Joint Agency Ballistics Test for Defensive Handgun Ammo

[Pat Riot]

I have an email in to the coordinator (Viper Weapon Training) asking if Viper conducted the training independently or in cooperation with the government agencies..will be interested to see the response..

Commo

Curious. Did you ever hear back?

Thanks

 

[JohnG]

Here's a meat test I did this weekend using roasts again. I tested Liberty Civil Defense (357 Sig and 40 S&W) and Ultra Light (9mm) and I also did a single test of the Lehigh Controlled Chaos 5.56 32 grain 4,300fps round. All the shots where fired through the 2" side of a 2x4 (to sort of simulate bone) and then into the meat.

The results seem quite impressive to me and I think unless you are having to shoot through a hard barrier like a windshield, then these rounds may be the most devastating. If a barrier is needing to be crossed first, then I think the Extreme Defender provides the most consistent wound channel (more so than a hollow point to include Liberty's offerings). I can only find a couple rounds that beat the Liberty rounds on the Lucky Gunner gel tests and they are of the 356 Sig variety.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

It looked like in each case the Liberty rounds began to fragment on the exit of the 2x4 thus causing the incredible wounding you see at the start of the meat. Also in each case, fragments exited the meat in at least one location with the base exiting the rear of the meat as well. And, oddly like my previous tests with the Underwood loaded Lehigh Extreme Defender rounds, the 9mm seemed to do at least as well if not better than the higher powered rounds. I can't really see much difference between the 9mm Liberty Civil Defense gel test on the link above compared to the 40S&W and 45ACP Lucky Gunner tests either.

The picture of the flattened out Liberty rounds below are a 9mm Ultra Light and a 40 S&W Civil Defense fired through a cinder block. Both rounds went through the wall of the cinder block like butter and were stopped by the back wall.

9mm from Sig P226
40 S&W from FNX 40
357 Sig from Sig P229
5.56 from 16" PSA

 

[bdickens]

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.

 

[ATLDave]

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.

Testing science is based around two concepts: Reliability and validity. Reliability is how often the test will generate the same results when testing the same inputs. Validity is how well the test measures the thing it is trying to test - e.g., how predictive it is of the thing to be measured. Both are important dimensions, and both are matters of degree, not absolute/binary/yes-or-no characteristics. One test can have less validity than another while still having some validity, and few, if any, tests can be perfectly valid. Same for reliability.

You are addressing reliability. You are correct that ballistic gel, when calibrated, offers a highly reliable test. It has few variables and if ammo is consistent then it will generally perform the same way in every ballistic gel test that is set up in the same way.

A separate question is ballistics gelatin testing's validity, in the scientific sense. Gelatin obviously has some validity. It is far less valid than shooting a human being would be, but the ethical, practical, and legal obstacles to that testing are considerable!

At present, most empirical testing of terminal performance is a choice between greater validity or greater reliability. When it comes to institutional decision making, and defense of awarding a contract to this or that vendor, reliability of a test is going to get a lot of weight... even at some expense of validity.

I think there's stuff to be learned from multiple different kinds of tests.

 

[bdickens]

That's a good point about validity. There's all kinds of ways one can test without getting useful results.

Shooting water jugs comes to mind. I'm sure it's a lot of fun. It's certainly interesting. But it doesn't tell us anything about how a bullet performs in a living creature.

 

[94045]

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.

Almost correct. It's reconstituted porcine tissue. Designed to mimic porcine muscle tissue.

 

[94045]

That's a good point about validity. There's all kinds of ways one can test without getting useful results.

Shooting water jugs comes to mind. I'm sure it's a lot of fun. It's certainly interesting. But it doesn't tell us anything about how a bullet performs in a living creature.

Water is a perfect expansion media. Failure to expand in water tells us you have zero chance of expansion in the intended target.

 

[film495]

does anyone ever test how well people actually shoot the various calibers? that would seem more important than what happens if you actually manage to hit a target.

 

[94045]

does anyone ever test how well people actually shoot the various calibers? that would seem more important than what happens if you actually manage to hit a target.

5 shots into 7-Ring of B3 (Just over 6") at 5 yards. 5 rounds x 5 sets each.
M2.0 Compact 9x19mm 124 +P vs .40 S&W 165 gr.

9mm averaged 0.02 seconds faster and 1.8 points worse than .40 S&W. Times varied by about 0.10 second so 0.02 is not statistically significant and neither was 1.8 points.

 

[film495]

5 shots into 7-Ring of B3 (Just over 6") at 5 yards. 5 rounds x 5 sets each.
M2.0 Compact 9x19mm 124 +P vs .40 S&W 165 gr.

9mm averaged 0.02 seconds faster and 1.8 points worse than .40 S&W. Times varied by about 0.10 second so 0.02 is not statistically significant and neither was 1.8 points.

What is this from? I did not see it in the linked study from the OP.

 

[94045]

What is this from? I did not see it in the linked study from the OP.

You asked does anyone test.
So I posted my results.
Comes down to whether you want 9mm for 16 rounds instead of 14.

Your mileage may vary. It only matters what difference it makes in your shooting.

 

[film495]

You asked does anyone test.
So I posted my results.
Comes down to whether you want 9mm for 16 rounds instead of 14.

Your mileage may vary. It only matters what difference it makes in your shooting.

cool. I really meant like an industry study - of what calibers an average person can actually shoot well.

 

[JR24]

cool. I really meant like an industry study - of what calibers an average person can actually shoot well.

That really was the basis of the FBI switching to 9mm. They determined that any advantage bigger calibers may have offered (which wasn't much, statistically) was offset by the fact that the 9mm was easier to shoot well for all shooters. More or less.

Also, training cost and ammo cost were a factor as well.

Me, I shoot 9mm fastest and most accurate at any type of speed, followed by .45 and trailed by .40. in addition, when shooting drills I find 9mm easier to shoot both accurately and rapidly, meaning it takes a lot less focus for me to shoot well and I figure that probably will help if I ever need to use weapon and will have adrenaline and all manner of other things going on in my head.

Still, I'm happy with any caliber bigger than 9mm and can make it work if I want to.

 

[film495]

That really was the basis of the FBI switching to 9mm. They determined that any advantage bigger calibers may have offered (which wasn't much, statistically) was offset by the fact that the 9mm was easier to shoot well for all shooters. More or less.

Also, training cost and ammo cost were a factor as well.

Me, I shoot 9mm fastest and most accurate at any type of speed, followed by .45 and trailed by .40. in addition, when shooting drills I find 9mm easier to shoot both accurately and rapidly, meaning it takes a lot less focus for me to shoot well and I figure that probably will help if I ever need to use weapon and will have adrenaline and all manner of other things going on in my head.

Still, I'm happy with any caliber bigger than 9mm and can make it work if I want to.

right, but the sort of arbitrary cut off to 9mm and larger kind of seems odd to me - and that is for trained officers. for average folks who carry that are not military or police or fbi, why is it assumed everyone can shoot 9mm well? because it is only compared to larger calibers that are harder to shoot. if the comparison was done with 9mm being the largest it would likely show - it is the hardest to shoot well.

 

[ATLDave]

right, but the sort of arbitrary cut off to 9mm and larger kind of seems odd to me - and that is for trained officers. for average folks who carry that are not military or police or fbi, why is it assumed everyone can shoot 9mm well? because it is only compared to larger calibers that are harder to shoot. if the comparison was done with 9mm being the largest it would likely show - it is the hardest to shoot well.

I mean, this is all pretty obvious. .22lr handguns are easier to shoot well than 9mm, while 9mm is easier to shoot well than, say, 10mm. Not to say they all cannot be shot well, or poorly. But giving the shooter more recoil, flash, and blast to deal with puts greater demands on flinch-resistance and recoil control/sight tracking for subsequent shots.

This part isn't really rocket science. The really hard part is the terminal ballistics stuff... figuring out what you're getting or trading away for that recoil increase or reduction.

 

[94045]

That really was the basis of the FBI switching to 9mm. They determined that any advantage bigger calibers may have offered (which wasn't much, statistically) was offset by the fact that the 9mm was easier to shoot well for all shooters. More or less.

Also, training cost and ammo cost were a factor as well.

Me, I shoot 9mm fastest and most accurate at any type of speed, followed by .45 and trailed by .40. in addition, when shooting drills I find 9mm easier to shoot both accurately and rapidly, meaning it takes a lot less focus for me to shoot well and I figure that probably will help if I ever need to use weapon and will have adrenaline and all manner of other things going on in my head.

Still, I'm happy with any caliber bigger than 9mm and can make it work if I want to.

My 9mm vs .40 results are only relative only to that platform. In a Shield I'm significantly faster in 9mm than .40 but I am more accurate and a little quicker in .45 but I suspect that is because the 9mm/.40 are just slightly to small a platform. Caliber arguments are stupid. Shoot which ever one you shoot best and the caliber will take care of itself (in the case of a tie then you can argue over 10% more capacity vs 28% or 62% more expanded area).

 

[JR24]

My 9mm vs .40 results are only relative only to that platform. In a Shield I'm significantly faster in 9mm than .40 but I am more accurate and a little quicker in .45 but I suspect that is because the 9mm/.40 are just slightly to small a platform. Caliber arguments are stupid. Shoot which ever one you shoot best and the caliber will take care of itself (in the case of a tie then you can argue over 10% more capacity vs 28% or 62% more expanded area).

Agree.

 

[481]

Water is a perfect expansion media. Failure to expand in water tells us you have zero chance of expansion in the intended target.

....and with any one of the three available mathematical models, it is also possible to predict maximum terminal penetration depth.

 

[94045]

....and with any one of the three available mathematical models, it is also possible to predict maximum terminal penetration depth.

Except the expanded diameter in water is different than gel or tissue.

 

[d2wing]

I thought most of that was accepted as common knowledge since at least 1989 when Fackler came out with "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets."

Fackler himself was great at using fake credentials and implying falsely that he was a military expert. His first works were nothing more that biased and incorrect observations of a coroner with no ballistic knowledge or training. He has made a career out of telling people what they want to hear with very little scientific knowledge, verifiable tests or basis. Like so many gun writers, self promotion and salesmanship and a smattering of what people like to hear.

 

[481]

Except the expanded diameter in water is different than gel or tissue.

No, sir, that is not the case. In fact...

Expansion in water and soft tissue are nearly identical as seen in the detail seen here—



—as cited in "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant" by Eugene J. Wolberg, Sr. Criminologist, SFPD: pages 10 - 13; Vol. 1, No. 1 Winter 1991, IWBA Wound Ballistics Review. Furthermore, the cited article also describes the strong correlation of bullet expansion and maximum terminal penetration depth in both human soft tissues and validated 10% ordnance gelatin confirming that there is indeed a rough 1:1 ratio of both parameters (expansion and penetration depth) between 10% ordnance gelatin and human torso tissue. The 9mm 147-grain bullets fired by officers penetrated to about 13" and expanded between 0.60 and 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin as stated in the cited article.

All three test mediums (10% ordnance gelatin, water, and pig soft tissue/muscle) are highly-researched, well-proven human soft tissue simulants/analogs.

 

[JohnG]

What if you could reduce the recoil of a 10mm by using Liberty Civil defense and maybe even a muzzle brake? You get low-end rifle ballistics (2400fps) with the recoil about a 40SW or less.

Or, you could use Liberty's 357 Sig and get 2300fps at greatly reduced recoil...

With both Liberty and Underwood/Lehigh (Extreme Defender), can someone explain the reason to use expanding bullets any longer? What is the advantage of old-style hollow points over Liberty and Lehigh?

You get a longer and more consistent wound cavity (especially through barriers) with Lehigh tipped bullets over traditional hollow points. The hollow points can cause more damage at entry into the gel, but are anemic compared to Lehigh past about 3".

And, you get low-end rifle ballistics with Liberty's offerings causing ridiculous temporary expansion with frangibles going all kinds of ways. And the Liberty rounds go through barriers too, albeit not usually as impressive as the Lehigh rounds.

Can someone please elaborate?

 

[481]

What if you could reduce the recoil of a 10mm by using Liberty Civil defense and maybe even a muzzle brake? You get low-end rifle ballistics (2400fps) with the recoil about a 40SW or less.

Or, you could use Liberty's 357 Sig and get 2300fps at greatly reduced recoil...

With both Liberty and Underwood/Lehigh (Extreme Defender), can someone explain the reason to use expanding bullets any longer? What is the advantage of old-style hollow points over Liberty and Lehigh?

You get a longer and more consistent wound cavity (especially through barriers) with Lehigh tipped bullets over traditional hollow points. The hollow points can cause more damage at entry into the gel, but are anemic compared to Lehigh past about 3".

And, you get low-end rifle ballistics with Liberty's offerings causing ridiculous temporary expansion with frangibles going all kinds of ways. And the Liberty rounds go through barriers too, albeit not usually as impressive as the Lehigh rounds.

Can someone please elaborate?

Sure.

It is in error—even though it is commonplace practice—to assume that the damage produced by a bullet passing through 10% ordnance gelatin correlates to actual damage that would occur in the human body. Soft tissues vary widely in their respective elastic strengths and densities. Damage will vary according to the mechanical properties of each soft tissue. Relying on the Clear Ballistics Gel product introduces even greater uncertainty because it has not been shown to replicate the properties needed to physically model soft tissues so any data taken from that medium is, at best, suspect.

 

[JohnG]

124g Nosler vs. Liberty Ultra Lights

 

[JohnG]

Sure.

It is in error—even though it is commonplace practice—to assume that the damage produced by a bullet passing through 10% ordnance gelatin correlates to actual damage that would occur in the human body. Soft tissues vary widely in their respective elastic strengths and densities. Damage will vary according to the mechanical properties of each soft tissue. Relying on the Clear Ballistics Gel product introduces even greater uncertainty because it has not been shown to replicate the properties needed to physically model soft tissues so any data taken from that medium is, at best, suspect.

Did you see the meat tests above? I feel like we're just going round and round in circles