User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/7/2020 10:37:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Thanks for posting that. The .32 did better than I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2020 9:54:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Wish they would have tested Blazer 40gr 22lr.
I love that stuff. And hopefully it runs good in my lcp 22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2020 10:39:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wish they would have tested Blazer 40gr 22lr. I love that stuff. And hopefully it runs good in my lcp 22 At 1235Fps, it matches the speed of the MiniMag round nose. I’d expect the Blazer and MiniMag would have near identical performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 1:25:33 AM EDT
[#4]
I guess its a good place to see velocity numbers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 5:49:39 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given that Blazer is a round nose bullet, there’s pretty much no chance for expansion. At 1235Fps, it matches the speed of the MiniMag round nose. I’d expect the Blazer and MiniMag would have near identical performance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wish they would have tested Blazer 40gr 22lr. I love that stuff. And hopefully it runs good in my lcp 22 At 1235Fps, it matches the speed of the MiniMag round nose. I’d expect the Blazer and MiniMag would have near identical performance. I'm kinda suprised at the speeds of the CCI Velocitor. Thought they would have been faster for some reason. I do like that nearly almost all of them failed to expand out of both barrel lengths. Took out the demon in my head that likes to banter on HP or RN when I go out in the woods with my 22 pistols. Maybe a modified RN was the answer all along. Clip off the tip for a RNFP. Or just buy CCI SGB  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 5:50:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess its a good place to see velocity numbers |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 10:18:01 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Check your hate for clear gel at the door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess its a good place to see velocity numbers The velocity data is actually a good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:06:24 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Im actually surprised these are allowed in the tech forums. They purposely provide misleading information. The velocity data is actually a good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:21:58 AM EDT
[#9]
I ordered some .22 WMR for some .22 TCM experiments from LG because they have done these helpful experiments. I feel better about putting my MIL into a .22 LR she can run.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:28:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's wrong with clear gel? Clear gel is becoming a consumer industry standard b/c it's reusable, easy to deal w/, and uh, clear. However, you shouldn't compare results btwn clear and ballistic gel - just as results from ballistic gel and actual shootings are not directly comparable. It's a 6.5/6.8 argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:42:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clear gel gives different results than calibrated ballistic gel, but is much easier to deal w/ b/c it doesn't have to be closely temperature controlled. Clear gel is becoming a consumer industry standard b/c it's reusable, easy to deal w/, and uh, clear. However, you shouldn't compare results btwn clear and ballistic gel - just as results from ballistic gel and actual shootings are not directly comparable. It's a 6.5/6.8 argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's wrong with clear gel? Clear gel is becoming a consumer industry standard b/c it's reusable, easy to deal w/, and uh, clear. However, you shouldn't compare results btwn clear and ballistic gel - just as results from ballistic gel and actual shootings are not directly comparable. It's a 6.5/6.8 argument. Clear gel doesn't. When testers specifically talk about fbi protocol and then display clear gel results it is blatantly dishonest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:58:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Organic gel results have been found to correlate with actual shootings.
Clear gel doesn't. When testers specifically talk about fbi protocol and then display clear gel results it is blatantly dishonest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:59:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clear gel gives different results than calibrated ballistic gel, but is much easier to deal w/ b/c it doesn't have to be closely temperature controlled. Clear gel is becoming a consumer industry standard b/c it's reusable, easy to deal w/, and uh, clear. However, you shouldn't compare results btwn clear and ballistic gel - just as results from ballistic gel and actual shootings are not directly comparable. It's a 6.5/6.8 argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 11:59:51 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Organic gel results have been found to correlate with actual shootings. Clear gel doesn't. When testers specifically talk about fbi protocol and then display clear gel results it is blatantly dishonest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 12:07:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Im actually surprised these are allowed in the tech forums. They purposely provide misleading information. The velocity data is actually a good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 1:36:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's wrong with clear gel? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Im actually surprised these are allowed in the tech forums. They purposely provide misleading information. The velocity data is actually a good. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/09/09/clear-ballistics-gelatin-not-performing-like-real-ballistics-gelatin/ Projectiles tend to penetrate further in clear gel. If you know that, you can factor that in when you evaluate the results. The temporary stretch cavity, maximum expansion, minimum expansion, and weight retention are similar between organic and Clear gel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 1:51:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Link to study on organic gel? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Organic gel results have been found to correlate with actual shootings.
Clear gel doesn't. When testers specifically talk about fbi protocol and then display clear gel results it is blatantly dishonest.  Real Ballistic Gelatin vs Clear Ballistics Gelatin  Clear Ballistics VS 10% gelatin |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 1:52:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here’s a good article and video to watch. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/09/09/clear-ballistics-gelatin-not-performing-like-real-ballistics-gelatin/ Projectiles tend to penetrate further in clear gel. If you know that, you can factor that in when you evaluate the results. The temporary stretch cavity, maximum expansion, minimum expansion, and weight retention are similar between organic and Clear gel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Im actually surprised these are allowed in the tech forums. They purposely provide misleading information. The velocity data is actually a good. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/09/09/clear-ballistics-gelatin-not-performing-like-real-ballistics-gelatin/ Projectiles tend to penetrate further in clear gel. If you know that, you can factor that in when you evaluate the results. The temporary stretch cavity, maximum expansion, minimum expansion, and weight retention are similar between organic and Clear gel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 3:54:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryIn the interim, we're stuck with "fudging" Clear Gel results and ballparking an 18 inch penetration to be sortamaybekinda equivalent to 12 inches in ballistic gelatin (my personal fudgefactor). It will be nice if even a rough "equivalent calibration factor" comes from the comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2020 6:52:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Some interesting articles and videos, should keep me busy for a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 4:04:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Although clear gel is not ideal. It can give comparison data when multiple loads are tested in the same gel, same day from the same guns.
I have not seen any evidence indicating the loads with the greatest penetration in clear gel would not also have the greatest penetration in ordnance gel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 6:17:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although clear gel is not ideal. It can give comparison data when multiple loads are tested in the same gel, same day from the same guns. I have not seen any evidence indicating the loads with the greatest penetration in clear gel would not also have the greatest penetration in ordnance gel. You cant predict how much more or less a bullet will penatrate. Another good read |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 6:24:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Damn I really want a 327fed 3" w/ 100grn gold dots. That would be about the perfect carry combo for a revolver, ever. Especially if it was 7 rds.
Ruger....lcr maybe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 11:55:22 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn I really want a 327fed 3" w/ 100grn gold dots. That would be about the perfect carry combo for a revolver, ever. Especially if it was 7 rds. Ruger....lcr maybe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 1:09:29 PM EDT
[#26]
That new half lugged blued 3" sp101 sure would make a nice 6 shot .327
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2020 3:25:00 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm another one that unexpectedly came away with a craving for the 327 SP101
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2020 5:53:59 AM EDT
[#28]
If I could carry a centerfire handgun on public land here (rimfire only) I would get a Single Seven 5 1/2in. In 327. Not quite a pocket gun but pretty dang close.
32 acp for squirrel and such. 327 for deer. It's a perfect woods gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2020 1:56:34 PM EDT
[#29]
The third part of the PoliceOne study that 03RN linked above:
Ballistic gelatin v. clear gel, part 3 The conclusions are not unexpected: Clear gelatin overstates penetration and understates expansion. It should be noted that none of the Clear Gel blocks met calibration standards, with the calibration BB penetrating an average of 25% farther than the standards allow. In theory, we could just apply a 25% correction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Testing showed that the overpenetration averages 35.5% in the bare test (range 34.4 - 36.3%), but 48% deeper in the clothed test, with a rather wide range of 38 - 56% more penetration in clear gelatin than in calibrated ballistic gel. Compare that to the more limited Brass Fetcher findings of 20 - 25% deeper penetration in bare clear gel (study liked above by 03RN). So, despite my hopes, there is no apparent reliable "correction factor" from these tests. Clear gelatin will show a penetration increase of anything from a couple inches to 6 inches greater than calibrated ballistic gelatin. The sine qua non of a useful test medium is reproducibility. Ballistic gelatin is definitely a bit of a PITA regarding preparation and handling, and many still argue against the validity of "jello testing", but it doesn't look like clear gel is a viable substitute at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2020 3:41:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Still probably better than wet phone books & water bottles.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
