It does tell us exactly how a round performs in THAT medium. Many aren’t too concerned about how rounds perform shooting groceries. If my home is someday invaded by the the contents of the meat department and the fruit isle, Paul’s testing could be quite useful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I can glean from Paul's test is distilled down to something like this,
Even from a 11.5" or 10.5" barrel, A center mass, armpit level, hit from a 77gr OTM, is most likely going to close out your health record rather fast.
RLTW
“What’s New” button, but without GD: https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php...new&exclude=60 , courtesy of ST911.
Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.
So, what test medium do you feel is the best approximation to live humans?
I do look at a lot of gel tests too. And I easily agree it is probably the most consistent test medium for comparing bullets against other bullets.
But humans are not quite gel blocks either.
Gel blocks are good for a consistent medium to compare rounds. It was never meant to approximate human flesh.
What we can do is look at real shootings and notice trends. Then we can compare how the rounds used in real world shootings to to how they perform in ballistics gelatin. The “real world shooting” trends tend to show a consistent pattern in gelatin blocks.
The problem trying to replicate human tissue is that there is too much variability. Does the round contact hard bones? Just ribs? Hollow organs? In addition to variance in the anatomical location of the wound, we must consider that human beings themselves are built differently. You see, shooting a piece of dead pork rib doesn’t predict results even if you’re trying to represent a human rib which has the benefit of being covered in fascia, connective tissue, some amount of muscle, multiple layers of very elastic skin, and so on.
Rounds that excel in the FBI testing protocol, in spite of its short comings, tend to be well-balanced rounds with consistent results.
The trends I’ve seen in working trauma are those shot with any FMJ from a handgun that isn’t a perfect shot, any .22 lr, or any form of birdshot are rather unimpressive. I’ve seen multiple bad guys that were shot with such and had to be taken down by police AFTER the homeowner or defender discharged all their rounds.
At the same time, anything 9mm and up with perfect shot placement using duty ammo tends to work and work quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some good info in here, thanks to all. Starting to reload .223. Plenty of consideration to bullet choice.
Ive posted here before about my experiences with M262. I was a designated marksman for my platoon in 2005 and carried a SDM-R loaded with M262 (77 SMK). I shot a guy at a map measured 400 meters +/- 10. I hit the guy low in the abdomen just below the belly button. Dropped the guy right away and he was out of the fight. He ended up abandoned by his comrades and the medic that saw him told me he had two small exit wounds in his lower back. So it did fragment at that range which should put it around 2000 FPS impact velocity. But truthfully the bullet could have hit bone and fragmented.
My team leader who later went SF told me his Mk18 and M262 was money out to past 400.
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
Bookmarks