Defensive Carry banner

Gel test Comparison - Full Metal Jacket vs Soft Point Ammunition

35K views 34 replies 14 participants last post by  1942bull 
#1 ·
Video



What's the difference between Soft Point and Full Metal Jacket Ammo?

I made a simple video comparing the terminal ballistics of soft point and full metal jacket .223 ammunition. Before you check out the test keep in mind that this is a very small sample size, so take this info with a grain of salt.

What's a Full Metal Jacket?

A bullet that is classified as a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) features a soft metal core, usually lead, that is encased in metal. The casing or jacket surrounds all of the core except for the base. This is one of the cheapest ways to manufacturer ammunition besides using lead cast bullets. The metal jacket has many advantages over standard cast rounds. It provides the barrel with a bit of protection from core all while increasing muzzle velocity.

What's a Soft Point?

A Soft Point Bullet or Jacketed Soft Point (SP or JSP) is very similar to a FMJ. The soft metal core is surrounded by a harder metal jacket. The difference between a FMJ and a SP is the tip of the projectile. A SP has no jacket protecting the tip of the core. This exposed nose is designed to force the bullet to expand, and often fragment, once it strikes soft tissue.

Which is Better for Defensive Use?

In this test I was hoping to get a clear cut answer to this question. I fully expected the SP to be lodged somewhere in the synthetic gelatin, and the FMJ to pass on through. Of course like any test my expectations were dead wrong.

The SP began expanding around the two inch mark. Immediately from that point the bullet fragmented as it tore through the target. The widest diameter of the permanent cavity was roughly 1.75 inches. Dozens of fragments of the bullet remained in the gel, but surprisingly the SP penetrated the entire 16 inch block. It seems that only a small portion of the bullet over penetrated, but it was an unexpected result.

The FMJ also gave an interesting performance. As it hit the block, we saw the standard FMJ "tumble". The projectile expanded but remained in one piece. The widest portion of its permanent cavity was measured at 1.5 inches. The FMJ was found stuck in the gelatin at the 15 inch mark.

I think this test raises some interesting questions. What kind of ammunition do you think is best for home defense use? Do you think it is advantageous to have a rifle round that fragments as much as the SP, or would you rather use a solid FMJ?


_______________________________________________

More Boring test Details

Both rounds used the same brass, Lake City, and were cut to the same length.
They were both loaded with 24 grains of IMR 4320 and loaded with CCI Benchrest Primers.
The projectiles were Hornady 55gr SP and FMJ.
Fired from a DelTon Echo 316 AR-15
Fired from the same distance of 25 meters
 
See less See more
#6 ·
seriously?...

only 3 people purposely use FMJ for defence...
the poor
the uneducated
the .mil
[/IMG]
Yes.. but the .mil, average combatant not snipers or Special Ops, are not supposed to be in it to kill, they are supposed to trying to wound and incapacitate the enemy without introducing un-needed pain and suffering... gotta love then politicians write the rules of engagement and war. Hence HP and SP are not allowed, well with minor variations.. and large calibers are only supposed to be aimed at equipment, not the individual.. but hey a chin strap is equipment right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: manolito
#3 ·
With a .223, I'd be fine with FMJ in terms of stopping power. I wonder if there might be an advantage to the soft point in limiting penetration through walls, by ensuring fragmentation.

Sounds like a joncon question...
 
G
#4 ·
1. Clear gel is not FBI grade ballistics gel.
2. SP bullet type and brand matter greatly.

A good barrier blind SP or HP will not fragment. Not all SP are made the same as are not all FMJs.

Over penetration is not bad in a rifle. You guys have gotten stuck on this over pentration thing. The HPs and SPs are designed to make big holes as soon as they enter the target and penetrate at LEAST 12" if they penetrate more that's even better.
 
#7 ·
I use 55 grain Nosler Ballistic tips for SD in my AR. When I was working I used 64 grain Bonded Speer LE Gold Dots. Two different needs, two different bullets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cuda66
#8 ·
I can only speak to what I saw in the field. The full metal Jacket used was a different round when it hit bone. I have seen the bone fragment into hundreds of pieces. I am not a ballistics expert in any manner but when a AK round hits bone it is devastating compared to when it hits just muscle and tissue.
 
#9 ·
I handload my home defense 5 56/223 ammo. I use a Sierra 60 grain soft point loaded to a vocity of 2900 fps out of my Colt M4. These are very violent loads.
 
#16 ·
Who's tissue? The obese man ? Body builder? Naked man?

I point this out fully understanding the 4% replication study. But does it really make a difference if the jello used by the OP is not 100% actual ordanance?

You see, the problem I have is first, jello junkies claim that's it's. " close enough" to tissue replication, but then quickly point out such things as you have about another gel not being exact standards. Really?

While I don't place my faith in, even, actual certified gel testing, I will allow that it tells us something or at least give us an idea of how a bullet will perform in a blob of flesh void of any skeletal support or density changes created by muscle and organ tissue.

So I'd say that even this gel test has something to consider.
 
G
#19 ·
The post does provide good info on those two bullet but, again not all fmj or SP are created equal and why mention FBI? Clear gel is what it is and it's not FBI quality, or approved. Nothing wrong with using it just don't make out to be something it isn't.

Personally the whole appeal of a rifle is that it causes more damage and penetrates much better than a pistol. Why would you want a rifle to penetrate the same as a pistol?
 
#20 ·
Actually, in post 16 he made an excellent argument based on solid logic. He acknowledged that "proper" gel has something to offer but is not the be all, end all that some think it to be because it doesn't have bones. Then he stated that even though this "newfangled" gel isn't on par with "proper" gel that the lessons learned from it may too have merit. He made a great point that humans have a greater than 4% difference between each one of us so the gel isn't really all that important. It gives us a good idea of how a bullet MIGHT work in a lethal force encounter but it can never tell us exactly how a bullet will perform every time. The physiology, clothing, and attitude of the attacker will play a very large role in bullet performance.
 
G
#26 ·
Like I said more that just 5 or 10 shots. Independent testing with detailed results.

Like I said I don't have a problem with clear gel but there is no such thing as FBI Grade clear ballistics gel. Stop tying to make it what it isn't. Clear gel is close to calibrated 10% ballistics gel when it comes penetration good so just say that stop making it what it isn't, which is 10% ballistics gel. When you start using the FBI grade and FBI what ever you diminish the actual results by stating something that is not true.
 
G
#27 ·
Posting the results of one bullet shot and stating that is is done using "FBI quality" ballistics gel has two major flaws.

1. One test event per bullet is not enough data to draw a conclusion.
2. There is no such thing as "FBI grade" clear gel.

Post a 5 shot string of each bullet. Post what brand and model of bullet, weight, speed, distance from gel.

Shootingthebull posts excellent videos and data using clear gel and no bull about what gel he is using.
 
G
#31 ·
OK so gel tests are over rated so why are you defending the OP since his tests are in gel and gel that is yet not be tested to prove how well it mimics tissue?

Please post data to backup your claim of ammo totally failing. One thing I have seen form gel test is that all ammo fails sometimes. What gel shows us is which ones tend to fail the less. That's why we shoot more than one shot per bullet type.
Ballistics gel is the best thing we have. It's homogenous so there is less variance when testing. You can't clone people or pigs to shoot and have them be exactly identical in muscle mass and if we could you can't shoot them in the exact same place at the exact same angle when the muscle is at the exact same state. Even if you could there's no guarantee that the muscle will react the same. So again there is now way to test the bullets because you can't replicate the exact conditions for a 5 shot string and 8 different events.
 
#33 ·
Good points.

One of things that I find most interesting is that 10% and 20% ordnance gelatin -at 4C and 20C, respectively- give nearly identical test results. Used to be that I didn't take the 20% medium very seriously, but the .mil, which has used it since the 1950s (Aberdeen BRL), seems to have been onto something. It is also still used by many European (and several other international) militaries today.
 
#35 ·
The OP wrote:
The FMJ also gave an interesting performance. As it hit the block, we saw the standard FMJ "tumble". The projectile expanded but remained in one piece. The widest portion of its permanent cavity was measured at 1.5 inches. The FMJ was found stuck in the gelatin at the 15 inch mark.
Seems to me that the FMJ was designed to tumble to achieve more wound capacity. When a bullet tumbles it loses velocity very quickly and penetration is reduced. The fact that the FMJ in the test tumbled and made a 1.5 inch, very big for a 223, wound cavity without penetrating the block seems to me to indicate a either a bullet designed to do so so a real fluke.

There was one very interesting result, the rippling of the table suface. It had to come from hydrostatic shock, which one reads about but rarely sees an example of. Handguns do not achieve enough velocity to create hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock is a shockwave the emanates outward laterally from the bullet path. It should not be confused with fluid transfer (Extreme Defense bullets. The shock wave from a high velocity rifle bullet can be strong enough to rupture nearby organs that the bullet never touches. I think the test captures that.

I commend the OP’s initiative in testing, but he and we all know that a two round test is fun to consider and dangerous to rely upon.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top