I already have the answers I trust from the experts, and while I’m willing to see what this guy says, I don’t have 24 minutes to watch.
What is his answer (and what is the question)?
I cut the link up to the 17:35 mark. His answer was .223 55 grain Critical defense is better than FMJ in .223. Because it does “effective” damage but doesn’t over penetrate.
2 Likes
How many inches of calibrated ballistics gel did it penetrate?
I kid, I’ve seen enough of his videos to know he doesn’t do measurable, repeatable, or consistent tests for (threat) penetration. 
You are free to choose as you like, but, 7" of penetration in gel is “effective” if penetration adequate to reliably stop an attacker is not part of your definition of effective.
I think it will do fine for your intended use for an in house SD round. New and better specialty rounds are being invented, don’t get stuck in a rut. 
2 Likes
The FBI researched (after the 1986 Miami shootout failure, mostly) 12" minimum penetration in gel is pretty much law.
You can read about it and all the ins and outs and why pretty much anywhere.
This is a good jumping off point:
I also suggest searching and reading anything written by docgkr aka doctor roberts
Or
2 Likes
So you have repeated ad nauseam.
1 Like
You are quite knowledgeable and offer a lot of good advice, and most of time I do agree with your comments. However, in this instance I believe you are suffering from confirmation bias.
Gel tests are one source of data, and provide dramatic video, but cannot tell the entire story. You claim the meat targets the other person uses cannot be duplicated. What is your source to prove that contention? Or is that his meat targets show that your “facts” are not necessarily correct/valid in this instance, so, of course, his results are not valid?
Personally, shooting meat targets with human-sized ribs is an accurate depiction of what would happen to a person shot with the various rounds he has tested. He also showed in that video how those rounds penetrated, or not, through common Sheetrock walls, again, offering realistic data that a piece gelatin cannot.
One reason gelatin is used is because it is cheap, not because it is the best medium for testing. It eliminates the variable of what happens to a bullet hitting bone, which is found in real people.
Another reason for its wide-spread use is due to the fact the FBI uses it. It is supposedly a good substitute for soft tissue, but lacks bones that are found in humans. The FBI also tests through several or more layers of thick cloth that most of these Internet testers using gelatin do not. Should that not invalidate their results, too, like the tester’s video you posted? You apparently were able to patiently sit through his video. If you can only watch a 6-minute video, you could have just skipped to the couple minutes of the other video where he tested the round in question. That is what I did.
4 Likes
Well said Brother with more patience then I had.
1 Like
I don’t know. I started a thread here and asked what Kyle Rittenhouse used and got an answer pretty quickly. What ammunition did Kyle use?
Do you have a place or know people out in the country where you can shoot water jugs, scrap drywall and meat targets?
Seeing is believing! It would be worth the effort to go do it and see for yourself in my opinion.
His videos themselves demonstrate clearly they are not consistent, quantifiable, or repeatable.
You can believe the guy who buys stuff at the store, shoots it, and tells you his layman subject opinion (which disagrees with everything and everyone else including the scientific method) if you want.
But the FBI, all law enforcement agencies, and every professional in the realm are all in agreement.
7" penetration in gel is not sufficient to reliably stop an attacker.
You can start the in depth real world research and results with the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Lots of detailed info for that one.
They do? How do you know that? You admitted that you will not watch them. Please provide the source, other than your opinion to refute his video.
As to penetration, the FBI has immunity from liability for any collateral damage - we do not. Do you want a round that will go through several people and walls or one that will stop in the intended target? I prefer the latter. If you watched the video, the round in question performed the latter, not the former. Gelatin only proves how well it does shooting gelatin, not through bone - a substance found surrounding our heart and lungs - something found when shooting center mass.
3 Likes
Reliably might be the key word in that statement. 1200 ft/lbs energy dumped between the ribs in a chest cavity is dramatic! Look at the effects of varmint rounds on prairie dogs and groundhogs.
@Nathan57 do all the fib tests you are referring to have the same 12” standard for rifle and handgun ammunition? No distinction?
2 Likes
Many of the YouTube ballistic gel tests are completely worthless. They use uncalibrated or improperly calibrated gel. They don’t use standardized cloth or use none at all (which can still be a useful test but can’t be compared directly to the cloth tests) and they shoot far too few bullets to have a viable sample size.
The issue with the meat targets is the same as with these poorly done gel tests. Most important being that the sample size is way too small. Especially since they significantly increase the number of uncontrollable variables due to the bones, the thickness, the flesh consistency, layering etc. Did the bullet hit the rib straight on, did it graze it, did it miss entirely? Will every bullet that hits in that same spot behave the same way or is the bullet performance itself inconsistent? It would take thousands of shots to answer that question with a meat target. Meat targets provide some interesting anectdotal results but those results may or may not show how a particular bullet will consistently behave. You can’t draw solid conclusions from the minuscule sample size.
That is why most law enforcement agencies rely on standardized gel testing. The fact that humans have variable parts and their clothing varies is why through significant testing and research it was determined that a bullet must penetrate over 12 inches of calibrated gel in order to ensure that it will reach vital targets in a self defense situation. 12” of penetration in gel does not directly translate to 12” of penetration in a person.
Gel is far from a perfect test medium but it is the best way we have at the moment to compare how different rounds will behave. But as you pointed out, the gel tests themselves can not be trusted if not done properly. I generally ignore most of the YouTube tests. Even much of the online testing by knowledgeable, well intentioned people like the Lucky Gunner testers has to be taken with a grain of salt because even though their controls appear to be good their sample size is too small.
Ideally I look for test data done by or for LEO agencies.
1 Like
I just looked up 44 magnum ammunition and the Hornady custom 200 grain load has 999 ft/lbs energy. 17% less than the 223 rounds being discussed.
I’m sure you know all this but for others who may not be aware - Due to the variables of mass, velocity and bullet design that 44 magnum is far more likely to penetrate through far more apartment walls than a high velocity .223 bullet. Even though the .223 has more energy.
But at the same time if the projectile doesn’t reach a vital target inside the body it often doesn’t matter how much energy is dumped into the first couple inches. There is a reason most hunters don’t use varmint bullets on deer. They don’t like chasing their targets for hundreds of yards or the significant risk of loosing them altogether.
Any hit from any bullet may psychologically stop an attacker. But the only way to guarantee a quick stop on a determined, chemically or adrenaline pumped up attacker is to hit the heart (even a hit to the heart does not gaurantee an instant stop) or preferably the central nervous system. That requires adequate penetration.
3 Likes
With single-projectile hit you only have depth of penetration as reliable indicator of stopping power.
What about multiple-projectile hit? Thinking #4 buck, there were multiple videos evaluating it for overpenetration against drywall/sheet rock.
2 Likes
I like your thinking. @BRUCE26 is a fan of the T shot size. I’m not big on steel shot but after some digging, I found these.
2 Likes
I had forgotten about the “dead coyote” brand, even before the price increase’s I thought they were too expensive for me. Now they are a ridiculous price. I will stick with steel, lighter but also less likely to over penetrate.
2 Likes
I agree with all of that.
I wish you could buy ordinary lead shot loads in F, T and BB but it’s not legal for waterfowl so I guess they don’t wanna tempt people?
1 Like
I have watched them.
It is not quantified.
If he has updated and is now quantifying the damage to his meat target and orange, I apologize. Out of curiosity, how is he quantifying that result and what was the measured damage (inches of penetration and expansion of the recovered projectile would be great) for the Hornady FTX?
I want the round that penetrates enough to reliably stop an attacker. But also does not over penetrate to go through “Multiple people”. That’s why there is a high end on the target gel penetration as well as a minimum.
12-18" in gel is the universally (by the professionals and experts) agreed upon standard and has been so for awhile now
2 Likes