Does he need one? The logic is sound. Jello is not flesh, is too liquid, and has no bones.
Typical blather from someone who doesn't understand what science - or what logic - is.
Ballistic gelatin is not "jello."
Jell-O is a registered trademark of Kraft Foods for varieties of gelatin desserts.
Ballistic gelatin is a calibrated test medium designed to model the properties of an average aggregate of human tissue. That's "model," not "duplicate." There's a real difference and it's not merely semantic.
In order for science to be science, testing methodologies have to be consistent and repeatable and the results have to be consistent and repeatable. For that to happen, as many variables as possible have to be [preferably] eliminated or otherwise controlled.
Bones, angle of impact, a person's psychology, possible effects of, shall we say, medication,
ad nauseam, all constitute variables that can not be controlled and therefore drastically reduce the scientific validity of case studies (what you people like to call "real world" results.)
Case studies are anecdotal evidence. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
So logic (there's that word) dictates we establish a scientific test protocol.
Enter ballistic gelatin and the FBI protocols. Established to give a testing methodology that produces consistent, repeatable results.
Hang on, because I'm about to pee in everyone's Cheerios.
A lot of people on both sides of this debate seem to fundamentally misunderstand that THERE IS NO WAY TO PREDICT HOW ANY ONE ROUND WILL PERFORM ON ANY ONE PERPETRATOR! And both sides are wrong because they are not taking into consideration what the gel tests, the case studies and
what science in general can and can not tell us.
On one hand, we have the guy who took 14 rounds of. 45ACP and died in the hospital. On the other, I bet if we dug deep enough into the archives we could find someone who got hit once with a .25 in a non vital area and dropped dead.
Now, we know a round that has what we could call "street cred." We also know how it performs in gel. This is round "A."
Additionally, we know a round that is considered underperforming, how
it performs in gel and how it's performance is different than round "A." . This is round "B."
We now are introduced to a third round: round "C." We don't know how it performs yet because it is new.
Logic (there's that word again) tells us that if effective rounds perform one way in gel (ie, penetrate between X and Y inches and expand Y%) and ineffective rounds perform differently (penetrate less, don't expand much) we can test round "C" in the same way we did "A" and "B" and compare. If round "C" performs similarly to round "A," we can reasonably expect it to also be effective but if it acts more like round "B" we can reasonably expect it to also be ineffective.
We can make valid perfomance comparisons from one round to the next, but we can not predict how any one will affect any individual. At best, we can make educated guesses about how one might work in an actual shooting, all else being equal. Trouble is, nothing else is.