A Brief History of the WetPack

[oldgranpa]

Brief History of the Wetpack Test
There is no official date published for the first "wetpack" test of ammunition or who should get the credit for the idea. Gelatin testing dates back to 1998 at least after the FBI began testing hollowpoint ammo. These tests were prompted after the terrible Miami shootout of 1986....
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
  the first reports of gelatin tests I found were by firearmstactical in 1998....
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm
Most, if not all, of these gelatin tests were with at least 4" barrel handguns. Ammo manufacturers followed the same practice, reporting ballistic tests with 4" barrels.
And even before wetpacks got started, Goldenloki started his excellent gelatin testing in 2000. Prior to that the only gelatin test data was for longer barrel pistols, usually 4". His tests were the first with a short barrel pistol. His link..
http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/tests.htm#about
His results with .32acp are still the premier ballistic tests that permitted a comparison with the wetpack. My wetpack tests getting similar results with JHP ammo and a direct coorelation with penetration being possible. The wetpack being 2/3 of gelatin in penetration.

Around the same time that the FBI started gelatin testing, A Mr. Carmon Crapson was commissioned by an independant LEA to do some ballistic testing using water jugs. The plastic, gallon jugs were chosen as a cheaper alternative to gelatin while at the same time providing some degree of uniformity from test to test. Carmon's work was compiled on web pages by a Stephen Ricciardelli and are found on the internet at...
http://stevespages.com/page8f.htm
Water jugs are fairly inxepensive and empty ones can be found at WalMart. The problem, though, is the same as gelatin, only one shot can be fired into several jugs lined up. The wetpack can be used for up to 12 shots, making a statistical evaluation a better possiblity.

I'm still not sure where I saw the first mention of using wet newpapers to test JHP expansion. Perhaps it was in a report by Stephen Camp on his Hi-Powers and Handguns site.  A link below for the first record of Stephen Camp using a wetpack, exact date unkown, but in that report he recommends the old 158gr LSW round and mentions that Speer may come out with a new round. Speer did come out with the new round in about 2003 and now Mr. Camp recommends it. So this early wetpack test had to be in about 2002.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm     

In early 2003 a friend and I decided to try the wet newpaper idea. Our original test was to compare some .45acp hollow point ammo we had available. The results were so good, I tried more calibers I had available. With the Kel Tec P32, I got similar results with the same erratic expansion that Goldenloki reported. Plus I found I could coorelate wetpack penetration with his gelatin results at a 2/3 ratio. We still use that approximate number to evaluate wetpack penetration (multiply by 3, divide by 2 for equivalent gelatin penetration).

After 4 years and over 50 wetpack tests I still get useful data,in spite of criticism from some of the rabid gelatin testers still around. Even the biggest gelatin tester around is now stating, quote: " remember gelatin is not people "  and he frequently makes that remark on his website. Well, neither is wet paper people, or any other substitute either.
 Nevertheless, the wetpack method is finding acceptance by many amatuer ballisticians (word?) like myself. Hope you agree.
oldgranpa

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello.  Despite its not being considered "scientific" by some, I do heartily agree with the previous post. While wetpack may not be the gold standard of "serious" ballistic testing, I do believe that it has something of value to offer.

I usually shoot bullets into both plain water and wetpack and compare how they perform. Though expanding bullets do penetrate less in the latter than in 10% ballistic gelatin, multiplying this penetration by 3/2 will usually be very similar to the results found in the gelatin, not exact but pretty close. The nice thing is that this can be done by us common folk who do not have degrees nor a controlled temperature environment in which to do the gelatin testing, which is quite expensive in and of itself!

I also agree that homogeneous media like wetpack, water and gelatin are not flesh-and-blood and that penetration will not be uniform in an actual body.  I believe that it just plain depends upon what it hits in that specific impact.


These three expanded bullets started life as part of Winchester's 9mm 127-gr. +P+ factory ammunition. The one on the left was fired into wetpack. The one in the middle, into water and the one on the right was recovered from a cleanly killed deer.  Results are very similar to my eye.


These two 9mm 124-gr. XTP's were handloaded to an average muzzle velocity of 1244 ft/sec when fired from a Browning Hi Power.  The one on the left was recovered from a javelina. The one on the right was recovered from water.


Here is an example of why I agree with old grandpa that no homogeneous test media is going to be an exact duplicate of what happens in living things, be they animals or felons. This .45 ACP 230-gr. Golden Saber was used to cleanly kill a whitetail deer. Bone was struck in this shot.  The bullet is chewed up and the jacket did separate, just as it often times does when shot into water and occasionally in wetpack.  Just as in the wetpack, this bullet's jacket was within about 2" of the lead bullet.


Here is a side view of the same bullet along with the jacket.

I believe that the informal testing done by old grandpa both has merit and can be used by folks interested in what bullets do when they hit "soft targets."

Best.

[twoguns]

Howdy folks,

First as both of you have often pointed out, no test medium is going to exactly duplicate what I think a bullet is likely to do inside a felon's body.  There are just too many variables that can and do come into play in my view.

But that being said, I do have more confidence in the wetpacks and water type tests than I do in the controlled lab type environments used by gellatin testers.  It is all a matter of personal opinion as to which you favor to be sure, but to me I do lean towards the tests us "common folks" can easy duplicate if desired.

I think both of you deserve a lot of credit for doing the wetpack and water tests.  I look forward to reading results from both of you for many years to come.  Take a bow guys, you both deserve it.

Keep em coming when ya'll can, because your fans sure do appreciate them.

twoguns

[oldgranpa]

thank you Stephen and twoguns for your most kind replies. We certainly agree that no "artificial" test medium can exactly duplicate what will happen in an actual self defense situation. But Stephen's excellent pictures and the one showing three Winchester bullets side by side do show there is some merit to wetpack and water testing. The main difference being the penetration achieved. Using 2/3

[oldgranpa]

be aware that there are those on another forum doing wetpack tests using methods that do not agree with the standards we use here. And in particular, one tester who does not follow past standards claims he uses Stephen Camps "protocol", which is incorrect since he soaks his packs only 8 hours instead of the 24 hrs minimum that Mr. Camp and I use. And he ties the "bundle" up some way so no way do the papers get completely soaked. Might as well just use wet plywood. And no wonder he gets low penetration numbers. He then has the guts to claim his numbers meet the 2/3 rule, not even knowing where that rule came from, from our work over 4 years ago.

While I encourage wetpack testing by anyone, and glad to see some doing it, publishing reports based on half wet data is very misleading. We should try to do it right or not report the results like some kind of holy expert.

Just airing my feelings. As you may gather, I'm a little pissed.

og......who ain't no expert, just trying to do it right.

[Bobo]

Most of these tests (gelatin, water jug, wetpack, etc.) if done under reasonably controlled conditions give a good GENERAL INDICATION of which rounds penetrate most, expand best, and are most consistent.

Each individual test leaves one with a general conclusion as to which round was best in that particular test.

Then when each independent test is compared with all the other independent tests one gets a general indication of which rounds are best overall.

As an example when I was trying to decide on which round(s) to carry in my Kel-Tec P-3AT I looked at many, many tests done in various media by many different testers, and I also considered ballistic numbers provided by many testers.

As a result of Oldgranpa’s tests and tests by many others including the ones mentioned in this thread, I had decided on a mix of Santa Barbara TCMJ and Cor-Bon DPX JHP. The Cor-Bon DPX seemed to be best JHP in almost all independent tests. That is, until Oldgrandpa did his simulated bone/wetpack test and the DPX compressed instead of expanding. The end result is, I now carry a mix of Santa Barbara and Golden Saber. THANKS OG!!!

I really appreciate all the work, time, and expense that these people have spent in order to give us the results of these tests. The results are invaluable, and I believe they will result in many, many lives being saved.

Bobo

[oldgranpa]

Bobo,

look for the DoubleTap report in the main Ballistic section. And thank you for convincing me to do it.

og

[Bobo]

Bobo,

look for the DoubleTap report in the main Ballistic section. And thank you for convincing me to do it.

og

Thanks OG, I'll check it out now!

Bobo