Ballistic Gelatin and Human Tissue

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ballistic Gelatin and Human Tissue

Posted: 2/16/2006 11:33:09 AM EDT

I have a strong scientific background and I am now wondering about how well ballistic gelatin simulates human tissues for .223 fragmenting rounds both in penetration and fragmentation. It appears that it was designed to simulate low speed bullets in muscle. How well does it simulate high speed bullets in human skin, the abdomen, and the lungs?

References:

www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/ Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Report.pdf

www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html

Is data comparing .223 performance in ballistic gelatin to abdominal and lung tissue available?

Posted: 2/16/2006 1:18:51 PM EDT

[#1]

I saw your posts in the other thread.

Let me try to frame it in this manner: Yes, b. gelatin is meant to simulate muscle tissue. Yes, it's homogenous and the human body is not. Having said that, keep this in mind: think of ballistic gelatin as sort of being a measure of great resistance to a bullet. In other words, while other tissues are less dense and/or resistant to a bullet in the human body, if you use a medium that's simulating a highly dense tissue, then that will show you what your bullet will do in bad-case scenarios.

If we used ballistic gelatin that was tuned more closely to lung tissue, for example, then yes--you'd expect penetration numbers to increase. Depending on the behavior of the bullet, it could be quite a significant increase. But the reason the 12 inch minimum was established was to ensure that in odd shots through a lot of dense, soft tissue (maybe even bones), your bullet would get where it needed to.

In summary, you're pointing out that ballistic gelatin is a compromise. Everyone would admit to that. It's also the best compromise available...the superior option isn't legal in most countries of the world.

Posted: 2/16/2006 1:39:06 PM EDT

[#2]

Yes - Correlation exists even for high speed fragmenting bullets. One reference is this article:
www.btammolabs.com/fackler/effects_of_small_arms.pdf

I can't copy-paste from the article I had scanned, but they correlated the ordnance gelatin by both comparing the data from large animals in a controlled setting, and by analyzing rifle wounds from many years of combat experience.

Posted: 2/16/2006 1:52:35 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I saw your posts in the other thread.

Let me try to frame it in this manner: Yes, b. gelatin is meant to simulate muscle tissue. Yes, it's homogenous and the human body is not. Having said that, keep this in mind: think of ballistic gelatin as sort of being a measure of great resistance to a bullet. In other words, while other tissues are less dense and/or resistant to a bullet in the human body, if you use a medium that's simulating a highly dense tissue, then that will show you what your bullet will do in bad-case scenarios.

If we used ballistic gelatin that was tuned more closely to lung tissue, for example, then yes--you'd expect penetration numbers to increase. Depending on the behavior of the bullet, it could be quite a significant increase. But the reason the 12 inch minimum was established was to ensure that in odd shots through a lot of dense, soft tissue (maybe even bones), your bullet would get where it needed to.

In summary, you're pointing out that ballistic gelatin is a compromise. Everyone would admit to that. It's also the best compromise available...the superior option isn't legal in most countries of the world.

Well put.

Posted: 2/16/2006 2:37:32 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Yes - Correlation exists even for high speed fragmenting bullets. One reference is this article:
www.btammolabs.com/fackler/effects_of_small_arms.pdf

I can't copy-paste from the article I had scanned, but they correlated the ordnance gelatin by both comparing the data from large animals in a controlled setting, and by analyzing rifle wounds from many years of combat experience.

In the article it states: "Each profile pictures the approximate tissue disruption pattern ... in living muscle..." This is what I have seen in every article. Gelatin simulates the penetration and fragmentation in muscle. I believe muscle is more dense than the abdomen and much more dense than the lung. It concerns me to rely on what happens in muscle when I am much more likely to hit the chest, abdomen, neck, or head. Is too much emphasis being given to gelatin patterns?

Posted: 2/16/2006 2:45:55 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I saw your posts in the other thread.

Let me try to frame it in this manner: Yes, b. gelatin is meant to simulate muscle tissue. Yes, it's homogenous and the human body is not. Having said that, keep this in mind: think of ballistic gelatin as sort of being a measure of great resistance to a bullet. In other words, while other tissues are less dense and/or resistant to a bullet in the human body, if you use a medium that's simulating a highly dense tissue, then that will show you what your bullet will do in bad-case scenarios.

If we used ballistic gelatin that was tuned more closely to lung tissue, for example, then yes--you'd expect penetration numbers to increase. Depending on the behavior of the bullet, it could be quite a significant increase. But the reason the 12 inch minimum was established was to ensure that in odd shots through a lot of dense, soft tissue (maybe even bones), your bullet would get where it needed to.

In summary, you're pointing out that ballistic gelatin is a compromise. Everyone would admit to that. It's also the best compromise available...the superior option isn't legal in most countries of the world.

This makes a lot of sense. By using the bad-case scenario, would we be getting over-penetration in the common case scenario?

Posted: 2/16/2006 3:15:04 PM EDT

[#6]

Ballistic gelatin tests are used to PREDICT bullet behavior in actual shootings. The reason we know it to be a *relatively* valid test (given the limitations that we don't perform bullet testing on live humans) is because those results are compared to the results of many thousands of real-world shootings, from military to police to civilian, from all around the world. This feedback has allowed the testing to be refined to the point that it is today, and has been the impetus for adding the various "barrier" tests along with just shooting bare gelatin.

Were there to be a load that showed a trend in real-world shootings that didn't match the predicted behavior pretty closely, then perhaps there would be an issue (this WAS the case with bullets passing through barriers, hence those additional tests). So far, the tests as currently used continue to prove the best scientifically reproducable model for predicting real-world bullet performance.

In the real world, you never know exactly what tissue the bullet is going to encounter. Gunfights are extremely stressful, and those involved are usually moving (even if it is just the hands/arms moving in front of the chest to point a gun), and rarely present a squared, front view like target posters suggest. Think about what a bullet path would be when shooting at a guy driving a car, from the front, side, or rear. How about a guy lying prone? How much penetration will you need to reliably reach the vital organs in these situations? Remember that all of these are more likely than the bad guy standing at attention facing you while you pump bullets into his chest. Straight-on torso shots are the exception, not the rule.

-Troy

Posted: 2/16/2006 3:32:47 PM EDT

[#7]

I think that is what I was looking for but did not have the question formulated: How well does gelatin testing compare with real life events?

Thanks again Troy!

Posted: 2/16/2006 3:45:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I think that is what I was looking for but did not have the question formulated: How well does gelatin testing compare with real life events?

www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf

Posted: 2/16/2006 4:49:02 PM EDT

[#9]

This quote from M. Fackler should be tagged to the top of every and all ammunition effect based or related threads:

"... Let's all exercise healthy scepticism - don't believe that your tissue simulant is a good predictor just because some Army lab or the FBI uses it and says so - check it out for yourself."

Posted: 2/16/2006 7:12:01 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that is what I was looking for but did not have the question formulated: How well does gelatin testing compare with real life events?

www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf

Excellent article!

Thanks

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ballistic Gelatin and Human Tissue

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us