My Second Worst Newbie Mistake: Believing YouTube Ammo Reviews

This is the second in a series of posts discussing the worst newbie mistakes I've made during my first six months as a gun owner. The first post focused on my overall worst mistake: buying a Taurus.

In this second installment, I want to talk about an aspect of gun media, rather than the hardware, itself. Specifically, YouTube. And, even more specifically, the ammunition reviews.

Alas, I have learned (somewhat painfully) that ninety-nine percent of these videos are pseudoscientific bullshit.

Why did I say "somewhat painfully"? Because some of the folks producing these videos are both well-intentioned and entertaining to watch. Take, for example, the late Paul Harrell. The man just oozed decency and humility, and he could weave dry humor into his presentations, too. I love his videos.

But...well...*ahem*...that is...with all due respect to the late, lamented legend...his ammo reviews need to be taken with a basketball-sized chunk of salt!

For the uninitiated, he compared the penetration of different ammo through an oddly constructed bundle of groceries, all tied together, that his viewers dubbed "the meat target". A typical meat target consisted of layers of T-shirt, a leather jacket to simulate skin, a pork steak to simulate the pectoral muscle, pork ribs to simulate human ribs, oranges to simulate lung tissue, and more pork ribs in the back.

There's only one problem: the human body is not a bundle of groceries. The medium he chose to simulate human anatomy provides a poor simulation. Therefore, the performance we see in the meat target is not likely to be replicated in the body of the attacker you shoot in self-defense.

And don't take my word for it. Listen to Dr. Gary K. Roberts, a former Navy surgeon and actual ballistics researcher who participated in the painstaking work of verifying an accurate ballistic test medium in the late '80s and early '90s. Here's a video in which he discusses all the problems with Harrell's methodology. Please watch it.

Harrell, for his part, responded to some of the meat-target critique. Not Roberts' critique, as far as I'm aware. (In fairness, I'm not certain if Roberts issued that critique during Harrell's life. So Harrell may not have had an opportunity to respond.) But he did respond to a critique about the variability of different meat targets from Active Self Protection's John Correia.

That said, I don't find his explanations convincing.

I propose the following analogy: Roberts is like a state of the art video graphics animator, in that the test medium he helped design (organic, 10% ordnance gel) is capable of approximating reality. Harrell, on the other hand, is like an 8-bit animator. His picture is not just less precise, it represents a devolution in the field. A fun, friendly devolution. A devolution wrapped in thought-provoking commentary.

But still, undeniably, a devolution.

Now, at this point, it would be natural for you to point out that Harrell was just one YouTuber. Most of the other Youtubers out there use a more scientific approach right? Clear ballistics gel.

The only problem is, clear ballistics gel is not organic, 10% ordnance gel.

There are, apparently, manufacturers of clear ballistics gel that claim their gel replicates the performance of organic, 10% ordnance gel. However, an independent investigation into this claim by Mike Wood has debunked it. Specifically, bullets shot into clear ballistics gel appear to penetrate an average of 35.5% deeper than bullets shot into legitimate gel, and expand less. Moreover, Mr. Wood concluded that the problem is more complicated than simply taking the clear ballistics result, deducting 35.5%, and calling it a day. ("It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal 'rule of thumb.'")

The aforementioned Dr. Gary K. Roberts was even more blunt in his assessment: "The synthetic gels are useless. Sorry! Useless. If you're going to do a test, do it right." (Note: the relevant discussion starts at around the 55:35 time stamp of the video.)

So, if you're turning to a YouTuber who uses clear ballistics gel for assurance that your defensive load is up to the task, you're relying on incorrect information. And, in a defensive gun use, that's not just a technicality. It's a potential fatality.