIL, but it is a factor to be considered even in it's imperfect form.
- Look at the Strausborg test results, and if the round you might use are among the ones used in those tests, add that to your evaluation and comparisons.
Those three (or possibly four) sources, with some hands-on time with rented guns (if available) from the best of the the mix, might help some of us make better choices -- if not in weapons, then in ammo; it will certainly let us make a more-informed choice than relying on only ONE of those results, alone.
