Originally Posted by
LimeSpoon
We can expect greater variation in actual tissue as compared to gel; it takes a large sample size to confidently determine whether a clear correlation exists. On my end, I personally trust that IWBA and friends have done their due diligence.
I do have a question. When you say that a cartridge performed beautifully in gelatin but not in the field, do you mean that the bullet behaved differently in the different mediums - that it did not expand or penetrate as well as it should have? Or do you mean that this bullet was deemed to have an ideal set of characteristics by some certain criteria, but in practice was not very effective?
Some manufacturer gel testing seems funky (several of Hornady's rifle tests come to mind), sometimes QC for production is not the same as it is for select samples (e.g. Gold Dot G2), and sometimes agencies have a scoring index that seems rather arbitrary. For example: To my knowledge, the FBI scoring equation weights penetration through all barriers the same in that it combines each sample into an average; it doesn't matter whether the bullet does 14 inches through heavy clothing and 9 inches in auto glass, or 14 inches in auto glass and 9 inches through heavy clothing. It also does not award any additional points for expansion over 0.625 inches, which potentially biases the test against certain bullets that can achieve well in excess of that.
If you'd also have any insights you'd like to share about which particular loadings perform well and which don't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing them.
Bookmarks