Search found 3 matches

by flechero
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.
by flechero
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

Re: Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance

MaduroBU wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:26 pm On the other hand, calibrated ballistic gel is the standard for a reason.
Yes, but only as a consistent medium for bullet caparison- and the calibration is to ensure the different lots test the same. It's NOT calibrated to replicate the human body.
by flechero
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.

Return to “Ballistic testing - Academic discussion v. real performance”