Modified Gel Block Test 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hartkopf

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
2,781
Location
Texas
2CC8A1F7-334C-44D5-B05B-E34119EFD682.jpeg 01D02654-3725-44D3-BE4C-2F0B0CDE1905.jpeg I remelted my clear gel block for the 10th time but this time I added some tough plastic pieces to give the bullets more to deal with. The plastic is from a Tupperware style cereal container and it actually stretches some before being punctured. Possibly a little like connective tissue or membranes, definitely tougher material than bare gel. I poured the mold, let it cool just a little then inserted the plastic and let it cool 24hrs. I left the block in the sheet metal mold but cut the front face off of it to expose the gel on one end and it was shot while still in the mold. Here is the gel after it was shot and removed from the mold. It was all one piece with no gaps while being shot. It had been pulled apart at this point.
 
Last edited:
Ammo tested:

9mm GoldDot 124gr +p shot from Glock 19 gen 5.

40 S&W GoldDot 165gr shot from Glock 22 gen 4.

40 S&W Golden Saber 165gr shot from Glock 22 gen 4.

45ACP Golden Saber 230gr shot from Glock 21 gen 4.
 
Last edited:
And the final results: 69E57024-DA28-44E0-B250-836A1FEAC16F.jpeg

9mm GoldDot 124gr +p: 16”+ x .608, 16”+ x .564

40 S&W GoldDot 165gr: 14.75” x .577, 15” x .593

40 S&W Golden Saber 165gr: 12” x .701, 10” x .760(jacket) 15” x .510(core)

45ACP Golden Saber 230gr: 10” x .560, 11” x .692
 
Last edited:
Interesting note; I tested all of the above rounds in this exact same gel without any plastic inserts.(previous melt, also w/denim and Tshirt)

The results were easy to remember because they were all just about equal penetration.
Every round of every caliber lazily popped out of the back of the block with the exception of the GD 9mm which penetrated a milk jug.
The 40 Gold Dots only lost about 1" when having to deal with plastic inserts.
The 40 Golden Sabers went 16" in plain gel but were nowhere close to that with tougher material in the gel.
The 45 Golden Saber went 16" in plain gel but was WAY off in the modified gel test, and expanded less than the 40 GSs.

Some people claim the standard gel tests are total BS. I'm starting to agree. It gives a comparison but only from one point and your (and mine) favorite bullet might not cope well with layers of connective tissue. The test I did here is not calibrated to anything but it does give bullets more to deal with than pure squishy gel and it does it in layers. To me this test is like comparing two or more pick up trucks that all run great, until you hook up a 10,000 pound trailer and pull it up a hill and one truck doesn't make it to the top while others have little problem.

I have enough materials for one more test so the plan is to try 9mm and 45acp HSTs and possibly more Gold Dots tonight.
 
Last edited:
I think this is great - there's no perfect test but more data points are good. The one thing that's good about the gel tests is they provide a standard baseline to compare. Still, I'd love to see how 9mm HSTs perform in this test as that's what I carry more often than not. I have some 124 grain standard pressure in my 2.0C right now.

It looks like the 9mm Gold Dots performed really well. Actually so did the 40 Gold Dots although I like the little bit of extra penetration from the 9mm rounds.
 
I tested more ammo last night in the same gel with plastic inserts like the first test. The last insert was again at the 10" mark and it stopped several bullets at that point. Shot through 2 layers of denim and 2 layers of T shirt. I used a 40 S&W 165gr Gold Dot as a control and it was very similar to the previous test result.

9MM Gold Dot 115gr --- 16"+ x .475, ---16"+ x .475

9MM HST 124gr --- 14" x .552,--- 10" x .590

9MM HST 147gr --- 12.75" x .585 --- 14.75" x .640

40S&W Gold Dot 165gr --- 14.25" x .615

45ACP HST 230gr --- 10" x .890 ---10.5" x .795 (both stopped by last layer of plastic)

38Special Gold Dot 135gr +p --- 10" x .510
 
Interesting note; I tested all of the above rounds in this exact same gel without any plastic inserts.(previous melt, also w/denim and Tshirt)

The results were easy to remember because they were all just about equal penetration.
Every round of every caliber lazily popped out of the back of the block with the exception of the GD 9mm which penetrated a milk jug.
The 40 Gold Dots only lost about 1" when having to deal with plastic inserts.
The 40 Golden Sabers went 16" in plain gel but were nowhere close to that with tougher material in the gel.
The 45 Golden Saber went 16" in plain gel but was WAY off in the modified gel test, and expanded less than the 40 GSs.

Some people claim the standard gel tests are total BS. I'm starting to agree. It gives a comparison but only from one point and your (and mine) favorite bullet might not cope well with layers of connective tissue. The test I did here is not calibrated to anything but it does give bullets more to deal with than pure squishy gel and it does it in layers. To me this test is like comparing two or more pick up trucks that all run great, until you hook up a 10,000 pound trailer and pull it up a hill and one truck doesn't make it to the top while others have little problem.

I have enough materials for one more test so the plan is to try 9mm and 45acp HSTs and possibly more Gold Dots tonight.

Indeed. Gel is not tissue; 12" penetration in soft tissue (minimum FBI penetration requirement, of course) is generally not met by 12" penetration in 10% standard ordnance gel (let alone who knows what "uncalibrated" or lower density gel). It certainly doesn't take much to stop an expanded JHP once it slows down below cavitation -- even 1/16" skin can stop an expanded JHP at 350 fps, which is equivalent to about 4" penetration in standard 10% ordnance gel (more in typically less viscous gel). Another example, out of many, how gel is different from tissue; tensile strength of (connective soft tissue) tendons can be over 10,000 psi, and tensile strength of gel is -- such that you can stretch it with your pinkie (without much effort).
 
Last edited:
Gel is not tissue;
Obviously.

12" penetration in soft tissue (minimum FBI penetration requirement, of course) is generally not met by 12" penetration in 10% standard ordnance gel (let alone who knows what "uncalibrated" or lower density gel).
The minimum FBI penetration requirement is 12 inches in ballistic gelatin with certain barrier materials, as specified in the official, published FBI test protocol.

-- even 1/16" skin can stop an expanded JHP at 350 fps, which is equivalent to about 4" penetration in standard 10% ordnance gel (more in typically less viscous gel).
Does that refer to an exit wound?
 
Obviously.


The minimum FBI penetration requirement is 12 inches in ballistic gelatin with certain barrier materials, as specified in the official, published FBI test protocol.

Does that refer to an exit wound?

It's obvious to me that gel is not tissue -- from perspective that forces exerted on/by bullet in a standard 10% ordnance gel (let alone unspecified gel) are generally not the same as in tissue.
I've already quoted FBI's Urey Patrick as well as Duncan MacPherson in another thread stating that the minimum FBI penetration requirement is 12" in soft tissue (after whatever protocols barrier or none). Who are you quoting that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is not an FBI requirement?
Obviously if a JHP @ 350 fps is stopped by skin (which was my statement) -- there is no "exit wound."
 
I've already quoted FBI's Urey Patrick as well as Duncan MacPherson in another thread stating that the minimum FBI penetration requirement is 12" in soft tissue
Yes--misleadingly and incorrectly. Patrick said it, but it was neither an official requiement nor a requirement that could be included in an enforceable contract.

Try going to a Disputes clause over performance with Patrick's statement as your basis. You would lose. Fundamental contract law.

I have no doubt that the requirement was derived from the same information summarized by Special Agent Patrick in "Handgun Wounding... (etc)", in which he stated that a minimum penetration of 12 inches in soft tissue is necessary.

But that's something else entirely. FBI has never issued a requirement for minimum penetration in sort tissue.

For good reason. One party cannot require a level of performance in a product to be provided by another party unless it is possible to verify compliance on an objective, repeatable basis.

The requirement refers to penetration in ballistic gel, glass, fabric, plywood, wallboard, and and metal, strictly specified.
 
Last edited:
Yes--misleadingly and incorrectly. Patrick said it, but it was neither an official requiement nor a requirement that could be included in an enforceable contract.

Try going to a Disputes clause over performance with Patrick's statement as your basis. You would lose. Fundamental contract law.

I have no doubt that the requirement was derived from the same information summarized by Special Agent Patrick in "Handgun Wounding... (etc)", in which he stated that a minimum penetration of 12 inches in soft tissue is necessary.

But that's something else entirely. FBI has never issued a requirement for minimum penetration in sort tissue.

For good reason.

The requirement refers to penetration in ballistic gel, glass, fabric, and metal, strictly specified.
Again, I've quoted not only FBI's Patrick, but MacPherson who attended FBI ballistic workshop in early '93 where all attendees unanimously agreed that 12" penetration in soft-tissue is the minimum penetration requirement. Would you like a similar quote from Martin Fackler, also an attendee there?
Again, who (give a name) are you quoting that disputes that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue (after whatever barrier or none) is FBI penetration requirement?
 
Last edited:
Again, I've quoted not only FBI's Patrick, but MacPherson who attended FBI ballistic workshop in early '93 where all attendees unanimously agreed that 12" penetration in soft-tissue is the minimum penetration requirement.
QED, reread my edited post, and if that is insufficient, take a course in contract law, procurement specifications, or performance testing.

The soft tissue distance may well have been the basis for the final requirement, but it could never serve as a performance specification

Would you like a similar quote from Martin Fackler, also an attendee there?
No/ I am very familiar the subject.

Again, who (give a name) are you quoting that disputes that 12" penetration in soft-tissue (after whatever barrier or none) is not FBI penetration requirement?
Me, for one.

My basis? The facts that the FBI test protocols are published and that qualified laboratories perform officially approved tests to validate performance to FBI standards.

If an offeror's product does not pass those tests, it does not meet FBI requirements, PERIOD.

That's the way the world works.
 
QED, reread my edited post, and if that is insufficient, take a course in contract law, procurement specifications, or performance testing.

The soft tissue distance may well have been the basis for the final requirement, but it could never serve as a performance specification

No/ I am very familiar the subject.

Me, for one.

My basis? The facts that the FBI test protocols are published and that qualified laboratories perform officially approved tests to validate performance to FBI standards.

If an offeror's product does not pass those tests, it does not meet FBI requirements, PERIOD.

That's the way the world works.
I have read your posts. No one can guarantee, of course, that any practical bullet testing protocol will be adequate in any given situation. The FBI's minimum penetration requirement, of course, is a physiological incapacitation issue, not contract law issue. Since you have not been able to provide a name of anyone who disputes what attendees at '93 FBI ballistic workshop have unanimously concluded and agreed to, namely that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is required in order to reach and disrupt vital organs in most people (notice not all) I maintain that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is FBI's penetration requirement (regardless if some manufacturer's ammunition testing protocol or ammunition satisfies it or not).
 
QED, I do not know how to communicate with you. You lack some very basic understanding.

The FBI's minimum penetration requirement, of course, is a physiological incapacitation issue, not contract law issue.
It (the real requirement) is a performance specification and a validation testing requirement. It becomes relevant to contract law when it becomes necessary evaluate performance in terms of contract compliance.

Since you have not been able to provide a name of anyone who disputes what attendees at '93 FBI ballistic workshop have unanimously concluded and agreed to, namely that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is required in order to reach and disrupt vital organs in most people (notice not all)...
Who would who dispute that? Not I.

But you are using the word "required" in a difference sense.

Forensic medical experts did in fact agree that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is required in order to reach and disrupt vital organs in most people.

That was the basis of all of the FBI's requirements analysis, requirements definition, and testing protocol design that followed.

But one could design a cartridge on the basis of that kind of "requirement".

There is far too much variation in real soft tissue to objectively design, develop, and test a cartridge that will repeatedly demonstrate a minimum penetration distance of 12 inches in it.

For that reason, no one would issue such a requirement, and no one in his right mind would accept it.

Thus, the FBI developed and issued objective requirements, and whether they are met is indeed entirely a matter of test performance.

I maintain that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is FBI's penetration requirement (regardless if some manufacturer's ammunition testing protocol or ammunition satisfies it or not).
I hate to put it quite this way, but in a discussion of requirements definition, a discussion of product development, or a discussion of performance analysis, you would be ignored.

regardless if some manufacturer's ammunition testing protocol or ammunition satisfies it or not).
"Some manufacturer's ammunition testing protocol"? The protocol is defined by the FBI.
 
QED, I do not know how to communicate with you. You lack some very basic understanding.

It (the real requirement) is a performance specification and a validation testing requirement. It becomes relevant to contract law when it becomes necessary evaluate performance in terms of contract compliance.

Who would who dispute that? Not I.

But you are using the word "required" in a difference sense.

Forensic medical experts did in fact agree that 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue is required in order to reach and disrupt vital organs in most people.

That was the basis of all of the FBI's requirements analysis, requirements definition, and testing protocol design that followed.

But one could design a cartridge on the basis of that kind of "requirement".

There is far too much variation in real soft tissue to objectively design, develop, and test a cartridge that will repeatedly demonstrate a minimum penetration distance of 12 inches in it.

For that reason, no one would issue such a requirement, and no one in his right mind would accept it.

Thus, the FBI developed and issued objective requirements, and whether they are met is indeed entirely a matter of test performance.

I hate to put it quite this way, but in a discussion of requirements definition, a discussion of product development, or a discussion of performance analysis, you would be ignored.

"Some manufacturer's ammunition testing protocol"? The protocol is defined by the FBI.

You continue to dwell on product development, performance analysis, etc. etc. that manufacturers use to develop ammunition -- which may or may not result in adequate penetration to cause physiological incapacitation in any particular individual. However, manufactured ammunition, tested against whatever protocols barrier or none, must be capable of penetrating at least 12" in soft-tissue in order to meet FBI's bullet penetration requirement -- in order to cause physiological incapacitation in most people. Whether manufacturers' testing procedures can verify that or not is totally irrelevant in validity of FBI's 12" minimum penetration requirement in soft-tissue -- however, if the FBI penetration requirement of 12" minimum in soft-tissue is not met, bullet penetration may well be inadequate.

To simplify as much as possible: FBI requires 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue for physiological incapacitation "in the street," ammunition manufacturers attempt (with various degrees of failure) to simulate that requirement with "gel" in their testing facilities.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top