I have also seen that Brass fetcher test. Since I have seen a number of OISs where bone and other barriers were struck by the bullets used, and none of them reacted as did the bullets in the noted tests, I am of the opinion that the bone stimulant doesn’t simulate bone at all well.
One of the things that I theorize with this test, though I am by no means an expect, is that with the bone simulent, or even using some sort of bone that is close to human in density and shape such as pork ribs, having the bone being outside of the gel and being struck by the bullet before it penetrates any other type of media is the biggest mistake.
In the human body, there’s usually a layer of, what, an inch of skin, fat, and muscle before the bullet will reach bone, and the bullet has expanded, or begins to expand, on contact with that tissue before it hits bone.
In the test, by contrast, the bullet is striking this simulent, and whatever this simulent is, it’s compacting in the hollowpoint, thus preventing expansion in most cases. I’ve seen, outside of medical reports and actual patients suffering bullet wounds, a few tests done where bone was inserted into the gel such that there is a 1-2" gel layer before the bone is struck, and in these tests, the bullets do not behave substantially different than they do with gel alone.
That’s exactly what I told Brassfetcher. But the test is sponsored and the sponsor doesn’t want it repeated with the bone simulant inside the gel.
That’s the funny thing about sponsors. They have an investment in mind, and therefore would not mind if a test were skewed to favor a particular outcome.
Corbon trying to sell their ultra expensive DPX loads?
Well, before we pile on Corbon (or ASYM or Black Hills, or any of the companies that make loads using the Barnes bullet), let’s not forget that the price of copper right now, plus the price from Barnes to make the bullets, makes the bullets high enough that they necessitate the nearly-a-buck-a-round price. I don’t LIKE it, considering that I love the barnes bullets and recommend them highly, but thems the breaks.
Too bad my Cor-bon DPX was some of the most poorly made self defense ammunition i’ve ever had the misfortune of paying for. out of 3 boxes of the 9mm 115gr +P stuff easily over half of the rounds were poorly crimped and twisted out of the case mouth. More than one spontaneously disassembled itself when I was clearing my carry pistol. Getting the gunpowder out of my carpet was fun…
This also happened to my buddy who carried the .45 ACP 180gr +P variant of the same cartridge.
Yeah, I dislike Corbon intensely. The ASYM Ammunition loading of the Barnes XPB bullet is the complete opposite as far as quality.
I doubt the sponsor is a commercial ammunition manufacturer. I suspect they would have well established testing facilities/agencies already.
Nope, not us.
The other issue might be; what bone in the human body is the size and thickness of a sheet of plywood?
Answer would be; none.
As mentioned before humans don’t wear their skeleton on the outside. One other consideration, rib bones contain some liquid. While I’ve never seen “fresh” human rib bones many of the animal rib bones I’ve seen during, slaughter, contain quite a bit of moister. I don’t see where these synbones mention moister.
To me it seems like another Brassfetcher test done to make a certain type of ammo look better than it normally would.
the problem with these tests is they are trying to compare dead tissue to live tissue. Even just after a kill, the body will react to a shot differently than a live body(Im pretty sure Fackler or Roberts have stated that). Dead, dry bone=/= live tissue. The best test is a live body but each one is different. Hence gel. Look at deer, 2 of the same size shot in the same place, one runs 50yds, one runs 100yds. Different physiology and psychology.
All these tests show is how a bullet behaves if you shoot through a dead bone before hitting the target. Also, how was the gel made? 20% gel? Im taking this worth a grain of salt.
All of these tests are getting old. No one is ever going to find ‘Thee’ definitive answer after 100+ years of inconclusive research on the subject. Shootting a dead horse isn’t going to get us any more answers than beating a dead horse…
Just shootem where it hurts most and hope for the best.
We don’t have definitive answers, but we do know that the current widely accepted testing, has a strong correlation to actual results. In other words, it’s the best we have.
Which of course, is the number 1 advice given by Fackler, Wolberg, MacPherson, Roberts, etc., all along.
Add to that, we have vastly improved tools to look at the human body, and to understand how the human body works as well as what happens during a gunshot. The more we know about that, the more we can study those things and learn new things, the better and more accurate we can be at knowing exactly how things work.
Besides, like the laws of diminishing returns, just exactly what do you want to learn?
My goal is to understand how to best shut down the bad guy as quickly as possible, provided I do my job. If bullet X will do enough damage to shut him down in 30 seconds, while bullet Y will do the same, with identical shot placement, and all else being equal, in 15 seconds, then I’d rather use the round that does the job in 15 seconds.
Yes, granted, this is speculative. But, from an academic standpoint, it’s fascinating to learn more about how things work.