10mm gel tests

[Raggedyman]

There is no 200gr Gold Dot. Also, when I tested the 180 gr Gold Dot at 1,317 (pretty much exactly where Underwood loads them), it failed to meet minimum penetration requirements. The 180 gr XTP which was just a bit slower hit 13.25". It seems to me that the XTP has more moderate expansion than the Gold Dot in some situations. Still, I think the 165 gr Gold Dot is well suited for defense. I'll have to verify with continued testing, but it looks like the 200 gr XTP will be a good choice for large animal defense.

[REDLINE]

I tested the 180 gr Gold Dot at 1,317, it failed to meet minimum penetration requirements.

Depends on who you ask.

[Raggedyman]

What do you mean? My test certainly might be flawed but no qualified expert in the field of defensive handgun use would ever recommend the use of a cartridge that falls well short of 12" of penetration.

[REDLINE]

I'm not going to get into qualified experts.  To do that we'ld all have to agree on who qualified experts are. 

What I do know for a fact is that Illinios State Police carried and developed 9mm 115gr +P and +P+ loads for quite a while through more than one big name manufacturer, and they don't generally penetrate much beyond 10" when they do (in gel).  I also know that 135gr Nosler bullets at ridiculous velocities from 10mm effectively and efficiently take whitetail deer and don't usually penetrate more than 10" in ballistic gel.  Dr. Martin Fackler said 8 inches penetration depth is more than enough the vast majority of the time against human adversaries.  And those are just a few examples of plenty.

When considering bullet penetration depth in ballistic gel, there are many things to consider aside from bullet penetration depth in ballistic gel.  Examples:  The average human torso is only 9.5" deep.  The average vital organ depth in any human is pretty much always far less.

The whole idea of the 12-18 inch penetration depth also takes much into account in terms of penetration depth still available AFTER a barrier of some sort is first encountered.  This is very important for some law enforcement departments/agencies, as with some of them a majority of their shots at perpetrators require the bullet to first pass through windshields and other car parts like the doors.  This is not important to me or many others who feel the same.

The 12-18 inch prefered penetration depth range was simply an opinion.  Plenty of people choose to subscribe to that opinion.  Nothing wrong with that.  Then there are others who have other opinions on the matter, like me.  Nothing wrong with that either.

It's no different than their being people who prefer a light/fast bullet, while others prefer a slow/heavy bullet, while others prefer something in between.  So who's wrong?  Very few to none in most cases.  Usually the whole spectrum will get the job done, just in different ways.  Light/fast penetrates less, but usually with more terminal performance outside the direct path of the bullet.  Heavy/slow penetrates further, but usually with less terminal performance outside the direct path of the bullet.  Then there are the in between options to mix it up between the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Also no different than some people prefering a through and through bullet hole, while others prefer a bullet that goes in and doesn't continue out the other side.  Some people prefer a large caliber like .451 and others smaller bullets that go faster and tend to penetrate hard barriers better.  Again, just different schools of though with hardly any wrong answers.     

[Raggedyman]

This is going to sound harsh but please understand  it's not personal.

Opinions are absolute crap. Preference is likewise crap. How a bullet performs on a skinny animal standing still with no barriers or limbs in the way and an ideal angle through the thoracic cavity is completely irrelevant. What matters is what people have found in detailed research of the matter. People like Dr. Fackler, as you mention, as well as Dr. Roberts and a few others have spent their entire career studying what bullets do in HUMAN bodies.

Yes, it is true that 8" is often enough. In fact, just displaying a handgun often precludes the necessity of using it. Moreover, being alert and avoiding conflict can almost always prevent the need for a handgun. I almost never get in motor vehicle collisions but I wear a seat belt to protect me in the unlikely event that I am in a collision. I carry a handgun to protect me in an even more unlikely event. It is absolutely ridiculous to take several steps to prepare for unlikely scenarios but stop short, saying "Oh, well THAT is less likely." It is likewise ridiculous to carry ammunition that is probably good enough. It is often the case that a person trying to kill you does not stand still and unaware like a deer. They often have arms stretched out toward you and your shots may need to traverse an oblique angle through the torso. Just passing through the outstretched forearm can easily account for 8" before the bullet even reaches the torso.

I'm fine with a man choosing whatever he likes for his own use. You're a grownup and this is still nominally a free country. I'm not fond of people saying this sort of thing where less informed users might read it and think it to be good advice. The nation's top LE organization recommends the use of ammunition that penetrates a minimum of 12". Ignoring this advice might work out okay but following it cannot possibly do you any harm.

[REDLINE]

...please understand  it's not personal.

Agreed.

Opinions are absolute crap. Preference is likewise crap.

Agreed, except for our own to ourselves as individuals of course.

How a bullet performs on a skinny animal standing still with no barriers or limbs in the way and an ideal angle through the thoracic cavity is completely irrelevant.

I'm not going to belabor this point beyond the following;  I don't think deer are skinnier than humans.  And when doing a drive deer are not always standing still and limbs and what not can be in the way.  All at the same time the idea is still an ethical kill.  Yes, this is still different than taking out an adversary for various reasons, but my original point still applies, at least in my own mind.

What matters is what people have found in detailed research of the matter. People like Dr. Fackler, as you mention, as well as Dr. Roberts and a few others have spent their entire career studying what bullets do in HUMAN bodies.

Yes, it is true that 8" is often enough.

Of course, and like you said, as I have already mentioned.

In fact, just displaying a handgun often precludes the necessity of using it. Moreover, being alert and avoiding conflict can almost always prevent the need for a handgun. I almost never get in motor vehicle collisions but I wear a seat belt to protect me in the unlikely event that I am in a collision. I carry a handgun to protect me in an even more unlikely event. It is absolutely ridiculous to take several steps to prepare for unlikely scenarios but stop short, saying "Oh, well THAT is less likely."

Yet you still take the risk of driving at all, among many other risks we all take in everyday life that can easily send us off on a trip to the hospital.

It is likewise ridiculous to carry ammunition that is probably good enough.

There are no guarantees.  I don't consider ammo I choose to be good enough.  Rather I consider it the best available in a cartridge and platform I am willing to carry.  Keeping the original intent of my opinion that 12" of penetration depth in ballistic gel is not necessary still holds true here, and to the extent I wouldn't call my opinion good enough, but rather exceptional.

It is often the case that a person trying to kill you does not stand still and unaware like a deer. They often have arms stretched out toward you and your shots may need to traverse an oblique angle through the torso. Just passing through the outstretched forearm can easily account for 8" before the bullet even reaches the torso.

I fail to see that as a failure.  At that point the arm becomes useless, not to mention ANY further damage beyond the arm usually causing some amount of trauma.  Even a shot to the thoracic cavity is no guarantee even if you hit a vital organ. 

I'm fine with a man choosing whatever he likes for his own use. You're a grownup and this is still nominally a free country.[/b][/color]

I feel your pain.

I'm not fond of people saying this sort of thing where less informed users might read it and think it to be good advice. The nation's top LE organization recommends the use of ammunition that penetrates a minimum of 12".

Some of the nation's LE organizations recommend the 12-18 inch penetration depth range for other LE organizations, but not for the average citizen.  The point being that the nation's LE organizations don't recommend ammo to citizens at all.  There are simply citizens who choose to copy what they carry under the presumption that it's also best for themselves as average citizens.

What must also be kept in mind is that penetration depth in gel rarely correlates to penetration depth in people or animals.  As a matter of fact, shooting the same load into different areas of a human torso (straight on or not) will result in many different penetration depths depending on the different internal stuff each different bullet comes into contact with.

Note also that lighter higher speed bullets (especially in calibers smaller than .451 caliber) will commonly defeat hard barriers better than heavier slower speed bullets.  Do you assume you'll never have to penetrate barriers heavier than drywall and sheetmetal or windshields?  Point being, there are rounds that generally penetrate less than 12" of ballistic gel that will penetrate harder thicker barriers better than others that do penetrate beyond 12" in ballistic gel.  Is that not something to consider?  Keep in mind, most other barrier materials wouldn't be an objection either.  Also good to keep in mind once bullets have passed through certain barriers (this also can greatly vary by specific different bullet design) is the hollow point will not always act like a hollow point anymore, changing various theories that much further, and not necessarily toward the theory you adamantly subscribe to.

And all this not to mention greatly varying reasoning, even among LE organizations, as to what cartridge to choose in the first place, among many more arguements and disagreements of what bullet weight to carry in any of them, AND some LE still carrying rounds that don't penetrate 12" of ballistic gel.  Then you add in the fact of zero LE carrying 10mm, which only makes sense for reasons far beyond 12-18 inches of penetration depth.

Ignoring this advice might work out okay but following it cannot possibly do you any harm.

I disagree in many cases, some noted above.  At some point, no matter what cartridge common carry sized handgun platforms are chambered in you have potential to still be at a loss.  But no matter the risk, most of us still aren't going to attemp concealing an AK-47, right?  Right.

There is always give and take.  The way I'm seeing it is you feel your opinion of others opinions that agree with your opinion is best for everybody, and if they choose a different choice they are just plain wrong.  I feel that my opinion of others opinions that agree with my opinion is best for me and some others who choose to agree with me.  You demand your opinon as best for all no matter what they think because you aren't interested in them thinking for themselves because you think you know best, and think my opinion, where it applies, is nothing less than nonsense.  Here we are left with no other choice but to agree to disagree.  And we pretty much said as much already.

As near as I can tell you're taking a very generalized stance and believe it to hold true for the vast majority of circumstances and for all others if they have any sense at all.  I look at the whole picture, with myself as an individual included in that picture.  For me that equates to carrying 10mm Auto, even though police don't.  It also equates to me choosing 155gr hollow point bullets at 1500fps or higher, even though police don't for reasons outside of penetration depth, and that don't penetrate beyond 12" in bare gel.  It also equates to others not subscribing to the same 12" minimum theory you do.  I believe my choice is an excellent choice based on what I've seen, heard, and compared, even by the so called experts.

If I need more than that outside of woods carry where I only carry a heavier bullet load when in bear country, hopefully I'll also have proximity to a rifle or shotgun.  If not, let the cards fall where they may.  Sometimes that's just the way it is.  At any given time no one can evade all possible scenarios, no matter how common or rare, with a handgun of common carry size with any available ammo in existence.  At the same time anyone would be hard pressed to tell me my decision is anywhere near poor, let alone not as good a choice as any other commonly available.  At the same time I have no issue with you choosing what you feel is best for you.

Sometimes there's more than one way to skin a cat, and other options aren't always worse.  The really scary part for all of us is that nothing is guaranteed no matter what we plan for or the theory/opinion subscribed to.

[Raggedyman]

This isn't my opinion. I'm not qualified to form an opinion on the subject. I am simply relaying the findings of people much more educated than I am. They all agree that 12" is the minimum. I didn't make that up. It's not relative. It's educated assessment based on studies of THOUSANDS of actual shootings as well as gelatin testing. Which brings us to your statement about ballistic gelatin. That's simply not true. Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin produces results which are VERY consistent with actual human or porcine tissue. It is true that bone can effect the projectile's path, amount of upset, and penetration. Even when bone is struck, though, most pistol rounds reach close to the depth they would if bone were not hit. Dr. Roberts is very clear on the fact that calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin comes very close to predicting the results seen in human or porcine tissue. That doesn't mean that my gelatin is as useful. I don't use exactly the same stuff and it's possible that could generate some discrepancy.


I realize I'm not going to convince you but I urge anyone else reading this to read the papers published by Fackler, Roberts, and others and to familiarize yourself with the reasons for the penetration requirement. May God bless you and yours.

[Raggedyman]

[REDLINE]

Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin produces results which are VERY consistent with actual human or porcine tissue.

Even when bone is struck, though, most pistol rounds reach close to the depth they would if bone were not hit.

Dr. Roberts is very clear on the fact that calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin comes very close to predicting the results seen in human or porcine tissue.

I urge anyone else reading this to read the papers published by Fackler, Roberts, and others and to familiarize yourself with the reasons for the penetration requirement.

May God bless you and yours.

I agree, in that it would be very helpful at this point to reference papers by Fackler, Roberts, and others, since it should be clear to everyone that calibrated 10% gelatin does not come very close in predicting the results seen in human bodies as a whole.

We know this from their own work published in their own journal.  That would be the journal of the IWBA (International Wound Ballistics Association), where under Wound Ballistics Review (Winter/91, p. 10-13), Eugene J. Wolberg did some research and put the findings in a writeup he called;  Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant.

With the sole load mentioned above, the penetration depth in gel ranged from 12-14 inches.  The penetration depth in 27 bodies via shootings of the San Diego Police Dept ranged from possibly under 10 inches to possibly over 17 inches.  On top of that, I was using the terminology possibly because they did not count any shot that exited the bodies, or any shot that hit bone.

Just from the above info alone it is beyond my comprehension that an expert like Dr. Roberts would ever claim calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin comes very close to predicting the results seen in human or porcine tissue.  Not to mention in my mind that common sense tells us otherwise.

Gelatin blocks prepared correctly are homogeneous, where as living humans are heterogeneous.  Differences in density and composition of human tissue such as bone and dense organs (like the liver) pose problems for the gelatin model.  Further, gelatin lacks the structure of tissue.  Gelatin doesn't bleed or have nerves or vessels. In addition, the human anatomy contains organs, muscle, and fat and is supported by a skeleton.

I believe it to be also worthy to note our hide, and its effects on doing its best to keep stuff like projectiles out, while also doing its best to keep stuff in.  Very loosely, penetrating our hide is equal to around 2" penetration depth in muscle tissue.  Also very loosely, exiting our hide is equal to around 4" penetration depth in muscle tissue.  I say very loosely because depending on a person's age, our hide ranges in thickness and what it takes for anything to penetrate or exit it varies accordingly.

I'm hoping what I've pointed out clearly demonstrates that the distance a projectile penetrates can be entirely different between a block of calibrated ballistic gel, and that of a person.  Fackler's recipe of ballistic gel ONLY approximates muscle tissue.  It takes nothing into account for all the other stuff our bodies are made from.  And since, as pointed out earlier, gelatin lacks the structure of tissue, it doesn't even give us a good comparison in relation to temporary cavity.

Please understand I am in no way suggesting properly calibrated ballistic gel does not give us any good information, as it does!  What it's simply limited to is showing us an excellent comparison of all ammuntion loads, one to another, and more specifically what depth they should penetrate relatively closely to in muscle tissue of people and swine.  But also please understand it only loosely (at best) correlates to bullet penetration depth in people and/or animals.

It should also be noted that not all researchers agree with Facklers recipe of gel which is 10% gelatin at 4*C.  Others believe a ballistic gel recipe of 20% gelatin at 10*C is a better alternative.  Both of which of course must be calibrated before use.  Lastly, all agree that gelatin blocks used for ballistics testing are only good for one shot.

Eugene J. Wolberg himself noted;  "It (correctly prepared gelatin simulant) is most useful in separating out the grossly inadequate bullets:  those that penetrate only 6 or 7 inches, or SP/HP bullets that do not expand adequately."

Excellent reading for a greater understanding of ballistic gelatin, some of which details what I've posted above, include:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf
Notice the Editor's Comment by Martin L. Fackler himself in the above link where he only brings up LEAs toward use of the data, not general civilians.

http://nldt2.arl.psu.edu/documents/ballistic_gelatin_report.pdf

http://ssf1910.dk/document/info/balistik.pdf

There are of course many other references to ballistic gelatin that can be found, and easily referenced from the references given in all of the above links.

Assuming a person's risk assessment dictates, there is no reason not to consider loads that penetrate an average of 10" in ballistic gelatin.

[REDLINE]

Looked to me like that 200gr Black Talon did pretty well, but didn't mushroom as far as I would have liked to have seen.  Luckily is has the talons.  Thanks again for sharing all these tests you're doing!

[Raggedyman]

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

[REDLINE]

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

I feel like everything you intended to post isn't there?

[Raggedyman]

Yeah, I have no idea what happened there.

"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

ETA: FUUUUUU!

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)

[Raggedyman]

I'll bet the Talon would have done better at 100 fps or so faster. Is there a 200 gr .400" Ranger T available as a component?

[The_Shadow]

I still have 19 of my original box of Black Talon 20 ct.  I shot a wounded deer with that one to finsh it off.  I shot it at the base of the skull, the bullet traveled accross to the other side of the neck and downward to the farside shoulder.  The bullet left a nasty spiral path of destruction down the neck muscels and lodged in the shoulder blade of the far side.  The talon opened up as advertised, with those claws out stretched...Factory velocity was about 980 fps from a 5"BBL.