Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Meat tests can never be replicated, ie, they are not reliable.
Real shootings can't be replicated either. That's one of the problems with gel testing: you're trying to use laboratory methods to predict the outcome of real-world events with lots of uncontrolled variables. The very properties that make gel tests repeatable are completely absent in real living people. Not all people have the same body habitus, not all parts of the human body have the same density, and not everyone who is shot gets hit in the same place. It could be argued that a "meat target" like Paul Harrell's could be useful if repeated enough because, through increasing sample size, the variances between one meat target and the next become less and less statistically significant.
Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Gel, if you like clear or none clear, are the exact same between calibers. That means it is a reliable test. Regardless if you like gel or not. It's reliable.
The problem with clear gel is that it behaves quite differently from real gel and the results cannot be extrapolated between the two. The point of ballistic gel testing to to be a predictor of what a bullet will do if shot into a living human without the legal and ethical concern of actually shooting people under controlled lab conditions. Real 10% ordinance gel is the industry standard because it has been agreed by sources including but no limited to the FBI and other major law enforcement agencies that it's the best approximation of living human tissue available that can be used within the legal and ethical constraints I mentioned.
Simply being repeatable does not make a given ballistic test reliable. We could shoot lots of things like water jugs, wetpack, or pine boards and get repeatable results but those results would be quite different from what we'd get in 10% ordinance gel and thus of little or no value beyond entertainment. I view Clear Ballistics and other synthetic gelatin the same way: the results you get from it are too different from 10% ordinance gel to be useful. The reason synthetic gelatin has become so popular among amateur testers like Lucky Gunner is because it is both less expensive and easier to work with than real 10% ordinance gelatin (the real stuff has pretty stringent temperature requirements). Frankly, there is a reason that no major LE agency that I'm aware of nor any of the major ammo makers like Hornady, Winchester, Remington, or CCI/Speer/Federal use synthetic gelatin despite is lower cost and easier handling requirements.
Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Here's the funny thing. Clear gel is suppose to be more elastic. Luckygunner used clear gel, Vista used non clear. Regardless. Why didn't 10mm do better in Luckygunners clear gel?
10mm did do better when you look at comparable bullets. The overall best performing Speer Gold Dot 9mm tested by Lucky Gunner was the 124 gr standard pressure which had both the second largest expansion (.54") and second deepest penetration (18.1"). Also the 9mm Gold Dot loadings that bested it in penetration (124 gr +P short barrel) and expansion (115 gr standard pressure) only did so by 0.1" and 0.01" respectively.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm
By comparison, the 10mm 200 gr Gold Dot penetrated 19.7" and expanded to .68", bigger and deeper than
any of the 9mm Gold Dots
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/10mm-auto-self-defense-ammo-ballistic-gel-tests/
We see this in other loadings where comparable bullets are used as well. The Hornady 10mm Critical Duty loading both outpenetrated and expanded larger than either the standard pressure or +P 9mm Critical Duty loadings. The Federal 10mm Hydra Shok expanded much larger and more reliably than any of the 9mm Hydra Shoks (all had rather poor expansion in 9mm). Both Hornady XTP 10mm loadings were able to achieve near ideal penetration depths while expanding to much larger diameters than their 9mm XTP counterparts (the 9mm XTP's showed only moderate expansion).
While the 9mm Federal HST's you tout certainly did well in Lucky Gunner's tests, Lucky Gunner did not test the 10mm version of the HST. However, considering that the .40 S&W and .45 ACP versions managed to maintain adequate penetration while expanding to larger diameters than the 9mm versions
in Lucky Gunner's tests, I see no reason to expect that the 10mm HST would not give similar performance gains over the 9mm version that it did with other bullet designs.
Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Let's say you throw out everything I've said. Gold Dot is tested with non clear gel on Vista's website. That data is what they supply for State and Federal agencies. Gold Dot's predecessor, Speer "Bonded Uni-Core" is the more common load at DT, UW, and BB. So, does current Gold Dot in 40 look much different than 9mm Gold Dot? A little. But that isn't the round you're getting from DT, UW, or BB. But you are getting a claimed 1400 FPS. So what.
Buffalo Bore certainly doesn't, they switched to Montana Gold JHP's in their 10mm ammo during the last Obama panic and, if they ever switched back their website does not reflect such. However, do you have any documentation to show that Double Tap and Underwood aren't using "real" Gold Dots? I know that when I look at reloading component bullets in that caliber they're clearly labeled as "Gold Dots" so I know they're available as components. As a matter of fact, I can't even find any of the old "bonded uni-core" bullets for sale in .40 caliber, all I've seen from Speer is TMJ, CPRN, and Gold Dots.
https://www.midwayusa.com/bullets/br?cid=19785&targetLocation=%2F_%2FN-19785%2B4294918619%2B4294916925%3FNp%3D2%26Nr%3DAND%2528p_visible%253A1%252Ccustomertypeid%253A1%2529%26Nrpp%3D24%26Ns%3Dp_metric_sales_velocity%257C1%26Ntpc%3D1%26Ntpr%3D1&customerSelectedSort=False
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/556?
https://outdoors.natchezss.com/products/reloading-bullets-speer-.400%22?format=diameter
Also, when I've ordered ammo from Underwood that loaded with their "bonded jacketed hollowpint" the bullets I received looked exactly like Gold Dots. Also, I can remember when Double Tap specifically advertised Gold Dot bullets in their 10mm loadings.
It's my understanding that Double Tap stopped advertising the use of Speer Gold Dots because Speer's legal team took issue with them using their trademarked name in a competitor's advertising (understandable), I don't believe that Buffalo Bore or Underwood ever specifically advertised Gold Dots to begin with. As a matter of fact, Double Tap no longer specifically lists any bullet manufacturer on their website though the pictures for the "Bonded Defense" appear to be Gold Dots while the "Controlled Expansion" loadings appear to be loaded with Nosler Sporting Handgun JHP's judging by the weights and pictures.
