I’m just wondering if DocGKR ever ran any tests on Elite Ammunitions 5.7x28mm loads.
If yes, could someone please link it? If no, are there any plans for the future?
I found this thread, but I either missed the follow up, or it didn’t happen.
Thanks.
Never received any ammo…
I see, no problem. Thanks for the response.
That is not surprising. Sounds like they don’t want independent testers with your credibility. I like the concept of the 5.7 but in my opinion its just not powerful enough. By concept I mean a pistol with near 5.56 ballistics and light recoil.
Pat
Likewise, I like the concept of a carbine with near .50BMG ballistics and light recoil.
Neither one is going to happen anytime soon … 
WE tested the 5.7 rds. Please see our testing here…
http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=82043&p=1814070#p1814070
BRB, changing the laws of physics as we speak. Blended melded wonder bullet doing 9,000fps with no recoil that goes through 1ft of titanium but acts like a LAW rocket on soft tissue, coming soon. 
Regular Guy–Congratulations, great to see folks testing things for themselves.
Thank you sir! We had a great time doing it. Could you tell it was our first attempt. Things went right, some things went wrong but all in all we had a great time and got some valuable results.
We are doing another round of testing this October. WE are dubbing in it “Gel tests: Conventional Self Defense Pistol Loads”. We are testing off the shelf stuff in what the ‘experts’ say are the best rds for self defense. 38 spl,. 380 ACP, 9mm, 40, 45 ACP and 10mm; mostly Speer, Winchester and Hornady.
We are using a 10% Bloom gelatin mix at 38* F. WE calibrate with a pellet gun and move on from there. Our blocks are going to be 6x6x16". Once our video guy gets everything compiled I’ll post a link here.
We really enjoyed doing this and we have another gel test planned for the spring for rifle rds.
Anyway, glad you liked it.
If you have not done so, take a look here on some hints on how to interpret your test results: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22323. Try back lighting your gel blocks and use a white background for better photos.
Yes, sir that is one of the things we discussed. Thanks for the input. We are going to work on better background and lighting. Our area is outdoors so that’s a hurdle for us.
Outdoors can often provide better light, depending on shadows and sun position–use white cardboard to guide and reflect the light. A couple of bright Surfire LED’s also help.
OP: I’ve found that a fluorescent ‘shop light’ works well also (the one that uses an edison-style 2 or 3 prong cord). You just want to use cardboard or some other opaque object to block all the light on both ends of the block (and the top as well), so that the only light you see from the fixture is what is passing directly through the block.
Bottom line: There are many good ways to do it.
Doc, does the gel not need to be calibrated and at a specific temp following standardized/accepted protocols to have any validity in terms of interpreting the results beyond the cool factor of seeing gel blocks being shot?
I’m not an expert but this is true. The blocks should be @ 38*F and each block should be calibrated with a pellet fired at 600FPS.
Some of our block were warm ~50*F and they were beginning to lose their elasticity. These blocks were not used for the ‘formal’ part of our testing.
For our next rd of testing we are going to have the block in coolers on ice so they retain the proper temperature. We made some mistakes with out initial rd of testing and we have stepped up our testing protocols. We are backyard, very part time enthusiasts. We hope to learn from our tests and to expand the body of evidence for shooters and sports men and women.
We really appreciate constructive criticism and valuable input.
I’m unclear what you can add to the body of knowledge, as all major calibers have been tested under highly controlled protocols and published many times now. If not using the established accepted protocols (and a large part of why there’s so much confusion out there is people fail to follow or even know they exist…), then it’s fun to watch, but of little value in terms of adding to the science based body of knowledge on the topic using that medium.
Not trying to be a neg bag, but as you know, there’s at least 8,934,263,817 squared vids of people shooting stuff on YT in un uncontrolled conditions, which although (some times) fun to watch, of little actual value.
Well, if you don’t think it’s of value I have no way of convincing you that it does. We are trying and we are on a limited budget. I have had many folks thank us for our work. Sorry, we don’t have the money or time for a full on super scientific lab coat test or facility.
Anyway, like I said, if you have something to add or correct us on, we welcome your input. I really don’t see how we are that far off from any other tests out there. We had the correct temp, correct calibration and our results mimicked the results others got with with that specific ammo. In this specific test we did test ammo that had never been tested or that has a large body of evidence surrounding it.
I believe and have found there are some folks that are just detractors and only interject opinion to discourage us from continuing our testing.
And there are “some folks” who take constructive criticism as “detractors”
Regardless, how you proceed from here (and Doc Roberts could be an invaluable source there…) will decide whether you all actually add to the body of valid knowledge/info on the topic, or just add yet more noise to the signal, the former being a rare commodity on the 'net.
I wish you good luck with your future ventures and enjoy seeing stuff get shot as much as the next guy, but valid science is always my first priority.
I appreciate your efforts. What you’re doing is a lot of work.
If you would like to break some new ground perhaps this may be of some interest.
In the context of handgun ammunition, I have been trying to get a better grasp of this quality known as ‘effectiveness’.
I would like to see tests of the older arms that were involved in the discussions of handgun effectiveness during the last century and compare them with the current body of thought on the subject… The .36 and .44 cap and ball revolvers, .45 Colt and .38 Colt US Army Service cartridges used against the Moros. The .38 Special 158 and 200 gr Police loads, 9MM and .45 FMJ Military cartridges, etc.
It would be interesting to look at the old cartridges that were considered effective or ineffective and compare their performance with the current thought on effectiveness. As far as I know, no one has done this…yet.
All of the historic loads you mentioned were tested by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the late 1980’s…