Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:10:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 12:20:17 PM EDT by Shockergd]
I had the thought the other day " Right now , there's alot of WWB out there , and its the one ammo I've got alot of , I wonder how well it'd work for hunting or zombies". So , I got the idea.....ballistic gel. I figure its the one ammo everyone (well , almost everyone) has access to eaasily and cheap , but there really aren't any sort of 'tests' that have been conducted on it. Just alot of speculation about what IMI loaded the stuff with.

Anyways , I got the bright idea of either making or buying ballistic gel. After doing research over the course of a couple of weeks , I decided that making gel would be the best way to go , due to the astronomical costs of buying gel to-spec of what the FBI uses. I made a total of 4 ballistic blocks and on #4 I finally got the gel right. It met the spec sheet of the FBI with thier calibration test ( 8.5cm penetration from a .177 steel bb 10yds , 590fps)

Anyway , I tested a 55gr Winchester white box round , the walmart $7.73/box variety on the block at 25yds.

Here was the result.

http://www.furypbpark.com/new/geltestpic1.jpg


http://www.furypbpark.com/new/geltestpic2.jpg
^ With major fragments circled ^

The pic is un-highlighted or enhanced , I'll deal with that tommorow, and get better pics with a backlight.

What's the result? In my calibrated , un-scientific ballistic gel , a WWB round will begin to fragment around 6" into the gel block and not penetrate over 11". Any sort of "bullet remains" are not regonizable as a bullet ,but as extremely small fragments. The biggest fragmented piece of lead is about .10 caliber right now , the rest remain even smaller. I'm pretty amazed by the stuff , seeing how much it fragmented. I imagine that for home defence , this stuff would work quite well due to the fact in the gel test , over penetration is almost non existant. I might start using this stuff on varnmits now how I see it works out :D

*edited with correct pic links*
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 12:17:38 PM EDT
If you don't mind saying, what did you use for the gel?

Looks awesome, btw.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 12:23:01 PM EDT
After research , I found out that Knox is the company that supplies the FBI and the other 'biggies' with the gel mix. So , thats what I used , good ol fashioned Knox gel mix. Unfortunately making a good block is a bit expinsive. That specific block , which was 14" long , 5" wide 5" high cost me a little over $5 and that I only get one shot per block.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 12:26:34 PM EDT
Very cool.

That's a nasty wound. I'm a pretty thick guy (203 @ 5'11, 240 lbs in the off season), and I'm only about 10" thick in the waist @ 203 and 12" thick in the chest (rough measurement).

So, 11" is just about perfect!

Glad I stocked up on this stuff.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:22:57 PM EDT
That would seriously ruin your day. If you try it again try a round of 855 as a comparson. Id like to see if it actually yaws or frags. Did you get the FPS off the WWB?
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 1:36:05 PM EDT
I was unable to get a range FPS reading due to my chrono being down. Hopefully i can get it fixed soon and go back and test ADCOM's ss109 ammo out , it'll be interesting.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 2:16:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 2:55:09 PM EDT
Just as I thought, WWB frags, and quite well I might add.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:09:12 PM EDT

"WWB" is kind of a generic term..... how about a product #, as there is a number of Win 223 in white boxes out there.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:23:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SBR7_11:
"WWB" is kind of a generic term..... how about a product #, as there is a number of Win 223 in white boxes out there.



+1

I figure he is talking about 55 gr. FMJ in the 40 round value packs at Wally World. But clarification would be nice.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:25:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:
That would seriously ruin your day. If you try it again try a round of 855 as a comparson. Id like to see if it actually yaws or frags. Did you get the FPS off the WWB?



It will, read the ammo oracle.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:26:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SBR7_11:
"WWB" is kind of a generic term..... how about a product #, as there is a number of Win 223 in white boxes out there.



I believe he means USA223R1VP
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:28:03 PM EDT
Excellent work Shockergd.

I'm surprised it didn't make the 12" mark but, looks good. Not nearly as devastating as M193 though. But nevertheless, I'm sure it would be deadly.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 4:31:51 PM EDT
Wow- nice! Thanks for your work.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 4:46:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 4:46:40 PM EDT by thedoctors308]
Kick ass - I just posted a thread last week asking this.
Nice to know it will frag some.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 5:21:00 PM EDT
i have about 1000+ right now gonna have to buy more...

the stuff ive been buys is sealed also"black tar" made in isreal..

it is the 223.stuff also
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 5:36:41 PM EDT
Its the standard run of the mill WWB 55gr FMJ. $7.73 a box/40 .

Everyone has it , I figure the best thing to do is test ammo common people have. I'd like in the near future to do tests on all the common ammo types. ADCOM 62gr ss109 , Wolf's various rounds , q3131 (if there aren't any already), and the other off-the-shelf ammo. I know with WWB , i have much less of a problem keeping a clip of it by the AR now , knowing it won't penetrate through the house too bad.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:56:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JJREA:

Originally Posted By fxntime:
That would seriously ruin your day. If you try it again try a round of 855 as a comparson. Id like to see if it actually yaws or frags. Did you get the FPS off the WWB?



It will, read the ammo oracle.



I know but pics are nice to compare where it begins to break up, how deep it will go, and the size of the fragments.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 8:37:11 PM EDT
There seems to be a lot of folks here wanting to know about the new lots of Q3131, including myself. It would be great if you could test a rnd of this since it's now available in quantity and xm193 is drying up. I plan on testing it this weekend in wet news print but your tests are more revealing. Thanks a bunch for your effort, I'm certain it is appreciated by many.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 4:04:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 4:05:05 AM EDT by SWO_daddy]
Why doesn't anyone test this stuff at longer distances like 100, 150, and 200 yards?

Wouldn't that settle once and for all the question of how far various bullets will go before they stop fragmenting?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 7:49:01 AM EDT
The range i go to has a max distance of 125yds , but here in the future i'm supposed to go to camp perry to do some match typoe shooting with my ar15. I think it'd be cool to try out some mk262 on some ballistic blocks 300-600yds away and see if all they do is make a hole. I might try and get a box of two of q3131 if they have it in smaller quanities at the gun show.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:22:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
The range i go to has a max distance of 125yds



That would be fine. Shoot a gel block that far. That's about typical for modern combat engagements outside of built up areas.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:14:16 AM EDT
Remember that crazy SOB that was shooting people in DC??? The DC sniper I think they called him..Anyway I wonder what he was using?? Because it fragged so much they were having problems digging enough out of bodies to try to identify any ballistic info from it..
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:30:40 AM EDT
nice work
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:38:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 1:25:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 1:32:15 PM EDT by WesDesRat]

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Anyways , I got the bright idea of either making or buying ballistic gel. After doing research over the course of a couple of weeks , I decided that making gel would be the best way to go , due to the astronomical costs of buying gel to-spec of what the FBI uses. I made a total of 4 ballistic blocks and on #4 I finally got the gel right. It met the spec sheet of the FBI with thier calibration test ( 8.5cm penetration from a .177 steel bb 10yds , 590fps)



and:


I was unable to get a range FPS reading due to my chrono being down. Hopefully i can get it fixed soon and go back and test ADCOM's ss109 ammo out , it'll be interesting.



How did you check that the gel was within spec without firing a BB over a chronograph and into the block?

ETA: Not trying to say this is a bad test, I'm just curious. I like the WWB ammo, and have shot it a bit. The 6" neck may not be typical, as I'm guessing this was only one shot, not the average of several. I have shot a few jackrabbits with this stuff, and they are usually no more than 6" thick, but they sure look like the round has fragmented so some degree.

Please note that performance in jackrabbits does not equate to performance in people or gel blocks.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 3:30:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brouhaha:
Excellent work.

Making gel and doing a valid experiment is quite difficult and costly, as I'm sure you've discovered.

While the fragmentation is nice, the 6" neck is absolutely horrid. Even worse than M193 and M855. I would not want to use that for defensive use, particularly if I had better choices available (75/77gr, for instance).



What is this neck of which you speak, and why does it matter?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 5:31:02 PM EDT
It's the distance the bullet travels into the gel before it starts to upset.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 5:38:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thezman:
It's the distance the bullet travels into the gel before it starts to upset.



OK, I thought that's what it was. 6" is enough to go halfway into anyone's chest cavity from any direction unless you are fucking huge.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 5:53:55 PM EDT
.177 cal match air rifle that's supposed to give the same velocity as the fbi requirement. I also shot it with a .22 20gr primer-only bullet which from what i understand has almost identical characteristics to the FBI test. After going through 4-5 blocks , I felt it was upto par enough to test and post pictures. When the chrono gets repaired ( I have 3 , only one works mediocre) I can run some more tests. The few times i've shot small animals with the WWB , it seemed to fragment relatively close to what the gel block did. I'm not expecting it to be 100% of the FBI test , but within +/- 5% of what thier gel consistantcy is at. If I had the cash , believe me , i'd be firing at blocks all day , but that won't happen till i get the oz cost of the gel below the 80 cents i'm paying right now ( 10% gel means 90% water/10% gel by weight , water weighs more than you'd think)
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 6:28:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 6:59:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Why doesn't anyone test this stuff at longer distances like 100, 150, and 200 yards?

Wouldn't that settle once and for all the question of how far various bullets will go before they stop fragmenting?



Because with math you dont have to. You just extrapolate.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 7:03:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jicky:
Remember that crazy SOB that was shooting people in DC??? The DC sniper I think they called him..Anyway I wonder what he was using?? Because it fragged so much they were having problems digging enough out of bodies to try to identify any ballistic info from it..



I may be wrong but I think that was American Eagle 55gr FMJBT. Seemed rather effective didn't it?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:33:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 12:35:42 AM EDT by Charging_Handle]

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:

Originally Posted By Jicky:
Remember that crazy SOB that was shooting people in DC??? The DC sniper I think they called him..Anyway I wonder what he was using?? Because it fragged so much they were having problems digging enough out of bodies to try to identify any ballistic info from it..



I may be wrong but I think that was American Eagle 55gr FMJBT. Seemed rather effective didn't it?



The DC murderers (I refuse to use the term sniper in this case) did in fact use Federal American Eagle 55 gr FMJ.

Keep in mind many of these shots were at a range of 50 yds or less however.

I suspect you will get fragmentation at close range with most of the commercial FMJ loads that have any sort of decent velocity, provided the bullets don't have steel jackets like S&B 55 gr. You'll just get fragmentation at longer ranges with M193, since the velocity is higher.

BTW, I wouldn't go using this Winchester value pack ammo on varmints just yet if your goal is to really make em "pop". With that 6" neck, the bullet will have exited most small varmints before it starts to come apart. Hehe.

Oh, and good job on the test. That was pretty well done for a first time attempt.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:24:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Why doesn't anyone test this stuff at longer distances like 100, 150, and 200 yards?

Wouldn't that settle once and for all the question of how far various bullets will go before they stop fragmenting?



Because with math you dont have to. You just extrapolate.



For extrapolation to work, there needs to be a linear relationship betweem bullet velocity and frag threshold.

Is there?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:33:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Why doesn't anyone test this stuff at longer distances like 100, 150, and 200 yards?

Wouldn't that settle once and for all the question of how far various bullets will go before they stop fragmenting?



Because with math you dont have to. You just extrapolate.



For extrapolation to work, there needs to be a linear relationship betweem bullet velocity and frag threshold.

Is there?



Read the ammo oracle.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 8:02:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 8:16:22 AM EDT by Shockergd]
I've had a curious notion , if someone wants to enlighten me , they can.

As far as i've seen , none of the ballistic tests i've seen have had actual 100,200,300,500,1000yd fragmentation/yaw tests. Only simulated tests , meaning the velocity of the bullet had been lowered in order to still be fired at in the lab. Meaning a bullet's velocity would be calculated to what it would be @ 100yds , 1000yds ,ect. Anyway , i'm curious as to if the fragmentation/yaw characteristics are only valid till the published threshold we all see/read about. My dad has stories from vietnam where NVA troups were hit at 200 , even 300yards by several rounds of 193 and the wounds were very grusome. I'm curious if at these longer distances ,after the initial spin on the bullet , if at longer distances it tends to destablize and on contact with a person/thing could begin the yawing process at longer ranges ( lets say 500yds) I'm hoping to go to a 300-500yd match range ( like camp perry) and see if people will donate thier skills with thier heavy grain loads on gel at thoes ranges ( 73gr , 69gr , 75gr , 77gr ) and even some of my 55gr match bullets as well :D

As a interesting side note , some very odd stuff happned when i fired at the ballistic block for the end-test. I set the block of gel on a plastic tupperware-type lid ( i used the tupperware tub as the gel mold becuase it was the right size for a retangular mold). I then set the lid with the gel on top of it on a wood T shaped target holder. When i fired at it , the gel block had been knocked off the lid and wood block back about 2 feet from the target , and the plastic lid had shattered severely after the impact. I find it odd that the force of the impact on the gel was enough to shatter the plastic lid the block was on , and forcing the block backwards about 2ft.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 9:46:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:02:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I find it odd that the force of the impact on the gel was enough to shatter the plastic lid the block was on , and forcing the block backwards about 2ft.



My blocks are quite a bit larger and heavier than yours. And yet a 77gr round at 15ft was able to split (in 3 places) a 2" thick piece of hardwood that it was sitting on.

I've even used a 0.25" aluminum sheet. That sheet has a very large indentation in the shape of the temporary wound channel. It's not usuable for anything except a conversation piece now.

The split always occurs directly under the fragmentation point. A LOT of energy is released there.


Do you mind explaining why ballistic gelatin testing is done only at distances that are not representative of the actual use of firearms?

Are there equations that predict fragmentation or expansion (for expanding bullet) behavior at longer distances than 15 feet? If so, have you ever followed up with tests at those distances to validate the calculations with empirical data?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:06:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Why doesn't anyone test this stuff at longer distances like 100, 150, and 200 yards?

Wouldn't that settle once and for all the question of how far various bullets will go before they stop fragmenting?



Because with math you dont have to. You just extrapolate.



For extrapolation to work, there needs to be a linear relationship betweem bullet velocity and frag threshold.

Is there?



Read the ammo oracle.


I have. And there is nothing there answering my question. Which tells me you just regurgitated some bullshit without knowing WTF I'm talking about.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:08:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 11:09:06 AM EDT by SWO_daddy]

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I've had a curious notion , if someone wants to enlighten me , they can.

As far as i've seen , none of the ballistic tests i've seen have had actual 100,200,300,500,1000yd fragmentation/yaw tests. Only simulated tests , meaning the velocity of the bullet had been lowered in order to still be fired at in the lab. Meaning a bullet's velocity would be calculated to what it would be @ 100yds , 1000yds ,ect. Anyway , i'm curious as to if the fragmentation/yaw characteristics are only valid till the published threshold we all see/read about. My dad has stories from vietnam where NVA troups were hit at 200 , even 300yards by several rounds of 193 and the wounds were very grusome. I'm curious if at these longer distances ,after the initial spin on the bullet , if at longer distances it tends to destablize and on contact with a person/thing could begin the yawing process at longer ranges ( lets say 500yds) I'm hoping to go to a 300-500yd match range ( like camp perry) and see if people will donate thier skills with thier heavy grain loads on gel at thoes ranges ( 73gr , 69gr , 75gr , 77gr ) and even some of my 55gr match bullets as well :D.



I have plenty of 223 ammo loaded with the Hornady 75 grain HPBT, and I can also whip some up with Sierra 69s. I can also provide some M2 Ball.

I have access to a private KD range with 200, 300, and 600 yard firing lines.

IM me if you would like to set something up.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:08:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I find it odd that the force of the impact on the gel was enough to shatter the plastic lid the block was on , and forcing the block backwards about 2ft.



My blocks are quite a bit larger and heavier than yours. And yet a 77gr round at 15ft was able to split (in 3 places) a 2" thick piece of hardwood that it was sitting on.

I've even used a 0.25" aluminum sheet. That sheet has a very large indentation in the shape of the temporary wound channel. It's not usuable for anything except a conversation piece now.

The split always occurs directly under the fragmentation point. A LOT of energy is released there.


Do you mind explaining why ballistic gelatin testing is done only at distances that are not representative of the actual use of firearms?

Are there equations that predict fragmentation or expansion (for expanding bullet) behavior at longer distances than 15 feet? If so, have you ever followed up with tests at those distances to validate the calculations with empirical data?



READ THE AMMO ORACLE, IT EXPLAINS ALL ABOUT FRAGMENTATION AT CERTAIN DISTANCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:13:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 11:22:00 AM EDT by SWO_daddy]

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I find it odd that the force of the impact on the gel was enough to shatter the plastic lid the block was on , and forcing the block backwards about 2ft.



My blocks are quite a bit larger and heavier than yours. And yet a 77gr round at 15ft was able to split (in 3 places) a 2" thick piece of hardwood that it was sitting on.

I've even used a 0.25" aluminum sheet. That sheet has a very large indentation in the shape of the temporary wound channel. It's not usuable for anything except a conversation piece now.

The split always occurs directly under the fragmentation point. A LOT of energy is released there.


Do you mind explaining why ballistic gelatin testing is done only at distances that are not representative of the actual use of firearms?

Are there equations that predict fragmentation or expansion (for expanding bullet) behavior at longer distances than 15 feet? If so, have you ever followed up with tests at those distances to validate the calculations with empirical data?



READ THE AMMO ORACLE, IT EXPLAINS ALL ABOUT FRAGMENTATION AT CERTAIN DISTANCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!



Don't yell at me you fucking retard.

I want to know what are the equations that predict fragmentation at distances farther than FBI tests. You said they were linear. Well then, SHOW ME THE FUCKING EQUATIONS!!!

Otherwise, kindly shut the fuck up. I wasn't talking to you anyway.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:31:39 AM EDT
I'd ask the owner of the tacked thread in this forum that talks about the fragmentation distances of m855/193.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:44:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I'd ask the owner of the tacked thread in this forum that talks about the fragmentation distances of m855/193.



Wow, a thoughtful reply to a valid question. I feel like I just found a hen's tooth.

Why is there this rigid aversion to scientific testing to validate extrapolated data? simulated charts are just that. There's is a possibility here for some good science to get done an all some people have to offer is "read the ammo-oracle".

SWO_Daddy, which week are you going to this year?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:49:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I find it odd that the force of the impact on the gel was enough to shatter the plastic lid the block was on , and forcing the block backwards about 2ft.



My blocks are quite a bit larger and heavier than yours. And yet a 77gr round at 15ft was able to split (in 3 places) a 2" thick piece of hardwood that it was sitting on.

I've even used a 0.25" aluminum sheet. That sheet has a very large indentation in the shape of the temporary wound channel. It's not usuable for anything except a conversation piece now.

The split always occurs directly under the fragmentation point. A LOT of energy is released there.


Do you mind explaining why ballistic gelatin testing is done only at distances that are not representative of the actual use of firearms?

Are there equations that predict fragmentation or expansion (for expanding bullet) behavior at longer distances than 15 feet? If so, have you ever followed up with tests at those distances to validate the calculations with empirical data?



READ THE AMMO ORACLE, IT EXPLAINS ALL ABOUT FRAGMENTATION AT CERTAIN DISTANCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!



Don't yell at me you fucking retard.

I want to know what are the equations that predict fragmentation at distances farther than FBI tests. You said they were linear. Well then, SHOW ME THE FUCKING EQUATIONS!!!

Otherwise, kindly shut the fuck up. I wasn't talking to you anyway.



I understand there are people in this world who have to be spoon fed everything, but damn guy. Read the ammo oracle, your answer is in there.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 11:52:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warren-hpf:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
I'd ask the owner of the tacked thread in this forum that talks about the fragmentation distances of m855/193.



Wow, a thoughtful reply to a valid question. I feel like I just found a hen's tooth.

Why is there this rigid aversion to scientific testing to validate extrapolated data? simulated charts are just that. There's is a possibility here for some good science to get done an all some people have to offer is "read the ammo-oracle".

SWO_Daddy, which week are you going to this year?


Why, CMP week, of course!

Seriously, Brouhaha's lack of answer to what is a valid, technical question makes me doubt anyone knows how those frag charts were derived.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:01:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 12:01:51 PM EDT by SWO_daddy]
You know what?

Fuck it. I'm not going to wade through pages of shit looking for how fragmentation threshold velocities are calculated, and whether or not someone has actually tested those threshold velocities for fragmentation in gel at the predicted distance.

If someone who actually has that knowledge can't be bothered to answer the question, then I must wonder about the validity of their statements and conclusions.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:19:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:20:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 12:27:53 PM EDT by Not_A_Llama]
There are some people that are very bad with math in this world.

You cannot establish an equation with distance and "fragmentation". That doesn't make any sense. As far as I know, there is not a metric for quantifying fragmentation. What you can do is create an equation to determine velocity as a function of distance, then compare that with the fragmentation threshold. This is easily done with ballistic charts and knowing what the frag threshold is. Pick a distance, determine the velocity, and compare with the frag threshold. This gives you a qualitative prediction of fragmentation, which is as good as you can do without serious crunchtime on powerful machines with complex models.

Incidentally, you do not need a linear relationship to extrapolate. You just need to know the nature of the relationship (linear, ^2, ^3, ln, exp, etc..) and have some guiding sense as to the formation of the relation at the points you're working with. Anyone ever done least-squares regression in highschool?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:47:36 PM EDT
How about this , a easy solution to the problem.

Everyone donates $5 to me from ar15.com I go out , buy about 100lbs of gel mix and make up dozens of blocks , shoot them at varied distances ,and we can figure up a relationship of distance/weight/fragmentation and see if that works.

Science is great , but no one could of told me a 55gr WWB round would fragment so early in the block. When it comes to data and testing , my theroy with any sort of data is : try it out in person , over and over again , becuase opinnions are like well......you know what :D

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top