who'd like to see an updated ballistic media test protocol....your thoughts.

5280 shooter II

We've seen gel-tests.....we've seen them with upfront barriers (i.e clothing, glass, sheet metal). Gel is approximate to human tissue......but human tissue is a various media....it's thicker in some areas and more viscous in others.....now lets throw in interior bone structure.....for game AND human targets.

Maybe I haven't researched this enough....but I don't recollect any link to a testing that showed shooting into a gel-block that contained any similiar bone structure to either human or animals.

To the manufacturers, show me how your bullet reacts AFTER it passes through 1-3 inches of muscle/fat, then a bone-simulating breast-plate, then into tissue that's hardened from working 24/7....like-wise from the rear....show me what it does after engaging the spinal back-bone. Show me what it does after going though an arm into the chest cavity.....show me what it does after penetrating a pelvic bone. Nevermind putting the target down, I want to see the forensic evidence.

For Game....show me how it performs after hitting a shoulder blade....when it hits a rib.

We all have our anecdotes about bullets travelling the length of an animal's body.....but that's not the story here.

I myself don't want to see anymore 10-20% ballistic gel penetration tests with media that doesn't account for interfering bone structure in order to reach the vital organs or CNS. Show me, the buyer of your bullet, what it really does in the real world of bullet on target.....is that too much to ask?

Zee

There's no media like LIVE media.

NN

Need to team up with a hog farm and shoot some hogs that just died as long
as the rendering plant will still take them after being shot and dissected .

5280 shooter II

Zee wrote: »

There's no media like LIVE media.

Too rough on the populace. Though I can think of an adequate "volunteer" pool. :tooth:

5280 shooter II

NN wrote: »

Need to team up with a hog farm and shoot some hogs that just died as long
as the rendering plant will still take them after being shot and dissected .

That's been done though.....how about the rendering plants donate the skeletal remains to be used in cohesion with the ballistic gel tests?

beartracker

5280 shooter II wrote: »

That's been done though.....how about the rendering plants donate the skeletal remains to be used in cohesion with the ballistic gel tests?

Still not the same, Zee is right, no media like Live media.

Bigslug

Well, yes, that probably IS too much to ask. You're going to need a bone simulant, and you're going to need to specify a thickness for the body parts you intend to shoot through. Do you go average worldwide human thickness? Average for the area where the round is to be deployed? Worst case concerns of sufficient penetration of Conan the Barbarian? Worried about overpenetrating irate skinny old folks with osteoporosis?

Next question: is the bullet already expanded by soft tissue (like biceps) before hitting bone, or is it hitting bone first (like a sternum).

In short, you're talking about A LOT of set-up time for a single shot, that has to be repeated for each envisioned scenario, and then again for each cartridge, and then yet again for each instance of intervening barrier you care to test. Gelatin testing isn't cheap to begin with - this takes it to extremes without any certainty that it will provide the specific answers any given customer is looking for.

The FBI test protocols aren't perfect, but if you look at a round's TOTAL performance across all six of them - bare gelatin as a control, clothing, drywall, plywood, auto sheet metal and auto glass - you can get a pretty good idea of what a round is going to do without having to recreate the Oswald shot.

Fisheadgib

Lest we not forget the Strasbourg tests. Even thought it was done 20 years ago, a lot of the data is still valid. Granted, there have been changes and improvements in ammo and bullet design over the years but the strasbourg tests were the closest anyone could come to compiling a huge amount of data relating to the effects of projectiles on live animals in a short amount of time. Twenty years ago you couldn't pick up a gun magazine without reading something about it and every new defense handgun that came out usually referenced the tests but nowadays you rarely ever even hear mention of them. A lot of young people and new firearm enthusiasts think they are an urban legend and didn't really happen.

Fisheadgib

I'm guessing that not all of you are aware of the strasbourg tests. The few people that I've known that had heard about them only knew that "some guys shot some goats to see what the bullets would do". There was much more to it than that. A group of privately funded researchers wanted to answer the very same questions a little over 20 years ago and compiled some data that to this day is more accurate than ballistic gelatin tests. There was an outcry by all the bunny hugger groups about it and to this day the identities of the researchers involved is a secret and in our current social climate it's unlikely that any similar tests could ever be conducted again. I'm supprised that mention of the tests rarely comes up anymore when people are discussing the effectiveness of various round on actual tissue.

breamfisher

I remember distinctly multiple writeups of the Strasbourg tests. I think they're regarded as "sketchy" due to the fact that nobody can even find any results anymore. The test protocols and results are lost, nowhere to be found, from what I can tell.

Fisheadgib

The fact that the tests were done before Al Gore invented the internet and all the data was on hard copy rather than electronic media may have a bit to do with the availability of the data in it's entirety. Excerpts are available on various sites and publications but many authorities on the subject discounted them as a hoax or a tool to sell ammunition. The tests probably are responsible for getting "magsafe" on the map. There have been others that began compiling data on wound ballistics quite some time ago also. Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow began compiling data in 1988 and the "Wound Ballistics Review" predates that. Dr. Martin Fackler is probably one of the worlds leading authorities on wound ballistics and former president of the International Wound Ballistics Association and he has several books and articles on the subject. There actually is a ton of info available on the subject but only excerpts of most of it are available on the internet. On some subjects one still has to pick up a piece of printed material.

breamfisher

Yeah, but the hard thing with Strasbourg is... finding the material. That's what I'm referring to. The actual hard copies of the material are, to my knowledge, elusive at best.

Edited to add: found a pdf file that's supposed to be the tests. Doesn't list the researchers or their qualifications, has some grammatical errors, and some other inconsistencies. Further investigation has indicated that Dr. Fackler and others regard the tests as a hoax.

http://guninstructor.net/Strasborg_Tests.pdf

Buffco

We could shoot old people. Two birds with one stone: Lowering the population and getting good ballistic results!

They drive too slow, anyway.

Bigslug

Buffco wrote: »

We could shoot old people. Two birds with one stone: Lowering the population and getting good ballistic results!

They drive too slow, anyway.

Spoken like a true red-headed Scot! The problem with data from fossils is that they are generally thin and brittle. Besides, some of those codgers have really excellent experience casting Keith semi-wadcutters which are worthy of being included in this test. Nah. . .ya gotta go to the source (prisons) if you want data on the correct "species". Several advantages here:

1. You have your choice of bulked-out weightlifters and emaciated meth-heads. Unfortunately, you don't get the added benefit of testing WHILE they're on drugs, but we all know it's not an exact science anyway.

2. You have medical staff on hand with all kinds of monitoring devices, that are probably somewhat educated in autopsy procedures.

3. Access to tile floors with drains and high-pressure hoses.

(Yep. . .nothing but compassionate conservatives here. . .:roll:)

gator

Bigslug wrote: »

Unfortunately, you don't get the added benefit of testing WHILE they're on drugs, but we all know it's not an exact science anyway.QUOTE]

Aw,let them have their drugs.......make for a more realistic test!