Joint Agency Ballistics Test for Defensive Handgun Ammo

[JohnG]

I'm a big fan of the Lehigh loaded Underwood XD's, but I emailed and asked Fort Scott Munitions if they were aware of the JOINT AGENCY "BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION" test in question (and sent them the test document) and they were not.

FYI, these are what convinced me of the validity of the UndeRwood's loading of Lehigh round however. The key to me, though, is feeding.
9mm:






45acp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_1zXdDf4Y

380acp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTf7dHOfLi4

 

[JohnG]

These are from a quite poor test I did a while back. The clarity isn't good. Shot through a 3/4" good quality plywood board into a small pork chop and then into a chicken breast. The backstop was a box of sand.

9mm Underwood Extreme Defender 90g +P+
9mm Fort Scott Munitions 115g

40S&W Underwood Extreme Defender 115g
40S&W Fort Scott Munitions 125g

45ACP Underwood Extreme Defender 120g +P
45ACP Fort Scott Munitions 180g

357Sig Underwood Extreme Defender 90g
357Sig Fort Scott Munitions 95g

10mm Underwood Extreme Defender 115g
10mm Fort Scott Munitions 124g

 

[JohnG]

This is from another test I did comparing those same rounds above shooting into paper plates. I'm planning on doing another meat test with those same rounds and similar to the "official Federal Study" test. I'm really curious how the Fort Scott will do in mine since they did pretty well in my first less extensive meat test.

Number of plates traversed by each caliber bullet all fired from Glocks except for 45ACP fired from FN FNX 45:
FS=Fort Scott TUI
U=Underwood Extreme Defender

FS 10mm 540
FS 9mm over 500 (I messed up thinking it wouldn't go farther than 500 and only had that many plates in this portion of test and it blew through all of them)
FS 357 ~520
U 10mm 480
FS 40SW 400
U 9mm ~390
U 357 ~385 tumbled for sure
U 40SW ~340
U 45 300
FS 45 230 tumbled for sure
U 380 ~215
FS 380 180

 

[481]

Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin has been proven to be an accurate soft-tissue simulant by several sources as it correlates quite well against swine leg tissue. One such example, although there are others, is this paper published by Eugene Wolberg of the San Diego Police Crime Laboratory.

http://www.lignod.com/winchester_9mm.pdf





Do you have a source to support the claim made below?

Yes, ballistic gelatin does a poor job of simulating animal tissue. It is roughly the same density as muscle tissue, and that is about all. It is a non-compressible fluid medium and tissue is not. It is uniform in density and presents no boundary layers of increasing and decreasing density which can slow and deflect projectiles. It has no elastin fibers to provide elasticity and no collagen fibers to maintain integrity. And yes, the "wound channels" seen in gelatin have little bearing on actual permanent tissue damage that would occur in living animal tissues.

 

[Zerodefect]

Does he need one? The logic is sound. Jello is not flesh, is too liquid, and has no bones.

 

[cslinger]

So this is a multi agency, multi million dollar, scientific method version of “The meat target”.

Good stuff.

 

[481]

Does he need one? The logic is sound. Jello is not flesh, is too liquid, and has no bones.

Yep.

Proof supporting his claim is necessary. His 'logic' is faulty. He's claimed that a proven test medium (that is a proven correlated representative of animal (swine) and human soft tissue; re: see link provided) is not so. It'd be nice to see substantiation of his opinion...which is all that it is right now.

I can find nowhere in this thread where anyone has said or made the claim that 'jello is flesh'. That's a straw-man argument at best.

Point of fact: There is no need to include bones in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin tests since the medium represents the average density of the human body....bones, sinew, tendons, ligaments, viscera included.

There exists a tremendous amount of research that demonstrates the validity of calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin as a test medium. It is easily located and readily available. Took me less than 10 seconds to find the research source linked above.

So, yes.......proof supporting his claim is necessary.

 

[Zerodefect]

What are the names, or quotes, of those researchers that claimed that Jello shows us exactly how bullets react in flesh? That there is no difference whatsoever.

Jello doesn't show the difference between a glancing 9mm blow off of bone, vs .40 or .45, like we've seen at the morgue.

Same thing for fast, vs heavy and slow. How fast do we need to go, to duplicate the straight path of heavy and slow?

Jello doesn't account for the "grain" of muscles. Or the hard roundness of the spine. Or the air space of lungs.

Will the bullet poke a harmless hole in the hip bones? Or shatter them? Same for legs?

Real is real, and test mediums can only be used as a test medium. Jello is a convenient medium only. That needs to be taken with a spoonful of salt. Further testing and experience is still needed to get the truth.

FN 5.7x28mm ammo was a fine example of this. Lesser than 9mm in jello, superior nearly everywhere else.

 

[481]

What are the names, or quotes, of those researchers that claimed that Jello shows us exactly how bullets react in flesh? That there is no difference whatsoever.

Jello doesn't show the difference between a glancing 9mm blow off of bone, vs .40 or .45, like we've seen at the morgue.

Same thing for fast, vs heavy and slow. How fast do we need to go, to duplicate the straight path of heavy and slow?

Jello doesn't account for the "grain" of muscles. Or the hard roundness of the spine. Or the air space of lungs.

Will the bullet poke a harmless hole in the hip bones? Or shatter them? Same for legs?

Real is real, and test mediums can only be used as a test medium. Jello is a convenient medium only. That needs to be taken with a spoonful of salt. Further testing and experience is still needed to get the truth.

FN 5.7x28mm ammo was a fine example of this. Lesser than 9mm in jello, superior nearly everywhere else.

There is a lot of unsubstantiated opinion in your post above. It is not incumbent upon me to dispel it, however it is upon you to substantiate it. I've provided a research source in support of my statement.

Real is real, and test mediums can only be used as a test medium. Jello is a convenient medium only.

We agree. Gelatin is convenient (and valid) test medium. As I stated above, the fact remains: There exists a tremendous amount of research that demonstrates the validity of calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin as a test medium. It is easily located and readily available. All you need to do to see the name of the researcher and the results of his work is use the link provided.

FN 5.7x28mm ammo was a fine example of this. Lesser than 9mm in jello, superior nearly everywhere else.

That is a rather broad claim. I also agree that ''real is real''. With that thought in mind, the material provided here—

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4338-Small-Caliber-PDW-s-FN-5-7-mm-HK-4-6-mm

—provides 'real' evidence to the contrary that small-caliber PDW calibers—including the 5.7x28—fail to perform in the ''real world'' according to those who've used it in ''the real world'' bringing into question your suggestion that the 5.7x28 is ''superior nearly everywhere else''.

 

[pblanc]

Ten percent ballistic gelatin is calibrated to simulate animal muscle tissue. It does not simulate the average density of any animal and anyone who thinks it does is grossly ignorant of its properties or what it is capable of simulating. Ten percent ballistic gelatin has a specific gravity of 1.02 g/cc so it is barely denser than water. Muscle tissue is of moderate density as animal tissues go. There are a few tissues that are less dense. Expanded lung tissue, for example, since it contains a significant amount of air which is obviously less dense than muscle has a specific gravity of only 36% that of muscle, and adipose tissue has a specific gravity of around 84% that of muscle. Brain tissue, liver parenchyma, and splenic parenchyma might be slightly less dense than ballistic gelatin since these tissues contain less connective tissue fibers than muscle does. But there are many animal tissues that are denser including skin, muscle fascia, capsules of the liver, kidney, and spleen, tendon, and obviously bone. Studies have shown that the average specific gravity of whole animal tissues is closer to 1.1, much denser than 10% ballistic gelatin. But when one considers humans the "average" specific gravity will be influenced significantly by the percentage of adipose tissue.

In the article cited by 481, all shots which struck bone were excluded from the autopsy studies which obviously skews the results. Furthermore, these wounds were all torso shots, many of which likely traversed less dense lung tissue during the path of the projectile further skewing the penetration data. Nor did the autopsy study look at the possibility that projectiles were deflected as they encountered denser tissues during the terminal ballistic phase.

Nobody is saying that ballistic gelatin is a useless test medium. But anyone who thinks that is duplicates the "average" properties of animal tissue lacks any real world experience with anatomy, histology, and actual gunshot wounds. I have an MD degree and have completed all of the coursework required for PhD candidates in human physiology at a major US University. I have studied human anatomy, and histology. I have over 20 years experience as a general and peripheral vascular surgeon including and attending staff surgeon at multiple Level II trauma centers. I have cut into human tissues of every variety and have a first hand knowledge of the variation in their density and toughness. I have seen and treated many gunshot wounds in the emergency department, the operating room, and some well-known trauma centers in major US cities.

When you see real gunshot wounds in the operating room they look nothing like the "wound cavities" seen in ballistic gelatin. That is because ballistic gelatin has no connective tissue holding it together. It also lacks any elastic tissue. Projectiles that traverse human tissue, even if we limit consideration only to those wounds that traverse soft tissue, cause the soft tissues to expand transiently but then the elasticity of the soft tissue causes it to retract back into position, and the collagenous fibers prevent the tissue from fracturing. The result with handgun wounds at least is that the actual physical damage is pretty much limited to the primary crush channel created by the projectile's passage. That is why it is very difficult to determine the exact caliber of a projectile from the wound. The bullet tract is not uncommonly smaller than the actual diameter of the projectile.

I have seen many instances in which a projectile either radically deviated or was contained upon encountering tissues of greater density other than bone. I will mention a couple of examples. The article cited above mentioned two instances in which the projectile was contained within the torso by the skin at the termination of its path. I have seen this many times. In fact, as a medical student rotating through the Cook County Trauma Center, I was instructed to carefully palpate the skin opposite the entry wound when an exit wound was not present because it was not at all uncommon to feel projectiles just below the skin that lacked sufficient momentum to penetrate the much denser cutaneous tissue. I recall one gunshot wound that resulted from a suicide attempt. This was from a 38 Special revolver at contact distance with an entry wound very close to the umbilicus (navel) and an exit wound just to the side of the lumbar spine. A direct path between the two wound have very obviously traversed the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum and the patient was taken to the OR for an exploratory laparotomy. But there was no penetration of the peritoneal cavity found. The projectile after penetrating the skin and subcutaneous tissue was redirected by the dense fascia of the anterior abdominal wall, tracking through the much less dense subcutaneous tissue in an arc all the way around to the back, and was then redirected by the dense fascia of the lumbar paraspinal muscles out the skin of the back. How often would we see phenomena like these with ballistic gelatin?

Ballistic gelatin is a reasonably good model for predicting penetration of projectiles that traverse muscle tissue and muscle tissue only, and to a lesser degree their likely expansion. Anything else is hit or miss.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Point of fact: There is no need to include bones in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin tests since the medium represents the average density of the human body....bones, sinew, tendons, ligaments, viscera included.

I'm not knocking the validity of gel tests, as it serves many purposes, but the quoted assertion is illogical. The average density of a living body is totally irrelevant as all tissues represented in that average would demonstrate difference penetration, deformation, and deflection characteristics. A thin mucus membrane and a thick bone may be part of that average, but they will have totally different interactions with and reactions to a projectile.

By using this average density logic I could shoot a block of wood, and assert that it would have similar penetration as shooting a piece of paper along with a 5" thick steel plate, but we don't need to shoot the paper or the steel, because the wood block represents the average density of the two. That would be nonsense of course, but numerically could be true depending on the wood type and thickness. But it wouldn't really tell us anything about the actual effect on the paper or steel.

Gel tests have their uses, and are repeatable which is very important, but we shouldn't lose sight of what they are and that they represent how a bullet MAY act in a living body.

 

[481]

Ten percent ballistic gelatin is calibrated to simulate animal muscle tissue. It does not simulate the average density of any animal and anyone who thinks it does is grossly ignorant of its properties or what it is capable of simulating. Ten percent ballistic gelatin has a specific gravity of 1.02 g/cc so it is barely denser than water. Muscle tissue is not particularly dense as animal tissues go. There are a few tissues that are less dense. Expanded lung tissue, for example, since it contains a significant amount of air which is obviously less dense than muscle. Brain tissue, liver parenchyma, and splenic parenchyma might be slightly less dense than ballistic gelatin since these tissues contain less connective tissue fibers than muscle does. But there are many animal tissues that are denser including skin, muscle fascia, capsules of the liver, kidney, and spleen, tendon, and obviously bone.

In the article cited by 481, all shots which struck bone were excluded from the autopsy studies which obviously skews the results. Furthermore, these wounds were all torso shots, many of which likely traversed less dense lung tissue during the path of the projectile further skewing the penetration data. Nor did the autopsy study look at the possibility that projectiles were deflected as they encountered denser tissues during the terminal ballistic phase.

Nobody is saying that ballistic gelatin is a useless test medium. But anyone who thinks that is duplicates the "average" properties of animal tissue lacks any real world experience with anatomy, histology, and actual gunshot wounds. I have an MD degree and have completed all of the coursework required for PhD candidates in human physiology at a major US University. I have studied human anatomy, and histology. I have over 20 years experience as a general and peripheral vascular surgeon including and attending staff surgeon at multiple Level II trauma centers. I have cut into human tissues of every variety and have a first hand knowledge of the variation in their density and toughness. I have seen and treated many gunshot wounds in the emergency department, the operating room, and some well-known trauma centers in major US cities.

When you see real gunshot wounds in the operating room they look nothing like the "wound cavities" seen in ballistic gelatin. That is because ballistic gelatin has no connective tissue holding it together. It also lacks any elastic tissue. Projectiles that traverse human tissue, even if we limit consideration only to those wounds that traverse soft tissue, cause the soft tissues to expand transiently but then the elasticity of the soft tissue causes it to retract back into position, and the collagenous fibers prevent the tissue from fracturing. The result with handgun wounds at least is that the actual physical damage is pretty much limited to the primary crush channel created by the projectile's passage. That is why it is very difficult to determine the exact caliber of a projectile from the wound. The bullet tract is not uncommonly smaller than the actual diameter of the projectile.

I have seen many instances in which a projectile either radically deviated or was contained upon encountering tissues of greater density other than bone. I will mention a couple of examples. The article cited above mentioned two instances in which the projectile was contained within the torso by the skin at the termination of its path. I have seen this many times. In fact, as a medical student rotating through the Cook County Trauma Center, I was instructed to carefully palpate the skin opposite the entry wound when an exit wound was not present because it was not at all uncommon to feel projectiles just below the skin that lacked sufficient momentum to penetrate the much denser cutaneous tissue. I recall one gunshot wound that resulted from a suicide attempt. This was from a 38 Special revolver at contact distance with an entry wound very close to the umbilicus (navel) and an exit wound just to the side of the lumbar spine. I direct path between the two wound have very obviously traversed the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum and the patient was taken to the OR for an exploratory laparotomy. But there was no penetration of the peritoneal cavity found. The projectile after penetrating the skin and subcutaneous tissue was redirected by the dense fascia of the anterior abdominal wall, tracking through the much less dense subcutaneous tissue in an arc all the way around to the back, and was then redirected by the dense fascia of the lumbar paraspinal muscles out the skin of the back. How often would we see phenomena like these with ballistic gelatin?

Ballistic gelatin is a reasonably good model for predicting penetration of projectiles that traverse muscle tissue and muscle tissue only, and to a lesser degree their likely expansion. Anything else is hit or miss.

D. MacPherson and the late Dr. Martin Fackler, held that so long as the test medium possesses the same internal sonic velocity, bulk modulus and density as the tissues that they are being used to simulate that the resulting terminal ballistic performance (expansion, penetration depth) would also produce similar results in soft tissue—the source from which I refer to the average material properties being represented by 10% gelatin.

So, is it your position that both MacPherson and Dr. Fackler are incorrect in the 'average material properties' position?

ETA: You might find this paper to be interesting, too.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85505/8/RevisedGelPaper_Final.pdf

In it, the authors conducted mechanical compression experiments on gelatin specimens at strain rates spanning two orders of magnitude (∼0.001−0.1−1sec) and observed a nonlinear load-displacement history and strong strain rate-dependence. A compact and efficient visco hyper-elastic constitutive model was then formulated and found to fit the experimental data well.

 

[pblanc]

Ballistic gelatin provides a reasonable estimate of what a particular projectile would do in terms of penetration and expansion, if it traversed an equivalent distance of skeletal muscle parenchyma lacking fascia. The problem is that human gunshot wounds are never limited to skeletal muscle parenchyma alone. That is one limitation of the testing medium. The other is that what happens to ballistic gelatin after being shot bears very little resemblance to what happens to real animal tissues.

 

[481]

Ballistic gelatin provides a reasonable estimate of what a particular projectile would do in terms of penetration and expansion, if it traversed an equivalent distance of skeletal muscle parenchyma lacking fascia. The problem is that human gunshot wounds are never limited to skeletal muscle parenchyma alone. That is one limitation of the testing medium. The other is that what happens to ballistic gelatin after being shot bears very little resemblance to what happens to real animal tissues.

Well, of course, such was not a point I was trying make. Maybe we are talking past one another. I believe that we likely agree on more than we disagree.

 

[pblanc]

The data presented in the article by Wolberg is really pretty sketchy. The data is pretty much limited to the estimated depth of penetration, expanded diameter, and retained mass of projectiles traversing some portion of the human "torso". I am assuming that the author defines torso as to include the abdomen and thorax, but this is not spelled out. Furthermore, no information is provided as to entrance wounds, exit wounds, or the tissues and organs traversed, except that all of the wounds were limited to "soft tissue" and did not involve bone. And of course, the study is limited to one particular type of projectile, a heavy for caliber 147 grain 9 mm Luger JHP. The author makes no mention of how many torso gunshot wounds were excluded from analysis because the projectile struck bone. We have no way of knowing either in how many of the wounds the projectile trajectory included a significant distance through low-density expanded lung tissue. I will also point out that these cases were limited to fatalities in which autopsy results were available. The odds are high that average projectile penetration in a study limited to fatal cases would be higher than one that included data from non-fatal gunshot injuries of the torso as well.

I have long maintained that projectile momentum is probably a better predictor of terminal ballistic behavior of handgun cartridges than kinetic energy is, so far as a simple metric goes. And although 147 grain 9 mm Luger projectiles often have less kinetic energy than 115 or 124 grain, they usually have better momentum. Projectiles with greater momentum are less likely to be stopped or deviated when they encounter denser tissues. So the autopsy results from torso wounds with 147 grain 9 mm projectiles may or may not correspond to the results with projectiles of less mass and momentum.

Here is a long article (184 pages) looking at the limitations of ballistic gelatin as a testing medium to model animal bullet wound trauma that examines, among many other things, the great variation in tensile strength of the various tissues found in the human thorax and abdomen:

http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/99527/2/02whole.pdf

Chapter 3 is of some interest because it analyzes autopsy data from 197 homicides in Israel that were the result of one or more gunshot wounds to the thorax and abdomen. Most of these cases involved multiple wounds so the total wound number was 440 and most were due to handgun cartridges of a variety of calibers, but there were also a number of rifle wounds. But what is striking is that it is actually pretty difficult to hit the human thorax or abdomen ("torso") without striking bone. In fact, of the 440 total wounds, 350 hit either rib or sternum, which is 80% of total wounds. If this finding caries over to gunshot wounds to the torso resulting from assault in general, then a study of torso gunshot deaths limited to 9 mm 147 grain JHP in which no bone was struck would be a case population so highly selected as to have little relevance to the entire spectrum of gunshot wounds of the torso in general.

 

[481]

The data presented in the article by Wolberg is really pretty sketchy. The data is pretty much limited to the estimated depth of penetration, expanded diameter, and retained mass of projectiles traversing some portion of the human "torso". I am assuming that the author defines torso as to include the abdomen and thorax, but this is not spelled out. Furthermore, no information is provided as to entrance wounds, exit wounds, or the tissues and organs traversed, except that all of the wounds were limited to "soft tissue" and did not involve bone. And of course, the study is limited to one particular type of projectile, a heavy for caliber 147 grain 9 mm Luger JHP. The author makes no mention of how many torso gunshot wounds were excluded from analysis because the projectile struck bone. We have no way of knowing either in how many of the wounds the projectile trajectory included a significant distance through low-density expanded lung tissue. I will also point out that these cases were limited to fatalities in which autopsy results were available. The odds are high that average projectile penetration in a study limited to fatal cases would be higher than one that included data from non-fatal gunshot injuries of the torso as well.

I have long maintained that projectile momentum is probably a better predictor of terminal ballistic behavior of handgun cartridges than kinetic energy is, so far as a simple metric goes. And although 147 grain 9 mm Luger projectiles often have less kinetic energy than 115 or 124 grain, they usually have better momentum. Projectiles with greater momentum are less likely to be stopped or deviated when they encounter denser tissues. So the autopsy results from torso wounds with 147 grain 9 mm projectiles may or may not correspond to the results with projectiles of less mass and momentum.

Here is a long article (184 pages) looking at the limitations of ballistic gelatin as a testing medium to model animal bullet wound trauma that examines, among many other things, the great variation in tensile strength of the various tissues found in the human thorax and abdomen:

http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/99527/2/02whole.pdf

Chapter 3 is of some interest because it analyzes autopsy data from 197 homicides in Israel that were the result of one or more gunshot wounds to the thorax and abdomen. Most of these cases involved multiple wounds so the total wound number was 440 and most were due to handgun cartridges of a variety of calibers, but there were also a number of rifle wounds. But what is striking is that it is actually pretty difficult to hit the human thorax or abdomen ("torso") without striking bone. In fact, of the 440 total wounds, 350 hit either rib or sternum, which is 80% of total wounds. If this finding caries over to gunshot wounds to the torso resulting from assault in general, then a study of torso gunshot deaths limited to 9 mm 147 grain JHP in which no bone was struck would be a case population so highly selected as to have little relevance to the entire spectrum of gunshot wounds of the torso in general.

Interesting perspective to be sure.

I, too, am of the opinion that momentum is a better predictor of terminal ballistic performance than kinetic energy.

Thanks for the PDF. Lots to digest, so I am going to have to look at the ''points of interest'' (Chapter 3, especially) you've mentioned.

 

[JohnG]

D. MacPherson and the late Dr. Martin Fackler, held that so long as the test medium possesses the same internal sonic velocity, bulk modulus and density as the tissues that they are being used to simulate that the resulting terminal ballistic performance (expansion, penetration depth) would also produce similar results in soft tissue—the source from which I refer to the average material properties being represented by 10% gelatin.

So, is it your position that both MacPherson and Dr. Fackler are incorrect in the 'average material properties' position?

ETA: You might find this paper to be interesting, too.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85505/8/RevisedGelPaper_Final.pdf

In it, the authors conducted mechanical compression experiments on gelatin specimens at strain rates spanning two orders of magnitude (∼0.001−0.1−1sec) and observed a nonlinear load-displacement history and strong strain rate-dependence. A compact and efficient visco hyper-elastic constitutive model was then formulated and found to fit the experimental data well.

When most hollow points hit a metal, bone, and even sometimes jean barrier they often do not expand appropriately. From what I've seen, if the velocity is calculated correctly by the manufacturer, hollow points expand reliably in gel. Ballistics gel clearly has it's place, but it's not a complete test...especially when we're talking about hollow points versus solid copper lehigh fluted rounds.

 

[tipoc]

Call me a cynic but the lack of identification as to who exactly did the study does somewhat make me skeptical about the authenticity, but it was certainly worth the read.

I feel the same way. Even the lack of the name of an author. It's a report no one claims responsibility for, so questionable.

Lehigh defense ammo and reviews...

https://www.lehighdefense.com/products/380-auto-90gr-xtreme-penetrator-ammunition?variant=1066236304

 

[czhen]

Ten percent ballistic gelatin is calibrated to simulate animal muscle tissue. It does not simulate the average density of any animal and anyone who thinks it does is grossly ignorant of its properties or what it is capable of simulating. Ten percent ballistic gelatin has a specific gravity of 1.02 g/cc so it is barely denser than water. Muscle tissue is of moderate density as animal tissues go. There are a few tissues that are less dense. Expanded lung tissue, for example, since it contains a significant amount of air which is obviously less dense than muscle has a specific gravity of only 36% that of muscle, and adipose tissue has a specific gravity of around 84% that of muscle. Brain tissue, liver parenchyma, and splenic parenchyma might be slightly less dense than ballistic gelatin since these tissues contain less connective tissue fibers than muscle does. But there are many animal tissues that are denser including skin, muscle fascia, capsules of the liver, kidney, and spleen, tendon, and obviously bone. Studies have shown that the average specific gravity of whole animal tissues is closer to 1.1, much denser than 10% ballistic gelatin. But when one considers humans the "average" specific gravity will be influenced significantly by the percentage of adipose tissue.

In the article cited by 481, all shots which struck bone were excluded from the autopsy studies which obviously skews the results. Furthermore, these wounds were all torso shots, many of which likely traversed less dense lung tissue during the path of the projectile further skewing the penetration data. Nor did the autopsy study look at the possibility that projectiles were deflected as they encountered denser tissues during the terminal ballistic phase.

Nobody is saying that ballistic gelatin is a useless test medium. But anyone who thinks that is duplicates the "average" properties of animal tissue lacks any real world experience with anatomy, histology, and actual gunshot wounds. I have an MD degree and have completed all of the coursework required for PhD candidates in human physiology at a major US University. I have studied human anatomy, and histology. I have over 20 years experience as a general and peripheral vascular surgeon including and attending staff surgeon at multiple Level II trauma centers. I have cut into human tissues of every variety and have a first hand knowledge of the variation in their density and toughness. I have seen and treated many gunshot wounds in the emergency department, the operating room, and some well-known trauma centers in major US cities.

When you see real gunshot wounds in the operating room they look nothing like the "wound cavities" seen in ballistic gelatin. That is because ballistic gelatin has no connective tissue holding it together. It also lacks any elastic tissue. Projectiles that traverse human tissue, even if we limit consideration only to those wounds that traverse soft tissue, cause the soft tissues to expand transiently but then the elasticity of the soft tissue causes it to retract back into position, and the collagenous fibers prevent the tissue from fracturing. The result with handgun wounds at least is that the actual physical damage is pretty much limited to the primary crush channel created by the projectile's passage. That is why it is very difficult to determine the exact caliber of a projectile from the wound. The bullet tract is not uncommonly smaller than the actual diameter of the projectile.

I have seen many instances in which a projectile either radically deviated or was contained upon encountering tissues of greater density other than bone. I will mention a couple of examples. The article cited above mentioned two instances in which the projectile was contained within the torso by the skin at the termination of its path. I have seen this many times. In fact, as a medical student rotating through the Cook County Trauma Center, I was instructed to carefully palpate the skin opposite the entry wound when an exit wound was not present because it was not at all uncommon to feel projectiles just below the skin that lacked sufficient momentum to penetrate the much denser cutaneous tissue. I recall one gunshot wound that resulted from a suicide attempt. This was from a 38 Special revolver at contact distance with an entry wound very close to the umbilicus (navel) and an exit wound just to the side of the lumbar spine. A direct path between the two wound have very obviously traversed the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum and the patient was taken to the OR for an exploratory laparotomy. But there was no penetration of the peritoneal cavity found. The projectile after penetrating the skin and subcutaneous tissue was redirected by the dense fascia of the anterior abdominal wall, tracking through the much less dense subcutaneous tissue in an arc all the way around to the back, and was then redirected by the dense fascia of the lumbar paraspinal muscles out the skin of the back. How often would we see phenomena like these with ballistic gelatin?

Ballistic gelatin is a reasonably good model for predicting penetration of projectiles that traverse muscle tissue and muscle tissue only, and to a lesser degree their likely expansion. Anything else is hit or miss.

I do agree with your statement Sr..
As CT Scan Technologist worked in major city Trauma Centers my experience is similar as you stated, not having wound.
exit is very common regardless the caliber usage.

 

[tipoc]

The information on 10% (and 20%) ballistic gelatin is readily available online in the form of original sources. It's also widely available in books and magazines and has been for quite some time.

This small article is fairly good and has links to original sources.

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

10% ballistic gelatin simulates the density of pig and human muscle tissue. The gelatin is carefully prepared and calibrated for use. (NATO and the military of some nations prefers a mixture of calibrated, 20% ballistic gelatin for it's testing.)

Ballistic gel is quite different from clear gelatin which some websites use. Lucky Gunner and some You Tube channels regularly use non-calibrated clear gel for their testing.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

While Brass Fetcher uses calibrated 10% and 20% ballistic gel for their tests.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/

Ballistic gelatin, properly mixed, kept at the proper temperature and calibrated is a uniform method of testing ammo and is an international standard. Prior to it's adoption, testing and evaluation of ammo was done by shooting into modeling clay, stacks of wet newspaper, layers of 1" pine boards, etc. The results were not as uniform as with ballistics gel.

The development of new and improved types of ammo, matched to specific jobs, increased greatly with the use of ballistic gel.

It is around ballistic gel that the FBI standards for penetration and expansion of defensive ammo were developed. For ammo both before and after penetrating through various barriers. You can read about that here:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI Ammunition Protocol/FBI Ammunition Protocol.html

"To be considered for civilian personal defense and Law Enforcement duty, a handgun bullet is shot 5 times through each of the following barriers: a bare ballistic gelatin block, a ballistic gelatin block covered in heavy winter clothing, two pieces of 20-gauge sheet steel (simulating the thinnest part of a car door) and then ballistic gelatin, wallboard and gelatin, plywood and gelatin and laminated car windshield backed by ballistic gelatin. The penetration depths in gelatin of each of the 30 bullets are then measured, the bullets are pulled from the gelatin and are then measured for expansion and retained weight. All of this data is entered into a spreadsheet which applies the appropriate weighting factors to the data. Penetration depths between 14.0-16.0 inches in the gelatin blocks are rewarded while under-penetration and penetration over 18.0” are penalized. Given that the FBI Protocol came to be due to an otherwise fatal hit that failed to stop one of the Miami shooters, due to under-penetration, bullets that penetrate less than 12.0” are penalized heavily. All shots are taken from handguns at a distance of 10 feet."

Ballistic gel will not tell you what a specific bullet, caliber or load will do in a human body. Nothing can do that. It does improve the construction of bullets and allows for refinement of a bullet's construction. A bullet that will penetrate 16" through gel and at least 12" into gel after passing through barriers will likely be a sound choice for defensive use.

tipoc

 

[481]

The information on 10% (and 20%) ballistic gelatin is readily available online in the form of original sources. It's also widely available in books and magazines and has been for quite some time.

This small article is fairly good and has links to original sources.

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

10% ballistic gelatin simulates the density of pig and human muscle tissue. The gelatin is carefully prepared and calibrated for use. (NATO and the military of some nations prefers a mixture of calibrated, 20% ballistic gelatin for it's testing.)

Ballistic gel is quite different from clear gelatin which some websites use. Lucky Gunner and some You Tube channels regularly use non-calibrated clear gel for their testing.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

While Brass Fetcher uses calibrated 10% and 20% ballistic gel for their tests.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/

Ballistic gelatin, properly mixed, kept at the proper temperature and calibrated is a uniform method of testing ammo and is an international standard. Prior to it's adoption, testing and evaluation of ammo was done by shooting into modeling clay, stacks of wet newspaper, layers of 1" pine boards, etc. The results were not as uniform as with ballistics gel.

The development of new and improved types of ammo, matched to specific jobs, increased greatly with the use of ballistic gel.

It is around ballistic gel that the FBI standards for penetration and expansion of defensive ammo were developed. For ammo both before and after penetrating through various barriers. You can read about that here:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI Ammunition Protocol/FBI Ammunition Protocol.html

"To be considered for civilian personal defense and Law Enforcement duty, a handgun bullet is shot 5 times through each of the following barriers: a bare ballistic gelatin block, a ballistic gelatin block covered in heavy winter clothing, two pieces of 20-gauge sheet steel (simulating the thinnest part of a car door) and then ballistic gelatin, wallboard and gelatin, plywood and gelatin and laminated car windshield backed by ballistic gelatin. The penetration depths in gelatin of each of the 30 bullets are then measured, the bullets are pulled from the gelatin and are then measured for expansion and retained weight. All of this data is entered into a spreadsheet which applies the appropriate weighting factors to the data. Penetration depths between 14.0-16.0 inches in the gelatin blocks are rewarded while under-penetration and penetration over 18.0” are penalized. Given that the FBI Protocol came to be due to an otherwise fatal hit that failed to stop one of the Miami shooters, due to under-penetration, bullets that penetrate less than 12.0” are penalized heavily. All shots are taken from handguns at a distance of 10 feet."

Ballistic gel will not tell you what a specific bullet, caliber or load will do in a human body. Nothing can do that. It does improve the construction of bullets and allows for refinement of a bullet's construction. A bullet that will penetrate 16" through gel and at least 12" into gel after passing through barriers will likely be a sound choice for defensive use.

tipoc

Good post!

It should also be noted that Clear Ballistics Gel, a polymer-based product, under-represents projectile expansion (by about 5% - 7%) and by extension over-represents penetration depth (by about 15% - 20%) when compared to the industry-standard 10% ordnance gelatin used by US law-enforcement agencies and the major domestic manufacturers. Brassfetcher (John Ervin, Mech. Eng.) has a video---



---that addresses these issues while highlighting the fact that there is no way to correct for its discrepant behavior. Also note that projectiles being tested in Clear Ballistics Gel exhibit pronounced 'rebound' within the temporary cavity (during its existence) that introduces considerable uncertainty/error in relation to the projectile's final penetration depth.

Another video, by Andrew Butts (aka ''The Chopping Block''), that brings into question results derived from testing in Clear Ballistics Gel is found here (I believe that it was sponsored by AR15.com):

 

[Shawn Dodson]

As for the tired and disproved claim that gelatin is unrealistic, scroll down this article to the section titled, "Where's the brain?", and read the rest of the article -- https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...al.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm

 

[MTMilitiaman]

D. MacPherson and the late Dr. Martin Fackler, held that so long as the test medium possesses the same internal sonic velocity, bulk modulus and density as the tissues that they are being used to simulate that the resulting terminal ballistic performance (expansion, penetration depth) would also produce similar results in soft tissue—the source from which I refer to the average material properties being represented by 10% gelatin.

So, is it your position that both MacPherson and Dr. Fackler are incorrect in the 'average material properties' position?

ETA: You might find this paper to be interesting, too.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85505/8/RevisedGelPaper_Final.pdf

In it, the authors conducted mechanical compression experiments on gelatin specimens at strain rates spanning two orders of magnitude (∼0.001−0.1−1sec) and observed a nonlinear load-displacement history and strong strain rate-dependence. A compact and efficient visco hyper-elastic constitutive model was then formulated and found to fit the experimental data well.

Right, but you have to acknowledge the limitations of ballistics gelatin as well.

Ballistics gelatin is used for a couple of reasons; it approximates the behavior of soft tissue with high velocity crush damage, and it provides a homogeneous substance that can be calibrated to provide scientifically valid and repeatable results. But it is only an approximation of the damage and only then within certain criteria. We know that ballistics gel provides a poor representation of damage inflicted by cutting instruments, for example. While used often for this purpose, anyone who has cut real meat knows the results obtained in testing on gel for things like knife testing, tomahawk throwing, and archery is wildly inaccurate. Watch Colt Steel videos where they cut two pig carcasses in half with a single swing and then use the same sword on a gel torso only to have it go six inches and stop. Or see an bow and arrow combination with a recorded history of passing through 200 pound wild pigs make it less than 10 inches into a block of ballistics gel. We also know that human beings are not homogeneous. Testing shows that the skin alone can account for up to 3 inches of penetration in ballistics gel. Meanwhile, air filled lungs offer almost no resistance. I've seen a lot of gel tests with the 200 gr XTP @ 1250 fps from a 10mm Auto. I know what that bullet can do in gel, what it does in water jugs, and what it does in tissue. I've seen it break the onside shoulder of a large doe, penetrate diagonally through the chest, and exit just behind the last rib on the offside--a distance of over two and a half feet, or nearly double the standard gel penetration depth of 18 inches. Gel will show cavitation damage in handguns when none is present in real tissue. Gel will also sonoluminescence when I have never seen evidence of this in tissue.
It is exactly the complexity of living tissue that makes its results not scientifically valid; all bodies are different so results can't be duplicated because scientific method demands there be only one control. When we use real flesh or other simulated "meat targets," we void our results because the target is complicated enough we can't be sure differences in our results were due to variances in the ammunition being tested or in the target. Using a homogeneous substance that we can calibrate gives us a test medium that is consistent enough to allow us confidence that any difference in our results comes from differences in the control, the ammunition being tested.

 

[pblanc]

Take a block of 10% ballistic gelatin and an equivalent thickness of pork steaks without the bones. Pound both with a sledge hammer and compare depth of penetration and nature of the damage sustained by the target. There will be dramatic differences.

Ballistic gelatin probably does a reasonable job of simulating the depth to which a projectile would penetrate through an equivalent thickness of human muscle tissue. But the viscoelastic and passive tensile strength even of muscle tissue is pretty anisotropic and depends on the direction of penetration. Ballistic gel tests often involve some type of cloth, or hard barrier in front of the block, but nearly always, this is arranged so that the projectile strike is perpendicular to the barrier surface, never oblique which is much more likely to result in projectile deflection. And you will never see a projectile penetrate 12-16" of muscle without having to first penetrate a layer of skin, then multiple layers of dense investing muscle fascia.

Another factor to consider is that the ammunition manufacturers are very well aware of the test protocols used by the FBI and specifically engineer their projectiles to provide optimal performance in that rather unique medium and testing scenario. Does that mean that those same projectiles will provide optimal performance in much more complex, inhomogeneous medium like an animal structure? Maybe it does, but not necessarily.

When I look at ballistic gel tests for handgun cartridges I too typically mentally subtract 3" or more of penetration to account for the effects of the skin barrier and various deeper intermediate barriers.

 

[MillCreek]

Dr. Pblanc, based upon your academic training and surgical experience, I would be interested to know the caliber and round that you carry.