Meat Target

Holy shit

Attached: 1549174093591.jpg (531x350, 139K)

>late last night
>getting out of my car at the ATM
>scan the parking lot, nothing
>withdraw my money when I hear the sound
>slapping, squishing, and squelching
>I spun around and drew just in time
>block of ballistics gel got the drop on me
>right as it charged I put three rounds in it before it stopped
Fucker nearly got me. City needs to do something about roving gangs of ballistics gelatin. This is why I carry a gun, to protect myself from ballistic gelatin.

Listen, you nigger faggot. Tell me EXACTLY what shooting a pair of cartridges into a random piece of watermelon or meat wrapped in jeans will tell us that ballistic gel won't?
What makes a $5 chunk of beef worthy of a test, but not a calibrated, FBI tested gel block that can repeat the same results almost endlessly?

Ok, what happens when the bullet strikes bone and organs. Anyone who has ever hunted can tell you bullets do not behave like they do in ballistics gel as they do in a body, because bodies aren't made of ballistics gel. They are not consistent.

Repeated consistent results tell you nothing, because again, humans and animals are not consistent.

Ballistics gel only mimics a specific layer of the human body, and doesn't account for tissue, bones, or organs. While very reliable to test the expansion of hollow points in an unrealistically perfect scenario, people aren't made of ballistics gel. Also Paul has enough military and self defense experience to make me want to believe him by default over random Jow Forums larpniggers.

Attached: 1553224884190.png (1383x1487, 2.16M)

OK, so again, what information of value do you get from shooting a watermelon wrapped in a rack of ribs wrapped in flannel and denim shirts?

Round X has penetration of ______ in gel.
Round Y has penetration _______ in gel.

Good way to compare performance. If you shoot different piece of meat you can’t really compare the two scientifically because of variances in the meat. You could easily assess that if a round performs better than another in gel it will also outperform it in meat.

You get to find out what happens when your bullet strikes a bone.
>but it might not always!
So? You might not always shoot an animal/person and hit bone either.

Ballistics gel is kinda-sorta useful for setting minimum standards. You can easily say if x bullet can't do y expansion/penetration it's no good. But Paul isn't exactly setting department standards, so why the autism?

>consistent results tell us nothing
In that case, why the fuck use meat targets at all? Why not use, say, a meat target for one bullet, Jell-O for the next, a water jug for another, and fire the last into mud?
Oh, that's right: because consistent results tell us something. Because when you have the exact same test medium, format and conditions for every bullet, it tells you what is different. It reduces the possibility for extremely unusual results or ones that would be impossible to recreate under real life conditions.
That's why literally NO ONE else shoots random supermarket meats.
I love Harrell, but as a fellow autist, these stupid tests do a lot to harm his credibility.

Tell me the next time you see two deer of the exact same weight with consistent physical makeup in a controlled windless setting at the exact same distance apart with bodies made of jello please, I'd love to see them.

Ballistics gel test is far from perfect, but it can certainly give some information of reasonable value. This projectile tends to clog with cloth and not expand. This projectile tends to separate from the jacket. Maximum expansion of this projectile occurs at 1200FPS. Certainly in real world application encountering variances in actual muscle, bone, tendon, etc will have various effects to the projectile, but that doesn't immediately discount all the value of comparative data from gel testing.

Thats why you are Autistic. you can't see the value in using meat to represent a target medium. Lol. Fucking autism. He's not making any fucking charts or data, its just for the experience.

Ballistic jell tells nothing. Most penetrations are already beyond torso thickness. The massive cavity that forms in the jell is about the same length the the bullet exits out of the body from first contact. Ballistic jell results only work if the target is literally an obese keyboard warrior that needs a forklift to take them out of the deathbed.

Attached: 2334723437.png (400x256, 63K)

Blocks of jello aren't for you, OP. Go with Paul's creative meat target. Leave the jello for the procurement guys.

Humans and animals aren’t ballistics gel either

>a random piece of watermelon or meat wrapped in jeans

Congrats you just described a human being

Attached: 2wvapp.jpg (500x1406, 132K)

I think the point is only to compare the results of that particular day and not from other tests.

Attached: 1523836099019.jpg (427x427, 21K)

what if we had a human Skeleton, with foam organs, covered in removable meat panels, to simulate a realistic target?

skeletons aren't real retard

Attached: 1492489245791.jpg (992x1600, 161K)

You spent too much time on Jow Forums. It's time to stop posting but 10/10

Paul should use vegetables to see how rounds perform against OP.

Attached: 1551331517694.jpg (374x452, 162K)

Fuck that, you stop posting, he needs to post more.

Attached: 1482780241717.jpg (685x568, 240K)

Attached: 1444106483631.jpg (500x375, 25K)

what is the purpose of that door

fpbp

Paul Harrel's tests are a joke. He goes to his local costco and pretends its a consistent or remotely scientific testing environment.

Brass Jew's nest.

I hope you're pretending to be retarded.

Attached: 1552233497250.jpg (750x923, 162K)

Nice

Not counting bone strikes ballistics gel has been found to correlate sufficiently with all human torso tissues.

Attached: Untitled.png (1385x917, 631K)

>Not counting bone strikes
The problem is people have bones. Like, lots of bones.

Your wish shall be granted

Damn I've been using the wrong kind of targets this whole time!

Attached: 4570pt2.webm (1920x1080, 858K)

The only thing the meat target accounts for that isn't covered by FBI gelatin tests is bone.

Attached: page 1.png (951x913, 609K)

he doesn't pretend to be scientific you god damn moron, have you not heard one of the gorillion times he's made a disclaimer in that vein? It's about a practical real world example of how a particular type of bullet might do against a thing. He does this because, arguably, a real world example of how ballistics work can be of better use to you or me than knowing how deep into a consistent uniform mass a particular type of bullet can penetrate. Which then has to be extrapolated to hypothetical penetration against inconsistent targets.

If you have even two brain cells to rub together, you might be able to see Paul's perspective here.

Attached: page 2.png (932x931, 452K)

You better now. I look forward to it. Have a fun OC in return.

Attached: buttblasted.webm (1920x1080, 1.62M)

Never change /k

I'm convinced greater than 90% of Paul's detractors have never watched one of his videos.

except that's completely untrue considering lung tissue is much different than muscle tissue

Paul's perspective doesn't help me compare round A against round B when the tests changes every time. Particularly when a load does well on every test except Paul's. Take 9mm Ranger T. It's on the FBI approved list, and almost every other test, if not all of them it does well on. But oh no not Paul's. He puts 2 packs of butter in front of the meat target for this round only. Ranger T in .40S&W did well? Well it didn't have 2 sticks of butter in front of the target.

Attached: page 3.png (1003x1051, 733K)

Attached: page 4.png (967x1035, 798K)

Link one video where his targets change in any amount that would realistically affect ballistics.

I told you. lmgtfy.com/?q=Paul Harrel Winchester Ranger T 9mm

Why am I aroused by this?

I wanna see an after action on this.

Imagine going to your favorite shooting spot and seeing this take place.

What's your fucking point retard? All rounds in the video you so boldly put on a pedestal as "evidence" were shot into the same target setup with the same amount of rounds.

I like how he switched holes last second

Nigger do you not know how experiment works, you keep all variables the same and change only one variable at a time

Moments like this make me have a weird sort of hope for this world.

Attached: 2wvcd0.jpg (500x561, 120K)

Attached: 2wvclw.jpg (500x559, 108K)

That doesn't help me compare them to any other round, the entire point of ballistics testing, because he uses a different target than he normally does (butter) and his results are significantly different than anyone else's. His results are usually less consistent than other (ie gel tests) that's just the nature of the meat target. That's fine. But changing the target material makes it useless for my purpose. I'm going to circle back to pic related. Paul's meat target, unlike ballistics gelatin, does not produce consistent enough results to be useful for comparing or predicting terminal performance between different rounds. I like his content. His car doors videos were pretty interesing/10. But that doesn't excuse you fuckwads holding up the meat target as the gold standard.

Attached: Untitled.png (738x164, 80K)

The gift that never stops giving. Mofo I love you

Hey now! I'm a fuckwad and I hold the meat target up as a 4th place finisher...Bronze at best.

All that means is you're 1 place above shooting clay blocks and pretending temporary cavity = permanent cavity.

I would laugh to be honest

If you think an inch of margarine is going to significantly impact the results of any bullet larger than a .22 you're actually retarded. Plus the video isn't made to compare one other very specific caliber you and maybe a handful of others are interested in comparing. It was made to compare heavy 9mm hollow points.

I don't hold the meat target in particularly high regards, but it's just silly how you expect one man to do impart all the firearms knowledge in the world into one video and you consider some jell-o as 95% accurate to a human torso.

Per the IWBA gelatin is close enough to matter. And I do think that putting butter in front made a difference. If you compare gel tests to meat target tests the difference is usually in shot to shot consistency, with expanded diameter and penetration being +/- 10-20% of each other. The 9mm Ranger T is the only test on which butter was used and it's one of the few tests that Paul's meat target gets results that are more then 10-20% different than gel tests.

ITT: niggas that dont know how science works. You need a controlled variable to test ballistic effectiveness and be able to compare one bullet to another.

Ballistic gel is good for exactly one thing, and that is determining a bullet's performance in ballistic gel. We used to actually shoot pigs and cows until they dropped, but PETA and women got upset so now we use ballistic gel to get a rough idea of how different rounds compare. Ballistic gel does not tell you how far a round will penetrate through an actual human body, it is simply a calibrated medium that helps compare different rounds. Harrell's meat target comes a lot closer to showing what a round will actually do to a human than anything short of rounding up a few livestock and shooting and dissecting them.

I actually do appreciate pauls tests for what they are, attempts to have a more accurate simulation of what a bullet actually does when hitting a live target. The one example that I like to think about with this is that meme RIP ammo, with the petals, the 9mm version. In ballistics gel it looks impressive, the petals low penetration isn't as exaggerated, and its believable that it could cause a significant amount of damage. Lots of tacticool larpers talking about how lethal it is. The petals according to FBI test info should penetrate in about 4 inches or so in live tissue, so just barely lethal. Assuming I'm remembering correctly. But, then when tested against gelatin with a layer or two of denim, suprise suprise they mostly couldn't get past the cloth, too lightweight. It was reduced to just the small base. That's a result that ballstics gel on it's own doesn't replicate, it assumes perfect shot placement, no obstacles, just flesh. Now, if it gets through 18+ inches, bone is not going to be such a big deal, but I appreciate his effort. Not saying its perfect, live and dead bone are very different and his lack of consistency in targets is a little unscientific, but it's an interesting target with variables that make it interesting.

Attached: 1552546942758.jpg (1200x1205, 150K)

Attached: smug.jpg (600x604, 34K)

Attached: boattrip.gif (368x349, 2.53M)

>But that doesn't excuse you fuckwads holding up the meat target as the gold standard.
NOBODY holds it as the gold standard and nobody says that it's 100% "scientifically accurate", and the point of his videos isn't to prove anything with complete certainty. The point of his videos are to provide a heuristic perspective.

If you want to determine the objective ballistic characteristics of a bullet, then you need a controlled variable. That's not the same thing as determining "ballistic effectiveness", because in the real world effectiveness is variable because targets are variable.

There is no perfect surrogate for shooting live targets. Just because ballistic gel is "consistent", that doesn't mean that it's a perfect surrogate. The most scientific test would be to shoot lots and lots of different people and observe their reaction, which by the way, would NOT be a consistent medium because human bodies are not 100% consistent.

At least two. Truck bro, and shotgun man for sure.

His reasoning for people to not buy a quick flick knife (the ones with the lever on the back) is because one time he watched a guy use a flick knife to open an MRE and thought "are you so weak you cant use your hands?".

What kind of retard reasoning is that?

Attached: download (2).jpg (269x187, 6K)

I see

Jow Forums truly is full of Cletuses that don't understand the basics of science.

This is why penetration minimums are thicker than the typical human chest cavity.

You fucking retard.

Neck yourself, you postmodern, anti-scientific fuck

wait i thought he just killed one dude in a truck that was driving towards his wife. did he kill someone other than that?

If you cross it with real world samples you get some pretty useful information. I dont think it's meant to give the full story
>20"+ even when hitting bone makes for likely over penetration
>the first 2-4" is closer to the first 1" because skin/surface tissue is different
>bullets that expand reliably in gel are more likely to expand in animals
putting that into perspective makes the consistent testing of gel pretty useful.

>implying gel is consistent

relative

The biggest problem jello shooters have is that they are all cheapskates and instead of doing 100 round test batches they fire 3-5 rounds, usually reusing the target. So their tests are on par with the meat target. The half inch pine board tests were more scientific because at least the army could afford a few hundred rounds and boards of pine.

>usually reusing the target
This triggers me so much. I know the integrity of the jello has to be compromised with holes all over it your shots are passing through/near.

3-5 shots with a bit of distance between each one is nicer though.
>
The half inch pine board tests were more scientific because at least the army could afford a few hundred rounds and boards of pine
dont you have an issue of knots and different trees being used though? I guess it wouldnt be too bad so long as you had something to compare them to as a standard.

You’re made of meat

One healthy pine could provide enough wood for a hundred targets and the whole test was designed just to see if a round passed the bare minimum requirement. Those that would only punch through by hitting a weak point would be quickly rejected with repeated tests.

Fug, meant to respond to this:

Kek

>how does a science work guys?
Let's change the experiment every single time we do it and compare the results so we have some consistent data.

How bullets behave passing through clothing.

How bullets behave passing through layers of different density and material

How bullets behave when striking bones

Etc etc

Attached: snort snort.jpg (377x567, 82K)

He doesn't pretend it's consistent or scientific though.

If you want to measure and compare data, yeah you shoot the two bullets into exact calibrated blocks of gel and measure results.

If you want to see a result closer to reality, a meat target with realistic variability in bones, clothing, etc. Will give more practical result.

Like "x round broke right through the ribs and did lots of damage, this other round here was stopped if it hit ribs" or "this hollowpoint clogged with the denim and passed right through everything, these hollowpoints expanded and opened up even with passing through jeans"

You can't get that from shooting beige jello

Except you can, you measure the hydro static shock, penetration and cavity and compare it with other rounds. So you can figure out which rounds carries and dumps the most energy into a target and causes the most damage.

Paul is just using the meat target so smooth brains can get a more interesting visual of what happened.

>blocks of Jello

allow you a standardized comparison of ammo types. PH's meat target is an inconsistent crap shoot which only allows you to beg for e-money on YT from stupid boomers. big difference.

You are the joke, user.
Meat, bone and cloth.

Yes, "compare to other rounds" is the key. You can absolutely use ballistic gel to do a scientific comparison between rounds. X bullet did Y inches of penetration, and W bullet did Z inches of penetration.

But it doesn't tell you what happens when you hit bone. Does it deflect? Does it penetrate? Does the bullet break apart? What about clothing? How much does the hollowpoints expand after passing through?

Both are useful. Stop being stupid. There are millions of gel test videos on YouTube. Go watch them if you want. Paul tries to replicate some realistic scenarios and give a maybe more practical test that gives some different feedback than just ballistic gel.