Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
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?
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 1:18:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 1:19:37 PM EDT by leakycow]
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.

Link Posted: 2/16/2006 1:39:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 1:52:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
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.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 2:37:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
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?
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 2:45:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
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?
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:15:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:32:47 PM EDT
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!
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:45:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 4:49:02 PM EDT
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."
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 7:12:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By Neo1:
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
Top Top