Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuukka
A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;
- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.
- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?
- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?
|
Tuukka,
it is unfortunate that companies that want to bring a particular bullet to market have to abide by certain market factors, i.e., following the FBI ballistic laboratory testing protocols, etc. The use of gel, as previously mentioned, gives all of the companies even footing with regards to testing their propietary bullet design against a standard as well as other similiar bullets under similiar circumstances...they all use 10% ballistic gel, certain temp/density, etc. What then happens is a marketing team hypes the design and gel results and tries to make the buyer believe that their product is the best at: one stop shots, perfect penetration, reliable expansion,a nd the list goes on and on. What they don't AND CAN'T tell you is the wound ballistics in human(or other....thanks PETA) tissues so that real life shootings can educate the rest of law enforcement. There have been a few articles that attempted to do this....they are noton the Most Read list for agencies that I work/worked with.
The performance is gel is all that the marketing people should be writing about, not the "potential" in human or animal tissue. I have many, many trauma cases of all caliber modern bullets that performed close to , not even close to or didn't perform anything like gel said they would. I have posted pictures here and other places, have lectured nationally with the bullets in my hand and xrays, pictures of the patients and can assure you that predicted (marketed) performance has statistically been incorrect. That is not to say that some bullets that are stated/tested in gel to penetrate 11 inches do penetrate 11 inches...just not reliably, so overpenetration is a major concern. Plenty of bullets do not expand fully, therefore a "failure", ....you see my point.
I feel that there is a great injustice being done to law enforcement...they don't have all appropriate information (wound ballistics) to make an informed decision of what to carry in their duty weapons. If they would carry ball ammo in .380 or 9mm and hit their intended target area perfectly every time, this discussion would not be happening right now. Shot placement is everything in a gun fight where faster incapacitation means the other guy may not get a shot off at the officer.
People need to feel important and flex their academic muscles or just become experts, for what reason I'm not sure since there is no one that I am aware of that truly rises to the level of expert in this field. There are plenty of us with real world experience that is down played or negated because we don't 'fit the mold' no pun intended.........by speaking about what bullets do inside of bodies that has poor scientific corrolation to gel testing. As prevoiusly mentioned, Finland is the only country I am aware of that does use clinical, simulated and simulant data to give law enforcement facts that are worth something.....
Not every test medium will work with every bullet design...i.e., the LeMas issue, but there are others.
I hope this has answered your questions...no rhetoric, no gum flapping, no expert opinion, just a professional's observation of the end product of whast bullet companies wish they could tell you but can't. The human body has yet to be replicated, gel was decided as the ballistic medium by shooting a small number of swine, I will find the article again...it is available on the net,I believe it was by Dr. Fackler as 1st author. By the way, I have had exactly one patient in my entire career that had the perfect thigh/gel corrolation shot and it over penetrated when gel said it shouldn't have...I do have pictures of all of these examples. If you read some of the posts by odd job, we discussed the use of CT scan imaging to measure exact depths of penetration....it really is a joke that it is a major marketing tool since it is incorrect so often.
Anyway, enjoy your journey into the art and little science of wound ballistics as some will have you believe (don't drink the kool-aid!!) that it is alot of science based on gel.
ss