Bullet Tests Flawed

[481]

Originally Posted by rbernie:

Brassfetcher uses a .25" thick layer of bone simulant directly in front of the gel block in many of his more current tests. IIRC, he gets it from a Swiss company...

It's called Synbone.

You can find it here-

http://www.synbone.ch/wEnglish/catal...anchor=1010043


-some sort of rigid polyurethane material.

[Water-Man]

JohnKSa,

I believe if you asked them if they would like 12" or 18" they would choose the higher rather than the lower.

[silvermane_1]

interesting, although you can't do the penetration tests on live people, the next best thing is a pig or wild boar.

[JohnKSa]

I believe if you asked them if they would like 12" or 18" they would choose the higher rather than the lower.

It's within their power to set the penetration spec to be anything they want. If they favor more penetration, all they have to do is set the spec accordingly.

Their current spec is no less than 12" and no more than 18". If they wanted it to be higher, say 14" to 19", it would be. No one's stopping them from making it anything they desire.

[Archer 9505]

I also enjoyed the article. The author stated that they were looking for ammo that performed "Better than Average" and established 1000 FPS as the average velocity of the 100 different rounds tested. That meant that in their test, ammo that expanded and penetrated deeply, yet was moving slower than 1000 fps didn't get their stamp of approval as "Better than Average". Interesting test, but flawed. Example: the 230 grain winchester black talon penetrated to a depth of 15 inches and expanded to a factor of 1.66 times its' original diameter, yet didn't make the cut because it wasn't moving fast enough.

[kraigwy]

I've seen several different so called "stopping power" test over the years and they all come up with different results.

I don't really believe any are "flawed", I think they are just different.

I've been to enough autopsies to know that no two bullets react the same way in the same target material.

[PH/CIB]

Spent yesterday at the Big Springs Shooting Complex over by Searsboro, Iowa at the 2nd Amendment Rally sponsored by the Iowa Firearms Coalition and Brownells and the NRA. No admission charge,Cowboy Action Shooting, IDPA, 3 Gun, Full Auto Shooting, 50 Caliber and 338 Lapua Long Range Rifle Shooting, Vendors, Food Booths, and Pro 2nd Amendment Politicians and Speakers.

THANK YOU! Iowa Firearms Coalition, Brownells and the NRA.

I had not shot full automatic M-16, M-60, Browning 50 Cal Machine Gun since Viet Nam so I wandered over to the Full Auto Booth and shot 25 to 30 rounds each, HkMp5, Uzi, Thompson 45 Sub, Galil, HK36, AK47, German WWII MG42, and Browning World War water cooled 30 caliber machine gun. Eight guns on full auto for $160 or $20 per gun, at 25-30 rounds per gun that comes out to be 225 rounds for $160 or about .71 cents a round a real bargain and I cannot Thank the Guys at the full auto booth enough, it was literally a blast!

Getting back on subject, it is interesting to see that someone is producing the simulated bone and it does not cost that much Thanks 481, and someone is using the simulated bone product in ballistic tests Thanks rbernie, that it should be in my opinion included in all ballistic tests as even though we cannot control all the variables, and people come in all shapes and sizes the only constant that we will all bring to a gunfight is flesh and bone and we all need to know what penetrates and expands best through both materials.

[481]

PH/CIB,

No problem.

As to using synbone (or any other analog for bone) in such tests, I see it as a confounding factor. The polyurethane plate is unlike bone in that it doesn't really duplicate the structure and density of actual anatomy none of which exists as a 12"x12" plate. The two main types of bone- cancellous and cortical- possess markedly different mechanical properties and are often both present in a given anatomical structure such as the pelvis and spine.


While I found the article kind of interesting, there were several issues that caught my attention, not the least of which was that block size and other test standards were not mentioned. Hard to say if they were simply omitted for the sake of space or if they were never adhered to in the first place, but I suspect that since AR is not a technical journal there is a different standard being followed.

[G1R2]

Dear Mr. Floridaman,

I glad to see that someone is considering stepping forward. Just think, if there were enough of us, every shooting range across the country could have a few in stock.

[357autoloader]

I was disappointed that the American Rifleman article did not include .357sig in it's test. I believe in that caliber, in fact I trust my life with it. I have done some testing of my own that I was quite satisfied with.

[maestro pistolero]

There is not and can not be testing for real world results. There are far too many variables. There would always be objections.

While the myriad of ballistic tests are informative and always interesting, I have much greater confidence in the numbers produced in actual shootings by police. Such data necessarily include real-world variables, whatever they may be.

Massad Ayoob takes this approach as well. He recommends loads based on how they actually perform in police shootings.

[oldgranpa]

I agree with Kraig that the tests weren't really "flawed", just different. Missing was info on handguns used. For instance the .380 results which normally use pistols with shorter barrels than some of the other calibers. This usually results in velocities lower than 1000fps. The Rem 102gr GS gave good results with both penetration and expansion, yet wasn't on the "approved list".
So, while the NRA article was interesting, it wasn't conclusive, IMO.
og

[Japle]

As far as the American Rifleman article goes, I don’t see the value of the author’s conclusions. He picked totally arbitrary criteria and ignored the actual performance of the ammo. One example: He set the minimum acceptable velocity at 1000 fps. That eliminated most of the .45 loads. The result was that some of the most street-proven loads, like the Federal 125 gr .357 and the 230 gr .45 Hydra-Shok, didn’t make the cut.

The results are interesting, but I wouldn’t use his criteria to choose my SD loads.

[Hook686]

If one does not see value in the article, then simply ignore it and move on. Why is there a need to intellectualize a a piece of data provided by someone who took the time to do some testing ? If people do not like the parameters used by the tester, then set up a test and use alternate parameters. I enjoy reading the results of tests and research on the terms it was accomplished, and thank the testers and researchers for their efforts.

[moxie]

Given your emphasis on penetration, be sure to get bonded bullets. They tend to defeat barriers such as glass and doors more effectively than non-bonded.

[Japle]

Posted by Hook686:
If one does not see value in the article, then simply ignore it and move on.

I disagree with that approach. Ignoring the use of poor testing criteria only encourages others to do poor testing.

Using the same velocity “floor” for all calibers ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results in .45ACP are automatically rejected.

Using the same expansion ratio for all calibers ignores the fact that some bullets start off with a larger diameter than others. (Duhh!!)

Using an arbitrary minimum penetration depth ignores the fact that proven loads producing excellent results are automatically rejected.

Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.

[Hook686]

japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.

[MLeake]

Hook686, maybe you are, and if so, that is great for you.

OTOH, that doesn't mean all the others who will read it have any background in testing, or in statistics, or even a general background in firearms. For people like that, points such as Japle makes could be very useful.

I'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.

[JASmith]

Posted by Japle
Good testing procedures + careful record keeping + unreasonable criteria = bad results.

This is the most concise summary of the problems with a large fraction of the tests I have seen!

That observation includes tests by folks both in government and doing tests under contract.

Of course there is still the odd test that violates all three criteria...

[481]

Originally Posted by Hooke686:

Why is there a need to intellectualize a a piece of data provided by someone who took the time to do some testing ?

Because some of us prefer to do our own thinking instead of allowing ourselves to be led blindly into a dubious conclusion based upon a set of questionable data.

I find Japle's commentary and observations to be informed and logical- an approach we'd all do well to adopt.

There is no need for him disagree silently as his points are well taken.

[Hook686]

'm not quite sure why his dissents and disclaimers discomfit you.

It simply strikes me as someone I know absolutely nothing about is analyzing the OP test methodology. It struck me as he was whining more over the .45acp not getting better results and looking for ways to discredit the testing because of that. Now this is just my personal opinion and nothing more. You maybe see it different. That is okay by me. Some people like to state opinions as though they were fact. I know nothing about japle. The OP stated his test results and his parameters for HIS evaluation. I appreciate the test results. Any nine year old child can create evaluation parameters. The data and the description of its collection are important to me. I am not discomforted by japle's dissents. I just see no purpose in those presented and think they cloud the water, as the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation, or what should have been considered and why the OP was wrong to not consider lower velocity data in his analysis.

Did you not like the data ?

[Japle]

Posted by Hook686:
…. the important part to me was the actual test results, not the evaluation …..

I thought the test results were useful, also, especially if you live where it’s hot all the time and aren’t concerned about how the loads work when fired through clothing.

It’s the conclusions that bother me and the criteria used to arrive at those conclusions.

In the last 40-odd years, I’ve seen all kinds of “stopping power” theories that were based on what the author thought was important and not on what actually works. One of the best examples is the Hatcher formula. Many people promoted Hatcher because they liked the idea that their favorite calibers and loads got high rankings. But Hatcher was badly flawed. The “computer man” was badly flawed. Every formula that starts with a conclusion (only loads that break 1,000 fps are acceptable, only loads that expand to at least 1.5X their original diameter, no matter what that original diameter was are acceptable, etc), produces conclusions that are automatically suspect.

[MLeake]

Hook686, I'd say the point Japle raises about the velocity floor is a valid one, as it removes most .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Colt loads from consideration.

[TacticalDefense1911]

That magazine article was a hack-fest. He mentioned 10% ordnance gel but did not mention if it was stored properly, if it was calibrated properly, what size the block was or how many times it was shot before being discarded. These are all major factors that need to be addressed when presenting a gel test. Also, he only shot bare gel. Alot of overall poorly performing loads can look okay when looking at a bare gel test. No FBI tests were attempted. I'm assuming he only test one shot of each load which is not a statistically significant sample for testing. No explanation as to how expansion was measured. You do not take that maximum expansion width; the proper way is to take the max + min /2 to get the average which needed to be addressed rather then the silly "expansion factor" numbers that were presented. There was no report on recovered weight of the projectiles. Also, he discounted any load that was below 1000 fps??? Pretty much worthless information on the whole.

As far as ordnance gelatin tests go, it is a misrepresentation that the ordnance gelatin is suppose to represent human soft tissue. It is not. Its simply a means to compare loads to compare overall performance. If you are worried about bone, look at tests that have been done properly with FBI barriers and that have passed these barrier tests. If they pass these tests they will defeat bone effectively. Also look at OIS information and what loads perform well in the real world. Also, stick with heavier loads as they have less chance of deflection. Here is an excellent list of loads that pass the FBI protocol. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887 If you can't find a load you like here then you don't need to be carrying a handgun.

[jimbob86]

japle I think you can disagree all you want. I simply think you can do so silently. I see no need for you to stipulate your rationalizations. You seem to me to take up unnecessary bandwidth with unneeded negativity. Perhaps you are right, but I certainly do not need your judgements about alleged 'Facts'. Why should I listen to your opinion and accept over the OP ? Perhaps you are right, but i enjoy the posts regarding tests conducted and am quite able to evaluate the results for my personal use.
__________________
Hook686

Why must he do so silently? Simply because he disagrees with you?

He disagrees, and gave valid reasons. This forum is a place for debate and discussion ....seems like the right place for reasoned discussion.