That is, quite possibly, the coolest high speed camera footage I've scene to date.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hollow Point Bullet, jello' to 'Hollow Point Bullet, jello, slow motion, slo mo' - edited by rembar

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hollow Point Bullet, jello, slow motion, slo mo' to 'Hollow Point, Bullet, jello, slow motion, slo mo' - edited by MarineGunrock

Hope it wasn't green jello. That's my favorite.

Neat to see how deformed the bullet becomes (of course it's a hollow point - so, duh) but I wish they could have let the video play a bit longer to see the final state of the gelatin. Would it resume something pretty close to its original shape? Or be completely deformed? I can't really tell by the cut we have. It almost looks like it would snap back.

It's cool that you can see the twist of the rifling as it passes through the Jell-O. Good stuff, cool video. I'd like it if it lasted a few more seconds as well.

ObsidianStorm:

It's not really a conventional hollow point, but close enough I guess. Here is an after pic of a tsx shot gelatin block that has been pumped full of red dye (scroll down a bit).

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/triple_0723/index.html

1) deformation of the bullet
2) twist from the barrel rifling
AND
3) drop in bullet velocity

Green jello, pineapple, and cream cheese = victory

My guts sometimes feel like that after Taco Bell.

The medical side of ballistics (especially as it relates to stopping power) is, IMO, one of the most poorly-scientifically-supported fields out there. Replace "gelatin" with flesh in OS's question, and ask it to a bunch of ballistics experts, and you'll get a whole truckload of different answers. "Hydrostatic shock", "energy transfer", temporary and permanent cavitation, all that stuff needs to be questioned, and yet nobody really has the answers yet. It's a shame.

FINALLY! We can all rest a little easier tonight knowing that we've found a way to bring down gelatin.

Rembar

"...nobody really has the answers yet. It's a shame."

Yeah they stopped the Nazis too soon. If they'd given them another 5 years just THINK about what we'd have learned.

There I think is the problem, ACTUAL experimentation on real live people is frowned upon by some people (damn liberals).

"...nobody really has the answers yet. It's a shame."

Yeah they stopped the Nazis too soon. If they'd given them another 5 years just THINK about what we'd have learned.

There I think is the problem, ACTUAL experimentation on real live people is frowned upon by some people (damn liberals).

Right, all that you said. Of course, you do realize that FBI and NIH studies have shown that in law-enforcement related shoot-outs, bullets with more stopping power result in less death and less permanent damage to the people being shot, as well as much more safety for the LEOs doing the shooting, and the innocent bystanders? Oh, and clearly they must only draw data from experiments on people at random. Not by instead, oh, say taking data from studies, autopsies, and examinations on shooting victims or through studying gunshots in gelatin as shown above.

You knew all this, because you're a well-educated, intelligent person who has taken the time to learn about firearms and ballistics and their use in society, regardless of your conclusions, before, while choosing to not submit any reasonable argument and instead rely on smug self-congratulation, wildly casting your aspersions on a field of research and a person you don't know, particularly a person who has multiple friends whose lives just MIGHT have been saved because of the stopping power of bullets fired in self defense.

Because you're smart. Right? Right. As long as you keep telling yourself that. And maybe toss in another Nazi reference while you're at it, that'll do the trick.

Note to self - Don't fuck with the kitten.

The spice is flowin now!

I'm also gonna throw this in:
We use the smaller 5.56 round instead of the world-over 7.62mm. Why? Well, let's see: the 5.56 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and oh yeah, bounces all around your insides creating a much more serious wound.

i guess it's a bitch though when you find an enemy ammo dump. but i guess that works both ways.

forgive me, i am still sore from the way CSS doesn't work the same in all browz0rz

MarineGunrock, I remember hearing about the "tumbling bullet" wound from a 5.56mm but have read numerous articles since then refuting that logic. It's apparently an "urban" legend that refuses to die.

As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.

Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.

History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.

Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.

Oh, here's a recent new story on the military's current dislike of the 5.56mm, precisely because it is not lethal enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml

There are obviously situations where having a more powerful first shot is more important than having more shots, especially when supply lines are not as much of a concern. The modern prevalence of mechanized infantry might make the weight consideration less of an issue. Close-in, urban environment also make lower-velocity, large calibers like the AK-47's 7.62x39mm more appealing because of its greater "stopping power" and ability to punch through shielding.

Well, since it's been so long, I decided to look into it more closely.

Here's a great page with wound ballistics data (and pictures):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

In essence, all bullets "tumble" or yaw once they hit flesh. The 5.56mm tumbles more quickly, increasing the chance it will fully turn inside the body rather than after exiting. Nice. Perhaps more significantly, it's designed to fragment. Therefore, under ideal conditions, the 5.56mm will transfer a higher percentage of it's energy to the target before exiting, if it exits.

So when using full-metal jacketed military round, the tumbling (and fragmenting) factor is a significant consideration. Using hollow-point rounds, tumbling is a non-issue.

I stand corrected.

very intresting posts raja, thanks.

ROTFLMAO@karaidl and Drachen.

@rembar: why did you take his comment personally? and seriously? he was plainly jocking, not criticizing, and it was damn funny.

*timeshift

Adding video to channels (Timeshift) - requested by xxovercastxx.