Wide Discrepancies in Gel Tests

[DanTheFarmer]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year All,

I've been considering changing my defensive handgun ammo based on the good things I've read about the Federal HST line.

For 9mm the 124 gr HST seems to perform just about perfectly in all tests I've seen. I'm currently using 124 gr Hydra Shok and the HST seems to perform a lot better.

The issues come in with 380 auto and 45 ACP. I've got Hydra Shok for those as well. In some tests they seem to perform just fine, and as well as alternatives (read that as save your money for more practice ammo). Other tests show them performing very poorly. The tests I'm watching on You Tube seem to be conducted similarly (bb test calibrated, denim covered gel blocks, chronographed bullets, temperature listed, etc.) and yet the results vary widely.

Thoughts on the tests in general?

Thoughts on replacing 380 auto Hydra Shok with Speer Gold Dot?

Thoughts on replacing 45 ACP 230 gr Hydra Shok with 230 gr HST?

Thanks.

Dan

 

[Panzerschwein]

Shoot whatever is most accurate and reliable in your pistol.

PS: It's not Christmas anymore.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

First of all, I look to see what the tests are pushing, if anything. I am inherently leery of any comparison testing in which someone has skin in the game for one round or the other.

Second, I look at whether the tests are by some agency or other that should understand how calibrated ballistics gel is set up and used. Standards and consistency are important.

Third, I try to find and review ballistics testing from a variety of sources and see how the results compare.

And finally...I realize that for most established production defense ammunition, the differences in performance from one to the next doesn't always add up to any clear benefits for one over the other. Most established production defense ammunition is perfectly suitable. Claims of quantum improvements over existing/other brands are usually just marketing hype.

Which means you have your pick of several good rounds to choose from to find what functions reliably in your pistol of choice.


All that said...there is nothing wrong with picking any given defense round over another provided it functions reliably in your pistol AND it is capable of adequately performing its job when needed.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I would do your research on .380. There is a lot of really bad name ammo out there. And by bad I mean a lot of ammo that sacrifices penetration for expansion and will not reach far enough. Ball is a valid choice.

 

[buck460XVR]

Shoot whatever is most accurate and reliable in your pistol.

^^^This. That gives you the best chance that your ammo has a chance to perform and will some some effect, even if it performs sub-par. For the most part, in the case of civilian SD/HD We are not shooting thru car doors or windshields. With marginal calibers like .380, I think penetration is more important that expansion. Folks need to consider their scenarios, and what they want from their ammo as well as worrying just about how it performed for Joe Blow in his YouTube gelatin test.

 

[cdk8]

FWIW, from my own (unscientific) testing of 9mm rounds, I found that HST performed the most consistently of what I tested (124+p Gold Dot was also consistent.) Virtually all ammo I've tested in 9mm performs well through bare gelatin, but when shooting through fabric or leather, I found that many JHPs clog and have partial expansion failures or fail to expand at all. Through such barriers, I found HST consistently expands reliably, predictably, and held together pretty well. My personal pick is the 147gr HST because the bullet feeds easily even with finicky guns, I find 147gr easy to fire rapidly, and it delivers consistent penetration, expansion, and overall performance. From my limited testing with shorter barrels, I was extremely happy with the outcome.

How much does that mean in terms of incapacitating capability? I have no idea given gel isn't a person, and while the wound cavity it leaves is certainly more impressive, the real-world difference probably isn't night and day. However, because the bullet expands so predictably, I feel it reduces the chance of the hollow point clogging, failing to expand, and then over-penetrating, exiting at a speed that could seriously injure or kill a bystander. In the case of the Personal Defense Hydrashok, this is exactly what happened with my testing, as some hollow points failed to expand and seriously over-penetrated. Strangely, it appears that Tactical LE HydraShok is different from civilian version, so it makes me wonder if the Personal Defense HST is different from the LE as well. For reference, the HST I've tested is the Tactical/LE versions in the 50 round boxes.

With .380, I've also seen/read positive things about the Hydra Shok. I've also noticed that many seem to really like the XTP because it delivers ample penetration, which seems to be a major concern with many .380 defensive loadings.

 

[herrwalther]

Of all the rounds I have fired, I like HST across the numerous calibers. It typically groups the best, good performance, and never had an ammo related malfunction. The problem is finding it. In that case I usually care some big name hollow point round like Golden Saber.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....The tests I'm watching on You Tube seem to be conducted similarly (bb test calibrated, denim covered gel blocks, chronographed bullets, temperature listed, etc.) and yet the results vary widely....

One variable that doesn't seem to generally be accounted for is the preparation of the test medium (the gelatin) itself. Variations in density, moisture content, etc., of the gelatin could significantly affect results. And variations in source of the material, amount used to prepare the mixture, water temperature, etc., could affect those parameters.

An investigator doing this sort of testing to be published in a scientific journal would be expect to describe in his paper in great detail exactly how he prepared the gelatin so other investigators who might want to verify, replicate, or accurately compare different bullets could validly do so.

 

[DanTheFarmer]

I would think having the gel block calibrated would account for all the variables mention above (post #8). I wouldn't think the method of construction of the gel block would matter if the end result calibrates properly. Tests I've seen (Luckygunner, Brassfetcher, tnoutdoors9) fire a bb at a specified velocity into the block and claim that the blocks are within tolerance. I have no reason to suspect that this is not the case. Yet the results of the same bullets still vary widely. ??

Some tests fire into water, others into wet newspaper. While I appreciate those I'm discounting them here as I'm really trying to get to an apples to apples comparison.

Thanks.

Dan

 

[cdk8]

My interests in the gel tests are not so much about shooting through car doors, but about consistency through common barriers. While I might not be shooting through a car door, unless I am facing a naked assailant, I am shooting through fabric and/or leather, and I was surprised to learn how much this can impact the performance of certain bullet designs, making some JHPs perform more like FMJs.


The scenario I hope to avoid is when the JHP goes through denim, clogs, fails to expand, and exits the target still carrying significant energy behind it

So in performing my own tests and reviewing the work of others, I place considerable value on the JHP that goes through denim, and still expands consistently, as-designed, across multiple tests/testers.

 

[cdk8]

I would think having the gel block calibrated would account for all the variables mention above (post #8). I wouldn't think the method of construction of the gel block would matter if the end result calibrates properly. Tests I've seen (Luckygunner, Brassfetcher, tnoutdoors9) fire a bb at a specified velocity into the block and claim that the blocks are within tolerance. I have no reason to suspect that this is not the case. Yet the results of the same bullets still vary widely. ??

Some tests fire into water, others into wet newspaper. While I appreciate those I'm discounting them here as I'm really trying to get to an apples to apples comparison.

Thanks.

Dan

Even if all tests use the same barrel length (to avoid a longer barrel giving a certain performance advantage over shorter) and the same test firearm, there is still the lot-to-lot variation of the ammo itself, there may be some variation in the fabric or leather mediums being used, and even the small variation in the angle in which the bullet makes contact with the gel could perhaps affect performance in some instances?

 

[Tirod]

What barrel lengths?

In Shootingthebull's tests barrel length is what he noticed was a major issue with .380. A lot of previous testing was done with longer barrels, the shorter pocket pistol guns weren't included. He tested with the shorter barrels and the normal brand name dominance was thrown for a loop.

A half inch difference in barrel length is significant in these tests.

Because of that I look for overall good performance and just stop there. Shot placement is also highly important and the older concept of shooting center of mass with a short barreled gun at less than 21 feet comes into question. Why target the one area that is known to be the more heavily insulated target or one that can be covered with protective plating when there are others more exposed with a higher degree of vulnerability? It's as if the shooter is deliberatel choosing a point of impact that requires the "super bullet" when in fact normal ammo will do just fine when you choose to shoot elsewhere.

Training to shoot with no alternative targeting is training for failure. You may not get a COM shot in a self defense situation - but a pelvic or head shot might be all you could target. I worry less about the academics of testing bullets and more on being able to think and choose from what might be available on that instance. Even poor bullets do well on impact, whereas the best possible bullet available on the market does poorly if you miss or choose the most armored shot placement out of rote habit.

Now, lets consider the next important issue - you are moving when you practice shooting? No? The concept of a stationary shoot out is again, training for failure. We know to run and duck for cover, did you deliberately choose not to shoot at a target out in the open? Will your target just stand there waiting for you to pull the trigger? I haven't seen much of that in video posted online. What I see are humans smart enough to move and get out of the line of sight - but we always practice standing still and shooting a stationary target.

We need to be less focused on marketing and Branding efforts in what we choose to carry and more focused on how to use them.

 

[JohnBiltz]

What barrel lengths?

In Shootingthebull's tests barrel length is what he noticed was a major issue with .380. A lot of previous testing was done with longer barrels, the shorter pocket pistol guns weren't included. He tested with the shorter barrels and the normal brand name dominance was thrown for a loop.

A half inch difference in barrel length is significant in these tests.

Because of that I look for overall good performance and just stop there. Shot placement is also highly important and the older concept of shooting center of mass with a short barreled gun at less than 21 feet comes into question. Why target the one area that is known to be the more heavily insulated target or one that can be covered with protective plating when there are others more exposed with a higher degree of vulnerability? It's as if the shooter is deliberatel choosing a point of impact that requires the "super bullet" when in fact normal ammo will do just fine when you choose to shoot elsewhere.

Training to shoot with no alternative targeting is training for failure. You may not get a COM shot in a self defense situation - but a pelvic or head shot might be all you could target. I worry less about the academics of testing bullets and more on being able to think and choose from what might be available on that instance. Even poor bullets do well on impact, whereas the best possible bullet available on the market does poorly if you miss or choose the most armored shot placement out of rote habit.

Now, lets consider the next important issue - you are moving when you practice shooting? No? The concept of a stationary shoot out is again, training for failure. We know to run and duck for cover, did you deliberately choose not to shoot at a target out in the open? Will your target just stand there waiting for you to pull the trigger? I haven't seen much of that in video posted online. What I see are humans smart enough to move and get out of the line of sight - but we always practice standing still and shooting a stationary target.

We need to be less focused on marketing and Branding efforts in what we choose to carry and more focused on how to use them.

And you can do all that with a bullet that performs well or a bullet that doesn't. In a self defense setting you have 3 things that you can control: Your level of training, the gun you carry and the ammo in your gun. Your level of training has nothing to do with the other two. The gun you carry does make a difference on ammo because of caliber and barrel length. Its hubris to disregard the gun and bullets because you are trained to such a high level. Its also hubris to disregard training. But we are not talking about training in this thread. We are talking about bullets. But there is always someone who jumps into a thread like this and posts about training like he is above any consideration of ballistics. Virtue signalling is what it is.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I'm at the point where I don't consider Hydrashock or Golden Saber to be good ammo. Twenty years ago it was competitive maybe even the best. Competition and the years have passed it by. Can anyone even find a video where either has performed well compared to HST or Gold Dots?

 

[Haywood]

Google ammo quest 380 self defense ammo test . This guy shows a vidio of 380 ammo tests. It takes about 10 minutes . I was surprised what he found.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Forget gel tests. Go find a mound of dirt to fire into. Note the dust-up upon impact. Keep shooting various rounds until you like what you see and can still handle the gun. That's your huckleberry right there.