# One of the best Videos I've seen on Ballistic Gel Testing



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Goes a long ways to explain why Gel testing works and why SD caliber, once you reach a certain threshold, doesn't matter:






Does go a ways to counter the whole Gel isn't bone, muscle, organs..yada, yada, yada. I like the way they tie it to a correlation to "street effects" at about the 3:00 minute mark. 

"What works in the gelatin here, ends up working in the street there"


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

That was an excellent discussion. I’m glad you posted that. 

I agree that the thing that most should take away from that is the bit about elasticity-threshold and how, assuming penetration and expansion minimums are met, no significant lethality gains are going to be realized until you get into rifle terminal-ballistics where the velocity can effect hydrostatic permanent wound-cavities. If your .380 works well, and performs well in the test, carry it.... unless your other option is a rifle. 

Regarding the point about “what works in the gel works in the street”; that is a reference to how the FBI ballistic gel metrics don’t seem to correlate with real-world conditions. Under Buford Boone, the penetration threshold started at 12”, with no max-threshold. The current spec, under Scott Patterson’s (Buford’s protege) Ballistic Research Facility, the threshold is 12-18”, with an objective (extra credit) of 14-16”. 

Those figures, assuming ballistic gel really did approximate a human target, seem too deep for maximum energy-dump and mitigated risk of over-penetration (especially given that those metrics are scored identically across all 5 barriers, auto-glass, door steel, plywood etc). That’s where the “works on the street” part comes in. It’s actually a little more empiracle than Johan described. 

The BRF actually catalogs every police shooting, its shot-placement, barrier, load, weapon, and effect on target. The penetration thresholds and objectives come from back-figuring that data. The BRF runs a database of what loads, through what weapons show best “street” performance. If a police shooting happens with a load they don’t have on file, the BRF is going to run a barrier profile on it. What they’ve found, over thousands of thousands of documented shootings, is that rounds that do 14-16” in gel stop human targets most effectively. 

Another thing that kinda got glossed over was the Ballistics Research Clear Gel correlation. It’s not simply that it doesn’t correlate to ordnance gel, it’s that it’s not consistent, even with itself. BR has posted claims that their gel is “calibrated” to match ordnance gel, but the BRF has confirmed to me that they can’t duplicate results (even within a given lot) and have asked BR to stop making that claim. 

The calibration of ordnance gel is an involved process. Buford Boone told me one night at dinner the process he went through, in the 90s, of evolving the BRF gel mix-procedure from a Sharpie line on a red Solo cup to actually calibrating each lot of gel against the 10% nominal standard with a BB of known velocity. The current BRF regime has taken the precision of that imprecise procedure even further, and are getting even more predictable results out of it. 

Bottom line, if you’re watching a test done in Clear Gel, weigh it on-par with a hunting-camp milk jug test.


----------

