10mm bullet testing

[Bazzer]

Hi, I am new to the forum so please bear with me.
I have looked at as many 10mm tests as I can find on YouTube.  Yes many of them using ballistics gel as used by the FBI etc.  But to my mind this is not real world testing.  On Mythbusters and Forged in Fire they often use dummies the replicate the human torso. So why not use these for bullet testing.  Forged in Fire uses gel dummies with ribs and internal organs filled with colored water (?)) to replicate a human.  So why not do this with bullets?  10mm of course?  You could place pig organs inside to show the real effect of the loads we use.  I would love to do it, but finances prevent me.  Or has it already been done.  On Forged in Fire they show the result of various bladed weapons. 
I would like to see the results of bullet entry from various angles on the torso and to see the damage done maybe by autopsy by a doctor.
What's your thoughts ?
Bazzer

[tommac919]

I would say the gel is cheaper and reusable ( melt down and recast new block )
And, the tests are repeatable

[sqlbullet]

tests are repeatable

This.

The goal of ballistics gel is not to exactly replicate a biological entity.  A biological entity is full of irregularities that would not allow consistent results time after time, which would render the test results meaningless due to the volume and magnitude of the variables.

Ballistics gel works great for the following reasons:

• The gel provides the right analog for human soft tissue to cause the projectiles to expand consistently
• The gel is completely uniform throughout
• The gel is transparent enough to allow visual inspection for voids that would impact results
• The gel is transparent enough to allow non-destructive observation of calibration tests of the actual target sample prior to testing
• The gel is easily replicated in different locales
• The gel is relatively low cost

These are the key advantages in my mind.  Using a human mock-up provides great entertainment value, but is terrible science as results are not repeatable.

[The_Shadow]

Think about this many body organs are hollow structures, some are more solid than others...
Heart is solid muscle walls but hollow if perforated it can split or close up on small wounds bleeds plenty
Large artery elastic but can be cut or punctured wounds bleeds plenty
Brain semi solid depending on velocity could poke a hole or tear and split
Spinal cord elastic encased in the bone structure of the spine,
Nerves (smaller) branching outward from the spine may or may not be damaged
Muscle is very elastic and can stretch to let bullets pass through and around holes tend to reseal
Skin and fat layers are very elastic and can stretch to let bullets pass through and around holes tend to reseal
Liver is one organ that is fairly solid tends to tear and split
Lungs are inflated semi solid sacks, they tend to get holes poked and deflate
Stomach and intestines and bladder are hollow, will perforate have smaller blood vessels, can slide around or even reseal
Bones are rigid can be chipped, split, broken, or shattered

There are several schools of thought, shots to center mass with complete energy dump to the body or pass through with exit wounds.  In either case the vital organs that are disrupted, how they are damaged and blood vessels affected are what lead to incapacitation via blood loss.

Central nervous system disruption from direct impact are usually and can be instantaneous to slow and agonizing.

So what make one bullet better than another?  High velocity?, large expansion?, less expansion deeper penetration?, pass through?   

First and foremost is shot placement, what tissue and organ will be disrupted and how much?

There have been people killed with things like an ice pick and large blunt force trauma and gunshots fall somewhere in the middle.  It has been said that the 22 long rifle bullets were a surgeon's nightmare, as they can go in and disrupt many things as they go everywhere and nick or cut various structures before the come to rest, so they are having to look at everything to see what might have been affected.

All this said is gel a real world representation?  Not really!  But it does represent certain semi-solid organs and tissues to some degree and allow a visual of bullet interaction and what might be seen if certain organs are encountered.  It also if captured allows for study of the projectile itself...

While it is not rocket science it is a science all its own!

[Bazzer]

Yes indeed I understand what has been written in the above posts, but I guess what I am saying is that gel testing is approximate at best.  I would like to see what happens in a human torso when a HP, FMJ is shot into it at various angles.  I am given to believe that the FBI use cadavers for testing.  Obviously they wouldn't want all to know this.  The best I have seen is hogs that have been shot and autopsied later. 
Then there is maybe the non lethal shot to the pelvis or leg. Every seen somebody not go down immediately when shot in the pelvis or in the bone of a leg?  This is what happened in the Fort Hood shootings, many were shot in the lower part of their bodies and were totally unable to respond.  One solder who survived charged the shooter with a chair and one round of 5.7 totally disabled him.  Blood loss in itself will not generally disable a person right away such as having a major artery severed. 
I was taught to double tap to the head and then empty a mag into a threat.  Followed up by a final round to the head at close range.  This works ever time ( I imagine!). But doing this in self defense even with my CCW would be hard to explain!
But I would still love to see some results of shooting human models ( analogs if you like) wouldn't you?
Ps a ice pick can certainly kill as can a ball point pen.   


Fly fishing guide. Archery is a passion. Shooting Elite E35 with VAP's I like to shoot in Northern California club comps in the bowhunter freestyle as a master senior.

[sqlbullet]

It would have little value to me.

If the results are impacted by uncontrolled variables, I can't draw any conclusions from the tests.

[Bazzer]

Here is a interesting read. It kind of supports my view that FBI ballistics Gel testing is no real indicator of bullet stopping power. It only mentions 10mm and certainly not with either solid copper bullets or hard cast.
http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm
You will need a while to read it!


Fly fishing guide. Archery is a passion. Shooting Elite E35 with VAP's I like to shoot in Northern California club comps in the bowhunter freestyle as a master senior.

[REDLINE]

...my view that FBI ballistics Gel testing is no real indicator of bullet stopping power.

Nothing inanimate could indicate stopping power as there is no way to tell when something that can't do anything stops doing something.

You talk about real world testing.  Ballistic Gel as a medium is as good as it gets for directly comparing any specific ammo load to another in order to compare them all to a base line measurement(s) which can be different depending on an individuals opinions are of what a given ammo load should accomplish in a give scenario.  Shooting at real people, dead or alive, comes far from being definitive of what a given load will accomplish and commonly only offers basic ideas of what to expect on a different individual.

The variance in people one to another can be drastic in multiple ways that could grossly affect the way a bullet interacts with them (weight overall, weight and size from muscle, weight and size from fat, bone structure,....., not to mention the variance in clothing between different individuals).  Plus, how would we ever always only shoot someone in exactly the same spot at exactly the same angle every time?  And even then the results would be inaccurate as soon as someone of a different size came along.

On top of everything else try factoring in mentality of the individual being shot.  See now how ballistic gel works so well in conjunction with what law enforcement has seen in different shooting scenarios over time toward choosing a self defense load?  Don't get me wrong, thinking outside of the box is good and never shy from asking questions.

[sqlbullet]

Bazzer, you seem to be under the belief that ballistics gel testing is to evaluate a given projectiles performance in real world scenarios.  That is an incorrect belief.

The purpose of ballistics gel testing is a completely standardized test for comparing between bullets, or for the same bullet between velocity.

A 22 LR is a great round for putting living things to death if you can take the ideal shot.  I have slaughtered many cows growing up in rural Indiana, and every singe one of them dropped from a single 22lr.  Never needed a follow up shot at all.  That is a real world test against proper flesh and bone.

Of course, I had all the time in the world to take the perfect shot.

On the other hand, lots of starlings lived to annoy another day as I was learning shotgunning as a youth.  Mostly because I took poor shots, or I yanked the trigger.

There are far, far too many factors at play in "real world" tissue for it to tell us much, especially in our primary goal of such testing of comparing different bullets.

We all agree that ballistics gel doesn't provide an analog to real world performance.  That is not it's design goal.  The design goal of ballistics gel is to give us repeatable standardized information about how one bullet/velocity compares to another in soft tissue.

And at that job ballistics gel has no equal (so far).

[Bazzer]

Bazzer, you seem to be under the belief that ballistics gel testing is to evaluate a given projectiles performance in real world scenarios.  That is an incorrect belief.

The purpose of ballistics gel testing is a completely standardized test for comparing between bullets, or for the same bullet between velocity.

A 22 LR is a great round for putting living things to death if you can take the ideal shot.  I have slaughtered many cows growing up in rural Indiana, and every singe one of them dropped from a single 22lr.  Never needed a follow up shot at all.  That is a real world test against proper flesh and bone.

Of course, I had all the time in the world to take the perfect shot.

On the other hand, lots of starlings lived to annoy another day as I was learning shotgunning as a youth.  Mostly because I took poor shots, or I yanked the trigger.

There are far, far too many factors at play in "real world" tissue for it to tell us much, especially in our primary goal of such testing of comparing different bullets.

We all agree that ballistics gel doesn't provide an analog to real world performance.  That is not it's design goal.  The design goal of ballistics gel is to give us repeatable standardized information about how one bullet/velocity compares to another in soft tissue.

And at that job ballistics gel has no equal (so far).

Actually of course I'm not under the impression that gel test is to provide performance data in a real world situation.  But given all the discussion of this caliber is better than that caliber I'm just suggesting a better way.  Somewhere on YouTube there is a video of someone killing a pig with a air rifle.   Of course shot placement is paramount. A 22 to the heart is likely to produce the same result as a 454 to the heart.  Bit in a SD scenario even if the 454 misses buy a wide margin it's likely to end up with the same result as the 22.   I see all the time so called permanent wound channels is gel.  The human body is not gel, it's composed of many different densities of tissues. 
One of the best "analog models" I have seen is someone shooting though a rack of pigs ribs into a small block of gel in which a cows heart had been placed.  Now in my mind if this was a standardized test it would be a far better representation of a bullets potential to kill.  Is it not COM that all police forces are instructed to shoot?  My branch of the military we were instructed in the Mozambique drill, then maybe COM if that failed. 
I am but a beginner to 10mm, up to this point I have used a 340 s&w .357 for my CCW.   
Thanks for the input, I love to learn and these days self defense cannot be taken too lightly
Barry

[sqlbullet]

I was taught in the academy the following:

2 COM, eval
2 COM 1 head, eval
2 COM 1 head 2 groin 1 head, eval.

If after 6 shots to COM, 2 to the head and 2 to the groin the aggressor was still in action, fire cover shots and transition to a rifle or shotty cause a handgun is never gonna do it.

I have no problem it someone wants to play around with gel and simulated bone based human analogs.  But it is not a better way to test ammo.

If you create 10 or your simulated analogs, and shoot all 10 with the same load from the same angle, you will get 10 different results due to chaos theory.  Small variations in the way the gel and simulated bone bonded, hidden air bubbles at the boundary, small variation in the angles of the simulated bone will all add up to drastically different outcomes.

The result is you won't learn anything conclusive about your load, since your results aren't repeatable, and you can't accurately explain with detail the variations.

And, for most of us the time is better spent at the range learning to put metal in the X ring.  Especially if you want to be prepared for a defensive encounter.

I am not suggesting you won't have fun, or telling you not to go for it.  I am explaining why this is not a better way.

[Mike_Fontenot]

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

That guy needs some SERIOUS help in learning how to be more concise.  What finally made him stop ... a power failure?

[DM1906]

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

That guy needs some SERIOUS help in learning how to be more concise.  What finally made him stop ... a power failure?

Yeah. I read it over 2 days. It was worth the time. It wasn't that he was that long winded. That "article" is a compilation of (short reply) posts in a very long discussion thread, over a long period of time. This also explains some of the redundancies. I feel sorry for the poor bastard who went through that ten thousand post thread and compiled it!

[Bazzer]

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

That guy needs some SERIOUS help in learning how to be more concise.  What finally made him stop ... a power failure?

Yeah. I read it over 2 days. It was worth the time. It wasn't that he was that long winded. That "article" is a compilation of (short reply) posts in a very long discussion thread, over a long period of time. This also explains some of the redundancies. I feel sorry for the poor bastard who went through that ten thousand post thread and compiled it!

So for those that bothered to read it all you might see that practical results ( deaths) seem to be different than those obtained by gel testing. 
The FBI and other forces keep changing there minds over which is the best caliber to choose, when it might seem that the .357 Mag is still better at stopping than any other.  This is one reason that I have chosen the 10mm since it is close in performance to the 357.  However, I still carry my scandium S&W 340 a lot of the time.  Even if I don't hit the target the flash will scare the crap out of them! Them being perbs of course. 

[DM1906]

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

That guy needs some SERIOUS help in learning how to be more concise.  What finally made him stop ... a power failure?

Yeah. I read it over 2 days. It was worth the time. It wasn't that he was that long winded. That "article" is a compilation of (short reply) posts in a very long discussion thread, over a long period of time. This also explains some of the redundancies. I feel sorry for the poor bastard who went through that ten thousand post thread and compiled it!

So for those that bothered to read it all you might see that practical results ( deaths) seem to be different than those obtained by gel testing. 
The FBI and other forces keep changing there minds over which is the best caliber to choose, when it might seem that the .357 Mag is still better at stopping than any other.  This is one reason that I have chosen the 10mm since it is close in performance to the 357.  However, I still carry my scandium S&W 340 a lot of the time.  Even if I don't hit the target the flash will scare the crap out of them! Them being perbs of course.

My reading of it was, essentially, a peer review. I'm a retired coroner, having investigated many homicides, suicides, and firearm related assaults, although his level of experience and case frequency far exceeds mine. His opinions were based on similar conditions as mine, essentially an unofficial average take on decades of personal-professional observations. I concur with his conclusions, as to the effectiveness of calibers, including the collective ineffectiveness of the 9mm, and the vast superiority of the .45ACP and any magnum. Analog testing, in my experience, has very little similarity with actual results on real persons. I still do the testing, but for comparative and personal curiosity reasons alone. What I carry and rely on for personal defense is not, necessarily, what performs best in gel, water, or wetted newsprint, etc. Ultimately, most arguments regarding bullet design, bullet mass, velocity are moot. Hits are hits, and misses are misses. As has been said repeatedly, carry as much power and capacity as you can bear and use effectively. Any weapon, no matter how "purdy" or big it is, will be logged as personal effects if you can't wield it effectively in every conceivable situation. Remember, the defensive shooter doesn't choose the venue or conditions of the event. The only choice you have to make, is to engage or not engage.