View Full Version : Tests on "bone simulant"
Ran into this posted in another forum today (CalGuns)... curious if there are any thoughts/comments. It looks like these reports were published relatively recently by brassfetcher.com:
9mm:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/9x19mm%20JHP%20Performance%20through%20Bone%20Simulant%20plates%20and%20Gelatin.pdf
.40 cal
http://www.brassfetcher.com/40S&W%20JHP%20performance%20against%20Bone%20Simulant%20and%20Ballistic%20Gelatin.pdf
.45 ACP
http://www.brassfetcher.com/45ACP%20JHP%20Performance%20through%20Bone%20Simulant%20plates.pdf
.38 special
http://www.brassfetcher.com/PDF/38%20Special%20JHP%20performance%20through%20Bone%20Simulant%20plates.pdf
.380
http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP%20JHP%20Bone%20Simulant%20and%20Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Test%20Report.pdf
For the 9mm test, I'm curious why they are recommending the Federal 105 gr EFMJ given that it penetrated a mere 9.5 inches in bare gelatin. Sure it expanded, but it seems like a subpar performer to me.
The bone test seems to mirror that of the various barrier tests in the FBI protocol. Barriers are always going to interfere with expansion.
Nephrology
11-12-11, 08:19
Interesting to note that failures to expand were pretty uniform across the major duty calibers and that the better performers were the cor-bon brass bullets.
I don't agree with their testing proceedure. Since when do our threats have an exoskeleton? Most humans, especially modern day Americans, have a good amount of water-laced tissue outside the rib cage. Using a "rubberized" outter skin layer does not duplicate water-laced human skin, nor does it make for a realistic barrier test. Most modern JHPs such as the HST will reach full expansion with only an inch of penetration in tissue. Also, virtually every shooting I have read about, or been part of the investigation in recent years, there has been no failures to expaned with good ammo through the torso region. The big problems have been due to lack of penetration.
So, the primary premise of their testing is that the EFMJ and Copper loads do not loose their ability expanding after first punching through a hard outter barrier. This test does not realistically apply to the human body. However, it might be said that it can apply to shooting through other types of barriers. If I'm shooting through a barrier, I want the best penetration ability possible.
Lastly, why did they not include 147gr 9mm loads which are probably the most common duty load for law enforcement agencies? Seems as if the testers are either ignorant of 147gr performance, or believe in junk science that they would not consider using such loads.
Nephrology
11-12-11, 09:25
I don't agree with their testing proceedure. Since when do our threats have an exoskeleton? Most humans, especially modern day Americans, have a good amount of water-laced tissue outside the rib cage. Using a "rubberized" outter skin layer does not duplicate water-laced human skin, nor does it make for a realistic barrier test. Most modern JHPs such as the HST will reach full expansion with only an inch of penetration in tissue. Also, virtually every shooting I have read about, or been part of the investigation in recent years, there has been no failures to expaned with good ammo through the torso region. The big problems have been due to lack of penetration.
So, the primary premise of their testing is that the EFMJ and Copper loads do not loose their ability expanding after first punching through a hard outter barrier. This test does not realistically apply to the human body. However, it might be said that it can apply to shooting through other types of barriers. If I'm shooting through a barrier, I want the best penetration ability possible.
Lastly, why did they not include 147gr 9mm loads which are probably the most common duty load for law enforcement agencies? Seems as if the testers are either ignorant of 147gr performance, or believe in junk science that they would not consider using such loads.
I do agree their tests weren't perfect but I think they were at least informative. The rib cage doesn't necessarily have *that* much tissue in front of it, even on larger americans maybe a couple inches if you are measuring from the mediastinum.
I do agree their tests weren't perfect but I think they were at least informative. The rib cage doesn't necessarily have *that* much tissue in front of it, even on larger americans maybe a couple inches if you are measuring from the mediastinum.
The 1994 Canadian study tested this concept where they used swine ribs placed inside gel blocks at accurate depths. Brassfetcher should have placed the testing plate at least 1/2" inside the gel. Most of the hollow points would have expanded then. Even Dr. Lane in 1993 surrounded bone with gel in his tests.
The Brassfetcher test uses a material for the bone, and skin that contains NO water. JHPs depend on the hydrolic force of water to expand the hollow point. Hollow points do NOT expand without water. Skin, fat, and muscle contain water.......bone marrow contains water.....all things that aid in rapid hollow point expansion. The EFMJ bullet expands by flattening out against any substance it impacts......but it is notorious for having shallow penetration. It appears that the DPX bullet simply had harder JHP petals that surrounded the cavity, so it was able to withstand the impact and still expand.
I still wonder why they used a number of crappy, outdated bullet designs. I'd use the DPX load, but their conclusions give the EFMJ a favorable view point even though it had too shallow a penetration to meet the FBI minimum standard. I guess the author never read Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness.
Interesting to note that failures to expand were pretty uniform across the major duty calibers and that the better performers were the cor-bon brass bullets.
They're solid copper, made by Barnes, and loaded by numerous companies. Good bullet.
Ran into this posted in another forum today (CalGuns)... curious if there are any thoughts/comments. It looks like these reports were published relatively recently by brassfetcher.com...
No disrespect to the efforts expended by this fellow, but sometimes people lose sight of the limited validity/applicability of bench testing ammunition and start to add confounding things like "simulated bone", etc. I think a lot of this sort of "research" is well-intentioned, but it's invariably put forward by people with no real background in research science. For instance, I recall a piece in a gun magazine in the 70's or 80's by Craig Boddington in which he embedded buffalo or bovine thigh bones in gelatin blocks and tried to draw valid conclusions about the "bone-busting" abilities of hunting ammunition. I respect Boddington's hunting resume, but as a researcher he was not to be taken seriously.
If you review the history of the use of ballistic gelatin, go back to Dr. Fackler's papers from his days at the Presidio, you'll see that the purpose of ballistic gelatin testing was not to try to mimic human or animal tissues--which are incredibly variable in homogeneity depending on individual specimen, angle of penetration, and organs/tissues penetrated/perforated--but to furnish a standardized test medium so that any and all ammunition could be compared on the same level playing field. Apples to apples, if you will.
No professional has EVER implied that ballistic gelatin mimics human or animal bodies. Attempting to draw any sorts of valid conclusions from a heterogeneous test medium is a nightmare, because you introduce an uncountable number of uncontrolled variables to your test protocol.
As soon as you add other substances to the test protocol, you change from apples-to-apples comparisons to what might be appropriately considered apples-to-fruitcake. Did your bullet hit a piece of apple, or a piece of candied maraschino cherry? Or did a fragment of brazil nut plug the hollowpoint of your bullet, limiting expansion?
Try not to take these sorts of tests too seriously.
No disrespect to the efforts expended by this fellow, but sometimes people lose sight of the limited validity/applicability of bench testing ammunition and start to add confounding things like "simulated bone", etc. I think a lot of this sort of "research" is well-intentioned, but it's invariably put forward by people with no real background in research science. For instance, I recall a piece in a gun magazine in the 70's or 80's by Craig Boddington in which he embedded buffalo or bovine thigh bones in gelatin blocks and tried to draw valid conclusions about the "bone-busting" abilities of hunting ammunition. I respect Boddington's hunting resume, but as a researcher he was not to be taken seriously.
If you review the history of the use of ballistic gelatin, go back to Dr. Fackler's papers from his days at the Presidio, you'll see that the purpose of ballistic gelatin testing was not to try to mimic human or animal tissues--which are incredibly variable in homogeneity depending on individual specimen, angle of penetration, and organs/tissues penetrated/perforated--but to furnish a standardized test medium so that any and all ammunition could be compared on the same level playing field. Apples to apples, if you will.
No professional has EVER implied that ballistic gelatin mimics human or animal bodies. Attempting to draw any sorts of valid conclusions from a heterogeneous test medium is a nightmare, because you introduce an uncountable number of uncontrolled variables to your test protocol.
As soon as you add other substances to the test protocol, you change from apples-to-apples comparisons to what might be appropriately considered apples-to-fruitcake. Did your bullet hit a piece of apple, or a piece of candied maraschino cherry? Or did a fragment of brazil nut plug the hollowpoint of your bullet, limiting expansion?
Try not to take these sorts of tests too seriously.
https://convore2.s3.amazonaws.com/inline-images/88c233b3/72281c03/936da7bf/e54fc304.gif
AMEN.
Shawn Dodson
11-19-11, 22:42
"When a bullet is penetrating any material (tissue, water, air, wood, etc.), the total force the bullet exerts on the material is the same as the total force the material exerts on the bullet (this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion). These forces may be represented as a combination of shear forces and inertial forces (don’t be concerned if these words sound too technical – the concepts are easy). Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall material that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force….
"You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….
"A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….
"…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.
"The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).
"Since inertial forces depend on accelerating mass, it makes sense that these forces should be lower at lower velocities (because the penetrated material cannot be accelerated to a velocity higher than the bullet). Shear forces have little velocity dependence, and as a result, shear forces are a much larger fraction of the total when bullet velocity is below the cavitation threshold. This low velocity effect is the reason that total bullet penetration depth is much different in water and in tissue or a valid tissue simulant.
"As a result of the penetration dynamics, most soft solids with a density very near soft tissues (i.e., near the density of water) are satisfactory tissue simulants when shear forces are not important. However, total penetration depth depends significantly on dynamics at velocities below 400 ft/sec, so most materials do not properly simulate penetration depth. The total bullet penetration depth in tissue and a valid tissue simulant should be the same; standard practice is to use calibrated gelatin to insure this. In effect, gelatin calibration is done to ensure that the shear forces in the gelatin are the same as in typical soft tissue (as described in Bullet Penetration, the technical parameter used in the dynamic is viscosity)."
--“Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” (Duncan MacPherson, Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43)
XXXXXXXXXX
"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."
--“The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)
Nightvisionary
11-20-11, 19:10
I don't agree with their testing proceedure. Since when do our threats have an exoskeleton? Most humans, especially modern day Americans, have a good amount of water-laced tissue outside the rib cage. Using a "rubberized" outter skin layer does not duplicate water-laced human skin, nor does it make for a realistic barrier test. Most modern JHPs such as the HST will reach full expansion with only an inch of penetration in tissue. Also, virtually every shooting I have read about, or been part of the investigation in recent years, there has been no failures to expaned with good ammo through the torso region. The big problems have been due to lack of penetration.
So, the primary premise of their testing is that the EFMJ and Copper loads do not loose their ability expanding after first punching through a hard outter barrier. This test does not realistically apply to the human body. However, it might be said that it can apply to shooting through other types of barriers. If I'm shooting through a barrier, I want the best penetration ability possible.
Lastly, why did they not include 147gr 9mm loads which are probably the most common duty load for law enforcement agencies? Seems as if the testers are either ignorant of 147gr performance, or believe in junk science that they would not consider using such loads.
No test is going to be perfect but this test protocol was far more realistic than typical bare gelatin or denim over gelatin tests.
No test is going to be perfect but this test protocol was far more realistic than typical bare gelatin or denim over gelatin tests.
Different purposes for the test.
Shawn - great stuff
+1
As always.
No test is going to be perfect but this test protocol was far more realistic than typical bare gelatin or denim over gelatin tests.
How so?
BuckskinJoe
11-22-11, 04:37
There are two other studies that are instructive here.
One was done by the Canadian Police Research Center (CPRC) in late 1994 using pig ribs inserted 1"-2" deep in properly prepared ballistic gelatin.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ps-sp/PS63-2-1995-1E.pdf
The summary on page three shows the difference in penetration between bare gelatin and gelatin with pig ribs was unremarkable, i.e., no substantive difference.
The second is a study started by Eugene Wolberg with the San Diego Police Department. The study compared bullet performance in ballistic gelatin vs. autopsy results from actual police shootings. The findings from autopsies very closely correlated to those in ballistic gelatin. However, all head wounds and bone hits were eliminated.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf
Mr. Wolberg is no longer living; however, his study has continued with the total sample size, the last I heard, in excess of 150, which gives the results high statistical credibility. The correlation between lab tests and "street" shootings has increased as the sample size has grown.
Perhaps, Doc has updated information on the status of the study initiated by Mr. Wolberg.
There are two other studies that are instructive here.
One was done by the Canadian Police Research Center (CPRC) in late 1994 using pig ribs inserted 1"-2" deep in properly prepared ballistic gelatin.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ps-sp/PS63-2-1995-1E.pdf
The summary on page three shows the difference in penetration between bare gelatin and gelatin with pig ribs was unremarkable, i.e., no substantive difference.
The second is a study started by Eugene Wolberg with the San Diego Police Department. The study compared bullet performance in ballistic gelatin vs. autopsy results from actual police shootings. The findings from autopsies very closely correlated to those in ballistic gelatin. However, all head wounds and bone hits were eliminated.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf
Mr. Wolberg is no longer living; however, his study has continued with the total sample size, the last I heard, in excess of 150, which gives the results high statistical credibility. The correlation between lab tests and "street" shootings has increased as the sample size has grown.
Perhaps, Doc has updated information on the status of the study initiated by Mr. Wolberg.
I Realize that making a joke on Mr. Wolberg's name is in poor taste, and was extremely rude. I apologize to anyone offended.
Good stuff, either way.
BuckskinJoe
11-22-11, 08:51
I wasn't aware to Mr. Wahlburg was doing ballistics testing now.
I am not aware "to" Mr. Wahlburg, either, and whether this Mr. Wahlburg was (past tense) doing "ballistics" testing now (present tense.)
Perhaps, you could enlighten us as to who this Mr. Wahlburg "was" "now."
The person to whom I referred is Eugene J. Wolberg, who is deceased. The study Mr. Wolberg initiated of the results of actual shootings in the San Diego Police Department continued after his death. Most people with a reasonablle grasp of the English language would comprehend that other people continued Mr. Wolberg's study after he died.
I am not aware "to" Mr. Wahlburg, either, and whether this Mr. Wahlburg was (past tense) doing "ballistics" testing now (present tense.)
Perhaps, you could enlighten us as to who this Mr. Wahlburg "was" "now."
The person to whom I referred is Eugene J. Wolberg, who is deceased. The study Mr. Wolberg initiated of the results of actual shootings in the San Diego Police Department continued after his death. Most people with a reasonablle grasp of the English language would comprehend that other people continued Mr. Wolberg's study after he died.
Sorry for my poor grammer. I'm normally far more capable of grasping such than I am this morning, not enough coffee.
You're right, and my post was in poor taste. I apologize.
In point of fact, I'm quite aware of the studies you presented, including Mr. Wolberg's, and they are good stuff.
I have also seen that Brass fetcher test. Since I have seen a number of OISs where bone and other barriers were struck by the bullets used, and none of them reacted as did the bullets in the noted tests, I am of the opinion that the bone stimulant doesn't simulate bone at all well.
I have also seen that Brass fetcher test. Since I have seen a number of OISs where bone and other barriers were struck by the bullets used, and none of them reacted as did the bullets in the noted tests, I am of the opinion that the bone stimulant doesn't simulate bone at all well.
One of the things that I theorize with this test, though I am by no means an expect, is that with the bone simulent, or even using some sort of bone that is close to human in density and shape such as pork ribs, having the bone being outside of the gel and being struck by the bullet before it penetrates any other type of media is the biggest mistake.
In the human body, there's usually a layer of, what, an inch of skin, fat, and muscle before the bullet will reach bone, and the bullet has expanded, or begins to expand, on contact with that tissue before it hits bone.
In the test, by contrast, the bullet is striking this simulent, and whatever this simulent is, it's compacting in the hollowpoint, thus preventing expansion in most cases. I've seen, outside of medical reports and actual patients suffering bullet wounds, a few tests done where bone was inserted into the gel such that there is a 1-2" gel layer before the bone is struck, and in these tests, the bullets do not behave substantially different than they do with gel alone.
That's exactly what I told Brassfetcher. But the test is sponsored and the sponsor doesn't want it repeated with the bone simulant inside the gel.
That's exactly what I told Brassfetcher. But the test is sponsored and the sponsor doesn't want it repeated with the bone simulant inside the gel.
That's the funny thing about sponsors. They have an investment in mind, and therefore would not mind if a test were skewed to favor a particular outcome.
Corbon trying to sell their ultra expensive DPX loads?
That's the funny thing about sponsors. They have an investment in mind, and therefore would not mind if a test were skewed to favor a particular outcome.
Corbon trying to sell their ultra expensive DPX loads?
Well, before we pile on Corbon (or ASYM or Black Hills, or any of the companies that make loads using the Barnes bullet), let's not forget that the price of copper right now, plus the price from Barnes to make the bullets, makes the bullets high enough that they necessitate the nearly-a-buck-a-round price. I don't LIKE it, considering that I love the barnes bullets and recommend them highly, but thems the breaks.
Nephrology
11-27-11, 11:40
Well, before we pile on Corbon (or ASYM or Black Hills, or any of the companies that make loads using the Barnes bullet), let's not forget that the price of copper right now, plus the price from Barnes to make the bullets, makes the bullets high enough that they necessitate the nearly-a-buck-a-round price. I don't LIKE it, considering that I love the barnes bullets and recommend them highly, but thems the breaks.
Too bad my Cor-bon DPX was some of the most poorly made self defense ammunition i've ever had the misfortune of paying for. out of 3 boxes of the 9mm 115gr +P stuff easily over half of the rounds were poorly crimped and twisted out of the case mouth. More than one spontaneously disassembled itself when I was clearing my carry pistol. Getting the gunpowder out of my carpet was fun...
This also happened to my buddy who carried the .45 ACP 180gr +P variant of the same cartridge.
Too bad my Cor-bon DPX was some of the most poorly made self defense ammunition i've ever had the misfortune of paying for. out of 3 boxes of the 9mm 115gr +P stuff easily over half of the rounds were poorly crimped and twisted out of the case mouth. More than one spontaneously disassembled itself when I was clearing my carry pistol. Getting the gunpowder out of my carpet was fun...
This also happened to my buddy who carried the .45 ACP 180gr +P variant of the same cartridge.
Yeah, I dislike Corbon intensely. The ASYM Ammunition loading of the Barnes XPB bullet is the complete opposite as far as quality.
I doubt the sponsor is a commercial ammunition manufacturer. I suspect they would have well established testing facilities/agencies already.
TeamCORBON
11-27-11, 12:41
That's the funny thing about sponsors. They have an investment in mind, and therefore would not mind if a test were skewed to favor a particular outcome.
Corbon trying to sell their ultra expensive DPX loads?
Nope, not us.
One of the things that I theorize with this test, though I am by no means an expect, is that with the bone simulent, or even using some sort of bone that is close to human in density and shape such as pork ribs, having the bone being outside of the gel and being struck by the bullet before it penetrates any other type of media is the biggest mistake.
In the human body, there's usually a layer of, what, an inch of skin, fat, and muscle before the bullet will reach bone, and the bullet has expanded, or begins to expand, on contact with that tissue before it hits bone.
In the test, by contrast, the bullet is striking this simulent, and whatever this simulent is, it's compacting in the hollowpoint, thus preventing expansion in most cases. I've seen, outside of medical reports and actual patients suffering bullet wounds, a few tests done where bone was inserted into the gel such that there is a 1-2" gel layer before the bone is struck, and in these tests, the bullets do not behave substantially different than they do with gel alone.
The other issue might be; what bone in the human body is the size and thickness of a sheet of plywood?
Answer would be; none.
As mentioned before humans don't wear their skeleton on the outside. One other consideration, rib bones contain some liquid. While I've never seen "fresh" human rib bones many of the animal rib bones I've seen during, slaughter, contain quite a bit of moister. I don't see where these synbones mention moister.
To me it seems like another Brassfetcher test done to make a certain type of ammo look better than it normally would.
the problem with these tests is they are trying to compare dead tissue to live tissue. Even just after a kill, the body will react to a shot differently than a live body(Im pretty sure Fackler or Roberts have stated that). Dead, dry bone=/= live tissue. The best test is a live body but each one is different. Hence gel. Look at deer, 2 of the same size shot in the same place, one runs 50yds, one runs 100yds. Different physiology and psychology.
All these tests show is how a bullet behaves if you shoot through a dead bone before hitting the target. Also, how was the gel made? 20% gel? Im taking this worth a grain of salt.
All of these tests are getting old. No one is ever going to find 'Thee' definitive answer after 100+ years of inconclusive research on the subject. Shootting a dead horse isn't going to get us any more answers than beating a dead horse....
Just shootem where it hurts most and hope for the best.
All of these tests are getting old. No one is ever going to find 'Thee' definitive answer after 100+ years of inconclusive research on the subject.
We don't have definitive answers, but we do know that the current widely accepted testing, has a strong correlation to actual results. In other words, it's the best we have.
Just shootem where it hurts most
Which of course, is the number 1 advice given by Fackler, Wolberg, MacPherson, Roberts, etc., all along.
We don't have definitive answers, but we do know that the current widely accepted testing, has a strong correlation to actual results. In other words, it's the best we have.
Which of course, is the number 1 advice given by Fackler, Wolberg, MacPherson, Roberts, etc., all along.
Add to that, we have vastly improved tools to look at the human body, and to understand how the human body works as well as what happens during a gunshot. The more we know about that, the more we can study those things and learn new things, the better and more accurate we can be at knowing exactly how things work.
Besides, like the laws of diminishing returns, just exactly what do you want to learn?
My goal is to understand how to best shut down the bad guy as quickly as possible, provided I do my job. If bullet X will do enough damage to shut him down in 30 seconds, while bullet Y will do the same, with identical shot placement, and all else being equal, in 15 seconds, then I'd rather use the round that does the job in 15 seconds.
Yes, granted, this is speculative. But, from an academic standpoint, it's fascinating to learn more about how things work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.