Heavy clothing test really reliable?

This is a discussion on Heavy clothing test really reliable? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have seen quite a few different gel tests of different ammunition choices and calibers. I have seen a lot of seemingly reliable ammunition choices ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Heavy clothing test really reliable?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array AdamSean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    540

    Heavy clothing test really reliable?

    I have seen quite a few different gel tests of different ammunition choices and calibers. I have seen a lot of seemingly reliable ammunition choices cloth and not expand. Here is my big argument. Everyone uses 4 layers of heavy denim. Denim is a very heavy weight fabric that is tightly woven and durable. Who do you know wears 4 layers of denim over their torso? I would like to see some modern clothing in these tests. Let's say a t-shirt and a nice thick North Face jacket. I believe these bullets would perform differently. I think clothing tests should be using multiple fabrics. With bare gel test, one of the best .380 performers is the classic Hydra-Shock. But denim tends to clog it all up. Anyone else ever think about this?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamSean View Post
    I have seen quite a few different gel tests of different ammunition choices and calibers. I have seen a lot of seemingly reliable ammunition choices cloth and not expand. Here is my big argument. Everyone uses 4 layers of heavy denim. Denim is a very heavy weight fabric that is tightly woven and durable. Who do you know wears 4 layers of denim over their torso?
    Nobody that I know of wears that much denim, but that is not the point of the denim test. The test is intended solely as a severe mechanical test of the bullet's ability to pass through very tough, fibrous material and still expand- think of it as sort of an absolute worst-case scenario. If it can get through that, it'll probably have little problem against lesser threats.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamSean View Post
    I would like to see some modern clothing in these tests. Let's say a t-shirt and a nice thick North Face jacket. I believe these bullets would perform differently. I think clothing tests should be using multiple fabrics. With bare gel test, one of the best .380 performers is the classic Hydra-Shock. But denim tends to clog it all up. Anyone else ever think about this?
    The FBI test protocols test those conditions in the "light clothing" and "heavy clothing" tests. If the .380 HydraShok won't pass the denim test, it will probably fail to expand against lesser barriers, too. Bare gelatin is not the most applicable test for SD ammo as we don't usually shoot many nekkid folks, but your YMMV.

    If you live in a nudist colony, the bare gelatin test is a good indicator of what you'll see.
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  4. #3
    Member Array Ljutic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamSean View Post
    I have seen quite a few different gel tests of different ammunition choices and calibers. I have seen a lot of seemingly reliable ammunition choices cloth and not expand. Here is my big argument. Everyone uses 4 layers of heavy denim. Denim is a very heavy weight fabric that is tightly woven and durable. Who do you know wears 4 layers of denim over their torso? I would like to see some modern clothing in these tests. Let's say a t-shirt and a nice thick North Face jacket. I believe these bullets would perform differently. I think clothing tests should be using multiple fabrics. With bare gel test, one of the best .380 performers is the classic Hydra-Shock. But denim tends to clog it all up. Anyone else ever think about this?
    Not everyone uses 4 layers of denim. Those that do are trying to replicate the IWBA test standards, but they are really just kidding themselves by doing this since a sample size of 10 shots is required for a PASS or FAIL rating according to the IWBA standards. You can read about it here if you are interested. IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification Package The IWBA also tests in bare gel, but again 10 sample shots are required to determine pass or fail.


    I did some soul searching before I started publishing my test results. Initially, I used 2 layers of medium weight denim as a substitute for "upper body clothing" and it worked well. Recently, I've gone back to bare gel due to the difficulty of removing the denim fibers from the gel block before reprocessing. I want my testing to stand alone and not be confused with any other test protocols. I'm not trying to replicate any specific test protocol, but rather take a more practical average Joe approach to testing. I'm currently working on a bullet stress test protocol to supplement my bare gel testing. Here is a look at my initial testing. Pocket Guns and Gear: Speer Gold Dot Multi-Caliber Stress test

    I'm not satisfied with my initial stress tests so I will be changing up the protocol before I run any additional stress testing.
    Author of the Pocket Guns and Gear blog. Stop by for a peek at http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,581
    The problem with any standard test is the "what ifs." Whatever amount of "clothing" used in a standardized test isn't going to match what you might run into on a daily basis. All any test can demonstrate is is what will happen during optimum conditions.

    Even with the possibility of complete failure to expand, a good SD round will provide plenty of penetration. It will always be a balance of penetration versus expansion, even under the best conditions.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #5
    RKM
    RKM is offline
    Distinguished Member Array RKM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,795
    They choose it because it's tough and easily plugs hollow points causing them to fail. They want ammunition to perform in the worst cases, so they'll perform much easier in better conditions. If a hollow point can perform through 4 layers of denim, it will likely perform well through any clothing.

  7. #6
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Ljutic View Post
    Not everyone uses 4 layers of denim. Those that do are trying to replicate the IWBA test standards, but they are really just kidding themselves by doing this since a sample size of 10 shots is required for a PASS or FAIL rating according to the IWBA standards. You can read about it here if you are interested. IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification Package The IWBA also tests in bare gel, but again 10 sample shots are required to determine pass or fail.


    I did some soul searching before I started publishing my test results. Initially, I used 2 layers of medium weight denim as a substitute for "upper body clothing" and it worked well. Recently, I've gone back to bare gel due to the difficulty of removing the denim fibers from the gel block before reprocessing. I want my testing to stand alone and not be confused with any other test protocols. I'm not trying to replicate any specific test protocol, but rather take a more practical average Joe approach to testing. I'm currently working on a bullet stress test protocol to supplement my bare gel testing. Here is a look at my initial testing. Pocket Guns and Gear: Speer Gold Dot Multi-Caliber Stress test

    I'm not satisfied with my initial stress tests so I will be changing up the protocol before I run any additional stress testing.
    Have you considered a two- or three-test battery for your stress testing?

    What I mean is, not all regions of the country have the same weather year 'round- perhaps you could test against 1.) a single layer of heavy cotton t-shirt material (given their prevalence these days they seem to be the uniform of the day in most locales) and 2.) a winter clothing standard, say, a medium weight down jacket, a heavy T-shirt, and a thermal undershirt?

    I know this begins to get away from the attractive idea of having a singular test that serves as kind of a "catch-all" (and it starts to get expensive, too ), but most tests, besides requiring larger sample populations also use multiple evaluative screens.

    Just spit-ballin'.....
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  8. #7
    Member Array Ljutic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by 481 View Post
    Have you considered a two- or three-test battery for your stress testing?

    Just spit-ballin'.....

    Would love to do a proper job testing to cover all the bases, but unfortunately I'm constrained by time and money. TNoutdoors9 and I were talking about documenting the amount of time that goes into just one test. He spends a ton of time on his videos to get them perfect. I spend less time on the video production, but double my time by posting an "article" on the blog to back up each test video. We both spend about the same amount of time on preparing the media and setting up the video shoots. This could easily be a full time job of 60 hours a week to crank out 4 tests per week.

    I'm not whining about it, because I do enjoy the time I can commit to it. Just wanted to let you know it's not laziness that keeps me from diving deeper into more comprehensive testing.
    Author of the Pocket Guns and Gear blog. Stop by for a peek at http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com

  9. #8
    481
    481 is offline
    Member Array 481's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Ljutic View Post
    Would love to do a proper job testing to cover all the bases, but unfortunately I'm constrained by time and money. TNoutdoors9 and I were talking about documenting the amount of time that goes into just one test. He spends a ton of time on his videos to get them perfect. I spend less time on the video production, but double my time by posting an "article" on the blog to back up each test video. We both spend about the same amount of time on preparing the media and setting up the video shoots. This could easily be a full time job of 60 hours a week to crank out 4 tests per week.

    I'm not whining about it, because I do enjoy the time I can commit to it. Just wanted to let you know it's not laziness that keeps me from diving deeper into more comprehensive testing.
    Oh, I never thought that and if anything I've posted suggests that sentiment, please, accept my apologies.

    My hat is off to you for the time and resources you invest- I am not quite that patient.
    My favorite "gun" book-

    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array 40Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    2,463
    Ljutic,

    I have seen your tests and like the way you do it. Would you shoot a full power 357 magnum 125 JHP into bare Gel to use as sort of a benchmark? That load was king of the street, it would be nice to compare that in gel to the contenders.

    Bob
    My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

  11. #10
    Member Array Ljutic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by 40Bob View Post
    Ljutic,

    I have seen your tests and like the way you do it. Would you shoot a full power 357 magnum 125 JHP into bare Gel to use as sort of a benchmark? That load was king of the street, it would be nice to compare that in gel to the contenders.

    Bob

    Hey Bob. 357 Magnum testing from a 4" non-ported barrel is on the table. You make a good point that it might be good to run that test now as a gold standard that all else could be compared to. Unfortunately, I only stock Speer Gold Dot 158 and Underwood 125 for my personal use. I'll have to track down a box of Speer Gold Dot 125 for the test. Hope I can do so before EVERYTHING gets bought up again.
    Author of the Pocket Guns and Gear blog. Stop by for a peek at http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com

  12. #11
    Member Array ExaltedOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    490
    I always wanted to see ballistic test done with the clothes that people actually wear in real life day to day routines.

    Cotton
    Leather
    Wool
    Flannel
    Etc

    Yet then again that would mean lots of gelatin so it makes some sense to use 4 layers of denim. They could two layers of denim with one layer of wool and another of cotton. Switch it and have some variety.

    I also want to see test using meat covered by denim or another material. That would be good.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

22 cal veloster gel test

,
ammo testing in gel videos for rifles heavy cal
,

ballistics test common clothing

,
bullet heavy clothing test
,

iwba heavy clothing

,
iwba heavy clothing tests
,
iwba heavyclothing
,
iwba standards winter clothes
,
iwba test
,
very heavy clothes
,
very heavy clothing materials
,
what is heavy clothing used for
Click on a term to search for related topics.