Clear Ballistics Gelatin Not Performing Like Real Ballistics Gelatin?
Andrew of AR15.com has published a video comparing the performance of Clear Ballistic Gelatin to organic 10% ballistic gelatin using Nosler 64gr Bonded Softpoint bullets out of an AR-15.
The results are interesting. When shooting into the 10% ballistics gelatin, the round penetrated 15.6″. Clear ballistics gelatin showed different results with the same bullet penetrating 19.4″, almost 4″ further than the 10% ballistic gelatin.
Andrew comments that the results from the Clear gelatin can alter one’s perception of a bullet’s performance for self defense needs. In this particular case the rifle round appears to over penetrate if one goes solely by the results of the Clear Ballistics gelatin.
Andrew told TFB that when comparing Clear Gel and organic gel with the FBI standard of “shooting a .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 feet per second (fps)” he found the following:
593.7 fps, 3.4″ (organic gel)
595.2 fps, 4.1″ (Clear Gel)
The acceptable range is 590 fps +/- 15 fps and 2.95″ – 3.74″ of penetration. The Gel gel fell just outside the acceptable range.
Does this mean that Clear Ballistics Gelatin is not appropriate for amateur testing? Not necessarily. Right now we have only seen different results in a handful of calibers using very specific types of ammunition. There can be areas where the Clear Ballistics Gelatin does perform identically with 10% ballistic gelatin. Andrew does acknowledge that there are videos on Youtube showing clear gel does mimic 10% gel. The temporary stretch cavity, maximum expansion, minimum expansion, and weight retention are similar between organic and Clear gel.
We spoke to another Youtuber who uses Clear Gel. He told us that unlike organic gel, the Clear gel is easier to store, and therefor easier for the casual user to use.
Lastly, Clear Ballistic Gelatin does something that 10% ballistics gelatin does not: it visually shows results better. Should you stop using Clear Ballistics Gelatin? Not necessarily. It depends on what you want the product to do what you want to test.
More by Nicholas C
Comments
Join the conversation
Since we have been using Clear Ballistics for the series Tom G and I have been doing, I'd like to chime in.
We do a calibration BB on every gel to confirm the density and penetration, and we have not seen any problems yet.
That said, at best, gel testing, in my opinion, and with regards to our series, is more about the consistency of the testing. Do the gels perform the same? Well, that would take actual scientific testing, done using scientific methodology. Shooting a couple rounds here and there (to compare the two types), in non controlled conditions, is really nothing more than interesting, and I wouldn't draw any real conclusions from it.
We would need to see a few hundred rounds from the same lot with the same controls shot into the gels and then have some statistical analysis against the measurements. My hypothesis is that we would not really see much difference. But without the funding to conduct a comparison to that standard, all we can do is guess and offer opinions based on our personal observations.
What we can do is use a specific medium to test, and conduct the tests in as close to the same conditions, and use that data to compare the rounds. Is it perfect? No. But it is still valuable.
Here's my question: If the over-penetration in clear gel consistent? As in, does 15" in ballistics gel reliably come to 18.5" in clear gel? Could you not just convert a clear gel depth into a true gel depth by multiplying (clear gel depth*.81) or something similar?