Real Ballistic Gelatin vs Clear Ballistics Gelatin

[@PraetzelProjects]

I feel that the tearing gel is more accurate to real flesh. When butchering animals I feel that when a 30-06 goes through a deer it leaves much more of a permanent wound cavity than clear ballistics shows. Just my opinion.

[@cgsimons1187]

You may be correct relating to the effects of a rifle caliber. Pistol calibers though tend to go slower so the effects of hydrostatic shock should be far weaker.

[@AshGreen359]

Use Paul Harrell's meat targets

[@brianblackburn-author7531]

You know it! That test shows what a round does after going through several medias-realistic medias...

[@AshGreen359]

@old rabidus That's a valid point but humans aren't made of gel. Also a meat target is a lot easier to make at home

[@nicktaylor5952]

@old rabidus Gel doesn't show how a round performs in meat. It's just used to compare one round to another. There is nothing showing how it will hit person. Pauls test is 1,000,000 times better for that. Stop being a jello junkie lol

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

@@nicktaylor5952 Again, you're missing the point. Meat targets do not provide repeatable, scientifically valid results. They are interesting, but they don't allow us to compare different rounds in the same context as gel. Scientific method demands that there be only one control in an experiment. That means that only one thing can be different. Meat targets are complex. Like human bodies, they have different tissues of differing density and elasticity. No two meat targets are exactly alike, and they are complex enough that they can not be calibrated. Therefore, you can't compare results from one meat target to results in another meat target because the meat target introduces another control. With meat targets you can't tell if the variance between two rounds is due to differences in the target or in the rounds being fired. So the results are not repeatable or scientifically valid. Ballistic gelatin gives us a homogeneous substance of uniform density that can be calibrated. It removes the testing medium as a possible control and therefore allows rounds to be compared in repeatable, scientifically valid tests. Gel testing has its limitations, and many people extrapolate and otherwise misrepresent the data. For example, the rounds recovered from gel will typically look like rounds recovered from tissue, but gel does not tell us exactly what happens between. The wound channels can be compared to other shots into calibrated gelatin, but we can't say that X amount of penetration in gelatin will result in X amount of penetration in tissue, or even in Y amount of penetration in tissue. This is mostly because the complexity of tissue precludes any simple conversions. Rather, the best we can say is that rounds which penetrate 12 to 18 inches in gelatin will typically show adequate but not excessive penetration in tissue, and rounds which expand by at least half of their caliber tend to create more tissue damage than those which do not deform. Ballistics gel is not the best for showing realistic stretch cavities, as handgun rounds which almost never show cavitation damage in tissue can show stretch cavities in gel, and is really only applicable at all to crush damage from bullets. It does very poorly representing slicing damage. An arrow which will cleanly pass completely through a 250 pound whitetail buck will probably get only about a foot of penetration in gel. So when people use ballistics dummies to test blades and arrows, they are really not getting an accurate representation of damage. Gelatin is meant to behave like tissue in some ways and to some extent, but is not a direct substitute for tissue. Placing any sort of bone or other stimulant into it misses the results and invalidates the results. So those ballistics dummies are a novelty item. Serious professionals in the law enforcement and ammo manufacturing industries which test ballistics and need scientifically valid results use organic calibrated ballistics gel of specific sizes and under specific conditions. Clothing and other barriers may be placed in front of the gel, but nothing is ever placed into the gel because the thing that makes the gel useful and scientific valid is that it is a homogeneous substance of uniform density, and therefore removes the testing medium as a possible control, allowing for any differences in the results to be attributed to the ammunition being fired and not to some variance in the testing medium.

[@johnryan6658]

What I'd like to see is Paul Harrell use ballistics gel for the lung tissue portion of the meat target. He keeps switching between oranges and watermelon. 🍊 and 🍉 have very different consistencies.

[@ObservingLibertarian]

Try using off the shelf commercially available gelatin mix and making several batches with a different admixture of corn starch, or potato starch, with the gel mix until you get a gel which *does* match the true FBI spec resistance to penetration, but is more clear and mimics the realism of wound channel as seen in the clear gel. When you find out what mix (be it 10/1 gelatin to starch, or 10/2, or whatever the recipe ends up being) let us know. Then we can begin doing ballistic testing with a recipe to work worth: G amount water + Q amount commercial gelatin + R amount starch = H volume of gel. Dong our tests with a gel which mimics both the penetration resistance of FBI spec gel and accurately displays the wound channel as we see from clear gel. This would also provide ar15.com with a product to sell for hobbyists: easy gel kits which include pre-measured packets of both with perhaps a container specifically designed for making the molds with a specific volume of water to fill that mold using those pre-measured packets. At a substantially reduced price than currently available FBI gel or clear gel.

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

I look at it a different way. As long as the gel is consistent, I don't care if it is to or away from FBI specs. For example the key things we look for is penetration depth. Simple way to counter that is during the BB calibration use the penetration depth and the FBI recorded BB depth and create a ratio. Multiply that by the desired penetration range distances to get the penetration you need to see in your gel. For an even more accurate method that has less measurement error, buy a box of ammo that has published gel results in ordinance gelatin and then fire it in your gel and compare the differences to get a benchmark for future tests. I used to do the regular knox gel formulations, but it is a hassle, the stuff spoils fast, it becomes opaque after the first cast, spoils easily, and melts quickly (which also ruins the perceived accuracy of the gel). Clear ballistics solves all these hassles which IMO makes it better than the ordinance gel. My clear gel blocks pay for themselves within 5 uses, that IMO is huge. Plus I do get a more accurate interpretation of the gel since I can see through it rather than having to cut slices, photograph it and then try to piece together the wound channel in my mind as I scroll through the images. The FBI can run cooled ranges and buy gel powder in bulk on the taxpayers dime, I have to make do on my budget and IMO the fraction of an inch error from the conversion is not going to appreciably change my findings.

[@ChattanoogaDan]

Bro, 4 inches is huge. Trust me, I've had to argue this fact my whole life.

[@meowmeowmeow594]

LMAO. Same here.

[@johnryan6658]

All I have to say to the two of you is that you better have a lot of girth. I'm talking "like a cheese wheel." Ron White

[@namechamps]

I would agree it is good enough for amatuer testing with on EXCEPTION. If you are getting ~20% deeper penetration you can't compare it to the FBI 12" to 18" yardstick. 12" to 18" in organic gelatin is likely comparable to 15" to 22" in clear gel. The big problem especial in common 380 acp test is hey it did 12.1" in clear gel so it is fine for self defense. Well maybe not if clear gel overestimates penetration. The same round from same gun fired into organic (ballistic) gel likely will do 2" less.

[@texasbeast239]

People shouldn't be content with 12 inches, anyway, regardless of gel material. That's the bare minimum from a direct head-on unobstructed shot. To my understanding, it's a "D" grade shot: passing, but just barely, and it does not necessarily mean that you will get satisfactory results in any other application than that specific one tested. Different angle, slightly bigger than average person, etc., and your D-grade ammo could likely come up short.

[@johnryan6658]

I was thinking 16" to 24" for clear gel. That, almost for sure, would meet the 12" ordinance gel minimum.

[@cgsimons1187]

Relating to .380 ACP and standard(weaker than +P) 38 Special: My understanding is that the hollow points in those calibers will either fail to expand or when they do expand, they go shallow. FMJ(round or flat) is ideal. It kind of stinks, but at least they are highly concealable and able to punch holes bigger than the .32 ACP.

[@vaeve01]

You may want to consider density as well as size differences, a bullet pushing 1” of mass out of it’s way, will travel further than the bullet pushing 2” of mass.

[@texasbeast239]

Andrew, I found a 2019 Police1 daht cahm study comparing organic to clear gel results on popular 9mm defensive cartridges, authored by Mike Wood. Their results showed: •35.5% avg. greater penetration in bare clear gel, and •48.1% avg. greater penetration in heavy clothing gel. 🤯😳 When Police1 conceded that organic gel varies in density and penetration depths as well, sometimes, so they worked a fudge factor in allowing for extreme density variation. They still report: •24% greater penetration, bare, and •36% greater penetration, heavy clothing. They also found that the clear gel blocks failed BB calibration tests, despite the affidavits from the manufacturer. (Sorry I didn't include a link, but YT has been deleting my posts containing links to sources.)

[@allthingsgood8265]

Clear isn’t as powerful as the real one. The color is because of the material in it which makes it stronger

[@ChattanoogaDan]

I feel like the point of ballistics gel is to observe expansion and compare penetration among rounds. As long as you are shooting into a consistent gelatin it shouldn't matter if one gelatin is different from the other. The clear gelatin simply gives the advantage of better visibility

[@johnryan6658]

The problem is that you need a penetration depth standard to shoot for.

[@cgsimons1187]

John Ryan - You're correct. In fact, I had been looking at gel tests with the impression that if the bullets reach 12-18 inches and expand well, they should be good for defensive purposes. Now I'm less certain of those rounds since they may all be falling short of 12" in a proper ballistic testing medium. Run into a big bad guy and/or his arm gets in the path of the bullet, and he may be alive and capable far longer than if a truly capable bullet went far enough in to shut him down.

[@alexanderm8880]

I've noticed that you've gone back to using Clear Ballistics in your TFB and other channel videos--have they resolved this issue?

[@richjageman3976]

I have used calibrated natural gel blocks and different synthetic clear blocks and the results never matched. Mostly penetration depths, some clear blocks were all over the place shorter and longer and others would be consistently less or greater.

[@vihreelinja4743]

You can "bleach" natural gelatin to make it clear. just use couple drops of hydrogen peroxide when mixing it

[@DefensibleBallistics]

Hey guys, some 'bugs' in this video, such as the original mixture of gel that you are using and fracture marks (which actually shows extravasive damage - bleed areas). Happily arrange a terminal ballistics training session for you.

[@tappedandtagged]

Pigs. Test them on feral pigs.

[@JimmyEG1]

Yeah pig tissue is similar to human being

[@chopinbloc]

That's actually how we arrived at 10% ballistic gelatin in the first place. Military testing was done on recently killed pigs (and sometimes live pigs) and penetration was compared to various test media. Later, the FBI adopted 10% gelatin as the standard after noting that penetration in the media correlated strongly with wounds in humans from real gun fights. While you can't just test ammo in people, you can measure the wounds that people have sustained and then fire the same type of ammunition into various media and compare the results, which is what they did.

[@johnsmith4630]

+The Chopping Block so how did the mil choose 20% while the fbi 10%?

[@chopinbloc]

The military was mostly testing FMJ rifle ammunition. 20% blocks don't have to be as large.

[@jamescobrien]

tappedandtagged Feral hogs have a shield on them that humans do not. Rage broadheads do barely penetrate boar's shields but will pads full through a deer. So hogs are not similar to human bodies whatsoever. Hogs are tough as fuck. I saw a video of a guy pumping a hog with round after round from a Desert Eagle and tbe hog was still charging him.

[@Spearfisher1970]

I don't have a dog in this race, but I disagree that a narrower block of X will provide the same resistance to expansion and, thus, travel, as a wider block. If I had to guess - which I did have to guess at the beginning of this video once you pointed out that they were NOT similar tests/blocks - my guess would have been / actually was that the smaller block would show more penetration. If you could shoot a round evenly enough at a 4" by 4" block of gelatin - of either type - that was the exact same length, would you not guess that the round would go further through it?

[@chopinbloc]

Copy/pasted from my reply on the other video: Width of the block is irrelevant. If it affected penetration depth, then location of the shot within the block (proximity to edge) would also affect penetration depth and there is no mention of such in the FBI protocols. Moreover, we see the same penetration depth in disparate tests using different blocks of the same material. The reason is that all the expansion you see in the gel occurs long after the projectile has passed. Good critical thinking, though.

[@nathan_k]

Thanks for the even-handed comparison! Would be interesting to see a standards body org do some evaluation. We went through the same thing with synthetic bone analogues for medical device testing (sternal closure). There were two artificial bone models, each with strengths and weaknesses (figurative), and osteoporotic bone (real life) threw both for loop.

[@texasbeast239]

The organic gel result was 80% of the clear gel result. O=.80xC The clear gel result was 125% of the organic gel result, or 25% greater. C=1.25xO

[@AshGreen359]

Then use 20% clear gel instead of 10. No sense in watching the video if you can't see into the block

[@mkshffr4936]

Would love to see this repeated with the 20% clear.

[@mikhalize]

Excellent review. Very well thought out with good and reasonable explanations.

[@chopinbloc]

Thank you.

[@Mrandher83]

Brass Fetcher now works for Sig Sauer’s ammo dept.

[@zanpekosak2383]

Stop killing gelatin! I am a loyal gelatinist. Gelly lives matter!

[@justinkase1360]

There are good DIY ballistic gel recipes available on youtube that are MORE accurate than the clear gel. Within 1% apparently. Basically exactly the same.

[@JB-uk7mn]

This dude is the only KZbinr who’s getting visibly younger 😂

[@ammoandgeardeals]

It blows smoke out the hole too.

[@agoogleuser4354]

Great tests, thank you. I always thought this might be the case. Look at tests by TNOutdoors9 - he doesn't use clear gel, and his tests results very closely match those published by ammo manufacturers (from 4" pistol barrels). Other sources (PocketGunsNGear, MrGunsNGear) do use clear gel and their results are a little questionable. Seems like their tests don't mimic ammo makers very closely.

[@52hubcap]

A total of 4 shots, 2 per block does NOT give a statistically significant determination of anything.

[@professoreggplant9985]

Are you tryin' to say I can't use a cannon for self defense?

[@DerekRC]

I call BS to be honest. If you take two shots both will be different. Clear ballistics makes a great gel block which is as good if not better than a standard 10% gel block. Regardless bone is never considered and would change results.

[@QarthCEO]

Bone is not considered because gel is not intended to be a real-body simulation. It's just a consistent test medium that can be used to test rounds against each other under identical, controlled situations. That is why you cannot compare organic gel results to synthetic gel results. All tests that are compared to each other must be from the exact same test medium. Organic to organic, synthetic to synthetic. You cannot use FBI standards in synthetic gel because the FBI does not use synthetic gel, they use organic. The two materials will not perform identically because silicone is very different than protein. As far as I know, no one has set an official penetration standard for synthetic gel yet, but I am sure some organization will eventually because synthetic material is simply superior in almost every way.

[@QarthCEO]

@Travis Thacker Yeah, and that statement demonstrate that they do not understand the purpose of gelatin testing. It's not a flesh simulation, it's just a consistent test medium. The penetration you get in gelatin is not going to correlate very well with what you get in an actual body since penetration will vary radically depending on shot placement. The gel testing just serves to allow a very controlled test each time it is used, nothing more.

[@QarthCEO]

@Travis Thacker Gel testing does not reflect anything in the real world except what a bullet does in gel. The FBI came up with real world ballistics standards first, then saw which projectiles met those standards, then eventually tested them in gel, and from there came up with gel standards to get a baseline IMPRESSION of penetration characteristics of different rounds. Those gelatin ballistics are just bare minimum qualifications for a projectile and far too much emphasis is placed on them by civilians. The FBI sees them as nothing more than a prequal. The test does not reflect barrier penetration or any of the other stuff you claim. If a round passes the gel test, then it passed the bare minimum P/OP test and can be further tested in other means to get more precise numbers. Many rounds pass the gel test but exhibit far different characteristic in actual tissue, which is why gel is not relied upon for actual penetration results.

[@johnryan6658]

To make it easier for everyone, I want the FBI to come up with a penetration standard for clear gel.

[@stephenrobbins6353]

Comparable media , to compare results. If every one is using clear then it shows how cartridges compare

[@wetwriterrr]

I think both need to be at 98 degrees otherwise his test is shaky as the density/elasticity is effected by temp.

[@BuckeyeBallistics]

Soooo, nobody noticed that the clear gel ignited and smoked? With the initial shot, you can see a puff of smoke trailing off to the left. Then in slow motion, you can actually see for a split second an ORANGE fireball INSIDE the block where the temporary cavity is! Then just after, smoke starts shooting back out the entry hole from the explosion? Nobody noticed this? Not even the guy that made the video? Explanation please!

[@pault2148]

Usually there is still unburnt powder following the projectile and burning powder stuck to the backside of the projectile, which is still burning after entering the gel block, from such a short distance.

[@kylelaser6705]

It queefed

[@wisper6419]

I believe it is called a bouncy bubble. as the bubble collapses it compresses the air creating a tiny explosion, with the materials that the silicon is made of a small quick fire is started but instantly put out and the smoke is shoved out of the hole. This does not happen in the other gel because of what it's made of. Watch Smartereveryday's video AK-47 underwater kzbin.info/www/bejne/maGYmJeLfat6f7M It's really cool

[@sashamarshburn8460]

I don't think that has anything to do with the actual penetration length. It's just a small explosion.

[@texasbeast239]

My theory. Synthetic clear gelatin is made of petroleum/ hydrocarbons, so it is flammable. When a block of it is rapidly stretched, microscopic particles of it are vaporized and aerosolized. And then when the gel and air voids are compressed back down again, those synth gel particles are detonated.

[@whynot-ts9rf]

Were is buy?

[@evelbill1439]

I know it’s fun to look at the wound tracks and compare them for all the different bullets and loads out there, I like it too. But it’s important to know that 10% ballistics gel was developed to compare what tissue does to the bullet itself and not to see what the bullet does to the gel. I know this seems like a small point but it’s actually very important. The formula for making the original ballistic gelatin was carefully developed so that bullets could be tested in an exactly repeatable medium. If you touch it and it feels like human flesh to you, you should put down all your stuff and go out, meet some real people and have some dates and shit. It was meant to show how real bullets behave at terminal velocities not reproduce the wound channels of real tissues. Remember that human beings are made of layers of different tissues, of different densities, and of various strengths and hardnesses. Did you notice the lack of bones when you first saw it? Organs? Skin? When you realize that there are no internal spaces like in a human body my point becomes clear. But it’s still fun as hell to shoot and compare, and very sobering when you imagine that it’s an analogue for a real human being who was loved by his parents at one point.

[@texasbeast239]

Could you cite a source for that? I know Andrew has said it in other videos as well, but I haven't heard the source. In the classic ballistics literature from the '80s, Fackler very clearly says that, barring skin and bone, gel damage tracks DO mirror tissue wound tracks. This is why his team called the gel damage tracks "Wound Profiles" in his catalog of ballistics testing results. He claimed that his gel tests accurately reflected autopsy results for the same ammo. It is entirely possible that updated ballistics science has come along since then which has improved upon Fackler, and I'm just not aware of it. But usually, we are admonished to go back and read the classics, and that doesn't really help here.

[@johnryan6658]

What you said in the middle is funny because you know how guys are. You know at least some of the guys who got those blocks looked at them and wondered what it would feel like to put their 🍆 into it.

[@TerminalM193]

Why nosler? Thought for sure we would see 556 & maybe 6.2 or 308.

[@Yasin_Abdul]

I made my own gel and I’m target shooting it from 12 yards than at 15 yards but every ammo goes straight through. I’m not understanding this trick. So how far (YARDS) are you setting your gel target?

[@TimKollat]

where do you get the professional grade ballistics gel? If you're making your own then how do you know its professional grade ordinance gel? Is there a formula the FBI released in order to make our own gel that is the same as they test?

[@QarthCEO]

Yeah, the formula is 10% gelatin and you can test it with BB's.

[@lorenzgabriel9783]

Question about ballistic gel... is the traditional or “homemade” ballistic gel the food-grade gelatin like Knox? I am researching mediums for tissue density of body structures... my disappointment with ballistic-gel-mediums or ballistic-gel-mediums with underlying skeletal structures alone, is that they do not take variable density into account. Food grade gelatin becomes less dense when heat is applied (I don’t know if synthetic does the same) and for overall “body tissue” density, is the density desired of ballistics-gel an average density of ALL non-rigid body tissues? Is there a density formula anybody knows of that is accepted as the standard for desired density in ballistic gel testing?

[@bartoszfikus1963]

Can the Author write which camera type he used?

[@Thweatt]

Let me tell ya, 4 inches is a big deal.. #whiteboyproblems

[@ethangaley3968]

Explain to me how u get .6 in measurements it should be a fraction

[@mnbucks2929]

6 tenths of an inch

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

@@mnbucks2929 What he means is how do you measure a tenth of an inch, when rulers are graduated in 1/16, 1/8, and 1/4 of an inch. The answer of course is he approximated. But those kind of details can matter in some really nitty gritty testing.

[@texasbeast239]

You use a scale that is marked in one/tenths of an inch versus being marked in the familiar one/thirty-seconds of an inch. I believe the decimal scale is used more often with engineers, and the fractional scale more often with architects and contractors.

[@mnbucks2929]

Exactly what I was saying. I agree with Texas BEAST.

[@sladeoriginal]

4 inches can easily make the difference

[@Kross8761]

I wonder how much of a part bullet construction has to play in the differing performance, for instance bonded soft points actually require more resistance in order to expand than say a non bonded match bullet. I wonder if match bullets would perform more similarly OR more differently, would they significantly differ due to the small variations in impact resistance or would they wind up being more similar? I'd love to see a side by side comparison of an ELD-M or a TMK through both blocks

[@samlankford9333]

Tf does "appropriate for defense" mean?!

[@ShastaBean]

what did you use to make the organic gel?

[@brianknickerbocker8518]

15.6, not a builder I guess.

[@isaactrujillo76]

I hate hearing people read tapes. 😂

[@citizen1114]

I'd use the clear gel just because of cost.

[@QarthCEO]

Clear gel is way, way, way more expensive than organic gelatin. Clear Ballistics charges 120 bucks for a 16 inch block. You can make organic gelatin at home for a couple bucks.

[@DaveSmith-cp5kj]

@@QarthCEO Clear gel is cheaper because organic gelatin degrades and spoils very quickly and has to be kept refrigerated. The costs for organic gelatin is much higher than clear gel which only has to be heated prior to casting, and remains solid at room temperature.

[@QarthCEO]

@@DaveSmith-cp5kj Dave, the cost of storage is largely irrelevant to people like us. We are not lab techs that need to store these blocks. All we really care about is how much money it will cost to acquire the gel block and shoot at it. We will toss it out at the end of the day, not store it for reference. I can whip up a batch of 1:9 organic gelatin the night before I shoot it for about 5 bucks. If I need to transport it, I just stick in an ice chest with 2 dollar bag of ice. Whereas an 18 × 4 × 4 clear gel block is 99.98 dollars and 11.04 to ship.

[@shannonp4037]

@@QarthCEO TATV Canada made his last 2+ years with peroxide and something else added. No green/white nasty mold. Place in the fridge 24 hours prior to reusing it to stiffen up. Meltable to reform after many shots. As for your cooler ice, place water on a cookie sheet/jelly roll pan and you have flat ice for the bottom of your cooler to transport.

[@johnryan6658]

@@QarthCEO no, it's like batteries. Yes, rechargeable batteries will cost you more up front, but they will save you money in the long run over using alkalines. Clear gel is the rechargeable.

[@JamesSmith-gt2tq]

Retained weight and so forth is going to vary anyway shot to shot...?

[@oubliette862]

That was good stuff.

[@justinkase1360]

What makes this guy think tearing with gelatine is not as representative? Seems baseless, he doesn't specify why.

[@sMp23152]

How do you know that the wound channel in the clear gelatin actually replicates a real wound channel more accurately. I've never seen this KZbinr, so if he's a doctor of physiology or a forensic ballistics expert and I'm talking out of school here, please let me know. I may be totally ignorant in saying this, but something like the actual pattern of a wound channel in human flesh doesn't sound like something an expert armchair forensic scientist or popular a guntuber would actually know in so much as "a fact" that he heard - which might not be correct (i.e. everyone who knows anything about physiology knows that swallowed chewing gum stays in your digestive track for 7 years).

[@brentmack51]

Also a huge fan of the nw canuck

[@alexmason1387]

Police call your range, nasty.

[@stevet47]

How does a grown man not know how to read a tape measure? 15.6” and 19.4”? Huh!? How exactly do you come up with those measurements? I can only assume he meant 15 5/8” and 19 3/8”.

[@johnryan6658]

Rounding.

[@Hornet135]

decimal inches

[@ToXSicK1340]

Thank you for the Testing and Video's. I would LOVE to see how different popular Self Defense carry ammo performs out of different carry Guns and different barrel lengths. I have read A LOT of back n forth on how "X" ammo is Great in "X" gun with "X" barrel length and then I read the EXACT OPPOSITE. Thanks again.

[@chopinbloc]

Please bear in mind that anyone can write a blog post or loudly state an opinion, regardless of qualifications. I'm just some guy, too. The important thing is to read the credible works on the subject such as the FBI's report "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and to disregard apocryphal works like the oft discredited Marshall & Sannow book "Stopping Power".

[@ToXSicK1340]

The Chopping Block Thank You Sir.

[@chopinbloc]

+Phil G. No, thank you.

[@agoogleuser4354]

+Phil G. If you carry a 9mm, look up ShootingTheBull410 KZbin channel and search "9mm Ammo Quest." Best resource I have found so far .

[@ToXSicK1340]

***** Will Do, Thank you Brad.

[@DanGoodShotHD]

You got it ALLL wrong! ;) Just trollin' around! Good info. Thanks!

[@samhicks7568]

Good video, thanks.

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

A lot of people don't understand gel testing and might suggest "meat targets," or other more "realistic" testing mediums. Meat targets do not provide repeatable, scientifically valid results. They are interesting, but they don't allow us to compare different rounds in the same context as gel. Scientific method demands that there be only one control in an experiment. That means that only one thing can be different. Meat targets are complex. Like human bodies, they have different tissues of differing density and elasticity. No two meat targets are exactly alike, and they are complex enough that they can be calibrated. Therefore, you can't compare results from one meat target to results in another meat target because the meat target introduces another control. With meat targets you can't tell if the variance between two rounds is due to differences in the target or in the rounds being fired. So the results are not repeatable or scientifically valid. Ballistic gelatin gives us a homogeneous substance of uniform density that can be calibrated. It removes the testing medium as a possible control and therefore allows rounds to be compared in repeatable, scientifically valid tests. Gel testing has its limitations, and many people extrapolate and otherwise misrepresent the data. For example, the rounds recovered from gel will typically look like rounds recovered from tissue, but gel does not tell us exactly what happens between. The wound channels can be compared to other shots into calibrated gelatin, but we can't say that X amount of penetration in gelatin will result in X amount of penetration in tissue, or even in Y amount of penetration in tissue. This is mostly because the complexity of tissue precludes any simple conversions. Rather, the best we can say is that rounds which penetrate 12 to 18 inches in gelatin will typically show adequate but not excessive penetration in tissue, and rounds which expand by at least half of their caliber tend to create more tissue damage than those which do not deform. Ballistics gel is not the best for showing realistic stretch cavities, as handgun rounds which almost never show cavitation damage in tissue can show stretch cavities in gel, and is really only applicable at all to crush damage from bullets. It does very poorly representing slicing damage. An arrow which will cleanly pass completely through a 250 pound whitetail buck will probably get only about a foot of penetration in gel. So when people use ballistics dummies to test blades and arrows, they are really not getting an accurate representation of damage. Gelatin is meant to behave like tissue in some ways and to some extent, but is not a direct substitute for tissue. Placing any sort of bone or other stimulant into it misses the point and invalidates the results. So those ballistics dummies are a novelty item. Serious professionals in the law enforcement and ammo manufacturing industries which test ballistics and need scientifically valid results use organic calibrated ballistics gel blocks of specific sizes and under specific conditions. Clothing and other barriers may be placed in front of the gel, but nothing is ever placed into the gel because the thing that makes the gel useful and scientific valid is that it is a homogeneous substance of uniform density, and therefore removes the testing medium as a possible control, allowing for any differences in the results to be attributed to the ammunition being fired and not to some variance in the testing medium.

[@isaactrujillo76]

Great something else for dudes to debate. Clear or natural. 9 or 45. 45 or 10. 5.56x45 or 7.62x39. 7.62x39 or 7.62x51. Chevrolet or ford. Ford or Toyota. Fucks sake

[@johnryan6658]

I have the answer to all your questions. 9mm, 10mm, 5.56x45, 7.62x51, and Toyota. There, I solved it.

[@johnryan6658]

Oh, and I forgot. Natural.

[@isaactrujillo76]

@@johnryan6658 I like your style!

[@jameseverett4144]

Velocities vary widely. Use chronograph to add credibility. Thanks

[@markmoore7042]

Small explosion at 2:42

[@FiremanFrank24]

Love the shirt.

[@chopinbloc]

Thank you. Gun Runner Arms in Oregon gave it to me. I love it.

[@pault2148]

Love,"Lehigh Defense Maximum Expansion" or "Lehigh Defense Controlled Chaos", for defense ammo. ;)

[@porkchopspapi5757]

Interesting you referenced Brass Fetcher since he almost never uses 10% as per FBI protocol, but instead uses 20%. I could never get, or find, a reason from him. I suspect he does this because it allows the ammo to penetrate deeper making the ammo look better.

[@donsettie5904]

Porkchop's Papi. 20% causes less penetration. It is used by the military and secret service. I've heard it shows 40% less penetration.

[@johnryan6658]

@@donsettie5904 I read the same. Also, I read the 20% is easier to deal with because the blocks don't have to be as long, which makes them obviously lighter weight.

[@cultofmalgus1310]

what makes it worst here on YT is that everyone's gel seems to have different tolerances. ScubaOz for instance got 11-13" of penetration from a .25 acp while PocketGunsAndGear got 9 inches of penetration. Which one should I be using as a reference? See now some people carry those tiny rounds and need that accurate info. I dont have many guns and rely on 2 I inherited, those being a.38 snubby and a .25 pocket pistol (beats nothing).

[@TimKollat]

because people are making there own gel, so theres no way to know who has the exact right consistency. If people only use the BB test to prove its FBI standard, then the Clear Ballistics is FBI approved

[@cultofmalgus1310]

yep it's crazy. thats why you can only rely on the tests where they are shot through pig carcusses and beef bones. Poultry is a bad example since Avian bones are hollow.

[@johnryan6658]

@@TimKollat actually, they don't. The certification Clear Gel gives you is based on a test of that lot of gel, and not each individual block. With the FBI test, each block has to meet the calibration requirements, or it isn't used. If I remember correctly, the spec is roughly in the 2.75" to 3.75" range of BB penetration, and many of the Clear Gel blocks come in at over 4" when tested by the end user.

[@malakijamila289]

No gel no pork people pork is discussing and not halal

[@TactualSLAYER]

Malaki Jamila mmmmm bacon, ham, pork yummy