Brassfetcher did a test quite a while ago where he compared real 10% ballistic gelatin to the Clearballistics clear gel product and found that penetration results deviated significantly from real ballistic gelatin with certain calibers, but he did not test rifle rounds. We compared .223 Rem Nosler 64 gr bonded soft point in real, 10% ballistic gelatin and in a fresh block of clear gel with two shots each to see if this discrepancy also applies to clear gel.



https://youtu.be/KizfONaOVV0



Just in case anyone thought there was some sort of trickery here or that the block wasn't properly calibrated, here is an uncut video of the BB calibration, and one shot each for the real ballistic gelatin and the clear gel. Please bear in mind that the absence of cuts means the video has some shaky bits and bad audio in sections.


https://youtu.be/xJF-C2wuuCI


Bullets recovered from clear gel:



Bullets recovered from real ballistic gelatin:



Track in clear gel:



Track in real ballistic gelatin:



Update:

I just went out in the back yard and calibrated the gel again and got the following results.

593.7 fps, 3.4"
595.2 fps, 4.1"


Remember that the nominal range is 590 fps +/- 15 fps and 2.95" - 3.74"
That puts the second result out of range, but not by far. That's also measuring to the leading edge of the BB, not to the end of the track, which was probably about a quarter inch deeper.


Then I let it sit in the sun for about an hour to test the manufacturer claim that it is temperature stable. Ambient temperature right now is 88°F. Internal temperature of the block was about 105°F (via meat thermometer) when I shot this portion.

579.3 fps, 5.6"
594.6 fps, >6.2" (exited the short side of the block)

Then I let it sit in my refrigerator for a couple days. Temperature in the fridge was 40°F.

586.0 fps, 2.6"

Obviously way out of range. I think this is definitive proof that the manufacturer's claim that the gel is temperature stable is absolute bullshit, I wonder what other claims they made are total bullshit.

I thought it was well known that clear ballistics gel was inaccurate and exaggerated results. Hence why all the gimmick rounds like RIP and Oath use slow Mo in clear gel then people jizz. Also the luminescence that occurs in clear gel makes people randy.

Now that Amy Winehouse has been drug and alcohol free for a while...  

It seems to produce penetration results that correlate well with real ballistic gel for service pistol calibers. I have run into a lot of people who argue that clear gel is accurate because the manufacturer says it is.

But isn't there a problem with your measurements now on the Clearballistics gel?  You shot into the Clearballistics, which was backed up by the 10% gelatin, and you measured the penetration together, after passing cleanly through the Clearballistics gel then on through the 10% gelatin block.  Wouldn't you have to use solely Clearballistics blocks to get an accurate measurement?  because now you're using two different mediums in combination in your test, while you only use solely 10% gel in the first part.

ETA: man, is that clumsily worded or what?

No, I get what you're saying and you're right, insofar as the measurements aren't perfect, but please note that both shots stopped in the real gelatin block and passed completely through the clear gel block of the same length. The one thing that this test definitively proves is that clear gel shows more penetration than real gelatin. The amount that it is greater is not definitively proven because the shot passed out of the clear gel block into the real gelatin block but if anything, the benefit of the doubt is given to the clear gel because the additional measurement taken in real gelatin is, if anything, less than it would have been in clear gel. I'd be happy to repeat the test if Clearballistics is willing to donate more gel, but that stuff is expensive.

I agree that your test accomplished what it set out to do, I was just trying to be nitpicky because it seems that when it comes down to terminal ballistics testing, it is nothing if not nitpicky and people will seize on anything they can to invalidate results.  Good testing as always though, thanks for posting it up.

It's long past time that the Youtube ammo review community got themselves a source for fresh human cadavers.  Just sayin'.

It may sound masochistic, but I welcome such thorough criticism. I think that it is very important to be thorough and transparent on this subject.

Well, there are a LOT of folks that are still very despondent about Bernie's loss. Just sayin'.

Silly question, why the fuck do we test bullets in gelatin that doesn't have any fucking bones or organs? We have proper dummies with simulated ribs, hearts and lungs, why the hell aren't those the standard test? I don't give a damn how a bullet works in gel, what matters is how it works when he hits skin, muscle and bone.

Knowning the diference could you do a conversion?...

Like metric to standard?

 
because 10% ballistic gel has been correlated with actual shooting data which included bones, organs, etc

I have been informed that the only true measurement of ballistics is done on you tube channels with correctly calibrated verified ballistics gel.  Who cares what real world flesh and bone shows.

Neither is an accurate analog to actual meat and bone.

LOL, you were, huh? Not that I don't believe you, but do you care to provide a reference to that statement? Because I don't believe you.

These guys disagree with you and I trust their opinion more than yours.


"The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both
human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based
ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting
incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly
conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of
projectiles in actual shooting incidents." - Dr. Roberts



"The test of the wound profiles validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue
interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body.  Since most shots in the human body
traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the
tissues traversed.  However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the
projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its
overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots
traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close
approximation to the wound profiles.

The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw
patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and
reliable.  Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency a good reason was found and when the
exact circumstances were matched, the results matched.  The cases reported here comprise but a
small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a
valid tissue simulant." - Dr. Fackler

lol no



 

Welp, we all know  what you have to do.

Shoot a real person and see what happens.

And that is why the military and FBI academies train you to shoot between the ribs, amiright?



 

Yeah, I understand the concept; but in practice, it is a constant density, and does not accurately reflect what happens when a bullet hits bone, or impacts a far more dense organ mid-flight. Hitting a rounded object is not the same as hitting a flat surface, and an impact from a slight angle can drastically change the results.

Take M193, for instance. In gelatin, it is less than impressive. But when it hits bone, it fucks people up.

My whole point is that we accept these gelatin tests as being the ultimate answer, but they don't account for a number of variables. Bone and muscle density, a moving target, impact angle, etc.

Here's another example; it's the difference between shooting on a static range at a paper target, and going through a shoot house. Accuracy under ideal conditions, and practical accuracy.

getting the other side to hold perfectly still while you figure a shot angle that won't strike any bone has always been difficult

LOL. There really isn't any way to incorporate the chaos that bones produce into standardized testing. Bones vary in thickness and are usually at least somewhat round (even ribs) that means that small variations in point of impact can cause substantial variations in angle of impact (relative to the surface of the bone). The only thing we can do is to recognize that bone can significantly reduce the depth of penetration and substantially alter the path the bullet takes. It can also dramatically complicate a wound with bone and bullet fragments.

Go hunting and shoot some live animals. Then, you'll understand the difference.



 

You're right in regard to bone, but as noted in the quotes I posted above, there isn't a significant variation in penetration depth caused by different types of soft tissue as one might expect.

And M193 is very impressive in gelatin. It fragments readily. Even M855 is brutal, if it impacts at above its fragmentation threshold.

How many times have you been called to the stand as a ballistics expert?
I bet it hasn't been as many as those quoted here.

Read more, post less.
Then, you'll understand the difference.

Ballistics gel testing isn't designed to be an analog to the human body.  Of course there are bones, organs/tissue of different density, and different angles/distances to vital organs in the human body.  The FBI gives the 12-18" penetration depth in ballistic gelatin as a baseline, as they believe that if the projectile penetrates to at least that depth in properly prepared 10% ballistic gelatin, that is sufficient for it to overcome the factors listed above to reach the vital organs in the human torso.  It's not an incapacitation test, it's an engineering test that provides repeatable results.  The 4 layer denim test isn't because one believes that you'll necessarily encounter someone wearing 4 layers of denim (nobody shoots Canadians apparently), but because it's an easily standardized barrier that will produce consistent results.  It's not meant to be a real world scenario.  Once you stop trying to shoehorn shooting a 10% ballistics gel block into a real world scenario, you will see it's value as an engineering test, not an actual effect on a body.

I'll post as often as I like. This is not your safe space.



 

lol

Triggered.

Sorry, I was comparing the M193 to soft points and hollow points; those tend to appear more impressive in gel, and do so more consistently.

Penetration depth isn't my concern, since a lot of modern loads can go clean through the human body, and I frankly don't give a damn so long as they can get past the ribcage and damage the heart/lungs, which is the whole point. Here's the rub; bone is what stops bullets from reaching vital organs, not the tissue; so the ballistic gelatin is worthless to me in terms of terminal ballistics, since the bones aren't properly represented.

JHP and soft point ammo doesn't always expand uniformly. If one side opens faster or wider just as it hits more dense tissue, it can tumble, causing more severe internal damage. Not to mention any tumbling caused by impacting bone, or bone fragments shearing through organs. That tumbling can also cause the bullets to exit the target through the sides instead of the back, which can be bad, depending on the circumstances. But that is again something that isn't properly represented by the gelatin, since it isn't shaped like the human body nor is it the same density, so any tumbling we see in that doesn't properly translate to how bullets tumble through actual human tissue.

One nitpick w/ the OP from the video - overpenetration, ie, shooting through the miscreant, is a positive attribute for pistol rounds, not a problem.  Two drainage points are better than one.

Thank you for doing the testing.  Perhaps the correlation btwn clear gel & precisely frozen ordnance gel needs to be mathematically defined, and in the meantime clear gel results should only be compared to other clear gel results?

I know this is GD and all, but pretty much everything you posted there was completely nonsensical.

It gets consistent, repeatable results that, under the actual circumstances where the results can mean the difference between life and death, are completely fucking worthless. It is irrelevant.

And said worthless results are accepted as the standardized test for the effectiveness of all modern small arms loads.

Do you see why I'm annoyed?

I have said it before, so I will say it again. Tissue, that being skin, fat and muscle, are not what stops bullets from reaching vital organs. What will stop a bullet is bone.

Let me try to explain this. It's the difference between swimming five miles; and slogging through a hundred yards of mud that ranges from knee-deep to chest-deep, while also having to smash down two brick walls. One does not equate to the other, yet everyone keeps acting like they're the same thing.

I understand using heavy denim since that was supposed to be a worst-case scenario, and it tends to plug most JHP designs. It is irrelevant to me, since it is heavier and more dense than anything I would encounter an attacker wearing. If I get mugged by a Canadian, I probably deserved it.

the problem is that ClearBallistics markets its clear gel as the equivalent of 10% ordinance gel, when it's not

Okay, I'll use smaller words.

Gelatin is used as the standardized testing for small arms munitions.

The Gelatin is supposed to be a similar density to human tissue.

Human tissue is actually made up of multiple different densities for skin, fat, muscle, and different organs.

Bone is far more dense than human tissue.


It is the difference between driving through mud, and driving your car through a wall.

You're really overemphasizing the factor bone plays here.  Like I posted before, the 12-18" baseline already takes the presence of bone into account.  Can bone deflect a projectile?  Yes.  Can the projectile  sail through bone unaffected?  Again, yes.  There is no way to accurately model how a projectile will perform against a bone barrier in a body, the variables are infinite.  Given that fact, a baseline of 12-18" was developed.  

Nobody claims that ballistic gel testing is perfect, it isn't.  But, it does give a reasonably good indication of how it will perform similarly in a human body, made up of both bone and tissue.

Since we're already on the topic of bones and Canadians, have a look at this ballistics study conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who included pig rib bones in the ballistic gelatin to simulate a ribcage.  While it's an older test and therefore utilizes older ammunition like Winchester Black Talons, Federal Hydrashok and other first/second generation hollowpoints, you'll see that firing into a ballistic gelatin block containing pig bones showed virtually no effect on penetration, expansion, and retained weight.  Almost all still penetrated to between 12 and 18" (aside from the 115 grain 9mm projectiles, which we already know to be shallow penetrators)

RCMP ballistics test

If there is no effect on the performance of the round when bones are introduced, there really isn't any reason to include bones in the test, is there?  And if we can expect this kind of performance from projectiles that are inferior to what we currently utilize today, what should that tell us?

So? Ballistics gel is a tested, consistent, repeatable test medium.

"but-but-but it doesn't have any bones in it!"

See above post.

There needs to be a common, easily reproducible medium for testing. One cannot just shoot a pig one day, a dog another day then another pig, then a drug dealer. When testing everything has to be the same or the results are invalid. So a medium has to be chosen that is as similar as possible to the real thing but can accurately be reproduced over and over by everyone.

Yep. It's repeatable. It's just not very indicative of anything other than what a bullet will do in ballistic gelatin.



Go to Old Painless' website and watch him shoot real bullets through a real windshield. They all perform very similarly in gel, but very differently in the old Buick.



 

So how should we determine what bullet to select for self defense/LE use?  Guessing on how we think a given projectile will perform?

Just occupy your ignore list

Are you literally retarded? Or just trolling? If you're trolling, good job.

Calling headshots is difficult enough; avoiding ribs is ridiculous.

Do you know how I know you've never done force-on-force training?

Which can then be applied to a number of criteria set forth over decades of study of terminal ballistics, including performance in...










(wait for it)











...meat and bone.

MAX BUTTHURT ENGAGE!!!

Can't tell if that's Alice Cooper or not.. :O



 

It sounds like you've been getting a lot of your info from old crusty dudes at the gun counter. Adequate penetration is the foremost predictor of a cartridge's ability to incapacitate. Soft tissue can and does prevent adequate penetration for low sectional density or fragmenting ammunition. Modern bonded JHP is very reliably. It can fail, but it normally performs well and normally expands, despite hard obstacles. As mentioned above, some very smart people put a lot of time and effort into gathering data about actual shootings and comparing to gelatin tests. The FBI determined that 12" of penetration in properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin should generally result in penetration that is adequate to reach vital organs. For a better understanding, and to avoid putting your foot in your mouth, please read the FBI report "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" as well as the tacked "Best choices for defense" thread in the ammo forums here.