Ballistic Gelatin tests are they reliable?

[deerslayer303]

Are these tests reliable? I understand that it is the only thing we have to test how different rounds or cartridges compare to one another. But here is why I pose the question. On the tube you have guys using different percentages of ballistics gelatin usually 10 and 20%. Is the 20% more dense than the 10. What about the clear vs. tan colored gel? The reason I ask is because seems to me the guys using the 20% seem to get better bullet performance, as in expansion and shock, vs. the guys that use the 10%. I believe a bullet needs something more dense than gel to open up? Judging by all my years of hunting critters the times that the animal was shot in the shoulder/ boiler room the bullet opened right up vs. the times the animal may have been shot further back on it's body where less bone and dense muscle tissue resided. In the later the exit would be not as big as the animal that had been shot in the boiler room.

 

[reloader28]

I just line up water filled milk jugs.
Some dont think its a good comparison, but I like it and think its actually a decent test. I use it all the time.

I think I've had pretty close results on critters and deer compared to the milk jugs.


Theres another thread on this right now.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

Properly prepared and calibrated type 250A ordnance gelatin provides a reasonable representation of bullet terminal performance in soft tissues and a reasonable representation of the wound trauma produced in soft tissues. A 10% solution is maintained at a cooler temperature (39-degrees F) than 20% gelatin (about 70-72 degrees F). The main advantage of the 10% solution is that it's half the cost of 20%. These are the only two soft tissue simulants that have been fully verified and validated to accuratedly replicate typical human soft tissues.

All other soft tissue simulant "gelatin" (including Clear Gel) have not been proved against human soft tissue. They don't provide the same fidelity of information (particularly the disruption produced by temporary cavitation) as properly prepared and calibrated type 250A ordnance gelatin.

For more information about the validity of ordnance gelatin as it compares to the human body, scroll down to the "Extracts" paragaphs about two-third down this web page: http://firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm

 

[militant]

There is no bone in these tests.

 

[jmr40]

No method is perfect. But I think the gel tests are probably the most accurate predictor of bullet performance. I wouldn't completely trust any one method, but consider the results of several tests and look at data from studies.

 

[deerslayer303]

Thanks for the replies and answers guys. I was looking at Hornady critical defense ammo tests on YouTube and with the 10% the bullet looked like it could be loaded and shot again, VS the tan colored gel made it open up and the petals fold back. So I thought that to be odd. So I checked some other rounds tested and it seemed to be the same result. So I guess you just can't write off an ammo selection by just looking at one test.

 

[481]

Properly prepared and calibrated type 250A ordnance gelatin provides a reasonable representation of bullet terminal performance in soft tissues and a reasonable representation of the wound trauma produced in soft tissues. A 10% solution is maintained at a cooler temperature (39-degrees F) than 20% gelatin (about 70-72 degrees F). The main advantage of the 10% solution is that it's half the cost of 20%. These are the only two soft tissue simulants that have been fully verified and validated to accuratedly replicate typical human soft tissues.

All other soft tissue simulant "gelatin" (including Clear Gel) have not been proved against human soft tissue. They don't provide the same fidelity of information (particularly the disruption produced by temporary cavitation) as properly prepared and calibrated type 250A ordnance gelatin.

For more information about the validity of ordnance gelatin as it compares to the human body, scroll down to the "Extracts" paragaphs about two-third down this web page: http://firearmstactical.com/tactical...3/0604-03a.htm

This.

Might add that calibrated ordnance gelatin also duplicates the average density of all tissues found in the human body -including bone.

Brassfetcher did a video here-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pqPBnSYTIc&list=UU1UICFxcABkGg8Nj3X0dW8Q

-that shows that synthetic Clear Ballistic Gel does not calibrate porperly (gotta skip to 18:44 in the video) like the 250A ordnance gelatin.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ballistic Gelatin tests are they reliable?

Not as reliable as being a morgue monster and read autopsies and police reports of those killed with guns.

Only whey you've read police reports and cross referenced them with the actual autopsies then can you figure out what works and what does not.

Everything else is just a educated guess.

Deaf

 

[Ruger45LC]

I don't have a problem with gel tests as long as they're done properly. When someone just whips up a batch that is most likely not calibrated correctly, then that's what makes me doubt things as I'm not convinced a lot of the do it yourself gel kits are terribly accurate.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

Factoring bone into the equation...

"Bullets that do well against bone generally fare well against automobile windshield intermediate barriers." -- DocGKR

An interesting thread about bullet performance against bone - http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?30556-Factoring-bone-into-the-equation

 

[James K]

Years back, a pretty savvy old cop and shooter remarked that he had never seen a human body made from ballistic gel, and didn't think those tests were worth much except to compare different bullets fired into the gel. Those gunzine tests showing the neat expanded bullets, followed by the writer's glowing endorsement of those bullets as perfect for self defense, are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Jim

 

[Derbel McDillet]

"One of the senior engineers at a very respected ammunition manufacturer has commented that handgun bullets that do well in 4LD testing have invariably worked well in actual OIS incidents. Most handgun bullets recovered from human tissue in surgery or at autopsy tend to look like those same type of projectiles after 4LD testing." -- DocGKR (History of using laters of denim in ballistic testing? - http://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ing-layers-of-denim-in-balistic-testing/page2 )

 

[zombietactics]

The tests run by the FBI, or strictly following FBI/IWBA protocols, are reliable for the purpose of comparing the relative performance of various cartridges. They are reliable so far as determining basic performance characteristics as well.

They cannot tell you what any given bullet will do, on any given day, against some particular person, at some determined range ... the particulars are far too varied for that.

What they can do is reveal which bullets generally fit the bill for duty or self-defense purposes, and which do not.

If you are looking at amateur tests done with less stringent controls, you're looking at entertainment, and nothing more.

 

[JD0x0]

The tests run by the FBI, or strictly following FBI/IWBA protocols, are reliable for the purpose of comparing the relative performance of various cartridges. They are reliable so far as determining basic performance characteristics as well.

There is no bone in these tests.

+1


I think of ballistics gel to be comparable to a 'gut shot' since there typically is no bone in that area until you get back to the spine or hit the back of the pelvis. We have to remember in most cases we will be shooting through bone as well, as flesh.

I will often opt for heavier for caliber bullets, for this reason. Some may argue that these will 'over penetrate' but I disagree, and I'd prefer to have exit wounds on my target, than wounds that dont reach deeply enough.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

We have to remember in most cases we will be shooting through bone as well, as flesh.

What bone will we be shooting through "in most cases", and how does that affect terminal performance?

 

[tipoc]

There actually is a pretty good article on ballistic gel and the differences here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin

As others mentioned the heavier 20% grade is what was used by NATO in it's testing while the 10% was recommended for use in the U.S. by Martin Fackler and others and is the norm here for the reasons cited.

The most important thing about the gel tests is that they allow bullet manufacturers around the globe to have a standardized way of testing and constructing better bullets. Much better than random jugs of milk, clay, wet newspapers, sand, pine boards,etc. The gel can be calibrated to the identical standards internationally.

Yes these tests are reliable as long as you understand what they are showing you. They can show you how a bullet is likely to work. They can't show you how a bullet will work in a animal or person. For the latter there are too many variables.

There is no bone in these tests.

That's right, no bone in the tests, it wouldn't mean much if there was. Folks have tried to use old bones stuck in gel. But a hambone floating in gel can't tell you much. Simulated bone plates in front of the gel helps some. But not the same as a bone in a living leg. But then, nothing but a bone in a living leg is like a bone in a living leg.

The gel helps quite a bit in barrier penetration tests.

Hunting bullets that work develop good reputations. There are quite a number of them for various things.

tipoc

 

[Double Naught Spy]

tipoc covered it very well.

I would just add that ballistics gel is a uniform medium. Animal tissue is NOT.

While you may get uniform performance in ballistics gel, you rarely get uniform terminal performance in animal tissue. You may get "similar" performance, but that is about the best you can hope for, assuming everything goes right.

No method is correct for assessing performance. Is gel the most accurate predictor of bullet performance? Probably so, but only under ideal circumstances.

One way to look at it is this. Ballistics gel tests probably represent the best result you can reasonably expect from bullet terminal performance. Chances are, the bullet won't fly as straight, open as precisely, create the same would channel, or penetrate as deeply once in actual animal tissue. There are a lot of facets where things are likely to be different.

 

[tipoc]

Another thing the gel helps people see (other than the obvious things like wound channel, depth of penetration, expansion, rate of expansion, penetration and expansion after penetrating various barriers, etc.) is seen best in slo-motion videos. Slo-motion vids show you the effect of the punch of a bullet hitting quite well.

Brass Fetcher has a good selection of these...

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/Handguns.htm

Most of these are in 20% gelatin there, the vids that is, and are useful for getting an idea of bullet impact. The blocks they use there are an inch square with an inch space between them.

tipoc

 

[smallshot]

Ballistic gellers.

Ever been in a gunfight against a gang of ballistic gels? It's all about shot placement and luck. Also helps if you get the drop on em.

 

[James K]

A lot of the human body is hollow or has only light tissue. Other than the large muscles like the thigh or large masses of fat/muscle, there is little that can be said to be a homogeneous mass that will react like ballistic gel. And that does not take clothing or defensive material into effect unless the gel is similarly covered.

Jim