Yes, it's a real thing, it occurs when bullets impact at roughly 2200 fps.
Not that anon, but gel isn't supposed to be an "accurate" test medium. That ought to be obvious as it lacks any sort of fibers, tendons, bones, and so on that makes up a body. The purpose of gel is to be a **consistent** test medium to compare different bullets or cartridges relative to each other, and gel performance can be mathematically correlated to real-world shooting performance.
For example you often hear the FBI penetration standard "requires 12" of penetration in gel", well, even on a really huge person the distance from their skin to their vitals is not a full 12 inches. Instead, loads which are known to be effective fight stoppers based on real-life shooting statistics also happen to penetrate 12" or more in gel. The 12" in gel figure is not "accurate" compared to the thickness of the average person's chest, instead it correlates with what works empirically.
I don't know how a gel test would show you anything one way or another about hydrostatic shock other than demonstrating that the entire block of gel undergoes significant elastic deformation which is evidence for hydrostatic shock.
Yes. Drastic and sudden hemodynamic changes in intravascular and intrathoracic pressure cause neurovascular damage. I'm sure the Clinton's hitmen are familiar with it personally.
lol no, temporary cavitation is a real thing, it generally doesn't happen with pistol rounds, and i've seen some morons try to call it hydrostatic shock, but the mythological transfer of energy to remote parts of the body due to water incompressibility is bullshit, if it wasn't all of your flesh would be too rigid to move.
Hillary?
Just say the round tumbles and gel tests have shown that you are moronic.
>gel tests
>accurate
Lay people are so disgustingly stupid.
Please show me your articles from terminal ballistics experts that say 10% calibrated ballistic gel isn't an accurate test medium
Yes, it's a real thing, it occurs when bullets impact at roughly 2200 fps.
Not that anon, but gel isn't supposed to be an "accurate" test medium. That ought to be obvious as it lacks any sort of fibers, tendons, bones, and so on that makes up a body. The purpose of gel is to be a **consistent** test medium to compare different bullets or cartridges relative to each other, and gel performance can be mathematically correlated to real-world shooting performance.
For example you often hear the FBI penetration standard "requires 12" of penetration in gel", well, even on a really huge person the distance from their skin to their vitals is not a full 12 inches. Instead, loads which are known to be effective fight stoppers based on real-life shooting statistics also happen to penetrate 12" or more in gel. The 12" in gel figure is not "accurate" compared to the thickness of the average person's chest, instead it correlates with what works empirically.
I don't know how a gel test would show you anything one way or another about hydrostatic shock other than demonstrating that the entire block of gel undergoes significant elastic deformation which is evidence for hydrostatic shock.
Yes. Drastic and sudden hemodynamic changes in intravascular and intrathoracic pressure cause neurovascular damage. I'm sure the Clinton's hitmen are familiar with it personally.
Vince Foster is.
Could you frick gel?
I've fricke a vaccuum cleaner, I didn't cum so it doesn't count as proper sex so i'm still a virgin
oh yes you can, not that i do that or anything
Federal Arms video about static shock
lol no, temporary cavitation is a real thing, it generally doesn't happen with pistol rounds, and i've seen some morons try to call it hydrostatic shock, but the mythological transfer of energy to remote parts of the body due to water incompressibility is bullshit, if it wasn't all of your flesh would be too rigid to move.
>Is hydrostatic shock a real thing?
Shoot a squirrel with .223, and we'll see.
would
Not with pistols.
Rifles, yes. Pistols, no.
>but muh .454 ruhvover
bill did alright