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

[Kleanbore]

You continue to dwell on product development, performance analysis, etc. etc. that manufacturers use to develop ammunition --

And on requirements definition and compliance.

-- which may or may not result in adequate penetration to cause physiological incapacitation in any particular individual.

Irrelevant.

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.

The ammunition must pass FBI testing protocols tp meet FBI requirements.

Whether it will cause "physiological incapacitation in most people" will depend on where the bullets strike.

Whether manufacturers' testing procedures can verify that or not is totally irrelevant

One more time, the tests are defined by the FBI.

in validity of FBI's 12" minimum penetration requirement in soft-tissue

The FBI has never issued such a requirement.

To simplify as much as possible: FBI requires 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue for physiological incapacitation "in the street,"

FBI and other personnel have concluded that such penetration is needed, but it is not an "FBI requirement".

...ammunition manufacturers attempt (with various degrees of failure) to simulate that requirement with "gel" in their testing facilities.

Manufacturers do perform the own testing for developmental purposes, but it does not objectively demonstrate compliance with FBI requirements.

For that, testing is performed by independent laboratories, using FBI gel formulas and barrier materials.

 

[QED]

And on requirements definition and compliance.

Irrelevant.

The ammunition must pass FBI testing protocols tp meet FBI requirements.

Whether it will cause "physiological incapacitation in most people" will depend on where the bullets strike.

One more time, the tests are defined by the FBI.

Fhe FBI has never issued such a requirement.

FBI and other personnel have concluded that such penetration is needed, but it is not an "FBI requirement".

Manufacturers do perform the own testing for developmental purposes, but it does not objectively demonstrate compliance with FBI requirements.

For that, testing is performed by independent laboratories, using FBI gel formulas and barrier materials.

You insist on dwelling on manufacturers' procedures and attempts to meet FBI's penetration requirement (as quoted to you in another thread from FBI's Urey Patrick, Duncan Macpherson, Martin Fackler if you like) which is 12" minimum penetration in soft tissue. Although the FBI specified what kind of barriers a bullet must pass through before penetrating a minimum of 12" in soft tissue; the fact remains that, for anatomical and physiological reason, the FBI penetration requirement has been, since 1993, and remains 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue after penetration of whatever protocols barriers or none. You have not been able to provide a name of anyone who changed that long-standing FBI bullet penetration requirement.

What are "FBI gel formulas" that you mention that provide confidence or assurance that if a bullet penetrates 12" in such gel it will penetrate 12" in soft-tissue?

 

[Kleanbore]

QED, I cannot tell it you are being argumentative for the sake of argument or whether you really do not understand how performance requirements are developed, defined, documented, issued, and validated.

Your statement "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" is just plain silly, and I'm afraid that if indicates the latter.

You certainly do not seem to have learned anything in this conversation.

Perhaps someone else can get through to you.

 

[QED]

QED, I cannot tell it you are being argumentative for the sake of argument or whether you really do not understand how performance requirements are developed, defined, documented, issued, and validated.

Your statement "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" is just plain silly, and I'm afraid that if indicates the latter.

You certainly do not seem to have learned anything in this conversation.

Perhaps someone else can get through to you.

I am desperately trying to learn something from your comments, so please answer my previously asked question so I can perhaps learn something -- what is "FBI gel formula" that you mentioned that provides confidence or assurance that if a bullet penetrates 12" in such gel it will penetrate 12" in soft-tissue?

 

[Kleanbore]

what is "FBI gel formula" that you mentioned that provides confidence or assurance that if a bullet penetrates 12" in such gel it will penetrate 12" in soft-tissue?

You are apparently assuming that today's FBI test requirements are intended to validate minimum performance in soft tissue.

You have no basis for that.

The gel formulas, the barrier materials, and the test procedures used are all publicly available.

Learn anything?

 

[murf]

why don't you two take this somewhere else. your discussion has devolved into personal insult and is of no help to anyone.

murf

 

[QED]

You are apparently assuming that today's FBI test requirements are intended to validate minimum performance in soft tissue.

You have no basis for that.

The gel formulas, the barrier materials, and the test procedures used are all publicly available.

Learn anything?

The basis for "assuming" that today's FBI bullet penetration requirement of 12" minimum in soft-tissue stands is that I don't know of anyone, and you refuse to give me a name of anyone, who changed it. However, I am certainly intrigued and very eager to learn what "FBI gel formula" that you mentioned is -- that provides confidence or assurance that if a bullet penetrates 12" in such gel it will penetrate 12" in soft-tissue?

I have heard of 10% ordnance gel that's commonly used by ammunition manufacturers as a soft-tissue simulant but would like to know just what is "FBI gel formula" that you mentioned?

 

[Jenrick]

Okay this is just silly. A grand total of 5 minutes of googl'ing later, reference the FBI gel requirement:

"The tissue simulant utilized in FBI ballistic tests is Kind & Knox or Vyse 250-A ordnance gelatin. The mixture is 10%, by weight. Properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is a reliable tissue simulant. Validation of ballistic gelatin is conducted by firing a .177" steel BB at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus 15 fps, into the gelatin, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). All gelatin was stored at 40° F until just prior to testing. The gelatin was placed 10 feet from the muzzle of the test weapon (unless otherwise noted)."

 

[QED]

Okay this is just silly. A grand total of 5 minutes of googl'ing later, reference the FBI gel requirement:

"The tissue simulant utilized in FBI ballistic tests is Kind & Knox or Vyse 250-A ordnance gelatin. The mixture is 10%, by weight. Properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is a reliable tissue simulant. Validation of ballistic gelatin is conducted by firing a .177" steel BB at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus 15 fps, into the gelatin, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). All gelatin was stored at 40° F until just prior to testing. The gelatin was placed 10 feet from the muzzle of the test weapon (unless otherwise noted)."

The FBI specifies barriers in FBI protocols tests but there is no "FBI gel formula" that was referenced earlier by another poster. FBI's gel requirement is this: It must duplicate or accurately simulate human tissue (obviously in attempt to see whether a bullet test in such gel meets or exceeds 12" minimum soft tissue penetration requirement because this is really what matters "in the street.")

Incidentally, there is also something Clear Ballistics calls "10% ballistic gelatin FBI block" that has different mechanical properties than 10% ordnance gel that you referenced -- and it also does not duplicate or accurately simulate human tissue.

This is really very simple to understand.

 

[94045]

This is silly.
Stop talking past each other.

1. Penetration FBI believes is required in Tissue to be successful.

2. That test requirements ammo must pass in order for the FBI to purchase it (Which does not include a tissue penetration requirement).

They are not the same so stop pretending they are.

 

[QED]

It wouldn't be silly to someone who needs penetration of 12" in soft-tissues of his attacker in order to cause physiological incapacitation and thus survive -- but his round only penetrates 12" in a gel that does not accurately simulate human soft-tissue.

 

[Jenrick]

The FBI specifies barriers in FBI protocols tests but there is no "FBI gel formula" that was referenced earlier by another poster. FBI's gel requirement is this: It must duplicate or accurately simulate human tissue (obviously in attempt to see whether a bullet test in such gel meets or exceeds 12" minimum soft tissue penetration requirement because this is really what matters "in the street.")

Incidentally, there is also something Clear Ballistics calls "10% ballistic gelatin FBI block" that has different mechanical properties than 10% ordnance gel that you referenced -- and it also does not duplicate or accurately simulate human tissue.

This is really very simple to understand.

What I posted is exactly what the FBI specified for their ballistics testing. You can quibble all you like about whether it's an accurate simulant for human flesh, but that is exact standard the FBI uses. Those two brands, mixed in that ration, stored at that temp, and tested with those protocols to verify it has the proper density. If you don't like that you are more than welcome to contact the FBI Firearms section to see if they'll even return your call/email on this topic.

You are correct that Clear Ballistics is NOT an approved substitute per the FBI for ballistics testing. Nor is wet newspaper, water, milk jugs full of water, etc. only the above listed two brands prepared the correct way. If you do some digging you can even find the exact prep method spec'd by the FBI to do testing.

 

[QED]

What I posted is exactly what the FBI specified for their ballistics testing. You can quibble all you like about whether it's an accurate simulant for human flesh, but that is exact standard the FBI uses. Those two brands, mixed in that ration, stored at that temp, and tested with those protocols to verify it has the proper density. If you don't like that you are more than welcome to contact the FBI Firearms section to see if they'll even return your call/email on this topic.

The FBI does not specify any particular gel as meeting its requirement that it duplicates or accurately simulates soft-tissue. What a gel manufacturer claims is something else, of course.

You are correct that Clear Ballistics is NOT an approved substitute per the FBI for ballistics testing. Nor is wet newspaper, water, milk jugs full of water, etc. only the above listed two brands prepared the correct way. If you do some digging you can even find the exact prep method spec'd by the FBI to do testing.

Sure, Clear Ballistics also claims that their product is "10% Ballistic Gelatin FBI Block." You can believe that as well, if you so desire.

 

[94045]

The FBI does not specify any particular gel as meeting its requirement that it duplicates or accurately simulates soft-tissue. What a gel manufacturer claims is something else, of course.



Sure, Clear Ballistics also claims that their product is "10% Ballistic Gelatin FBI Block." You can believe that as well, if you so desire.

Call Dayton T Brown and ask them what gel the FBI requires them to use in testing. Also ask them how much human tissue they use in testing.

 

[QED]

Call Dayton T Brown and ask them what gel the FBI requires them to use in testing. Also ask them how much human tissue they use in testing.

What's the point of a tissue simulant -- unless it duplicates or accurately simulates tissue that it's intended to simulate? The unanimous agreement of all participants in FBI's 1993 Wound Ballistics Workshop has been that 12" of soft-tissue penetration is required for physiological incapacitation in most people. Who changed that FBI minimum penetration requirement and when?

Do you have confidence that 12" bullet penetration in your favorite "FBI" gel will assure 12" penetration in soft-tissues of whoever you may have to deal with deadly force?

 

[94045]

What's the point of a tissue simulant -- unless it duplicates or accurately simulates tissue that it's intended to simulate? The unanimous agreement of all participants in FBI's 1993 Ballistics seminar/workshop has been that a minimum of 12" of soft-tissue penetration is required. Who changed that FBI minimum penetration requirement and when?

Do you have confidence that 12" bullet penetration in your favorite "FBI" gel will assure 12" penetration in soft-tissues of whoever you may have to deal with deadly force?

It's never been changed. The IWBA recommendation was 12-18" in 10% Ordinance Gel (15 being ideal) in Bare and Heavy Clothing Test and the FBI adopted it. In bare gelatin the bullet tends to expand larger and thus come closer to actual penetration seen in actual shootings. The bullets from actual shootings tend to look more like bullets shot in FBI Heavy Clothing or IWBA 4LD Test. Actual penetration in a body will vary depending on which part of the body it penetrates. More lung will increase penetration, more bone decrease it. It is true the IWBA has talked about changing the recommendation and the only proposals I know of where to increase the minimum penetration. I suspect the FBI chose to go with IWBA recommendation because that is the most qualified body to consider the topic.

If you prefer something that penetrates 18" in bare gelatin and 22" in 4LD you are certainly free to do so. If you prefer a more realistic test I would suggest a low profile. Testing on humans tends to be frowned on.

 

[QED]

It's never been changed.

Agree, 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue remains FBI requirement.

The IWBA recommendation was 12-18" in 10% Ordinance Gel (15 being ideal) in Bare and Heavy Clothing Test and the FBI adopted it.

Not quite. 10% "refrigerator compatible" ordnance gel is Fackler's invention and he overstated similarity of his "convenience" gel and tissue. IWBA is not FBI and Fackler in 1993 FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop agreed with 12" minimum penetration requirement in soft-tissue.

]In bare gelatin the bullet tends to expand larger and thus come closer to actual penetration seen in actual shootings. The bullets from actual shootings tend to look more like bullets shot in FBI Heavy Clothing or IWBA 4LD Test.[

Generally, but not necessarily. When expanded diameter of a given JHP in a body is similar to ED in 10% ordnance gel -- penetration is generally considerably less in a body (several inches not uncommon).

[Actual penetration in a body will vary depending on which part of the body it penetrates. More lung will increase penetration, more bone decrease it.

Major bones will often stop an expanded JHP if it's a solid hit (common self defense calibers).

It is true the IWBA has talked about changing the recommendation and the only proposals I know of where to increase the minimum penetration. I suspect the FBI chose to go with IWBA recommendation because that is the most qualified body to consider the topic.

Where have you read that FBI no longer requires 12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue, or 12" penetration in an accurate tissue simulant?

If you prefer something that penetrates 18" in bare gelatin and 22" in 4LD you are certainly free to do so. If you prefer a more realistic test I would suggest a low profile. Testing on humans tends to be frowned on.

My point is that commonly used 10% ordnance gelatin does not accurately simulate soft-tissue; 12" penetration in soft-tissue would be adequate, unless a major bone is hit of course, or if dealing with quite large adversaries.

 

[QED]

="Hartkopf, post: 11324781,
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.

Yes, If gel accurately simulates soft-tissue advocates put tendons (among other body soft-tissues with greater tensile strength than ts in gel) in the middle of their favorite "FBI" gel block, the penetration would change significantly from that in bare gel. But enough said, didn't mean to hijack your thread with discussion about how obviously forces on a bullet in a body are generally quite different than forces in whatever "FBI" gel.

 

[Hartkopf]

The point of my test was for different factory ammo of different calibers to be compared in something that is more demanding of the projectiles. Also to compare the results of plain clear gel, which I wrote in a quick summary on page one.

The hypothetical situation I had in mind was: A large muscular guy attacking a family member and he was shot from the side, with the bullet entering and exiting a large arm before entering the chest cavity at heart level.

Projectiles that penetrate 16+ inches in plain gel would seem to be adequate for this hypothetical in some people’s minds. Before I did this test, I thought I was good to go with a large caliber of an extremely popular cartridge. After this test, I changed my view of both my favorite caliber and projectile expansion.

I believe my homemade, backyard, budget test has told me more about cartridge performance than the hours I spent studying gel tests online. I admit to be totally biased towards the test I thought up though!

 

[Kleanbore]

The hypothetical situation I had in mind was: A large muscular guy attacking a family member and he was shot from the side, with the bullet entering and exiting a large arm before entering the chest cavity at heart level.

The FBI penetration standards were developed to cover situations most commonly encountered in law enforcement encounters involving the use of deafly force.

Because these situations rarely involve the shooting of naked people, only one of the tests involves the penetration of bare gel alone.

The several other tests all specify gel penetration by bullets that have already penetrated materials simulating clothing, car window glass, metal, and wall board.

The minimum penetration requirement of 12" was selected to take into account shooting the torso from any angle, and the very real likelihood that the shots will first strike an outstretched arm.

I have no idea what penetration distance in bare gel would meet the FBI requirement for gel penetration in the barrier tests, and the FBI does not care.

It's the minimum requirement. Bullets that hold together well and penetrate, say, 15" in FBI tests will score higher in source selection evaluations than those that meet the minimum.

By the way, there are other requirements, involving accuracy, flash, and other things.

 

[Kleanbore]

...12" minimum penetration in soft-tissue remains FBI requirement.

No. That surely was the basis for the development of the FBI requirements, but since it cannot be tested under repeatable conditions, it cannot be defined as a requirement.

That's a very fundamental tenet of requirements definition.

The FBI penetration requirement(s) are listed in a new post in a thread by that name.