Gel

[Farleg]

Gday guys

Hope everyone is firmly in their chairs

So let’s get this out the road as I must be having a fever or something as usually I hate this stuff ( love to look @ it ) for a comparison to critters

So let’s look @ where we can potentially improve
Yep @T_the_Tinkerer this is one I’d like you to look @ on your upcoming gel tests as potentially may help somewhat or others that use this stuff for a reference
Now I could also be full of crap & the following may have no relevance whatsoever but I’m in the moto if you don’t discuss & throw ideas around we never move forward

So yep i looking @ what can we do to improve

First I think I’ve mentioned before on the gel face instead of the a square face have a angled one of say 45degrees to simulate a angled shot as that’s where tips fail is angle wise now also bone etc but I’ve seen no real test when they include that in gel or hide on the gel that excites me but this angle gel face may have merit & if someone wants to add those other resistances go for it as more data better right but I’m warming to just straight gel as the better indicator for this transition zone working out things & man alive if anyone has it & can shoot the 6.5 118&125hht sxs we may get a good understanding of where ea pill is doing what but I’ll take anything for now on where my brain is ticking @ present

Now the other part I look @ on gel is we get different permanent wound channels even in true solids yet no tumble has occurred & straight line penetration all the way

So this thought process was from a video I watched probably 2 years ago from the ultimate reloader or precision reloader or whatever they were called & the lengths / calculations they went to to get as accurate results as they could & around a month ago on lrh I quizzed a few & heaven forbid it was on a badlands thread ( it’s why I don’t limit myself to hammers as by me seeing other things that aren’t brand specific I go mmm overall that has potential merit & I was trying to get information on my finishing up tests on requested badland tests so I dig but man I have hit a major rocks on that but another day I’ll explain not tests they are going to happen)

So gel give us these voids & inconsistent straight lines


So I wonder if you can make a cage that would support the gel as I think the table everyone shoots gel on is causing this as it’s got no give & pushes back where the other 3 sides are left to expand as they want

So maybe have ea corner support & everything else open so we can have a 360 degree expansion not 270 or whatever it is

Hope makes sense & look forward to ticking on this
Cheers

 

[Richcotte]

I love this place!!!

 

[CBH Australia]

The first thought around putting it in a cage is the potential for ricochet. I'm assuming that's why we don't see it.

Yes, I've seen on YouTube where these blocks jump, buckle and change throught the milliseconds that the bullet is passing through.

It would be good to accomplish what you are asking to see the reaction and result and it doesn't need to be a steel cage to hold it in place. We expect the shot to go dead centre of the block with no chance of ricochet but it's maybe one consideration.

All that said when we shoot an animal that is standing free in the environment there are probably a number of factors affecting how it's body will react depending on its stance, condition, bone structure, species etc. The way the bullet performs on each animal on individual shots can not accurately be replicated. It will buckle and bulge in different ways and individual animals probably react differently.

I guess that's the point of gel tests to be able to replicate for testing purposes. Putting it in a container to keep the forces equal on every side will no doubt help straight penetration but might also affect the bubbles. Are these bubbles an effect of the buckling shown in slow motion footage?

 

[Muddyboots]

So if a a block is suppose to somehow replicate an animal that we typically shoot, why are blocks 2-4x wider than animal? If a deer is 12-16" wide, why don't we care more about the initial 12-16" gel block performance than what it does 18-24" into block? Just a curiosity thought I always have with gel versus animal.

 

[CBH Australia]

So if a a block is suppose to somehow replicate an animal that we typically shoot, why are blocks 2-4x wider than animal? If a deer is 12-16" wide, why don't we care more about the initial 12-16" gel block performance than what it does 18-24" into block? Just a curiosity thought I always have with gel versus animal.

I don't know if it is just specifically to replicate game. All game is different and there are no bones in Gel

It probably started out as a standard to test bullet penetration, bullet performance and as a consistent medium to test things with an equal medium.

I've heard things like it's supposed to be similar to flesh etc. on game, humans anything different areas are going to have a different makeup. The stomach is mostly soft but might react differently if something has just taken a large drink.

As for the 24" I guess it's just varying cartidges will have different penetration. If you are using it as a bullet trap you want to have sufficient length in the block.

Something that amazes me is how often you see a bullet in the offside just under the skin. I questioned that and was told it's to do with the hide being quite elastic. It would ba good to capture that moment on high speed footage but again it's those sort of field shots that are hard to capture , replicate or set up.

So a bullet has the energy to go through large game but at the same time the bullet has washed off that much speed and energy that the elasticity in the hide traps it on the Farleg side.

All comes back to the gel just being a testing medium of a consistent consistency of or lag of a better word for doing the testing and scientific experimtenation to test the results of a repeatble experiment to compare the results for the sake of experimental purposes.

 

[Koda]

Ive always thought gel blocks only tested the mechanical performance of the bullets expansion and nothing more.

The only practical and accurate representation of the bullets effect on a real target is Paul Harrels infamous "meat target" (which I think is pretty close for what it is...). The meat target would be a great easy cheap way to test practical performance at distance for Hammers. Although I always cringe at the idea of wasting a rack of beef ribs, watermelons not so much...
There's also these new full size gel humans complete with skeleton and organs that are showing up on youtube gun channels (like garandthumb) that I would say are 100% accurate, if they make them for deer and elk I dont know. Super expensive I imagine and are kinda disturbing to watch.

 

[kneedeep]

I’ve spent the afternoon running around to every sportings good store nearby. I’ve bought every crow decoy I could find and have downloaded all the crow sounds the coyote caller can hold. Crow pie must be the best eating there is. Well, as soon as @T_the_Tinkerer sends me the recipe he sent @Farleg.

All kidding aside. Most of you have already pointed out the good and bad of looking at gel. I think what Farleg is looking for is the fragmentation of the nose/petals. I think gel is good for that especially if you have a high enough speed camera. Meaning 100,000 frames per second plus. I again went back and reviewed some slow motion gel videos. At 50,000 frames, in very clear gel, it is still tough to see the particles of petals shedding and noses fragmenting. Even scrubbing the video to slow down the 50,000 frame rate.

I agree with Farleg about the need to test bullets in gel with an angled face. I think the angled face will show how different pills react. With that said, I don’t know that you’ll get the full affect of the hide and how elastic it is on entry. If you place a small piece of hide over the gel, I don’t think it comes close to how much area is stretched when a bullet finally pops through the hide.

A recent example of this stretch can be seen in TJ’s muley deer video. This is great video TJ and crew!


Before impact

At impact. You can see the amount of hide being stretched as well as meat and muscle being pushed in. Similar to a sledge hammer hitting the side. So if you’re wondering why there’s more bruising around some entrance holes than others, maybe look at the resistance met as well as the nose profile of the pill you’re shooting. A few have recently commented on the sound of impact that can be heard when shooting an animal with the 308/120LH. It’s nose profile is blunt and heavy so it takes more resistance to pop through the hide. And yes it’s taking away energy the more it stretches.

And another recent discussion here was the thermal scope/Texas pig review of the 6.5/92PH. The reviewer explained that the 92PH petals didn’t radiate out and cause damage on their own. @riceman and @gltaylor showed how the 92PH petals did radiate out and cause their own damage. Why two opposing results, I believe it’s velocity and resistance. The reviewer was shooting pigs (heavy resistance) and lower velocity. Riceman and GL were shooting higher velocities on deer in the south and west. Two low resistance deer even when compared to other deer.

I’m only saying all of this in hopes that anyone that performs these tests pays particular Attention to the details of their tests. Change one thing and you can change the result.

I don’t think gel will show what’s actually happening when impacting an animal but it could help us understand more of it, especially combined with ultra high speed video. I also believe it would take an elaborate gel/bone/fluid/voids/organ mock up to really show what’s going on but without the elasticity of the hide, I still don’t think it’ll be close.

Just my 2 cents
The one job wonder,
Kneedeep

 

[Farleg]

Gday one job wonder
The above is a great write up

Loved the crow yarn it had me in totally & thinking you we’re having trouble on your corn plots or something like that
Then oh der yep now I get it & it was a pearla

I’ll save a crow leg for you out of my next meal as lately they aren’t to far apart
Cheers

 

[Farleg]

Gday Cbh
Maybe a wooden frame but we are reliant on tinkers thought’s & experience

Yes the elasticity of a hide is quite confusing until you get to understand it as you will often get around 6 /10 in more penetration on a pill that sits on hide on the far side in the hide on the far side & you’ll increase penetration length again but then these lengths can vary depending on critter sambar,fallow & our asiatic buff are all very different & the asiatic has probably the best bullet catching ability pound for pond in the world

Cheers

 

[Farleg]

Gday koda
Could you explain a little more on that meat target as that’s a new one to me & maybe something we can potentially do or @least take something away from it

& yes kneedeep was correct im looking @ that transition zone for the data im chasing @ present to work things out a little more as I’m seeing things in these hht that are puzzling me as on tinkering with them I’m getting more confused but a chat to Brian the other day made me tick even more

Cheers

 

[Koda]

Gday koda
Could you explain a little more on that meat target as that’s a new one to me & maybe something we can potentially do or @least take something away from it

Paul Harrel is a local (Oregon) you tuber channel and reviews guns and ammo. He mostly reviews pistol ammo on his infamous meat target, but he has a few for hunting ammo. He basically buys a rack of beef ribs and 2 watermelons or bag of oranges to simulate lung tissue and wraps in leather...
IMO I find his meat target reviews a pretty good representation of bullet performance on game, (especially pistol ammo for bear defense). Id like to see a meat target review with a Hammer at say 100, 200..... , 600yds... (if you send him some he will do it... )
I dont know if it will meet Hammers standards for bullet performance but as Paul likes to say... "you be the judge"

queued up to the meat target part, 30-30 hunting ammo 150 and 170gr on a "deer meat target"

 

[Farleg]

Gday koda
That’s cool
Thanks for sharing

So does he load or need loaded ammo
& what calibers does he have

Mmmm
A 500 Jeffery I’d hope but settle for a rum
Cheers

 

[Koda]

Gday koda
That’s cool
Thanks for sharing

So does he load or need loaded ammo
& what calibers does he have

Mmmm
A 500 Jeffery I’d hope but settle for a rum
Cheers

Never met him but Ive heard people have seen him at local gun shows. No idea if he loads but I dont think hes lacking calibers....

 

[Farleg]

Never met him but Ive heard people have seen him at local gun shows. No idea if he loads but I dont think hes lacking calibers....

Well you have some homework now
Cheers

 

[Muddyboots]

I don't know if it is just specifically to replicate game. All game is different and there are no bones in Gel

It probably started out as a standard to test bullet penetration, bullet performance and as a consistent medium to test things with an equal medium.

I've heard things like it's supposed to be similar to flesh etc. on game, humans anything different areas are going to have a different makeup. The stomach is mostly soft but might react differently if something has just taken a large drink.

As for the 24" I guess it's just varying cartidges will have different penetration. If you are using it as a bullet trap you want to have sufficient length in the block.

Something that amazes me is how often you see a bullet in the offside just under the skin. I questioned that and was told it's to do with the hide being quite elastic. It would ba good to capture that moment on high speed footage but again it's those sort of field shots that are hard to capture , replicate or set up.

So a bullet has the energy to go through large game but at the same time the bullet has washed off that much speed and energy that the elasticity in the hide traps it on the Farleg side.

All comes back to the gel just being a testing medium of a consistent consistency of or lag of a better word for doing the testing and scientific experimtenation to test the results of a repeatble experiment to compare the results for the sake of experimental purposes.

Exactly my point. The gel testing has become the almost religious point of discussion. How far did it penetrate? Expansion? Retention? Bubble? Wound channel? Adnauseam! It seems the gel test has become the "gold standard" of bullets performance instead of real world animal testing with documented necropsy. Thankfully, we have both along with really good user input as well. I posted to get some discussion on what does gel REALLY tell us? IMO just a comparative analysis against other bullets not necessarily any indicator of true terminal performance.

So THANK YOU @Farleg for giving us the real world dope!

Ok @joe16 you have permission to run with this.

 

[gltaylor]

I agree with you, Muddy.
Gel is about the only widely comparative medium available to lots of people. It's expensive, a pain in the arse to melt, filter and re-mold for use. There are also variations in the type of gel available and temperature of the gel when tests are run (resistance?).
All that said, it's still about the only way to test where everybody is using a relatively similar medium.

I don't know, but I believe that it is a weak representation of what happens in an animal's body. Look at the huge variation we see in animal necropsies. As Kneedeep and Farleg constantly point out (rightfully so), we get different results from different animal types, angle of shot, body size of animal, winter/summer coat, and on and on.

I am curious about somehow containing a gel block and also about shooting a block at an angle to see if the bullet "bites" into the gel and what it then does as it travels forward?

Following with keen interest .

p.s. Wonderul points in your write up Kneedeep!

 

[T_the_Tinkerer]

Fellas, I saw this post while I had 2 minutes or so of downtime at work. Busy night regardless.

@Farleg
What you are seeing is likely the result of the expansion bubble and the contortion of the block. The blocks flip wildly due mostly to what kind of surface it's sitting on.

Initially I used harder wood tables. That did not last long. Those "meager" little 22s would hit the block, give a loud "THWACK" just before breaking the wood tables and tearing the screwed legs out. That's at 200yrds. I would get 2, maybe 3 shots before I had to throw the whole table away in the range trash can. The blocks would jump and I would have to rearrange them after every shot.

I now use a wooden dolly with carpet top, screwed onto compound plywood board. See the pictures. The gaps and controled flexibility of the plywood absorbs all the shock and I never have the rearrange ethe blocks after shots. The wound tracks also coherent and continuous. The string line helps to drag that thing out the the end of the range. You can also angle the dolly so that gel can be struck at an angle. Mine is usually always angled just a bit horizontally and vertically by whatever angle the bullet arc is for that distance. Still excellent wound tracking. The tip just does a lot for hammers, in my opinion.

@Koda
I'm sure if I joined Paul's patreon, and I watch the guy all the time, I could send him some hammers to test. He did a test with 5.7x28 boutique loads, and as we all know him and his opinion on boutique and "hyper" ammo, there's no way he bought those. I actually know EXACTLY who sent him the ammo to test. Someone who wanted to see/show in real time some of the shortcomings of non OEM loaded 5.7 without ruining their relationships with said dealers.

Anyways, I'm sure he would love to do an episode on different types of monolithic hunting ammo and how they compare to traditional lead core ammo.

 

[les]

Great discussion. I priced gel. I will stick with "poor man's gel" - one gallon jugs filled with water. I guess I have bow hunted too long. When bow hunting you want a shot that is going to make the critter bleed, shutting down the blood flow to the brain. I think the same principle should apply to bullets. One of the reasons I gravitate to a larger diameter bullet.

Another question I have is what has happened to "hunting". I have appreciated all of the long shots shared in the success stories. I have not seen many under 150 yards. My last two days of hunting for mule deer have been with my bow. I saw well over 60 deer, and could have drilled many of them with a rifle at 200-500 yards. But I had to put the sneak on with a bow. I closed within 80 on 3 groups. Just a hair too far with a bow. I have no proof, but one of my fears with all of the long range shooting going on is a lot of wounded animals. I'm not disparaging anyone in this group, but I am thinking of the guys I have heard BSing at the gunshops and sporting goods stores.

Last - Wow do I love this place! Testing Testing and more Testing of bullets. I go out in the field with confidence with Hammer Bullets. Thanks for all the work. I will continue to enjoy spot and stalk and get as close as I can before squeezing the trigger.

 

[Koda]

@Koda
I'm sure if I joined Paul's patreon, and I watch the guy all the time, I could send him some hammers to test. He did a test with 5.7x28 boutique loads, and as we all know him and his opinion on boutique and "hyper" ammo, there's no way he bought those. I actually know EXACTLY who sent him the ammo to test. Someone who wanted to see/show in real time some of the shortcomings of non OEM loaded 5.7 without ruining their relationships with said dealers.

Anyways, I'm sure he would love to do an episode on different types of monolithic hunting ammo and how they compare to traditional lead core ammo.

I don't join patreon accounts myself. He has virtually endless youtube videos with meat target tests on just about every pistol caliber out there, and other gun culture and shooting content. His dialog is a little dry but I enjoy his videos. Ive seen enough where he mentioned a thank you to someone who sent him some ammo iirc, so he did a video. My guess is if a company sent him some ammo he'd love the youtube hits ($).
I'm not certain his "meat target" is scientific enough to use though and open to a ton of criticism if even one projectile is just perfect.

They are fun videos to watch but I don't need to know how well Hammers work on a meat target.... 2 summers ago when I decided to switch to Hammers I several evenings with a web search of Hammer success posts in various hunting forums and there was enough positive reviews most including photo necropsies to prove Hammers excel at terminal performance. It was an easy choice for me. I'm not the most successful hunter but look forward to my own evaluation someday I'm confident will be boringly the same devastating results Ive read about. In short I dont think Hammer needs any validation from a meat target there are plenty of actual deer and elk kills posted.

 

[T_the_Tinkerer]

@les
I get you and agree. I think that's where a lot of people who attack hammers solely on the BC deficits compared to sleeker offerings are missing out. Hunting also involves stalking and closing distances, and that part seems to be left out of the conversation these days. Hunters using legacy chamberings loaded with less aerodynamic bullets were still very successful hunters. Their bullets also killed very well. From a pure hunting standpoint, many were more talented than the guys today who have a $3000 rifle with $3000 glass and a $1200 can who shoot at game from 800yrds out.

@Koda
Definitely get your point. I think that validation isn't really what we are after. The keyword for me is exposure, and to a wider audience. The autopsies and hunting reports here will speak for themselves, but this place does need the traffic that word of mouth and much viewed people like Ron Spoomer can generate.

As for the repeatability of the 'meat target', that was a valid criticism made by many. In a special, he actually addressed that by demonstration. He made three separate targets, shot all three with 3 bullets each of the exact type all on a continuous roll; he took them apart, showed the expansion of all nine bullets and what fleece layer they stopped at. This was all done in a continuous roll.

What was discovered at the end was that all three targets, while not exactly the same, demonstrated the same bullet performance as far as penetration and expansion were concerned. I think this is due to the law of averages. While the meat, fruit, and fleece may not be each perfect replicas of the other, on average they all form a roughly equivalent product. Same with the loaded bullets. Same with the primers. And the powder charges.