Search found 3 matches
Return to “Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance”
- Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:55 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2867
Re: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance
minor clarification- I meant the calibration was for gel consistency, lot to lot. It has always been conceded that the gel could/does replicate some soft tissue but for purposes of a consistent medium with measurable resistance, the gel is not intended to mirror the human body.
- Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:37 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2867
- Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:34 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2867
Re: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance
Although I enjoy Paul Harrell's videos- my only real complaint is how he builds his "meat targets" and compares bullets, without ensuring the same thing is hit in each. One test (not this video) he uses pork shoulders and doesn't show any concern for the orientation and placement of the bone (unless it was edited out) as he constructs the target or that each bullet hits it.