Disturbing bullet test results [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Disturbing bullet test results


Commander Keen
06-18-2010, 21:46
I recently jumped in to the 9mm side of shooting (having always been a .45 guy), and decided to conduct some informal ballistics tests using 124 gr Gold dots and 127 gr +p+ Ranger T's.

I first lined up 8 one-gallon milk jugs which were filled with water, then placed a once-folded denim pants leg in front of the lead jug for use as a barrier material. I then paced off 7 yards, and fired my first Ranger T from my new gen4 G17. The round completely penetrated 6 jugs, exiting the bottom-left corner of jug 6, making recovery impossible.

After this, I repeated the same procedure (8 jugs, 4 layers of demin in front, 7 yards) 5 times with nearly the same results (occasionally the bullet would be lost after penetrating the 5th jug), before switching to the Gold Dots. The Gold Dots had exactly the same results.

Somewhat perplexed by my findings (or lack thereof) I decided to remove the denim from the front of the jugs. I fired another 3 Ranger T's and 3 Gold dots, which each settled neatly into the bottom of the 3rd jug while looking much like the pictures we've all seen online and in advertisements.

The only conclusion I can come up with for the over-penetration of the first rounds I tested is that they simply didn't expand properly through the denim, which is something of a concern. I know this test was very informal, but I was expecting performance better than this considering all the good reports I have heard from shooters about these rounds.

Can anyone tell me where I might have gone wrong with my (admittedly) crude tests, or perhaps should I continue my search for a good 9mm home defence round?

(And yes, I know that's alot of milk jugs. My wife and I along with my parents and inlaws have been saving them for some time.)

Merkavaboy
06-18-2010, 23:23
I recently jumped in to the 9mm side of shooting (having always been a .45 guy), and decided to conduct some informal ballistics tests using 124 gr Gold dots and 127 gr +p+ Ranger T's.

I first lined up 8 one-gallon milk jugs which were filled with water, then placed a once-folded denim pants leg in front of the lead jug for use as a barrier material. I then paced off 7 yards, and fired my first Ranger T from my new gen4 G17. The round completely penetrated 6 jugs, exiting the bottom-left corner of jug 6, making recovery impossible.

After this, I repeated the same procedure (8 jugs, 4 layers of demin in front, 7 yards) 5 times with nearly the same results (occasionally the bullet would be lost after penetrating the 5th jug), before switching to the Gold Dots. The Gold Dots had exactly the same results.

Somewhat perplexed by my findings (or lack thereof) I decided to remove the denim from the front of the jugs. I fired another 3 Ranger T's and 3 Gold dots, which each settled neatly into the bottom of the 3rd jug while looking much like the pictures we've all seen online and in advertisements.

The only conclusion I can come up with for the over-penetration of the first rounds I tested is that they simply didn't expand properly through the denim, which is something of a concern. I know this test was very informal, but I was expecting performance better than this considering all the good reports I have heard from shooters about these rounds.

Can anyone tell me where I might have gone wrong with my (admittedly) crude tests, or perhaps should I continue my search for a good 9mm home defence round?

(And yes, I know that's alot of milk jugs. My wife and I along with my parents and inlaws have been saving them for some time.)

To put it simply: Jugs of water ain't human beings.

I use only ammo that has a proven record of working well on the streets on real human beings.

9mmP: Federal (or Winchester) 115+P+ JHP. (I would use Speer Gold Dot 124+P or Winchester Ranger T-Series SXT 127+P+ if I had to).

38Spl: 158+P SWCHP by Fed, Win or Rem. (Speer Gold Dot 125+P or 135+P if I had to).

357Mag: 125SJHP by Fed, Rem or Win.

45ACP: (if I were ever to carry my Colt Combat Commander again) Federal 230 Hydra-Shok or Win Ranger T-Series 230SXT.

Blast
06-18-2010, 23:41
It could be the denim clogged the bullet cavity. That can have an effect on expansion.

Trigger Finger
06-18-2010, 23:44
Perhaps the denim was very dirty, filled the hollow points with material and dirt and prevented expansion! Just a thought.

mitchshrader
06-19-2010, 00:16
Handguns are lousy at instant stops just because individual bullet performance varies and the size and shape of the attacker varies. If you want the best odds you can get, follow the above advice and use the known stoppers.

Don't try to reinvent the wheel, practice with your carry ammo if at all possible, or at least the closest ballistically that you can afford. And PRACTICE.

The guy who shoots twice a week has a real edge over the guy who shoots twice a month, and the guy who can shoot a box or two any day of the week doesn't GET rusty.

Do you REALLY want to bet your attacker practices less than you do?

How *much* do you want to bet?

Because no ammo comes with a guarantee of winning a gunfight, and dedicated trigger time is way bigger than fancy bullets.

167
06-19-2010, 02:36
Denim will increase penetration because it slows expansion. Since none of the rounds fired through denim were recovered it is hard to say if they expanded or not, but I would guess they did, at least a little. Both of those rounds are known performers, could potentially be a bad lot, but I doubt it. Don't lose confidence.

no ammo comes with a guarantee of winning a gunfight, and dedicated trigger time is way bigger than fancy bullets.

This is sound advice we should all heed. Bullets WILL fail, even the best ones. We must anticipate and overcome that failure. Fights are won before they ever start by getting good training, not after they start.

voyager4520
06-19-2010, 04:03
Hollow point + clogged cavity = FMJ.

It's something bullet designers have been working on, Glaser PowerBall and Hornady Critical Defense try to remedy it with their polymer-filled HP cavities but it doesn't always work.

Over-penetration would be my only worry. The only thing an HP serves to do better than an FMJ besides over-penetration is a bigger wound cavity, which would cause more bleeding but not in enough time to immediately stop an attacker. If you want to immediately stop an attacker, shoot into a vital area.

Hubadub
06-19-2010, 05:09
Nothing man-made is 100% reliable,bullets or otherwise.We choose the best proven manstoppers,practice practice practice,and pray that the day never comes when we have to shoot.

glocknbruce
06-19-2010, 07:23
Keen,

i would not worry about the results you got shooting milk jugs....

the gold dot and ranger bullets have flattened more felons than innocent milk jugs....

and for the record i carry the Ranger +p+ in my G19, and am not worried one bit about its performance in milk jugs

fredj338
06-19-2010, 08:43
To put it simply: Jugs of water ain't human beings.

I use only ammo that has a proven record of working well on the streets on real human beings.
.
And neither are gel blocks. WHile I would not be put off by the informal testing, it doesn't give one confidence. Do enough such tests & things like that will happen. Kind of like real world shootings. Sometimes the best bullets fail to perform like gel block test bullets.:dunno: One reason I still like the 45, it's always at least that big. Yeah, shot placement is king, but bigger bullets, bigger holes can only help things along.:supergrin:

Commander Keen
06-19-2010, 08:55
Sometimes the best bullets fail to perform like gel block test bullets.:dunno: One reason I still like the 45, it's always at least that big. Yeah, shot placement is king, but bigger bullets, bigger holes can only help things along.:supergrin:

I know there isn't a perfect jhp, and that my little test doesn't really mean much but it really doesn't inspire much confidence. If my fancy hollow points choose not to expand, I may as well stick with some that are already .45 caliber..

Dogguy
06-19-2010, 09:40
I agree with Merkavaboy in that results in jugs of water are no indication of the performance of the ammunition in human flesh, bone and viscera. I think it was Remington that once issued the blanket statement that testing ammunition by shooting it into water proved nothing and only wasted ammunition. Ammunition companies perform tests with gelatin and barriers and then they interpret the results in respect to performance in flesh. In other words, even results from tubs of gelatin ain't the same as shooting human beings. That's one of the reasons self defense trainers emphasize bullet placement over bullet type and bullet size.

ColCol
06-19-2010, 10:20
Years ago I wanted to check on bullet performance in a 357 vs 45 scenario. I had bought about 30 pounds or so of modeling clay and proceeded to make a block out of it about eight inches square and roughly from recollection, about sixteen inches long. That was my ballistic gelatin back then.

The entrance hole was humongous in both calibers...maybe about 4-5 inches in diameter. Wanting to see the results inside, I decided to pour plaster of Paris inside, let it harden and then tear away the clay for reforming later. It looked like what you see in ballistic gel-tornado shaped with the entrance hole much larger than the spent end. It proved very little except to let me know both bullets would expand in clay and leave an awful wound channel. What it would do in other media is left to the imagination, but; it was fun, anyway.

JW1178
06-19-2010, 12:12
Well, next set of bullet test I do I am going to put a t-shirt and maybe a jacket over the jugs to be more realistic, because hardly nobody wears denim over their upper torso area. This multi-layer denim I understand is to make a worse case scenereo, but it takes from the realisim.

AJSully421
06-19-2010, 12:27
Well, next set of bullet test I do I am going to put a t-shirt and maybe a jacket over the jugs to be more realistic, because hardly nobody wears denim over their upper torso area. This multi-layer denim I understand is to make a worse case scenereo, but it takes from the realisim.

I have often wondered about this... who wears 4 jean jackets?

The new test should be layers consisting of a football or basketball jersey, a red or blue bandanna, and a starter jacket.:whistling:

Blast
06-19-2010, 13:01
Well I guess to get more realistic results, find a fresh large animal roadkill or buy a side of beef or whole hog.:dunno:

ColCol
06-19-2010, 14:03
Or visit the local stock yard. Maybe they'll let you do in a few cattle before slaughter.

frank_drebin
06-19-2010, 14:11
I have often wondered about this... who wears 4 jean jackets?

The new test should be layers consisting of a football or basketball jersey, a red or blue bandanna, and a starter jacket.:whistling:

But what if he has 4 polo shirts with flipped collars?

http://demotivationalblog.com/demotivational/2008/09/coolness-you-may-be-cool-but-youll-never-be-4-popped-collars-cool-copy.jpg

fredj338
06-19-2010, 14:12
Well I guess to get more realistic results, find a fresh large animal roadkill or buy a side of beef or whole hog.:dunno:

Even wetpack works better than water IMO. I use water logged phone books, throw a denim pant leg over them. Results are very repeatable & exp compares well to gel blocks, w/ about 3/4 less penetration.:dunno: Bottom line, if it won't expand in water or wetpack, it certainly won't in flesh. Now if you had access to a room temp pig carcass, throw a denim jacket on that bad boy & go to work.

CanyonMan
06-19-2010, 16:57
it's really simple OP. Some hollow points clog and then act some what like FMJ and you end up with tremendous penetration, sometimes tremendous penetration LOSS depending on bullet design, (which is good news to me, the penetration "gain") as I need a round that penetrates like crazy. When you did not use your denem material you saw the true nature of the penetration of your rounds. Rangers and gold dots are good ammo to be sure, but in all my test I have seen poor performance with the 127gr +P+.

The 147 gr GD and the 147gr Ranger bonded, and 147gr XTP, will give you great penetration, and some expansion as well. This is through a looooot of testing and through all kinds of medias, not just water, or jello blocks. ;)

Even for those who like watching this guy on You Tube who always shoots through jugs of water and news paper, he only gets 11-12 " max out of the 127gr ranger +P+. It is not worth the extra recoil and muzzle flip (which is no biggie to me, but is real big to some) to only get 11" penetration in jugs.

You have got to factor in hiting an arm, and or bone, and perhaps an oblique (sp) angle shot, and "still get to the organs that are vital to put down the BG and end the threat."

14-16" penetration is really the place of grace 'desirable' for a particular bullet/caliber/load, to at least give one the confidence that should their bullet have to travel through an arm and perhaps even contact bone there, it will, 'and then' still go 12 -14 " till it hits the body, and that could be at an angle, and it still needs to travel on through muscle grissle and bone and hollow and solid organs to get to the right spot to end the threat.

I reccomend you try 147gr bullets from Winchester in their new PDX1 offering. Or 147gr Gold Dots, 147gr Ranger bonded, or 147gr Hornady XTP's . I truly believe you will find a tremendous difference, and find just what you are looking for. This is my "suggestion" to you. It has worked for me and others, and I do believe if you will give these a try and test them, you will find one or more of these I've suggested to be just the ticket for you. ;)

Good luck
Good shooting


CanyonMan

ColCol
06-19-2010, 17:24
Rangers and gold dots are good ammo to be sure, but in all my test I have seen poor performance with the 127gr +P+.


For instance?

Even for those who like watching this guy on You Tube who always shoots through jugs of water and news paper, he only gets 11-12 " max out of the 127gr ranger +P+. It is not worth the extra recoil and muzzle flip (which is no biggie to me, but is real big to some) to only get 11" penetration in jugs.


For home use over that may be fine but I wouldn't want one to penetrate more than that in a carry situation. Overly penetrating in a situation where bullet exits BG could get you a big law suit if it struck a bystander. That's big reason I'd never use FMJ-home or away.

.45Super-Man
06-19-2010, 19:13
I think you're going overboard and taking some very informal testing far to seriously. I'll concede for the sake of argument, that the .45 has a slight edge on the 9mm, but it's not enough to offset things in my opinion.

Alaskapopo
06-19-2010, 23:48
I recently jumped in to the 9mm side of shooting (having always been a .45 guy), and decided to conduct some informal ballistics tests using 124 gr Gold dots and 127 gr +p+ Ranger T's.

I first lined up 8 one-gallon milk jugs which were filled with water, then placed a once-folded denim pants leg in front of the lead jug for use as a barrier material. I then paced off 7 yards, and fired my first Ranger T from my new gen4 G17. The round completely penetrated 6 jugs, exiting the bottom-left corner of jug 6, making recovery impossible.

After this, I repeated the same procedure (8 jugs, 4 layers of demin in front, 7 yards) 5 times with nearly the same results (occasionally the bullet would be lost after penetrating the 5th jug), before switching to the Gold Dots. The Gold Dots had exactly the same results.

Somewhat perplexed by my findings (or lack thereof) I decided to remove the denim from the front of the jugs. I fired another 3 Ranger T's and 3 Gold dots, which each settled neatly into the bottom of the 3rd jug while looking much like the pictures we've all seen online and in advertisements.

The only conclusion I can come up with for the over-penetration of the first rounds I tested is that they simply didn't expand properly through the denim, which is something of a concern. I know this test was very informal, but I was expecting performance better than this considering all the good reports I have heard from shooters about these rounds.

Can anyone tell me where I might have gone wrong with my (admittedly) crude tests, or perhaps should I continue my search for a good 9mm home defence round?
A
(And yes, I know that's alot of milk jugs. My wife and I along with my parents and inlaws have been saving them for some time.)

Water to gelatine penetration is about 1.5. Meaning a bullet will go through 1.5 times as much water before it stops vs gelatine. In my tests with water vs gelatine expansion is identical at least for me. How much denim did you use?
Pat

glocksterr
06-20-2010, 08:07
For instance?





ooppps!

fredj338
06-20-2010, 09:28
Even for those who like watching this guy on You Tube who always shoots through jugs of water and news paper, he only gets 11-12 " max out of the 127gr ranger +P+. It is not worth the extra recoil and muzzle flip (which is no biggie to me, but is real big to some) to only get 11" penetration in jugs.

You have got to factor in hiting an arm, and or bone, and perhaps an oblique (sp) angle shot, and "still get to the organs that are vital to put down the BG and end the threat."
Keep in mind CM, bullets do about 75% penetration in wetpack vs gel blocks. I am quite hapy w/ 12" in wetpack, I know that bullet is making 14"-16" in balistic gel. Now what that does in a torso, as you know, it will always vary w/ what you hit.
I agree, penetration is needed & over penetration i sover hyped. The rounds that miss are the rounds that are going to cause problems. A JHP that goes through a BG & exits, isn't going to have a lot of gas left on the back side.

CanyonMan
06-20-2010, 09:29
For instance?


For home use over that may be fine but I wouldn't want one to penetrate more than that in a carry situation. Overly penetrating in a situation where bullet exits BG could get you a big law suit if it struck a bystander. That's big reason I'd never use FMJ-home or away





What i already mentioned. From my test on the ranch here in various types of media for several years, all the way to the 'you tube plain old water jug and paper' it would not even get good penetration there either. (I'm not a fan much of those you tube test) but still it got poor penetration.


Your going through much needless worry on the OP. Because a bullet gets the desirable 14-16" penetration in jello, it does not necessarily mean it is going to OP in a human. Again, you have got to figure in factors and senerios that most certainly can and often do happen in a SD situation. Therefore I desire a round that will go through certain human extremities possibly, and possibly other media as well, and still get to the vitals. Quite simple really. ;)



Stay safe.


CanyonMan

Glolt20-91
06-20-2010, 16:12
And neither are gel blocks. WHile I would not be put off by the informal testing, it doesn't give one confidence. Do enough such tests & things like that will happen. Kind of like real world shootings. Sometimes the best bullets fail to perform like gel block test bullets.:dunno: One reason I still like the 45, it's always at least that big. Yeah, shot placement is king, but bigger bullets, bigger holes can only help things along.:supergrin:

Well put Fred, you bring a lot of real world experiences to the table.

We've been doing some backyard testing on the furniture penetration thread, nothing scientific, but fun. Since you like the .45auto, compare Winchester's numbers with our unscientific water test numbers;

from the Winchester website ammo comparison tool:

http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx

230gr PDX, 906fps/0.73" expansion, 14" penetration, bare gelatin

Using formulas from Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration . . . book (this is the man who empirically quantified Dr. Fackler's ballistic gelatin formula/composition; results posted by 481;

.45ACP Winchester Bonded PDX1 230 gr. JHP
Impact velocity: 889 fps
Average recovered diameter: 0.680"

Vcav = 392.366 fps
Mw = 62.603 grams (2.208 ounces)
Xcm = 36.748 cm (14.468 inches)

Wow, a 1/2" difference between gel and water tests.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/45autoi230grPDX_6802.jpg

All one needs to know if doing water testing, is recovered bullet weight, velocity and expansion diameter; plug these numbers into the formulas and you get the above.

Not bad for country boyz. :supergrin: :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:

DEADEYEGUY
06-21-2010, 11:32
Virtually no JHP can or will expand under every circumstance. Even the use of ballistic gel is a compromise. It is not as dense as bone. It is more dense than bare flesh. It roughly simulates human muscle tissue. Like most thngs in science a consistent, non varying, medium, hopefully based on something that gives a sound comparison is used. According to Winchester their ammo that is tested using the F.B.I. protocol (using
ballistic gel penetrating various media first) and does well in it also does well in the streets. So their is the validation of the test process.
Having said all that no JHP made will mushroom everytime. Especially in the real world where the angle the bullet hits or deflects definately effects expansion characteristics. If you shoot rounds through soaked telephone books or other soaked paper media and shoot it at an angle instead of perfectly dead on you will see the JHPs will usually not make the perfect mushroom we all love. Same thing in an actual life.
JHP bullets are still under most circumstances the best choice for most applications. The F.B.I. testing protocol has brought us the best ammunition we have ever had. But even with a JHP it's still a handgun. Even expanding to 1" in vitals cannot guarantee dropping the perp right there. Even rifle rounds fail to do this sometimes. So the only thing we can do is get a handgun we can shoot well. Get the best JHP's we can find for it. Train and practice with it often. And if you have to use your weapon plan on having to hit the bad guy multiple times in vital areas no matter what JHP, caliber, or whatever your using. The difference between the better JHP's is marginal. We place too much emphasis on a few tenth's or even hundreds of an inch of expansion. As the man said "placement, placement, placement". And good penetration to reach vitals.
It's fun to pop water filled jugs. But it really means very little. And as far as shootings hogs or cattle.
I had a friend in school that worked part time in a slaugther house after school. His job was to finish off any of the animals that weren't killed by the standard process employed. He used a .22 rifle to do that. Shot them in the head and they died. They used .22 solids to get through the thick head BTW. A caliber will not save you. Using anything from a .22 on up probably will if used well. But even at that Mr. Murphy is always waiting to pounce. In force on force training even the instuctors get hit. Their is always that thing we call goodor bad luck waiting around.

Goldendog Redux
06-21-2010, 13:02
Can anyone tell me where I might have gone wrong with my (admittedly) crude tests, or perhaps should I continue my search for a good 9mm home defence round?

You are trying too hard. I hope you haven't lost any sleep. I realize that is not an answer to your question and may be somewhat inflammatory but I am not sure what you expect to find.

A good home defense round is the one properly placed, followed by more. Buy some rounds, make sure they function in your gun, put gun in drawer and use a shotgun.

MF

CanyonMan
06-21-2010, 13:45
You are trying too hard. I hope you haven't lost any sleep. I realize that is not an answer to your question and may be somewhat inflammatory but I am not sure what you expect to find.

A good home defense round is the one properly placed, followed by more. Buy some rounds, make sure they function in your gun, put gun in drawer and use a shotgun.
MF



There ya go !




CM

fredj338
06-21-2010, 14:26
A good home defense round is the one properly placed, followed by more. Buy some rounds, make sure they function in your gun, put gun in drawer and use a shotgun.

MF
Nothing wrong w/ over thinking it, good for the scientific mind, but at some point, good enough is good enough & your skill & tactics will win the day. A shotgun or rifle certainly doesn't hurt either.:supergrin:

ULVER
06-21-2010, 17:42
Back when I was testing Magsafe ammo, for Joe Zambone, I used to like to use three or four raw, whole chickens, covered with various barrier media.

The chickens had flesh, bone, and moisture content. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and actually still do, though I haven't done much testing in years.

Back then, the Hydra-Shok, Black Talon (original), & Cor Bon were the biggies. The 147gr. Subsonics were all the rage. Plus, you had tons of exotics, like Glaser, BeeSafe, PinGrabber, ThunderZap, BAT; plus many others.

To be honest, more things failed; some drastically, than really worked.

Back then, all the 147's were miserable failures. ALL OF THEM! We recovered Black Talons still hot, that could have been reloaded. Some were defeated by the lightest of clothing, and went through all the birds.

Joe had great respect for the Cor Bon's. Their velocity indeed helped defeat the media, and did a lot of damage to the chickens. The BAT's worked, too. The other exotics; not so much.

Joe's Magsafe rounds blew the biggest entry wounds, and were never really defeated, no matter what you put in front of the chickens. In the end though, the individual pellets just didn't produce enough wounding to make it in my book.

One thing I will always recall: Something as simple as three credit cards, could completely defeat a bullet, that looked like a million dollars, in bare gel, wet newsprint, or jugs of water.

I think High-velocity bonded ammunition, would have done well back then. Without a doubt more designs work today. Still, I think the "street" is the ultimate judge of what works. :wavey:

481
06-21-2010, 18:15
Well put Fred, you bring a lot of real world experiences to the table.

We've been doing some backyard testing on the furniture penetration thread, nothing scientific, but fun. Since you like the .45auto, compare Winchester's numbers with our unscientific water test numbers;

from the Winchester website ammo comparison tool:

http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx

230gr PDX, 906fps/0.73" expansion, 14" penetration, bare gelatin

Using formulas from Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration . . . book (this is the man who empirically quantified Dr. Fackler's ballistic gelatin formula/composition; results posted by 481;

.45ACP Winchester Bonded PDX1 230 gr. JHP
Impact velocity: 889 fps
Average recovered diameter: 0.680"

Vcav = 392.366 fps
Mw = 62.603 grams (2.208 ounces)
Xcm = 36.748 cm (14.468 inches)

Wow, a 1/2" difference between gel and water tests.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/45autoi230grPDX_6802.jpg

All one needs to know if doing water testing, is recovered bullet weight, velocity and expansion diameter; plug these numbers into the formulas and you get the above.

Not bad for country boyz. :supergrin: :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:


You got that right, Bob!


MacPherson's formulæ (and his his book, too) are da'bomb! :cool:

cowboy1964
06-21-2010, 21:14
+P+ is a G17 might give a rather high velocity, resulting in more difficult expansion. The 124gr Gold Dot should have done well though.

Would like to see how HSTS would do with the same test setup.

fredj338
06-21-2010, 21:23
+P+ is a G17 might give a rather high velocity, resulting in more difficult expansion. The 124gr Gold Dot should have done well though.

Would like to see how HSTS would do with the same test setup.

If anything, higher impact vel should HELP expansion, not hurt it, especially w/ a bonded bullet.:dunno:

cowboy1964
06-21-2010, 21:31
If anything, higher impact vel should HELP expansion, not hurt it, especially w/ a bonded bullet.:dunno:

Yeah, I guess I was thinking of cases I've seen where higher velocity resulted in less penetration simply because the bullet expanded sooner. But expansion was still good.

cowboy1964
06-21-2010, 21:34
Oh BTW,

:needspics:

Merkavaboy
06-21-2010, 22:50
ULVER, that's some interesting history about Magsafe and the types of testing you and Joe did.

:thumbsup:

Glolt20-91
06-22-2010, 00:15
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of cases I've seen where higher velocity resulted in less penetration simply because the bullet expanded sooner. But expansion was still good.

You mean like this 147gr Gold Dot I tested this morning from a G17? :supergrin:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm147GD1155fps004.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/9mm147GD1155fps002.jpg

Ballpark about 8" of penetration.

Bob :cowboy:

hackinpeat
06-22-2010, 04:34
The closest approximation to human flesh as used by the USMC in the 1970's was wet newspaper.

The true closest is pig carcass. Shooting water really is bad science, and as a "informal test" all it does is show you how your bullet behaves in water. For shooting fish in a barrel this might help form a dataset, for anything else it's not a indication of anything at all.

Alaskapopo
06-22-2010, 05:05
The closest approximation to human flesh as used by the USMC in the 1970's was wet newspaper.

The true closest is pig carcass. Shooting water really is bad science, and as a "informal test" all it does is show you how your bullet behaves in water. For shooting fish in a barrel this might help form a dataset, for anything else it's not a indication of anything at all.

I have found expansion tests in water to be identical to bullets fired into bare gelatin. So it does have some value. Many ammunition companies have used water to test expansion on their bullets.

ULVER
06-22-2010, 13:36
ULVER, that's some interesting history about Magsafe and the types of testing you and Joe did.

:thumbsup:

Thanks! Joe was a good guy. Back in the day, he built by hand, every single Magsafe round he sold. I don't know how he did it. Talk about dedication.:wow:

I still have those original tapes of his testing, about every load out there, back in the day. I just have to find them! I think they are about the only thing under the sun, that isn't on YouTube! :supergrin:

The company that he sold Magsafe to, failed to keep producing, what I think was his best 9mm offering.

It was his 102gr. "Delayed Expansion" load. It was a conventional hollow-point (wish I knew which), that he filled with a special blend of epoxy. It would blast through any barrier, and penetrate pretty deep, before fragging like the Cor Bon 115gr. +P, that he was very impressed with. IIRC, velocity was over 1,500fps, but the thing worked just as designed. It's ability to defeat barrier material of all kind, was really amazing.

Glolt20-91
06-22-2010, 13:36
The closest approximation to human flesh as used by the USMC in the 1970's was wet newspaper.

The true closest is pig carcass. Shooting water really is bad science, and as a "informal test" all it does is show you how your bullet behaves in water. For shooting fish in a barrel this might help form a dataset, for anything else it's not a indication of anything at all.

What was the brown clay stuff that measured bullet performance used for???

Bob :cowboy:

fredj338
06-22-2010, 13:47
What was the brown clay stuff that measured bullet performance used for???

Bob :cowboy:
SOme used to use clay, Ductseal (clay like) & the smarter companies used wetpack. Water can be pretty hard on high vel impacts, but it is repeatable. Balisitic gel is the current choice, but even that is not directly relatable to flesh, too homogenous, like water or wetpack. Even testing on a pig carcass would require the flesh to be heated up to about 98deg so it is more pliable. Ref 50deg flesh is pretty tough.

481
06-22-2010, 14:00
.....Shooting water really is bad science....

No, it's not.

Check out Duncan MacPherson's book, "Bullet Penetration".

He is a bonafide M.I.T. educated, "rocket scientist" (he worked on the Mercury program on atmospheric re-entry modeling) and established in his book, through both the use of Calculus and actual tests in calibrated gelatin, a valid mathematical model that allows one to calculate penetration (Xcm) and permanent wound cavity mass (Mw) among other things in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin (or equivalent soft tissue) without the annoying mess, hassle and expense that surrounds the use of calibrated ordnance gelatin.

All one needs to know to obtain these values (Xcm and Mw) is the average bullet expansion, retained bullet weight and impact velocity of the bullet.

It is really an elegant (and useful) mathematical model.

Merkavaboy
06-22-2010, 21:22
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackinpeat
.....Shooting water really is bad science....

No, it's not.

Check out Duncan MacPherson's book, "Bullet Penetration".

He is a bonafide M.I.T. educated, "rocket scientist" (he worked on the Mercury program on atmospheric re-entry modeling) and established in his book, through both the use of Calculus and actual tests in calibrated gelatin, a valid mathematical model that allows one to calculate penetration (Xcm) and permanent wound cavity mass (Mw) among other things in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin (or equivalent soft tissue) without the annoying mess, hassle and expense that surrounds the use of calibrated ordnance gelatin.

All one needs to know to obtain these values (Xcm and Mw) is the average bullet expansion, retained bullet weight and impact velocity of the bullet.

It is really an elegant (and useful) mathematical model.

"I see" said the blind man.

So, here we have a "rocket scientist" who has, through the use of ballistic gel and mathmatic formula, has written a book on ballistics and has duped people into thinking that water, somehow, can simulate the tissues, visera and bones that makes up the complex living organism we call homo sapiens.

Has this McPherson guy also figured out the secrets of perpetual motion, cold fusion and Bigfoot?

Come on guys, you don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to be able to comprehend that NO block of jello and NO jug of water can EVER, even remotely, simulate the complexities of a living breathing human being.

If some of you want to rationalize your backyard ballistic testing by thumping on McPherson's book, so be it. But please, don't expect rational people to be brainwashed into thinking that because a "rocket scientist" says that through advanced mathmatics he can prove that water can simulate real human tissue, that he's correct.

Please don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining...

Alaskapopo
06-22-2010, 21:32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackinpeat
.....Shooting water really is bad science....



"I see" said the blind man.

So, here we have a "rocket scientist" who has, through the use of ballistic gel and mathmatic formula, has written a book on ballistics and has duped people into thinking that water, somehow, can simulate the tissues, visera and bones that makes up the complex living organism we call homo sapiens.

Has this McPherson guy also figured out the secrets of perpetual motion, cold fusion and Bigfoot?

Come on guys, you don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to be able to comprehend that NO block of jello and NO jug of water can EVER, even remotely, simulate the complexities of a living breathing human being.

If some of you want to rationalize your backyard ballistic testing by thumping on McPherson's book, so be it. But please, don't expect rational people to be brainwashed into thinking that because a "rocket scientist" says that through advanced mathmatics he can prove that water can simulate real human tissue, that he's correct.

Please don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining...

No test simulate can replicate the human body exactly that is true. However there is still value in testing expansion and penetration in a medium as close to human muscle tissue as possible. The best approach would be to clone some humans without any any intelligence and use them as test dummies but that is not possible so until then we will have to use what we have.
Pat

481
06-22-2010, 21:47
"I see" said the blind man.

So, here we have a "rocket scientist" who has, through the use of ballistic gel and mathmatic formula, has written a book on ballistics and has duped people into thinking that water, somehow, can simulate the tissues, visera and bones that makes up the complex living organism we call homo sapiens.

Has this McPherson guy also figured out the secrets of perpetual motion, cold fusion and Bigfoot?

Come on guys, you don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to be able to comprehend that NO block of jello and NO jug of water can EVER, even remotely, simulate the complexities of a living breathing human being.

If some of you want to rationalize your backyard ballistic testing by thumping on McPherson's book, so be it. But please, don't expect rational people to be brainwashed into thinking that because a "rocket scientist" says that through advanced mathmatics he can prove that water can simulate real human tissue, that he's correct.

Please don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining...


Impressive.

I cannot imagine a more childish post.

You have made it abundantly clear from your commentary (quoted above) that you've never bothered to read MacPherson's book and have absolutely no idea what is contained therein.

MacPherson never equates water or calibrated ordnance gelatin with the heterogenous composition of human physiology in his book. It is simply a convenient test media and nothing more.

Perhaps after reading MacPherson's book you can offer a more insightful (if not, perhaps a more accurate) opinion of his work? :dunno:

481
06-22-2010, 21:51
...The best approach would be to clone some humans without any any intelligence and use them as test dummies...
Pat

Oh geez, Pat.

We already have enough of those. Why compound our problems further? :dunno:

Alaskapopo
06-22-2010, 22:14
Oh geez, Pat.

We already have enough of those. Why compound our problems further? :dunno:

Lol
If it were not for stupid people I would be out of a job along with a lot of other cops.
Pat

Glolt20-91
06-22-2010, 22:56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackinpeat
.....Shooting water really is bad science....



"I see" said the blind man.

So, here we have a "rocket scientist" who has, through the use of ballistic gel and mathmatic formula, has written a book on ballistics and has duped people into thinking that water, somehow, can simulate the tissues, visera and bones that makes up the complex living organism we call homo sapiens.

Has this McPherson guy also figured out the secrets of perpetual motion, cold fusion and Bigfoot?

Come on guys, you don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to be able to comprehend that NO block of jello and NO jug of water can EVER, even remotely, simulate the complexities of a living breathing human being.

If some of you want to rationalize your backyard ballistic testing by thumping on McPherson's book, so be it. But please, don't expect rational people to be brainwashed into thinking that because a "rocket scientist" says that through advanced mathmatics he can prove that water can simulate real human tissue, that he's correct.

Please don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining...

:rofl::rofl:

So you're the blind man here.

You like Federal ammunition, gathered this from some of your previous posts.

So, a quote from Federal's wound ballistic workshop held in Portland, Oregon, September 6, 2002;

http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

*It is important to note that Federal HST had no core jacket separations on bare gelatin, heavy clothing, and wallboard and only a percentage of the rounds separated on glass shots, while the Winchester rounds experienced core jacket separations on bare gelatin, heavy clothing, wall board, and glass.

The topics of the day were FBI Test Protocol, Penetration, Expansion, and Core Jacket Separations. According to wound ballistic experts, Core Jacket Separations are the number one cause for bullet failure.


Okay, so who is the wound ballistic expert Federal chose to quote for this LE wound ballistic workshop???

IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification – Duncan MacPherson
“6.1.3 The goal is to avoid all bullet fragmentation and/or jacket separation.
This requirement is that the largest bullet segment weight shall be at least 90% of the mean unfired bullet weight in at least 90% of penetrations.” (Duncan MacPherson, IWBA Vol 3, No. 3 pg 23).

“This specification is included to prevent unsound bullet designs that over expand and break up (which reduces effectiveness in handgun bullets) or bullet designs that tend to separate the jacket early in the penetration.
Some bullet designs occasionally shed their jackets near the end of penetration; this is not desirable” (Duncan MacPherson, IWBA Vol 3, No. 3, Page 26).

Core Jacket Separations are typically identified as failures as the separated jackets often get hung up in clothing and result in less that favorable penetration. In accordance with the FBI test protocol, when measuring core jacket separations only the largest portion of the bullet is weighed and measured. Bullets that maintain their jacket are also preferred as the rifling on the jacket assures microscopic traceability to specific firearms.


Oops, don't think those of us who have known this for a very long time are the ones who are being duped. Kinda looks like you are the irrational one who is peeing down his own leg. :tongueout:

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
06-22-2010, 22:59
Lol
If it were not for stupid people I would be out of a job along with a lot of other cops.
Pat

Well Pat, glad someone is out there working. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

Merkavaboy
06-22-2010, 23:45
MacPherson never equates water or calibrated ordnance gelatin with the heterogenous composition of human physiology in his book. It is simply a convenient test media and nothing more.

The mere fact that McPherson is using ballistic gel and/or water in order to try and calculate wound ballistics of said bullets in human beings is de facto PROOF that he is using said materials to simulate human tissue. Even if he was just wanting to show how bullets SHOULD perform in human beings, it's still JUNK SCIENCE to use something that is not actual human tissue and to tell anyone who will listen to him that he's figured out how said ballistic simulants and mathmatics can somehow duplicate what a bullet does to REAL human beings in REAL shootings.

The REAL PROOF of what works best in the real world is to study what works in the REAL WORLD, not what happens in a sterile controlled environment with blocks of jello or ziplock baggies of water, let alone what goes on in someone's back yard when shooting water jugs, wet newspaper, ductseal, mud puddles or the Sunday ham.

There is nothing that man can make that will duplicate, replicate or simunate the complexities of a human being's body. Period. Again, if people want to believe that gel or water can, in any way whatsoever, even remotely simulate human tissue, go ahead and do so. But don't continue to get upset when those of us who know better continue to point out that such ballistic testing, even when conducted by a "rocket scientist", means very little when it comes to the reality of what bullets do to real human flesh in real shootings.

fredj338
06-23-2010, 01:06
There is nothing that man can make that will duplicate, replicate or simunate the complexities of a human being's body. Period. Again, if people want to believe that gel or water can, in any way whatsoever, even remotely simulate human tissue, go ahead and do so. But don't continue to get upset when those of us who know better continue to point out that such ballistic testing, even when conducted by a "rocket scientist", means very little when it comes to the reality of what bullets do to real human flesh in real shootings.
I haven't read MacPherson's book, nor am I a rocket scientist, but it takes little common sense to be able to look at bullet recovered form game animals & then bullet recovered form test medium, any test medium, & be able to draw some theories or even a preliminary conclusion of the bullets ability. BUllets I have pulled from game look amazingly like bullets pulled from wetpack, which look surprisingly like bullets pulled from balistic gel. So I can conclude I will get sim results, using a bullet that I have tested, if I ever get involved in a shooting, wqill perform in a sim fashion. Is it definetive, will it be identical? No, is it better than a guess, certainly. Is it worth getting all worked up about, probably not.

Glolt20-91
06-23-2010, 02:41
The mere fact that McPherson is using ballistic gel and/or water in order to try and calculate wound ballistics of said bullets in human beings is de facto PROOF that he is using said materials to simulate human tissue. Even if he was just wanting to show how bullets SHOULD perform in human beings, it's still JUNK SCIENCE to use something that is not actual human tissue and to tell anyone who will listen to him that he's figured out how said ballistic simulants and mathmatics can somehow duplicate what a bullet does to REAL human beings in REAL shootings.

The REAL PROOF of what works best in the real world is to study what works in the REAL WORLD, not what happens in a sterile controlled environment with blocks of jello or ziplock baggies of water, let alone what goes on in someone's back yard when shooting water jugs, wet newspaper, ductseal, mud puddles or the Sunday ham.

There is nothing that man can make that will duplicate, replicate or simunate the complexities of a human being's body. Period. Again, if people want to believe that gel or water can, in any way whatsoever, even remotely simulate human tissue, go ahead and do so. But don't continue to get upset when those of us who know better continue to point out that such ballistic testing, even when conducted by a "rocket scientist", means very little when it comes to the reality of what bullets do to real human flesh in real shootings.

You've simply missed the entire concept of using ballistic gel as a self defense testing medium, the very short version.

Recommendations Regarding Personal Defense Ammunition

The following rating system is used to report ammunition test results:

Unsatisfactory - average bullet penetration is less than 9-inches.
Marginal - average bullet penetration is between 9- and 12- inches.
Optimal - average bullet penetration is between 12- and 16-inches.
Satisfactory - average bullet penetration is greater than 16-inches.

What can and cannot be determined;

A common misconception about ordnance gelatin testing is that it can be used to predict the effectiveness of personal defense ammunition. It cannot.

Testing bullets using standard ordnance gelatin as a soft tissue simulant provides useful information about a bullet's terminal ballistic mechanical performance and wounding effect. That’s all. These two attributes are directly linked to the bullet’s design, construction and velocity. They are defined as follows:

Terminal ballistic mechanical performance is a measure of bullet penetration, expansion, fragmentation and yaw at a given velocity.

Wounding effect is the disruption produced by a bullet’s terminal performance characteristics.

To be "effective" a bullet must inflict an injury that produces dysfunction of the central nervous system. This is accomplished by one of two mechanisms: 1) direct physical damage to a central nervous system structure (the bullet must penetrate the brain or cervical spinal cord), or 2) blood loss in quantity to rapidly deprive the brain of the oxygenated blood it needs to remain conscious (the bullet must penetrate a major cardiovascular structure).

Consequently, wound effectiveness is a function of what tissues (vital or non-vital) are disrupted by the wounding effects of the bullet. Wound effectiveness is dependent upon where the bullet’s wounding effects are located in the body and what tissues are involved.

Therefore, when a bullet is shot into ordnance gelatin, the only traits that can be quantified are the bullet’s terminal ballistic mechanical performance characteristics and wounding effects. Gelatin does not reveal "how effective" a bullet is, because "effectiveness" is a result that cannot be measured in a test medium.

Wound effectiveness is a consequence of shot-placement (the bullet’s path through the body) and penetration.



Rating ammunition;

Ammunition is rated based on its "general-purpose combat capability." An optimal capability ensures that the user's bullets will almost always be able to reach and pass through vital blood distribution organs in the abdominal and thoracic cavities despite body angle or the presence of an arm in the path of a well placed bullet. Combat capability is not a prediction of a criminal attacker's reaction to being shot.



A social miscreants physical/psychological reaction to being shot can not be predicted.

BTW, Duncan MacPherson shot 400 rounds of ammunition into a ton of ballistic gel to derive his formulas, a feat Dr. Fackler acknowledges.

Bob :cowboy:

481
06-23-2010, 08:39
I haven't read MacPherson's book, nor am I a rocket scientist, but it takes little common sense to be able to look at bullet recovered form game animals & then bullet recovered form test medium, any test medium, & be able to draw some theories or even a preliminary conclusion of the bullets ability. BUllets I have pulled from game look amazingly like bullets pulled from wetpack, which look surprisingly like bullets pulled from balistic gel. So I can conclude I will get sim results, using a bullet that I have tested, if I ever get involved in a shooting, wqill perform in a sim fashion. Is it definetive, will it be identical? No, is it better than a guess, certainly. Is it worth getting all worked up about, probably not.

Wow.

Excellent points and perspective Fred.

The more I read from you, the more I am impressed.

Keep on keepin' on.

481
06-23-2010, 08:57
The mere fact that McPherson is using ballistic gel and/or water in order to try and calculate wound ballistics of said bullets in human beings is de facto PROOF that he is using said materials to simulate human tissue.


No, he is not.

Your argument, what little there is of it, is irrational as well as an excellent display of what constitutes non sequitur.



Even if he was just wanting to show how bullets SHOULD perform in human beings, it's still JUNK SCIENCE to use something that is not actual human tissue and to tell anyone who will listen to him that he's figured out how said ballistic simulants and mathmatics can somehow duplicate what a bullet does to REAL human beings in REAL shootings.

The REAL PROOF of what works best in the real world is to study what works in the REAL WORLD, not what happens in a sterile controlled environment with blocks of jello or ziplock baggies of water, let alone what goes on in someone's back yard when shooting water jugs, wet newspaper, ductseal, mud puddles or the Sunday ham.

There is nothing that man can make that will duplicate, replicate or simunate the complexities of a human being's body. Period. Again, if people want to believe that gel or water can, in any way whatsoever, even remotely simulate human tissue, go ahead and do so. But don't continue to get upset when those of us who know better continue to point out that such ballistic testing, even when conducted by a "rocket scientist", means very little when it comes to the reality of what bullets do to real human flesh in real shootings.

Again, all of the above suggests a willful, if not selective, ignorance about the contents and purpose of MacPherson's Model and why the ammunition companies use gelatin to test their products. Have they taken your position seriously or laughed you out of their offices when you've favored them with this insightful perspective of their evaluative methodology?

I suspect that we'll be waiting a for very long time before we hear anything from you that suggests a grasp of reality without the emotionally tinged discourse above.

I'd encourage you to go to your local library, obtain a copy of MacPherson's text and read it before commenting further.

The nice thing about doing it that way is that it will cost you nothing at all (other than your time) 'out of pocket' and the librarian(s) present can help you with the big words. :winkie:


:)

Glolt20-91
06-23-2010, 11:27
No, he is not.

Your argument, what little there is of it, is irrational as well as an excellent display of what constitutes non sequitir.

The nice thing about doing it that way is that it will cost you nothing at all (other than your time) 'out of pocket' and the librarian(s) present can help you with the big words. :winkie:



Italized words are cool to use when they are used correctly, in this context, non sequitur is correctly applied. Futhermore and of note, non sequitur follows the word 'nonsense' in many dictionaries.

The mere fact that McPherson is using ballistic gel and/or water in order to try and calculate wound ballistics of said bullets in human beings is de facto PROOF that he is using said materials to simulate human tissue.

Now we notice another italicized word, de facto, which is applied incorrectly w/i the context of the statement. Contrary to this statement, MacPherson is recognized as an expert in the discipline of wound ballistics, therefore de facto is not applicable.

In the context of building a case against the use of ballistic gel, water et al, the correct term those with law enforcement/legal backgrounds should/would use is prima facie.

However, had the author of the above quote used the term prima facie instead of the term de facto, its author's argument would still be non sequitur, which follows nonsense. :tongueout:

Adios amigo,

Bob :cowboy: :supergrin:

481
06-23-2010, 22:12
Italized words are cool to use when they are used correctly, in this context, non sequitur is correctly applied. Futhermore and of note, non sequitur follows the word 'nonsense' in many dictionaries.

Now we notice another italicized word, de facto, which is applied incorrectly w/i the context of the statement. Contrary to this statement, MacPherson is recognized as an expert in the discipline of wound ballistics, therefore de facto is not applicable.

In the context of building a case against the use of ballistic gel, water et al, the correct term those with law enforcement/legal backgrounds should/would use is prima facie.

However, had the author of the above quote used the term prima facie instead of the term de facto, its author's argument would still be non sequitur, which follows nonsense. :tongueout:

Adios amigo,

Bob :cowboy: :supergrin:


Agreed, Bob.

The misuse and misapplication of italicized latin terminology does nothing for an unsubstantiated argument no matter how many of them one chooses to use. :winkie:

I'll take Duncan MacPherson's credentials (B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Honors program at M.I.T.) and proven expertise over those claimed by the average anonymous internet user everytime.


:)

BOGE
06-24-2010, 11:00
How many people has Duncan shot?

Glolt20-91
06-24-2010, 12:00
How many people has Duncan shot?

How many B-17s have you piloted?

Bob :cowboy: :supergrin:

fredj338
06-24-2010, 12:50
How many people has Duncan shot?
HUH? One could shoot 1000 people & not be able to tell you much about what the bullet does if they don't do the autopsy. Not sure where that one was going.
I don't have to have been in several car crashes to know my seatbelt will likely save my life. I don't have to shoot my own foot to know it's gonna leave a mark & hurt like hell too. SOme thing scommon snese just rules over.:dunno:

481
06-24-2010, 12:54
How many people has Duncan shot?


:yawn:

Chonny
06-25-2010, 19:03
When I die how can I donate my fresh corpse to the NRA for ballistic testing?

Glolt20-91
06-25-2010, 23:18
When I die how can I donate my fresh corpse to the NRA for ballistic testing?

Do you have an appointment date??? :rofl:

Bob :cowboy: :supergrin: