.45 ACP 200 GR Gold Dot Test??

[BobinNC]

Found this "test" while perusing the web:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mftGL4VY8QQ&feature=plcp

Perhaps Speer has made some changes to the load, or perhaps this test was not conducted according to full IWBA protocols.

Care to comment DocGKR? And if this test is definitive and correctly conducted does that mean a re-assessment of this round might be warranted?

Not trying to push this round over current 45 cal 230 gr selections, or advocate a change in your recommendations, but this test does seem to be at odds with earlier tests of the same round.

And it got me wondering if the procedures used in these "tests", and there are quite a few from the same source, are up to standards or not.

Thanks

[DocGKR]

The shot in the video was done using Sim-Test, not calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin at 4 deg C. I am unaware of any ballistic facility that has uses Sim-Test or any valid correlation studies comparing Sim-Test to living tissue. In the video it appears that only one test shot was done instead of the minimum of 5 required. The problem with the 200 gr GD was inconsistent expansion through denim--with only one shot, it is quite hard to get a sense of consistency, as the sample size is a bit limited...

[Fail-Safe]

The new 200gr+p Speer GDHP has a different bullet shape and number ofpetals. Do you think this warrants a new round of testing?

[Sensei]

FWIW, this appears to be the same video producer who tested a number of Hornady Critical Duty loads. It appears that he used the same medium for those tests.

[tpd223]

Of all of the internet "tests" that I have seen, this guy makes the best attempt at something scientific.

I watched his video on how he came to be using that mix of sim test media, lots of trial and error in the initial mixing as the factory guidlines are apparently completely wrong. He kept at the percentage until he got performance consistent with other well known gelatin tests by using the same ammo as those tests until he got , and uses the BB calibration to check each block he tests.

Even then he is careful to make a disclaimer reference his tests.

I'm not saying it's a totally valid test compared to gelatin, just saying the guy does a very good job of trying for a valid and repeatable test within his means and resources.

His results on some of the same loads that I have seen run through valid gel testing are close enough that it makes me wonder just how close to valid the sim test is, seems like "pretty close" may be a possibility.

I note that in some of his tests, as in real gel tests, he has gotten failures to expand through the four layer denim testing (example would be some of his WWB JHP testing).


I think you gotta kind of like a guy who posts a Christmas video wearing a Santa suit and playing Jingle Bells on steel with a .45, or makes videos like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CPU...feature=relmfu

[Sensei]

Clearly the guy has talent and dedication. While his informal tests are not enough to make me switch loads, I hope that he draws attention to more obscure rounds like the Hornady Critical Duty for traditional testing through all of the FBI protocol barriers.

[DocGKR]

Very cool videos!

There has got to be more than one test shot--too many weird things happen. Five is the MINIMUM, ten is better, especially if any anomaly was noted.

[GJM]

As long as we are on the topic of testing -- a friend asked about, for example, the data provided with the Winchester load comparison tool. Does one just accept that data, or are folks confirming that data with independent testing? To the extent independent testing is done, does it more or less correlate with the findings, for example, that Winchester reports?

When the Feds make a major contract buy, do they do their own testing to confirm manufacturer data on penetration and expansion, or is it primarily a financial decision?

[Sensei]

As long as we are on the topic of testing -- a friend asked about, for example, the data provided with the Winchester load comparison tool...Does one just accept that data, or are folks confirming that data with independent testing?

When the Feds make a major contract buy, do they do their own testing to confirm manufacturer data on penetration and expansion, or is it primarily a financial decision?

Most federal contracts involve independent testing of ammunition. The FBI has done fairly extensive evaluations, and their results largely mirror the recommended duty loads on this forum.

[tpd223]

This is the test that got my attention initially;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXfD...feature=fvwrel


I am in a position to have seen the 124gr +P Gold Dot tested several times, and to have seen it used in even more OISs than I have seen gel tests.

This sort of expansion and penetration is exactly what I have seen in both gel testing and from our OISs.


Doc,

This 147gr HST test seems to get expansion and penetration numers very similar to your testing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRqr...feature=fvwrel


Again, I'm not saying it's valid, but I am saying it's worth taking a look at.