View Full Version : I see this all the time
The performance of a bullet in ballistics gel has little to do with real life performance.
Don't you just love running into a post like this. I see it just about everytime someone posts a question about a rounds performance.
The OP always backs this up with:
Jello doesn't have bones and muscle.
I will not support a guy shooting at jello, regardless of whether or not he molds chicken bones or something in it for simulation. But if you would like to refute a claim that using gelatin is not real world, you'll need support as well. Aren't barrier tests and clothing tests enough to tell you that maybe terminal ballistics are not so cut and dried?
John_Wayne777
04-03-09, 10:34
Don't you just love running into a post like this. I see it just about everytime someone posts a question about a rounds performance.
The OP always backs this up with:
People make statements like this out of extreme ignorance. I am by no means an expert in ballistics or ballistics research. You can fit what I know about the topic into a thimble.
I have spent some time actually learning about the topic, why the testing standards we have were developed, how they have been correlated to performance on the street, and how often what is predicted in the lab in properly calibrated gel blocks comes true on the street.
The controversy here (and on practically every other topic in the gun world) boils down to four types of people:
1. The uninformed -- guys who have no clue but who know they have no clue and who are willing to learn. The problem with these guys is that they don't know enough to figure out who is a source of good information and who is a bad source of information. Often they are pursuaded by the loudest and most persistent individuals who, on the internet anyway, are generally the LEAST qualified people to be rendering an opinion.
2. The informed -- guys who have done their research and who have found good sources of information by seeking them out.
3. The experts -- guys who have done the actual research that informs everyone else
4. The willfully ignorant -- The guys who like to pretend that the number 3 people deliberately waste their time by conducting various experiments (like examining actual gunshot wounds and trying to come up with tissue simulants to measure bullet performance...like ballistics gel) because they apparently benefit somehow from galloping at windmills. Meanwhile the number 4 guys have it all figured out despite the fact that they generally have done no serious research or experimentation on their own. Certain ideas appeal to them and those ideas are the correct information no matter what some guy in a lab coat with 12 peer reviewed studies says about it.
Genuine experts who have legitimate claims to expertise are often VERY reluctant to stray outside of their area of expertise...and when they do, they do so with an abundance of qualifications about their fitness to comment on the issue at hand.
...so when you see somebody passing off information as gospel with A. No apparent qualifications B. No readily apparent base of experience C. No capability to rationally articulate the merits of his argument D. No capacity to thoughtfully analyze the merits of an opposing argument, E. No reluctance to offer an unqualified opinion on damn near any topic, what does that tell you?
When you see that guys from elite military and LE units are pretty humble and in general nice guys, and then you come across some guy on a podunk SWAT team who walks around with a SWAT tattoo telling people "You're either SWAT or you're not!!", what does that tell you?
Unfortunately there's nothing you or I or anyone else can to to help the uninformed become informed beyond pointing to the good information that the genuine experts come up with and occasionally countering particularly outrageous bits of stupidity foisted upon us by people in category 4. The choice will have to rest with the uninformed.
It's a bit like sharing the gospel. It's good stuff, but people have to find it within themselves to accept it and pursue it. There's nothing anyone can do to make them live by it.
John_Wayne777, well said Sir!
Here's another good one. This guy was shooting a chicken wrapped in duct tape and 4 layers of denim to get a more realistic result.
Actually, I was just interested in seeing how the bullet might perform against a somewhat more realistic medium than " calibrated ballistic gelatin", which sounds really scientific, but lacks such real life attributes such as bones, muscle fascia, tendons and ligaments, and often fails to be wearing clothes when the latest wonder bullet is tested agianst it
Here's another good one. This guy was shooting a chicken wrapped in duct tape and 4 layers of denim to get a more realistic result.
What forum are you getting this crap from? Glocktalk?
John_Wayne777
04-03-09, 12:59
Here's another good one. This guy was shooting a chicken wrapped in duct tape and 4 layers of denim to get a more realistic result.
Which demonstrates several issues with his thinking:
1. He doesn't seem to believe that properly calibrated ballistics gel accurately represents human tissue. Studies have been done on *ACTUAL HUMAN BODIES* that have proven a sufficient correlation between properly calibrated ballistics gel and actual human flesh. Doc R. is the guy to ask about those studies as I'm sure he knows them by heart.
2. The FBI has a heavy clothing standard which is.....4 layers of heavy denim. They also have tests for a number of different intermediate barriers. Now where, I ask you, would this guy get the idea to wrap a chicken in *FOUR* layers of denim? ...and yet he claims that the testing protocols don't take heavy clothing into account?
3. "more realistic".....because we all know that a butchered chicken you can purchase from wal-mart is exactly the same as a 200 pound human being, right? :rolleyes: Again, it falls back to my earlier point: People have ideas they are comfortable with and are seeking out justification for their opinions...they are not looking to form their opinions based on real research. I'm not smart enough to do my own ballistics research, but I *am* smart enough to figure out who to listen to in a debate about terminal ballistics.
"Hmmm....should I listen to the IWBA/FBI/US DOD guys who have spent years studying this issue including detailed analysis of literally thousands of GSW's, or do I listen to the guy shooting at a chicken on the internet?"
I'm sure he firmly believes that he's got a better feel for things than actual experts, and I'm sure that he was begun on the path to perdition by reading some knucklehead in a gun magazine who complained about people shooting at jell-o. The fact remains, however, that if we dropped him in a room full of people who have spent their CAREER studying GSW's I guarantee he wouldn't be able to defend his testing methodologies. He wanted to use duct tape to simulate muscle fascia and tendons....great. What study has he done to demonstrate that the characteristics offered by duct tape are similar enough to the characteristics of muscle fascia and tendons to qualify as a sufficient analog? I'm betting "none".
Where I come from we call that a "clue".
There's an old saying: He knows just enough to be really dangerous. This is an example of the basis for that phrase. It's extremely easy to come into a subject area, learn a little bit, and then believe you've got it figured out. The wise man resists this temptation, constantly keeps himself aware of the limitations of his knowledge and always seeks to learn more.
I'm not a scientist. I do not have the training or experience to disagree with the current state of ballistics knowledge. The topic of whether or not certain test procedures are valid is over my head. I'm willing to bet that our friend on the XD forum is no better qualified than I am.
What forum are you getting this crap from? Glocktalk?
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/ammo-can/111371-9mm-gdhp-vs-denim-clad-chicken.html
Which demonstrates several issues with his thinking:
1. He doesn't seem to believe that properly calibrated ballistics gel accurately represents human tissue. Studies have been done on *ACTUAL HUMAN BODIES* that have proven a sufficient correlation between properly calibrated ballistics gel and actual human flesh.
2. The FBI has a heavy clothing standard which is.....4 layers of heavy denim. They also have tests for a number of different intermediate barriers. Now where, I ask you, would this guy get the idea to wrap a chicken in *FOUR* layers of denim?
3. "more realistic".....because we all know that a butchered chicken you can purchase from wal-mart is exactly the same as a 200 pound human being, right? :rolleyes: Again, it falls back to my earlier point: People have ideas they are comfortable with and are seeking out justification for their opinions...they are not looking to form their opinions based on real research. I'm not smart enough to do my own ballistics research, but I *am* smart enough to figure out who to listen to in a debate about terminal ballistics.
"Hmmm....should I listen to the IWBA/FBI/US DOD guys who have spent years studying this issue including detailed analysis of literally thousands of GSW's, or do I listen to the guy shooting at a chicken with a .22?"
I totally agree with you. It's frustrating that some newbies asking for help are actually falling for this stuff.
I'm pretty sure many people do it because they know people out there are going to argue with them for 20 pages and start numerous other threads talking about how ridiculous of a view it is and then they can argue even more.
Beat Trash
04-03-09, 14:57
Good information is readily available if one is willing to look, and have an open mind tempered with common sense.
Shooting chickens wrapped in duct tape would come handy during an incident involving "Chickens gone wild", other than that...
I'm no ballistics expert. I am a Relief Sergeant who is very concerned about staying alive, and ensuring those officers under my charge also go home in one peace.
I have a quote hanging over my desk that I downloaded from a site called Motivatedphoto's.
"Amateurs talk about hardware, professionals talk of software".
Many on the net need to spend more of their time practicing and training with the equipment they have, and less time worrying about how high their post count is.
I have read Dr. Roberts reply a few times to these types of posts. While I can not remember his exact words, he basically said, "pick a proven round, test it to ensure it works in your gun, then stop worrying about it." To me, this statement tells me that not only is he a noted ballistic expert, but he has a working knowledge of the application and real world usage of the rounds and ammunition.
The proper usage of tactics and shot placement are vital. Unfortunately, these topics are not as sexy or cool to talk endlessly about as ballistics.
Next time I have to serve a warrant, give me the guy who shoots 10k rounds a year in training over the guy with a 10k post count, every time! And twice on Sundays...
But what do I know, though I have been an inter-city LEO for the last 18 years, I have never had the need to shoot a duct tape wrapped chicken...
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/ammo-can/111371-9mm-gdhp-vs-denim-clad-chicken.html
I was so disappointed that it wasn't a live chicken wearing a little denim jacket.
Thank you again to DocGKR for sharing your knowledge with us.
Beat Trash
04-03-09, 19:02
I was so disappointed that it wasn't a live chicken wearing a little denim jacket.
Thank you again to DocGKR for sharing your knowledge with us.
Or a leather jacket...
Also add my thanks Doc.
The information you have so willingly provided has helped many who are serious about the topic, to make more informed decisions. Decisions that may assist in those individuals to better survive a critical incident. You should take pride in knowing your efforts are not in vane. The life you're research could save may be my own..
For those who insist on mocking the professionals who are conducting scientific research on ballistics, well, there is plenty of chicken and duct tape...
As the wise man said, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make them drink".
Here's another good one. This guy was shooting a chicken wrapped in duct tape and 4 layers of denim to get a more realistic result.
Maybe someone needs to wrap him in duct tape and four layers of denim..
I was so disappointed that it wasn't a live chicken wearing a little denim jacket.
THAT was funny! :D
The guys says he didn't use wet newsprint as he isn't worried about being attacked by wet newsprint, yet he uses a thawed frozen chicken for testing?
Hmmmm......
"Amateurs talk about hardware, professionals talk of software".
That's why we have DocGKR ... so we don't have to talk about ammunition hardware. Seriously, how many people do you know other than Doctor Roberts have (1) the education (2) the background (3) the ability & opportunity to test ammo scientifically?
But what do I know, though I have been an inter-city LEO for the last 18 years, I have never had the need to shoot a duct tape wrapped chicken...
YET! Never know when Richard Gere might come to town, my friend ...
Nathan_Bell
04-05-09, 18:37
That's why we have DocGKR ... so we don't have to talk about ammunition hardware. Seriously, how many people do you know other than Doctor Roberts have (1) the education (2) the background (3) the ability & opportunity to test ammo scientifically?
YET! Never know when Richard Gere might come to town, my friend ...
Wouldnt' that more likely be a gerbil with trauma induced claustrophobia?
Heavy Metal
04-05-09, 18:51
Silly Rabbit! Chickens are for choking, not shooting!
Silly Rabbit! Chickens are for choking, not shooting!
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4422/rlolvl7.gif
The guys says he didn't use wet newsprint as he isn't worried about being attacked by wet newsprint, yet he uses a thawed frozen chicken for testing?
Hmmmm......
Now that's funny!!
You have no idea how many times I've argued these points. You can usually tell right away what someone's disposition is; if they cally it "Jell-O", you know they've got their mind made up. Sometimes you can reach people, sometimes you can't.
[ETA] People have a real problem understanding that ballistic gelatin doesn't do anything but model the bullet's performance in flesh. Somehow, it always comes back to "Jello doesn't shoot back", or other factors which NO test medium can hope to measure. Ballistic gelatin doesn't account for the mental state of the aggressor either (which no simulant will ever be able to do), but yet they somehow claim that that's a shortcoming with ballistic gelatin.
Here's another one I just saw.
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/54/9mmppahm8.jpg
Wayne Dobbs
04-07-09, 11:52
Besides presenting lots of commercial data about various 9mm loads and including the irrelevant TKO numbers, what does this chart accomplish?
Besides presenting lots of commercial data about various 9mm loads and including the irrelevant TKO numbers, what does this chart accomplish?
That's the thing the OP and the people responding to his post are not considering the TKO number irrelevant. They think the numbers are IT, the next best thing in choosing ammo.
People who only care about the TKO are going to pick loads with higher values, not on that chart. CorBon 115+P has a 7.9 v 7.7 which is the highest TKO on that list.
But what do I know, though I have been an inter-city LEO for the last 18 years, I have never had the need to shoot a duct tape wrapped chicken...
Don't underestimate your opponent. I once ended up with a hole in my knee and a concussion (it's a long story) from a ticked off rooster.
The only good chicken is a marinated chicken.
Wayne Dobbs
04-07-09, 16:26
wrinkles,
The TKO number was devised about a century ago to very subjectively measure the performance of non-expanding RIFLE bullets on large game such as elephants, Cape buffalo, etc. Based on those characteristics, it has little relevance to pistol bullets except possibly in comparing the predicted performance of large caliber cast hunting bullets.
Its value in low powered expanding handgun bullet performance measurement is questionable at best and riotous optimism at worst.
wrinkles,
The TKO number was devised about a century ago to very subjectively measure the performance of non-expanding RIFLE bullets on large game such as elephants, Cape buffalo, etc. Based on those characteristics, it has little relevance to pistol bullets except possibly in comparing the predicted performance of large caliber cast hunting bullets.
Its value in low powered expanding handgun bullet performance measurement is questionable at best and riotous optimism at worst.
Exactly my point people throw around the numbers thinking it's just the greatest "NEW" method of rating self defense ammo without actually knowing anything about it's history, how it came about, or wanting to spend some time researching it. It's just taken a gospel.
I was told yesterday that the 9mm is basically worthless, just like the .38 it mimics, but that a .45 round will tear your arm off.
This is cribbed from someone's sig line on a similar (to M4C) internet forum...I think it expresses this whole kaliber kontroversy perfectly:
"I like to shoot people with a .45 because when you hit them, they dissolve in a shower of sparks..."
Chris Sheehy
I was told yesterday that the 9mm is basically worthless, just like the .38 it mimics, but that a .45 round will tear your arm off.
I was shooting at a private range and talking to a local small-town LEO who was there qualifying about his ammo selection. He chose Cor-bon Pow-R-Ball. I asked him why and he spouted off the ballistic info and then said: "Plus, it will crack an engine block but it won't penetrate drywall."
From the mouth of the Po-lice so it must be true.
...and then he said: "Plus, it will crack an engine block but it won't penetrate drywall."
"We're having a special this month. Double your IQ, or no money back."
Haha, I shot a turkey one time. (thawed). Hitting bone made a huge difference, but not one that could be statistically represented.
I always viewed gelatin as a comparative tool. Great for comparing round A to round B and a pretty good correlation to muscle-tissue.
Gelatin is like a dyno, autopsies and first-hand action reports are like the drag-strip. Gelatin is a GREAT tool that will be a good predictor. It isn't the end-all, however.
I think people focus too much on numbers and minutia and too little on putting a bullet where it needs to go/training to do so. However, the numbers CAN be fun, as long as you realise that ultimately, your marksmanship is more of a predictor of how an incident will end than any armored up chicken or block of tissue simulant will ever be.
"From the mouth of the Po-lice so it must be true."
Sometimes both Baby Jesus and I weep at the state of modern LEO training in our country, my perspective being from the inside for the past 22 years.
"From the mouth of the Po-lice so it must be true."
Sometimes both Baby Jesus and I weep at the state of modern LEO training in our country, my perspective being from the inside for the past 22 years.
Meh, I once questioned the ignorance of some LE officers reguarding their weaponry and was told:
It's not about knowing what projectiles or even what weapon is at their disposal. They are supposed to be people people and they deal with people. Expecting a cop to know about his side-arm is like expecting him to know the specs on his walkie-talkie.
Since then I have just accepted that some cops know what they are packing, and others couldn't care less and don't know jack shit about what their firearm is capable of except for quals each year.
decodeddiesel
04-14-09, 09:53
Gelatin is like a dyno, autopsies and first-hand action reports are like the drag-strip.
That is a damn good analogy WS6.
Here's another posted today.
There are many Internet Ballistic experts who have never seen first hand what their favorite round will do to a human being.
There are no magic bullets. A well placed .22 will kill a human being faster than a misplaced .44mag. A properly placed FMJ will work better than a misplaced JHP from any manufacture.
Pick a round that works flawlessly in your weapon and that you can put on target. These are the only things that matter. All the rest is Internet BS.
Pretty much true on unobstructed frontal shots...this get more complex when you have to shoot through an intermediate barrier, have a quartering shot on a very large individual, etc...
That's the point I keep trying to make to people that post something like the above. Unless you can get the bad guy to pose for you it does matter. I try to counter this type of post with "Are you going to get the chance to aim carefully and wait for the threat to face you then move his arm out of way?". Really how many time are you going to get something like the target below in a real life situation.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2712/at27full.jpg
Not to mention the "X" is in the wrong spot--it needs to be where the upper "8" is at...
Why would any trainer use that target? It is just going to reinforce shooting the WRONG anatomic location for rapid threat incapacitation. An LE agency using that defective target to train/qualify officers is setting itself up for liability issues...
Jim from Houston
04-22-09, 12:47
Yep, the "X" on that target looks well below the bad guy's heart...that's the sort of spot people are hitting when you get the following story:
"I hit the guy 5 times 'center of mass' and he didn't go down! That must mean .40S&W doesn't work!"
I know that DrJSW posts on here...he's the guru of where you should actually be aiming in a gunfight...his website: http://www.tacticalanatomy.com/
Good point, thanks for the info.
Most of the targets I could find on the internet show a perfect silhouette of a BG facing you with pistol at the side (to give an unobstructed target) with the 10 ring just like the example I posted.
Not to mention the "X" is in the wrong spot--it needs to be where the upper "8" is at...
Why would any trainer use that target? It is just going to reinforce shooting the WRONG anatomic location for rapid threat incapacitation. An LE agency using that defective target to train/qualify officers is setting itself up for liability issues...
Quite right... yet there are still a LOT of agencies that qualify on similar targets (basically, B27 Targets), sadly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.