One of the best Videos I've seen on Ballistic Gel Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
People hear what they want to hear.

Ballistic gel is simply a medium to compare one bullet to another, nothing more.

This, and the Ellifritz study, both conclude that handgun effectiveness is roughly equal among calibers, and that if you really want to stop something quickly, use a centerfire rifle.
 
I thought the video worthwhile.

Remember though, that this was just a summary of why they use ballistic gel plus some answers to questions. I think behind the scenes it's probably something like:
  • We primarily sell to law enforcement
  • The FBI is the King of Law Enforcement, and after that Miami fiasco they have some requirements for duty ammo based on gel performance
  • We should build our LE ammo around gel performance. That way we get the LE contracts
  • <decades pass>
  • LE Agencies share performance of the Federal rounds with the manufacturer. I would assume this includes statistical data but also some autopsy reports
  • Somebody smarts fires up their Excel skills to make math simpler, and it turns out that good performance in gel corresponds with good performance in bad guys.
  • They keep doing what they're doing, and see no reason to stop optimizing for best expansion with enough penetration in gel based on the earlier FBI requirements.
We don't get to see the data that informed their thinking. They say "bigger bullets make bigger wounds, but if the projectiles are at pistol velocities the differences aren't enough to matter in the short window we're looking at." (paraphrased.) Basically, bad dude goes hostile and needs to go down right friggin' now and a .44MAG isn't going to make him drop one second faster than a 9mm, and you're going to shoot until the threat is stopped or you hit slide-lock on your last mag. Or at least such is the conclusion they have after crunching the numbers.

That makes sense to me. I wish they'd given more information though - I have HSTs and Bonded Golden Sabers stocked here at the house and I'm not sure what makes the most sense as a carry load. The HSTs expand beautifully (as you would expect from a pre-cut projectile that unfolds instead of having to be deformed) but the .45 Golden Sabers are probably big enough but they also do pretty well after penetrating glass, for instance. I wish we had numbers on the percentage of shoots that involved cover/concealment. But that's another thread, I guess.

Good video all the same.
 
My point is that most people championing this video are doing so only to confirm what they already believed. No one is saying, I agree with their thoughts, I"ll down size my self defense caliber because pistol calibers have more or less the same efficacy. Instead the reaction is more, "See this is why I've always carried caliber X." Your comment is slightly confusing, using quotes to denote something that I didn't even say, leading me to wonder if you actually read my original post.

Yes, I engaged in some hyperbole to counter act yours, the intent was not a direct quote, sorry for the confusion.

Typically when I direct quote I use the handy [ quote] code, as it makes it much easier to clearly denote a quote.

Either way, you are clearly as guilty at seeing what you want from the video as you deride others for.

Either way, I shouldn't have derailed the thread with wasteful argumentative posts.
 
Another way of thinking about this:

There's a dude named Paul Harrell on Youtube. Like him or not, he has a following, and he did a video where he compared HSTs to WWB JHPs on his "meat target." Basically clothes from goodwill covering a package of pork ribs to simulate human ribs, in front of a couple of watermelons to simulate lung tissue, followed by another set of ribs, and a pile of blankets to catch the round. Kind of ghetto, but it's something else to look at.

In his test the HSTs expanded really well and consistently, and they performed better than the Winchester White Box. But marginally so. The damage from the cheap hollow points was almost as good.

Argue with the conclusions and the testing all you want, but this seems to correlate relatively well with what the folks at Remington are saying. I know they're selling their ammo here, but if the difference between 41Mag and 9mm is marginal in self defense shootings, is the difference between top-end HSTs and another modern hollow-point going to be huge?

Maybe not.
 
Yes, I engaged in some hyperbole to counter act yours, the intent was not a direct quote, sorry for the confusion.

Typically when I direct quote I use the handy [ quote] code, as it makes it much easier to clearly denote a quote.

Either way, you are clearly as guilty at seeing what you want from the video as you deride others for.

Either way, I shouldn't have derailed the thread with wasteful argumentative posts.

I wouldn't consider your post argumentative... I appreciate being able to clarify my point and enjoy the conversation.

I haven't made any comments directed at the content of the video. I was simply challenging people not to merely look at this video for confirmation of previously held beliefs but rather look at the information presented in it's totality. If all pistol calibers are more or less the same, then that would include calibers smaller than your or my typical preference as well as larger pistol calibers.

In other words, don't throw this video in the face of those who choose to carry .45, if you choose to carry 9mm. You've drawn your line in the sand at 9mm and they have drawn their line in the sand at .45 BUT this video asserts that both parties could use a smaller caliber and see similar results. (I only use specific calibers for an example, substitute any smaller vs larger caliber you prefer)

I'm not qualified to confirm or refute the experienced presenters in the video, so I'll keep my opinion to myself. My comments were only meant to get those who agree with the presenters to use the information to reflect deeper on their own beliefs rather than check the "that's what I thought' box.
 
I never imagined elastic properties of tissue was a factor to consider but what these guys say makes sense. Hard to believe that caliber isn't really as significant as I thought with handguns.
Now we can have a brand new discussion on the best handgun/caliber combination for bear defense!
 
There was another recent thread that pointed out that at one time the world's record grizzly was taken with a .22lr.

I understand the implication that handgun calibers are less different from each other than they are from rifle calibers (in terms of energy, momentum, etc) and also that if you penetrate to a vital orgam (e.g. the heart) that the actual size / mass of the projectile does not matter.

However, color me skeptical that a .380 acp (randomly picking a 'mouse gun' caliber) is just as effective as a .45 acp (randomly picking a large pistol caliber) in a real world situation where bones, glass, doors, clothing, etc are involved. Don't even get me started on using a .380 acp as a bear defense gun over a .44 mag pistol because they are both just as effective, including the specious argument that neither is effective as a 12 ga., etc.

I just find it hard to believe that all of these folks in the last 100+ years of pistol caliber development have essentially made minimal improvements in lethality.
 
There was another recent thread that pointed out that at one time the world's record grizzly was taken with a .22lr.

I read that article. An old Indian woman was walking along a trail & noticed a big grizzly following her. She had a 22 rim fire rifle & decided to hide from the bear. The bear continued to get closer & she emptied the rifle into its head. The article included a picture of the old woman (a tiny Indian lady maybe in her late 70's) & a really big bear.
 
There was another recent thread that pointed out that at one time the world's record grizzly was taken with a .22lr.

I understand the implication that handgun calibers are less different from each other than they are from rifle calibers (in terms of energy, momentum, etc) and also that if you penetrate to a vital orgam (e.g. the heart) that the actual size / mass of the projectile does not matter.

However, color me skeptical that a .380 acp (randomly picking a 'mouse gun' caliber) is just as effective as a .45 acp (randomly picking a large pistol caliber) in a real world situation where bones, glass, doors, clothing, etc are involved. Don't even get me started on using a .380 acp as a bear defense gun over a .44 mag pistol because they are both just as effective, including the specious argument that neither is effective as a 12 ga., etc.

I just find it hard to believe that all of these folks in the last 100+ years of pistol caliber development have essentially made minimal improvements in lethality.

I knew some guides who had to go into a thicket after a grizz a native lady shot with her .30-30 (which, while not a .22, is often considered a marginal round for things like Alaskan Browns or Grizzlies). A whole lot of butt clenching in the brush later, they didnt need to worry.

But I think the point of the video was once the bullet hits the body in terms effectiveness, they dont speak of other factors like range, penetration of foreign objects, recoil or anything, so yeah you do have other factors to consider.

Then again, I'd bet folks are more commonly killed with a .380 than .45 in the various urban warzones in the country, judging from the various police reports and true crime shows I watch (I'm a First 48 junky, I cant lie)
 
I just find it hard to believe that all of these folks in the last 100+ years of pistol caliber development have essentially made minimal improvements in lethality.

I am not sure what you mean by this or what data you would be referencing to justify it - not questioning you, but thinking the information is misleading. Lethality is a poor criterion in and of itself without knowing many other factors such as the speed of lethality. I would be willing to bet that if you looked at lethality, that modern calibers and bullets are less lethal today than they were 100 years ago, not because they are less powerful or do less damage than the ammo of the past, but simply because resultant medical resources are so much better now. People commonly survive pistol gunshot wounds today that would be lethal if not for the prompt and extensive medical care received in a timely manner, such care not being available 100 years ago. Think about it. 100 years ago was pre EMS, pre penicillin, pre x-rays, pre saline IV to prevent hypovolemic shock, etc. Simple penetrating wounds, particularly with any sort of foreign matter (such as clothing) could become septic and lethal, but it just may take a days or weeks.
 
I am not sure what you mean by this or what data you would be referencing to justify it - not questioning you, but thinking the information is misleading. Lethality is a poor criterion in and of itself without knowing many other factors such as the speed of lethality. I would be willing to bet that if you looked at lethality, that modern calibers and bullets are less lethal today than they were 100 years ago, not because they are less powerful or do less damage than the ammo of the past, but simply because resultant medical resources are so much better now. People commonly survive pistol gunshot wounds today that would be lethal if not for the prompt and extensive medical care received in a timely manner, such care not being available 100 years ago. Think about it. 100 years ago was pre EMS, pre penicillin, pre x-rays, pre saline IV to prevent hypovolemic shock, etc. Simple penetrating wounds, particularly with any sort of foreign matter (such as clothing) could become septic and lethal, but it just may take a days or weeks.


Well, it was likely a weak point but I was referring to the various 5mm - 8mm cartridges of the late 19th century vs. 'modern' calibers such as .45 acp and 9mm. I purposely chose the 100+ year mark to separate these groups of cartridges as the latter have had continuing and constant bullet and load development. This might be unfair to the .380 but you get my point. Modern pistol cartridges are both more potent now and IMHO the increase in potency is greater in the cartridges with more improvement potential (case capacity, bullet weight, etc)..

Now some may say that this has made the .380 perfectly adequate for self-defense. I don't dispute that (that it is adequate). I do dispute that it is just as effective as a larger modern cartridge. I view the smaller cartridges as compromises, meaning you are accepting some less capability in order to gain in other attributes like light weight and concealability.

Besides, since you are a spy shouldn't I have to hold the web page up to a candle or pour lemon juice on it to read your comments ? :what:
 
I found the video and the testimony of those men from Federal very compelling, and not because they only confirmed what I already believed or because it affirmed my caliber or cartridge choice. I have heard all the arguments for many years, seen many penetration, expansion and tissue tests and read in-depth field studies. That is not to say that I claim expertise, but that I have heard what the experts have been saying.

I carry a 9mm caliber, aka .357 Magnum, and looking at ballistics gel results, bullets achieve the penetration goal with less than 1100 fps with good expansion. Yet I can load them to as much as 1700 fps. I've wondered, do I get anything for that extra 600 fps. Six hundred feet per second seems HUGE! But do I get anything for it?

According to these guys, the answer is no. They claim that the result will be nothing other than penetration that is in excess to what is necessary to achieve the maximum possible effect and the absorption of the surplus bullet energy by the elasticity of the target tissue at a velocity that is insufficient to cause significant wounding outside the crush path of the bullet.
 
Since penetration and crush cavity is all that matters in handguns, according to these gentlemen (and others), shouldn't we be going for the largest diameter projectile that comes just shy of a through and through? Oh, I forgot, it's only millimeters (or tenths of inches) difference between the calibers, and that doesn't really matter, even if it is multiplied by a path of 12-18 inches. How thick are the walls of the major blood vessels in the human body?

Look, even the data from Ellifritz's study is suspect, since the ammo manufactures are tuning their rounds to match the FBI criteria for 30+ years now, so it's no wonder all the handgun rounds, no matter the caliber, perform the same.
 
Six hundred feet per second seems HUGE! But do I get anything for it?
It'd get you more effective range and a flatter trajectory, but as you already know, that isn't particularly important in a self defense shooting if we look at average SD shooting distances. They typically happen pretty close up. So I agree with your logic. It will also get you more flash and recoil which could limit follow up shot speed significantly.

However, there is some validity to the idea that you won't know what a SD scenario will be until you are in it. If someone is shooting at you, having increased effective range and a flatter trajectory may make a difference. It may not. It may also make the difference between penetrating a barrier or not.

I think there are legit arguments for having the most powerful ammo you can shoot effectively, but there are equally valid arguments against it. For this reason I like reasonably warm ammo that will penetrate adequately and expand in an urban environment. In a outdoor environment I like hot ammo that will penetrate through and through and expansion is a bonus if desired. Expansion may not be desired at all.

There's nothing wrong with having different ammo for different scenarios.
 
You have to remember with this video is they are discussing "duty handgun calibers". So 38 Spcl, 9mm, 357, 40, 45.

Will a 45 do more damage than a 9mm? Probably. It will cut a slightly larger hole. Will that slightly larger hole create enough damage to change the outcome of a fight? Doubtful.

You might nick an artery that a 9mm missed. So instead of the bad guy bleeding out in 22 minutes, he bleeds out in 19 minutes. That doesn't make much of a difference to you when he's shooting at you right now.

I can tell you from talking work multiple trauma doctors, they can't tell the difference between the wounds of duty handguns.

From my experience you need good solid hits to major organs, major arteries, or major parts of the central nervous system to stop an attacker quickly.

Im talking heart, lungs, liver, major arteries in the chest, the brain, and upper spine.

Outside a solid CNS hit you want solid hits on those organs to cause a rapid drop in blood pressure which can cause rapid onset of shock.

I've seen lots of people die from blood loss with hits outside of what I described above. However many, if not most, of those people were ambulatory for several minutes or more after being shot.

The difference between a .55 inch hole (9mm hollow point) through the heart and a .75 inch hole (45 hollow point) through the heart is basically academic.

The 45 is a good round. If you like it carry it. It works, I've seen it first hand. Me personally, I'll continue to carry my 9mm Glock 17 at work. I'll trade the slightly bigger hole for more ammo and less recoil. I've never finished a firefight wishing I brought less ammo.
 
Another way of thinking about this:

There's a dude named Paul Harrell on Youtube. Like him or not, he has a following, and he did a video where he compared HSTs to WWB JHPs on his "meat target." Basically clothes from goodwill covering a package of pork ribs to simulate human ribs, in front of a couple of watermelons to simulate lung tissue, followed by another set of ribs, and a pile of blankets to catch the round. Kind of ghetto, but it's something else to look at.

In his test the HSTs expanded really well and consistently, and they performed better than the Winchester White Box. But marginally so. The damage from the cheap hollow points was almost as good.

Argue with the conclusions and the testing all you want, but this seems to correlate relatively well with what the folks at Remington are saying. I know they're selling their ammo here, but if the difference between 41Mag and 9mm is marginal in self defense shootings, is the difference between top-end HSTs and another modern hollow-point going to be huge?

Maybe not.

The difference between HST's and any other cartridge is marketing. The company with the biggest marketing/advertising budget rules the day.
 
People get hung up on a caliber, on a projo in that caliber. That's human nature.

Which makes it complicated to read from ER docs that they can barely tell the difference on actual humans other than a very general, less than 7mm, or more than 9mm, sort of way. Or, that 5 out of 6 handgun shot victims survive. (IIRC, only about 1 in 10 rifle shot victims survive.)

If you are in business to sell billions of rounds of ammunition, you need a testing medium which eliminates as many variables as possible, and is repeatable, and consistent. Enter ballistics gelatin. Not a be all-end all, just a tool.

And, of course, shot placement trumps caliber and projo. The caliber you shoot well is probably far more important than which caliber it is. Doesn't matter if it's a .32 or a .41magnum, being able to shoot it into an inch circle "beats" somebody else's caliber you can barely shoot into a foot circle.

But, that's just my 2¢, spend it as you will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top