In this presentation I said that I doubted that John really wrote the document in question. Many people have made me aware of the things he has written in the last few days That support the idea that he did write the questioned document. Your points are well taken, and my doubts aren't as "grave" as they were, but I still don't know for SURE that he did.
Paul you react alot better and level headed to things and that says a lot about you as a person. You dont have to say anything to any of these guys and you try to methodically explain yourself about what you do to them and other viewers instead of telling these guys where the monkey bit the bear in the ass for that youre a far better person than those who havent trained nearly as long as you or have instructed nearly as long as you and think they know more simply because theyve seen more through videos... One thing Ive learned is anyone can become an instructor... and many instructors out there are egotistical and full of themselves to the point they ignore any and all other training techniques but their own and tend to simply just fall back on their reputation of "Do you know who I am" when you point out them being wrong or question anything they do rather than humble themselves. I dont know how many people in how many professions Ive seen over time say IVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 30 years as if that makes what they said any less wrong. You can repeat the same mistakes for thirty years too. Being egotistical doesnt do anything for those you instruct other than teach them that when they're wrong never to admit it and fall back your time doing something as a TITLE VS experience. I have a saying I have to come use alot "Experience is NOT all knowing". You can do anything for a long time and only know alittle bit about it or a specific area of it.
when i was young, i wanted hard fast answers, and plenty of people are willing to give them to you. now i know better, and if the answer to a short question isnt really long, or the answer to a long question isnt short, its questionable. the real answer, invariably is "it depends"
Paul (and crew) thanks indeed for taking the trouble to make this video. I always enjoy your long videos when they are all about real world life skills as this one is.
Most of us will convey the same idea in a different, nuanced manner, depending on the audience. And it can sometimes be harsh to judge certain private conversations, without proper context. The real shame here is when someone tries to seek fame by riding others coattails, and soiling them in the process.
I had a chance to meet Paul at a pizzeria in my hometown. He invited me to sit down at his table with his crew & shared their pizza. He is just an awesome, humble, amazing asset to our 2A community.
@@Ironsight_Army Nice story. I can just see that as a great experience to ask Paul a couple questions. I really think he would be fun to have diner with.
@@tysontomko "In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for the folly of my ways when it comes to girls in rooms... Do I regret my decision on the outcome? you be the judge"
The reason why we are all so willing to sit through 90 minutes of talking about apples and oranges, etc., is because when Paul takes you down these rabbit holes he is always making a solid point. He doesn't say anything without purpose. In a world and time when we often wish we could get back that time we wasted on something, Paul's presentations are always fulfilling and enjoyable. I have never regretted one second of listening to him talk about anything and I always look forward to the next time.
@@sasqetshenkley1190 Haha! I thought you were implying that Paul is Yoda in this metaphor, or parable, or whatever this would be. He is sort of the Yoda of gun stuff. Now I kinda want to see him lift a RAV4 out of a nearby pond.
The meat target is a valuable test medium because it demonstrates the reality that humans are not one giant homogeneous medium and a variety of different muscle tissues, bones, organs, and tendons that can all degrade bullet performance.
Wet newspaper, rolled up wet carpet and water jugs also have their place. More information is simply better. Equally important are the various and mostly pointless examples of penetration through objects before hitting an analog body. Ideally none of us will ever use these bits of information meaningfully, but someone will. In science falsification is very important. You must use more then one method to come to a proper sigma conclusion. So gel is 1 sigma, wet newspaper 2 sigma, meat target 3 sigma etc. if the projectile can prove itself 3 or more sigma consistent then it is likely very good. (Scientific standards vary from 3-7 sigma depending on the discipline or methodology). Gel is not flesh, dead somewhat inconsistent flesh is not living flesh, people aren’t made out of water jugs or wet newspaper, it goes on. But several examples help form the entity.
Paul is the only person who can do a one-and-a-half-hour presentation consisting of 90% talking while sitting at a table and keeping my attention throughout. I find value in everything that he says. Well done sir.
Every time Paul apologizes for "having to sit through" something, I always wonder who he's apologizing to. I could enjoy an hour long explanation from Paul about apples and oranges
It's almost as if we watch his content in order to gain his vast experience points. I like anyone that can sit in front of a camera and talk without a script. Look at this guy. Zero screen blanks or silent periods. no out takes. Nothing. Just a boss bossin the rules like a boss. 😎
Quality over quantity. As far as I know, Paul has not made many if any videos that look like he is trying to sell something to somebody. He gives good solid information.
I always thought the reason for using the meat target and not ballistics gel was obvious - people aren't made of ballistics gel. A meat target is more of a real-world measure of the effects of bullets.
And the chaos of reality. Had cheap Russian ammo knock deer down like a brick and the bullet could been used in advertising after. Had stuff that cost 5 bucks a round fail even with a perfect heart shot. Sometimes things just are perfect sometimes perfectly wrong. It's nice to be able to "judge " with an average expectation of performance.
That's where you're wrong, dumpft ard: I for one have a lot of good friends who have fully transitioned from meat-based flesh to gel-based, many of whom are Black by the way, and that's a good thing, because meat is so ray'sis it's literally destroying the planet in less than 24 hours from right now!!!😵😵💫
@@jimmieburleigh9549 Lately I missed the Shasta. It might be based on the location/availability that it was Sam's cola or other sodas. I remember a Shasta employee in the comments giving thanks for securing his job. Maybe the beer times got to the company? I'm not in the US.
I just watched the John Corea video of him bashing the meat target. All I can say is the irony in watching an overweight guy say, "I don't like shooting groceries" is hysterical.
Great video. Me personally, I'm 10X more interested in seeing bullet performance in your meat targets that simulate real world ammo performance rather than ballistic gel penetration!
As per the "Meat Targets" validity I can only add what I know first hand. I was shot from about 4' away with a .22LR 36gr JHP from a small handgun. The bullet went through my front peck, splintered my rib, punctured and shredded my left lung (causing it's subsequent removal by a surgeon) and then embedded itself in my left shoulder where it remains until this day. That being said IMO the "Meat target" is actually more correct and true than any ballistic gel test.
My son was shot by his friend while on a coyote hunt. All the boys carried rifles and a sidearm. This particular night, his friend was carrying my sons 1911 .45 ACP. I won't get into the specifics of the shooting but my son was shot with an FMJ round. It was a through and through in his left wrist and struck bone in his right upper arm. The FMJ performed just as Paul's meat targets have demonstrated. It made a perfect hole in his wrist but when it hit bone in his right arm, it shattered it. The entry and exit wound on the right arm was almost a perfect hole on both sides. The surgeon said that my son has his arm today because it was FMJ, had it been a hollow point, my son might have lost his arm. So, anyone who doubts Paul's findings can go get fckd, my son is living proof of Paul's demonstrations.
@@davidburnett5049 he’s in a UA-cam group of his own where people really can’t talk negatively about and he’s just a good content maker without political drama or nonsense. It’s appreciable to have these days.
In my line of work, I've seen young men intentionally not wear gloves when doing "dirty" work with their hands. At the end of the day, they proudly display the dirt under their fingernails as a badge of honor indicating how much of a man they are. One of the things I like about Paul Harrell videos is he doesn't seem to be afraid to wear gloves. He seems sure of who he is and doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. This is a breath of fresh air in the gun community.
I work with gorillas like that, too. Won't wear a jacket when its below 40°, etc. to look tough. Those of us who put out at work just see them as stupid. Their hands are all jacked up and fingernails down to nubs.
I once met a Fudd who scoffed at me saying I have soft hands because I haven't worked a day in my life (I was like 17 so obv my hands are softer than some old fart) but I just quickly responded 'no, I just wear gloves' and I could tell that pissed him off. Was pretty funny, though annoying that people like him are abundant.
You know what the most important part is for me, the teacher. I've watched every other gun channel on UA-cam, and none of them come close to Paul's ability to connect with me. He's taught me an incredible amount over the years and I've improved greatly under his guidance. I don't care how fast Attention Hungry Gunner can shoot, and I don't care if somebody doesn't like the meat target, I love it!
I always get annoyed with the “ ballistic gel mafia” it’s a great tool when you’re focused on repeatable results in a consistent documentable material. It won’t tell you how a bullet will react when it hits bone or a windshield. That’s why other tests exist. To say they’re invalid and ballistics gelatin is all you can trust is ridiculous
A forensic lab doesn’t just do electrophoresis. They also use gas chromatography, mass spectroscopy, flame ionization etc different tools and processes test different things
The "Ballistic Gel Mafia" are all paid for shills. They are sponsored by clear ballistics products which is why they can't say anything bad about them.
The FBI developed ballistics gel in order to test firearms rounds that they deemed would give adequate penetration, due in large part to what happened during the Miami Shootout when a very well placed WInchester Silvertip, a shot which proved fatal and not survivable, didn't penetrate to a depth that would immediately incapacitate the perpetrator. So, a fatal round wasn't fatal soon enough. The guy the agent shot ended up taking the agent with him, and they both died. LEO guys have a job to do. Most civilians do not have the same standards to live up to. You do not have to take an assailant into custody. You don't have to save the baby seals. Most of the time, we see ballistics gel tests, and when there's a nice stretch cavity, and adequate penetration, and the bullet expands as it should, we say, well, that's what we want to see. On the street, always bear in mind that you are as much a meat target as the next guy. What we want to see, sometimes; we are led to believe this cannot happen to us, when it most certainly can. The adage live by the gun, die by it, is all too true. What if we could avoid the fight? What if we didn't walk around thinking how cool it would be if little suze got her head splashed into the canned peaches so we could whip out our carry piece and drop the perp from 40 yards? Just sayin. 🤩
I'm another one of those freaks of nature that isn't a real fan of ballistic gel results posted on UA-cam. My problem with it is while results from it can be extremely beneficial, however as used from most UA-camrs, it's worse than useless. First thing is gel must be calibrated for any results to be valid. The problem with results obtained by uncalibrated gel were documented by Dr. Fackler back in the early 80s. You typically fire a standard BB through a chrono at each block and calculate if it's penetrating the correct amount for proper ballistic gelatin. If it's very slightly out of whack, you must include that % amount in your resulting data and if it's too far out of spec, the block must be discarded. Problem is I've only seen 1 UA-camr ever calibrate their gel and post/list the adjustment. Every single other one I've watched (at least 20) has never shown any type of calibration, nor have I spotted a BB track in their gel. This means their results are far less trustworthy than they would imply and the fact they don't disclose this means almost all gel UA-camrs are either ignorant or too lazy to have results that are worth the effort. Anyone belittling Paul for his meat target while posting/trusting video of results obtained from uncalibrated gel is...laughable. Besides that, I'm really sick of the lowest-denominator type of UA-camr that spends more time trying to be what a moron might consider entertaining rather than just presenting knowledge (assuming that have any) and testing. There's Paul, gunblue490 and no one? else that just spends their time dropping that priceless knowledge and not trying to entertain for the sake of it. A few others I can somewhat tolerate for what they are but that's it.
“ What if we didn't walk around thinking how cool it would be if little suze got her head splashed into the canned peaches so we could whip out our carry piece and drop the perp from 40 yards?” Who the hell goes around thinking that way? That’s horrific! I hope to God I never have to use my gun(s) for the intended purpose again. I have had to pull my pistol and return fire at someone shooting at me and it fucked me up bad for a few weeks. It’s been over a year and I am still not completely “over it”, but I have resumed my regular daily life.
We often see Paul in poor weather conditions, and many of us admire him for doing that. What we may not immediately realize and fully appreciate is that Paul is not alone. He has at least one camera man with him and may have others helping him set things up. They are suffering through the same conditions as Paul, but since they are not in front of the camera, they don't get the recognition they deserve. I would like to thank them for helping Paul produce a number of informative videos I have learned from. I would also like to touch on a safety thing that some viewers might misunderstand. In this video, when Paul is shooting the soda jugs, it is clear that there is a cameraman off to the side of the line of fire when Paul is standing at the table talking. When Paul walks out of the frame to shoot, the cameraman backs up, and then Paul shoots. Obviously if there were a cameraman standing there holding the camera, they would be in a hazardous area. But if you watch closely and listen carefully, you will realize that is not the case. The cameraman skillfully backs up and puts the camera on a tripod without excessive moving of the camera. If you listen carefully, you can hear the cameraman walk away in the mud, much as you are able to hear Paul walking in the mud. The cameraman has retreated to a safe location off to the right of Paul.
What? You don't value John standing in front of green screen back drop and teaching tactics he's never applied and never will? I think John should stick to teaching little girls like the "Range Monkey". They're easy to impress.
When Paul puts critics in their place it is pure gold. This dude is more thorough and more precise about his content than any other pew pew channel on the UA-cam. He always brings receipts and covers every base. You can not help but love this dude.
I bet they just "pick on him" because they know it generates views and comments......the backpedaling is probably just to trigger more discussion in the comments..
For what it's worth, you are the only gun channel I watch besides ForgottenWeapons. I cannot *stand* how unnecessarily tacticool the bigger gun channels are. They are so full of concepts and language that I totally don't understand and don't care about that I can't watch even a few minutes of them. On the other hand, you have taught me an enormous amount about the basics and fundamentals of firearms training, and although I wouldn't even consider myself a novice, I feel that I know where to start if I want to become one. Please, never change.
There is nothing tedious about setting the record straight. I personally thank you and all the people that keep this channel running. All of you show the professionalism, dedication, and ambition that most could only dream about. A US Army Drill Instructor (now many years ago) once told my training platoon, "It is not the first shot that wins a battle. It is the first ACCURATE shot." That echoed my WWII Pacific War veteran Grandfather in tone and wording and practice.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of the meat target, and by extension they misunderstand the purpose of ballistic gel... Ballistic gel is a uniform medium so it removes variables that may cause inconsistencies in outcomes. For instance, if I wanted to test the same ammo out of different barrel lengths (shooting M193 out of a 10.5" barrel and a 20" barrel) then ballistic gel would be a good idea. It removes any other variables that might cause different outcomes and distills my results down to only those differences that can be caused by the barrel lengths alone. But if I wanted to know what M193 can do to a human body (or body of an animal depending on what you're testing) I wouldn't use ballistic gel because a human body is more than just a uniform gelatinous blob. We have different squishy bits, each with their own consistencies. We also have bones and might be wearing clothes or gear that can change the results of the bullet impact. The meat target is the best way to do this because pig parts are eerily similar to humans. Like freaky similar, actually. And no, putting some bags of fake blood and a plastic skeleton in a ballistic gel dummy doesn't have the same effect. Not only is that more expensive, but it's never the same consistency. The fake body parts don't offer the same resistance to the bullet that the real meat and bone would. That's often why you see so much worse carnage from the dummies corpses than you do from real ones. Seriously, check it out.
the question is what you want to know. if you want exact numbers, ballistic gel is your best bet. if you want to know what happens when you shoot something inconsistent and non repeatable like reality the meat target is a viable analog.
We need to protect this man at all cost. I've never seen such a concise explanation on why memes cause decisions to be made not based in reality. People play "sports teams" with everything.
Yeah I don't think he needs your regurgitated statements of absolutely useless help. If you want to help him donate money, not empty statements that are trendy.
@@thystaff742 it seems like a bunch of girls were "handed" it all at once because it kind of was. To prevent a race for girls claiming to be the first female eagle scout, the first 1000 girls who earned eagle in the three years after they could join were all awarded the rank on the same day.
Never in my life have I seen someone take the act of eating an apple and use it in such "shit eating grin" kind of way. Your ability to take something innocent, and use it to make your point is simply amazing. I'm glad you address situations like this how do you. Spending an entire day wasting your time to make sure that bad information isn't spread is one of the things that makes you so valuable to community as a whole, not even limited to the firearms community.
I watch John from time to time and in my opinion he sounds like a guy who will always have the right answer no matter what the situation is. I've always been weary of the "Smartest Guy in the room" personas, especially when the subject of the their knowledge would be up to interpretation by anyone else. I've heard him contradict himself based on the demographics of the content. I retired from the Army after 20 years of service, so I know very well the type of "one uppers" that you spoke of. Keep up the good work Paul, even now I learn a lot watching your channel.
Spoken like a true professional ! Your meat target is completely relevant in demonstration of a human target- shirt, muscles, ribs, lung tissue, fluid filled organs, muscles and ribs in the back, followed by a layer of shirt. The approximate depth of your meat targets are relatively similar to the human thoracic cavity. [Over penetration.. exit wound.] I am a retired paramedic from a homicide rich city. I can confidently say, I never had a shooting victim that EVER had the slightest resemblance to a block of ballistic gel. More like an exploded soda jug.. shotgun in the mouth suicide. Messy ! Those who would disagree with me have never seen a human being before much less one who was suffering from bullet wounds. I too am what you would call a professional. I enjoyed your video Paul !
Paul calls it a 'very tedious explanation'. Personally, I call that a perfect execution of countering stupidity. People like to say 'dont engage stupidity or trolls'. Problem is, when stupidity, or worse, outright lies and misinformation are allowed to go unchallenged, they grow across nations before the truth has its shoes on. Well done sir!
I have to imagine that many guntubers who object strongly to the meat target are, in truth, just defensive about simply not wanting to do something similar. Paul puts a lot of work into these, and as demonstrated, spends a lot of time digging through, and cleaning up, really messy piles of raw meat and citrus. (I imagine this gets really unpleasant during hot and humid weather.) For the record, I also appreciate the work and thought that goes into these eminently practical experiments. Thank you, Paul!
While watching the ballistics gel vs "meat target" segment, I wondered why Paul didn't mention the fact that ballistics gel doesn't contain bones and organs of varying densities like the meat target does. The gel only demonstrates the basic function of bullets while the meat target more accurately demonstrates what happens within "the intended target." I find Paul's presentations to be humorous, informative and entertaining. I look forward to each new edition with anticipation.
I agree with your take, and to those who say the specific density of the gelatin takes bones into account I say this: Notice how Paul’s bullet hit the bone and flew off into the wild blue yonder? That. The unpredictability and inconsistency is what makes the meat target so valueable. It’s also a more understandable visual for us watching at home.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD the fact they do different things is a defense of the meat target, assault doesn't attack people for doing gel. It just so happens it makes their tests redundant though. 5 shots into a meat target show variety of effect in an organically uneven medium like a real body. Hit a bone? Miss a bone? How's that effect hollow point performance? Small holes but explodes oranges? It shows that some designs are brutal on organs but not on muscle. Some stop on the back shirt, some on the leather jacket skin, some on the rear ribs rack. That set if disparate effects tells us a lot more than just "it went 12" in gel". The fact is, you learn more from different types of tests than only 1. And Pauo doesn't crap on gel. But his critics do crap on the meat target.
@@ravissary79 It shows a variety of effects after introducing variables. This means controlling for variables, and that would be a huge waste of groceries. How do you determine that exploding oranges is equivalent to being "brutal" on organs? How is this a property of the bullet rather than of the tissue itself? It makes perfect sense that a pork chop pectoral, which has a slab of layered muscle fibers, resists tearing and impact from a projectile punches in a neat hole, while loosely connected sacks of fluid contained by a peel will show damage from the liquid being compressed (like plastic from a jug being obliterated by a small bullet simply from the pressure of the water against the walls). The 12 inches in gel is a minimum standard imposed by the necessity for a bullet to make it through oblique shots or possibly an extremity before hitting the torso. The need to make it through skin, muscle and bone before hitting vitals is already accounted for. Yes, we learn from different types of testing. Test on the meat target, you know how well it works against the meat target. For example as I explained above there's a serious issue with extrapolating data from orange lung tissue due to the way it behaves differently from meat. If I'm learning something, at least be something that can be applicable. I know of an applicable lesson learned from gel. Bullets that were made for "hydrostatic shock", "energy dump", etc. on gel failed in street use - to the point that 9mm was almost discredited as a defensive round. And the twelve inch standard was introduced to deal with that. If you're going to tell me that I'm "learning" from a different test then please make it clear what exactly I'm learning. Because judging performance from the oranges gives me the vibe that I'd be falling into the same trap as people did decades ago. My problem isn't Paul, it's the audience.
Excellent video Paul. I've been involved in firearms training and research for a living for a bit over 40 years, and one of the main reasons I don't make firearms videos is that you do such a great job, that I seriously doubt that anything I could say or present would add anything significant to the discussion, and certainly nothing different. Each time I think I have come up with a great idea for something that would make a great video, I check your channel and see that you've already done it! Having done enough video work in professional settings to know how much work it is, I truly appreciate what you do, and multiple times a week I send students to your channel. Having been at this game a while, I'll make a few observations. First, there is an entire generation of UA-camrs that I refer to as "Vidiots". Many of them got their first gun well after they got their computer games and their video cameras. Many were not even alive prior to the advent of the FBI ammunition standards, and to them, ballistics gel tests are the be-all and end-all when choosing ammunition. To them, the 9mm is the only caliber worthy of consideration, and the polymer-framed striker fired auto pistol is the only handgun they've ever known. To them, everyone knows that any gun with a double action trigger, or heaven forbid, a safety lever, is impossible to learn to use, and will get you killed if you try. With all this wealth of experience most of them claim to have, most have never even heard a shot fired in anger. You, Paul, are not a Vidiot. You have a wealth of solid experience earned over time, and you use it to illustrate useful concepts and debunk myths related to guns and shooting, in a way that normal people can understand and relate to. I'm amazed that you even bother to respond to critics, who as far as I can tell, are not yet ready to even post targets on the range for you. You are not just entertaining, but also an excellent role model for what the shooting community should strive to be, and how we should behave ourselves. Don't change a thing. As someone who has actually spent some time in a real live ballistics laboratory and participated in actual FBI standard gel tests, I can say that not one in ten UA-camrs are doing their so-called "testing" correctly anyway. Most are not using real organic ballistic gel, and very few are testing under properly controlled conditions. Even fewer understand the significance, or lack thereof, of the results. They are the subject of a great deal of humor at their expense among the pros who do this sort of thing for a living. I find your "meat target" to be entertaining and informative, because it shows the unpredictability of what happens when "the bullet hits the bone" to quote an old song. These demonstrations also show that often, there is not much real difference between the most highly sought-after high tech bullet de jour and what can be bought at the local Walmart. Sometimes there is, and when we see such results, that too is valuable. Finally, with regard to what I call the "Bang N' Clang Gang", I get so tired of watching someone unload a high capacity pistol onto an overly large piece of steel at close range as fast as humanly possible, consulting their electronic timer, and then rhapsodizing over doing it one-tenth of a second faster than with some other gun. They then suggest that this matters one bit in a defensive encounter. If you did such a thing in an actual shooting, you should be prepared to spend years of your life showering with other men, because a jury certainly isn't going to understand why you needed to shoot that much. We are preparing ourselves to manage an armed robbery attempt in a dimly lit parking lot with one or two thugs, not going to war. I'm also always a bit suspicious of gun "reviewers" who don't want to show their results on a paper target. Hearing steel ring is entertaining, but tells me very little about a firearm's accuracy potential. I'll just end this very long comment with what I hope you will take as a compliment. I am in regular contact with people who have been in the business of carrying, using, and training with firearms for decades, and for a living. Almost without exception, if we watch UA-cam gun videos at all, we watch yours. Best wishes.
I spend very little time responding to critics. In this case, some of what was said has great potential for damage. Your point about bullet de jour and local wal mart ammo is well taken and that is often what I am trying to illustrate. I have seen someone claim that AK's are just as accurate as AR's and then prove his point by shooting an eight inch clanger at 20M and hit it every time with both rifles. This type of demo is what I call the "sleight of hand" so many people use. I have no sponsors, and no interest in the outcome. My real goal is to put out useful entry level information in a manner that is interesting enough to keep the audiences attention. Your comment, coming from someone in your position, means a lot, thank you.
@@brianhillis3701 Other supermarkets still do So I get the point regardless But we can order online now Low grade ammo is easier than ever to get... Is what I would say if we lived in 2019 and prices and stock weren't still asinine right now
What an incredible and well earned compliment. I've never "fired a firearm" in a video game. I do have 8mm, not Super 8mm, film showing by Dad teaching me to shoot a .22LR Marlin in the New Mexico desert ~ 1963. Different generations, technology and attitudes. At least we are all (hopefully) still human. ~10% are psychopaths. Even they are needed for certain things. I do not think humans are very far from building mobile hybrid or synthetic machines that will have 10 single hole #10 hits in
I think the meat target is a great representation of our intended targets. I hunt hogs, I've never shot 2 hogs that were exactly the same. And most criminals are again not exactly the same. And I really do prefer the lack of gadgets in your videos. Thank you for what you do and the information you bring.
Exactly. You are going to get slightly different results if you shoot me, a 275 lb man who has done hard physical labor in my life than if you shoot a teenage girl who is 5'6" and weighs 105lbs soaking wet. I have more fat and muscle and my bones will be denser.
If we cannot learn anything from the meat target because it’s inconsistent, then we cannot learn anything from studying wounds on humans or animals as they are never alike.
I was very glad to see the difference between how the 22Mag performed vs the 5.7 fired from a 16" carbine barrel. I would not have guessed the results and it would not have been discoverable using balistic gel. So yes, it adds insight and information.
Paul, I love "Story Time with Paul". Your meat target is really good. That's what got me interested in your videos. It's a more real medium of which to compare the effects of different bullet performance. Ballistic gelatin is also good as it demonstrates what happens to a bullet as it passes trough a transparent material, especially when recorded with high speed camera equipment (thank you Scott at Kentucky Ballistics). There's one more thing I would like to add to training. Fun. Shooting is fun. Let the training of new people be fun, make it fun. Don't wear out a new shooter with too much in one dose. Some of us can shoot all day which wears out others quickly. Thanks Paul.
@@brahtrumpwonbigly7309 very true. He obviously does it easy enough too. In Paul’s case, he has so many actual facts and does his homework, there’s very little if any you can refute. Apparently I upset Hungry Handgunner by posting this video link to his video. Somehow I “slipped through his block list”. Apparently several people disagreed with his opinion.
@@jamespruitt6718 I looked at his channel briefly after Paul mentioned him....I suspect he'll suffer the same effects as the last guy Paul demolished. And he'll have deserved every iota of it.
Paul, I love it when you feed the trolls. We actually love sitting through you addressing the never ending troll attacks you attract so easily. Paul your going to need the 13 round pistol when the zombies come..don't you know that!
@Paul Martin Porky John has grown increasingly narcissistic over the last few years. Agreed, the video clips are entertaining but after his first couple of years , he began to grow more and more full of himself.
As Paul mentioned, ASP has a lot more subscribers. Seems odd for him to chase clout, by attacking a smaller channel. That said, I would love for a bigger channel to take a swipe at me. I might get monetized. 😛
When I found this channel, I completely changed the way I look at EDC. And I absolutely mean that as a compliment. I was doing a lot of stupid things based on nonsense I have encountered over the years. The wealth of knowledge I've gained has made smarter and safer. Thank you Paul.
I would have to ask skeptics of the meat target these questions: if a round does poorly in the meat target test, would you expect it to do significantly better in a real life self defense situation? If it does well in the meat target test, would you expect it to do significantly worse in a real life self defense situation? As for shot timers, they are great tools. That's literally it. Nothing more to say.
I'll answer your question about the meat target. How a round does in the meat target is irrelevant to what it will do in a real life self defense shooting. I will also say that about any other youtube ballistic tester no matter what method they use. I'll give you my experience. I have been in LE for over a decade and a ballistic nerd. I have studied and read everything I can find on the subject. I have access to all the FBI data and have had numerous conversations the Agent Boone of the FBI BRF and Dr. Gary Roberts. As I have been told, it is extremely difficult to do a proper ballistic test and very easy to do it wrong. What I can say is that the FBI tests have been around for 30 years and due to the FBI having access the information people like Paul don't, they can analyze data from actual shootings. There are 30 years and thousands of shootings that confirm that rounds that do well in the FBI test, perform well in real life shootings. There is no data the supports how a bullet that does good or bad in the meat target does well in real life shootings. Example, several months ago Paul tested the Hornaday TAP 55 gr bullet in the meat target. It performed very well in the test. Now that same bullet performed terribly in the FBI test because it severely underpenetrates. I was personally involved a shooting using that same bullet. I shot a man who weighed all of 140 pounds. He was in the process of raising his gun to fire at another officer. His arm got in the way and my bullet hit his arm just above the elbow. It basically severed his arm but did not go through arm. It performed just as the FBI test data predicted it would. We soon changed ammunition. So while I enjoy Paul's videos, I use the information from meat targets just as I do the ballistic gel tests from other youtubers. It for entertainment, not real world ballistic data.
@@jamesellis5027 There would have been a debate if Paul didn't acknowledge the use of a ballistic gel, he just says he prefers the meat target better for a more visual appeal. He didn't even dismiss it and it's all dowm to preference why he jist wants to use a meat target. This whole meat target vs ballstics gel is a complete nothing burger in the end. This is like debating if you prefer briefs vs boxers and it's laughable that people have too much time to argue about personal preference whem both does the job or the other doew better but still prefers the other.
I love Paul’s rebuttal videos even more than his firearm videos. It’s great to see someone bring logic and professionalism injected with dry humor into an internet disagreement. Most of the time all of those qualities are in short supply on today’s internet.
Another great video. I will never hear ”apples and oranges” the same way again. It always amazes me that Paul catches flak like this from trolls, when he is far more careful with his explanations, qualifications, and demonstrations than other content providers I see on UA-cam. I have great respect for this, as it is much more difficult to try to predict and counter all possible criticisms when presenting an argument than to just make unsupported opinion statements like many of his critics. I am grateful that he chooses to share his knowledge, experience, and insight, and this is admirable work. On the other hand, I am troubled that he has to spend so much time and effort countering critics who may be threatened by his careful, detailed reasoning and integrity. If he’s making the rebuttals for them, I don’t know that they are worth the trouble, but I appreciate the lesson nevertheless. Thank you. P.S. “Well I’ve never seen him do it” reminded me of something Carl Sagan wrote, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
I have been a competitor-shooter for over 65 years. Travelled the world with a shooting team. I have also worked as a consultant to firearm and ammo companies, including a stint in a ballistics lab and the technical director of a small ammo company making specialty ammo for police and military contracts. I regularly watch many of the shooting channels. Paul, you are the best. I usually think I know the results of your proposed test before you do it. I remember thinking that the concern about a pass through was groundless. Then you put 380 FMJs through 2 meat targets. Very educational. In all the hours and hours of your presentations I have only heard one thing that I would disagree with. You are an excellent presenter and teacher who often makes presentations on subjects I find most interesting. I enjoy them because the test methods are valid. You are 100% correct on the observation that we don't need another ballistic gel test. If a bullet blows up on contact with a bone, your test will reveal the flaw - jello would not. .
Paul, I LOVE that you're calling out paid salesmen in the gun world. I also love the content of your videos, ESPECIALLY when I disagree with your opinions. Thank you for everything that you do. You deserve every ounce of success you achieve and more.
I only recently discovered these videos. As a physicist and scientist who has published results of multiple experiments, when I watch these demonstrations, I greatly appreciate the disclaimers, attempt at controls, and transparency with calling out factors that may adversely impact a given test. The .44 vs .357 magnum videos come to mind especially. I did a similar project to these videos as an independent research project as a capstone in undergrad....evaluating the effectiveness of then relatively new Tungsten and Bismuth shot shells in comparison to steel and lead. By the way, no 2 people, clothing, deer, etc. are going to be 100 percent exact. Are the differences going to substantially effect the outcome, or be indicative of general performance? No, not at all. The testing of some older cartridges reinfces most everything my father said, through his years of observation....though dad became out of date on anything since the late 90s.
I have been playing on the internet long before most people knew it existed. I have observed that more lies and falsehoods than truth have always been presented. The trick is to determine the difference. Paul, you do a very good job. Keep it up, and thank-you for the effort.
3 minutes in and Paul is having guns talk to each other. This is gonna be a good video. Update: He's analytically comparing the similarities and differences between an apple and an orange
Shot timers: "I have never seen a timer brought to a gunfight!" Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. Shot timers among other things, induce stress. Clint, with his gravely voice and Marine DI demeanor has his own way of inducing stress
I get your desire to set records straight , address issues , and clarify things . However , you really don't have to explain yourself or justify anything to anyone . Those that know , know ... your a legend , even all the way over here in the uk . Keep up the good work 👍
Paul answers the trolls so that their misinformation doesn’t hang out there and then become believed as fact because it was not answered and corrected. Most of us know that Paul would never intend to mislead anyone ever, but it seems there is always a few who feel the need to be a troll. Shame on them. I love it when a troll gets pointed out and people figure out who they really are !!!!!
When Paul says he's sorry I have to sit through something he has to say, I pull up a comfortable chair, select the appropriate beverage with back ups just in case and shut the rest of the world out (wife and dogs) and turn up the volume-this is going to be important. Thank you Paul for this video and know that there are those of us, who having never met you, know your integrity, knowledge and character are always on display in your videos and are not in doubt. Take care, stay well.
After watching both channels, over a long period of time, I've found that Paul is an excellent instructor and I've learned quite a bit from him. He is very informative and practical. John is a Monday Morning Quarterback. Every video of his is the same, he shows the incident and then picks it apart regardless of the outcome because he can always do it better. What I've learned from ASP is you should always have your weapon at low ready and constantly have your head on a swivel ready to shoot at a second's notice. I'll stick with Paul.
I gotta say that I disagree. Yes he absolutely Monday morning quarterbacks people. But I don’t think for one moment that it’s because he can do it better. It’s because he wants other people to see those mistakes and learn from them. The worst way to learn about a defensive gunfight is to be in one. We would much prefer to learn in advance and do better on that day. That’s why I love both Paul and Johns channels. Paul teaches me things about my firearm and ammunition that have real world value. And John teaches me things about awareness and training that have real world value. I like to have both in my life.
@@robertdean7778 I agree that John's content is useful and worth the watch but John does have an off putting habit of doing Billy Mays style sales pitches, often claiming that that day's sponsor is selling the only whatever John will ever use and it is in fact the greatest. Paul doesn't do that and guys like Ian and Karl don't either so apparently you don't have to have a successful show.
I have watched hours upon hours of firearm related videos. All I can say is when I needed firearm advice in a real life threatening situation I turned to Paul. Nothing beats having real life experiences to draw from and a teacher who understands the common everyday man or in this case woman may not have massive amounts of money to spend buying the "latest and greatest" equipment.
“Never stop learning”, I wrote this as a comment to an ASP video, and was told I’m already a victim.. because now I’m paranoid..... because I have become more observant. Paul’s videos give me ballistic knowledge in a way I understand, and enjoy watching. To me the “ meat target” is realistic to what may actually happen. ASP gives me actual situation awareness, that has helped me identify my vulnerable times, and make adjustments to where, when and how I do things. I enjoy shooting, believe in 2A, and have a very strong need to understand things, and become knowledgeable and proficient in all things I enjoy doing. “ Never Stop Learning”..... use common sense, Keep your mind open to different views, and gain more knowledge and understanding from those with more experiences. I just try to be at my best in all things me. Paul, I love your videos, the info you share, the way you do it. You give me info I need to be best I can be,. Thank you
49:00 is exactly right. I often ask my organic gel testers to test the same ammo I test in Clear Gel, then we both be like well lets see what Paul got when he tested that. It's fun and educational to see how they all stack up, and if they are consistent results it's hard to say that's bad ammo. As where the few guys that use plain gel, no denim and that's it, nope not gonna trust that test.
Gun Sam- Wait!! You mean you never heard about those people who were savagely attacked by naked gel blocks??? Oh, never mind, I think I heard about that back when I used to drink....
I'm hoping Paul will find the time to test the BB 19H on the meat target in comparison with Remington HTP and give his impression on the recoil difference. The 19H is expensive stuff, even by BB standards. I haven't yet done a cylinder with it even though I now have a few boxes. Mind you, I've had the 20A for a few years now without shooting any of it! LOL.
I routinely advise friends, family members and other acquaintances to watch your videos. I rarely provide unsolicited advice. You are the rare exception. I truly enjoy all of your presentations.
Paul Harrell for life lol. They always hating on Paul but Paul always knows what to say. Between Paul and the other dudes, I’d rock with Paul everytime. Keep it up 👍. Ain’t gonna stop me from watching
I'm pretty biased since PH says that his information is just that ... information to see and absorb .. When someone tells me what to think vs to think for myself ... I'm going to go with the person who tell me to think for myself every time. That's what PH does ...
As for your expertise in subjects of self defense, Paul, we recently expanded our home defense arsenal by the addition of a 12 gauge shotgun, and following your advice we went looking to purchase birdshot as our defensive round of choice. The gentleman at the gun store we visited was a local police officer, and he asked me what kind of ammo I was looking for. "Birdshot," I replied. "WHO TOLD YOU THAT?" he demanded, which kind of surprised and frightened me for a moment because I wasn't prepared for a debate. I said, "Paul Harrell on UA-cam." The gentleman is very serious looking when he says, "Well, he is... ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!" He was a rather enthusiastic gentleman it turned out and a pleasure to talk to, and he made all the same points about the utility of birdshot as a home defense load.
John is a perfect example of Paul's "Fake Expert" video. John ALWAYS has an answer to something even when he pulls it out of thin air and can't explain why. I have caught him several times doing this. He has even banned me from commenting on both of his channels.
Whenever im teaching people im super careful to avoid overgeneralizations because if that video, its really easy to forget and just say something that's flat out wrong
One of the best lines I've heard about shot timers comes from James Yeager: "If you have to ask if you need a shot timer, you're not ready for one". Master the fundamentals before you concern yourself with speed. Don't just learn the fundamentals. Master them. Mastering the fundamentals will, in itself, produce an increase in speed over simply learning those fundamentals.
I was taught - One Shot, One Kill. Who cares how fast you can shoot if you can't hit your target. Some police officers in the past have gotten themselves in trouble for being too quick on the draw before identifying their target.. Shot timers are great for competition.
Never shot ballistics gel and have never seen anyone do it in person. Have been around hunting camps where firearms and archery have been used to take game of all sizes. This experience makes the "meat target" more relatable to me and I suspect it does to many of your other viewers.
@@thebored14 It's also very consistent If you need 100% no possible flukes (despite the feds probably fudging numbers when they use it anyway) and something easy to measure penetration in It's great The meat target having some small potential inconsistencies actually is very nice because in practical situations it isn't perfectly consistent Both have a place
@@newerest1 The internal voids as well as the different densities of flesh, hide and bone have produced some interesting results for us over the years. Especially when we started doing most of our hunting with with bows. My buddy shot a bull elk with a 70 pound bow and the arrow literally bounced back at us. The bull just stopped and looked and my buddy's second shot was a clean through with a double lung shot, When we dressed him out the first shot had dead centered the the scapula ridge and the second shot had hit a few inches back and gone between ribs on both sides with only minor blade cuts on the ribs. Enough randomness to make Paul's Meat Target very relatable from my point of view.
@@1stCallipostle :) maybe we should get Paul to put the meat target in front of some gel then followed the gel up with the new and improved high tech fleece bullet stop! enjoyed your comment!
@@thebored14 I am sure that we both find gel shooting interesting and the visibility is great as you said. Gives a great visual of what a bullet does in gel. I do find shooting "things" more interesting though. We were cleaning out wild hogs from some property when I was a kid and shot lots of hogs with lots of things. Shotguns, pistols and rifles from .22 to 300 mag. bird shot to slugs. Learned a lot of the things Paul shows on his channel through experience. Buck shot and slugs have a lot of penetration. hollow points transfer energy more than FMJ. .22 can do a serious amount of damage and is somewhat under rated in a lot of peoples mind. enjoyed your comment. Be Safe!
Dear Paul Harrell: First, let me say thanks for your excellent videos. I’m an old man, 71+, these past few years I’ve been experiencing wrist pain from the recoil of my 9MM. this week it has become intolerable. I’ve decided to drop down to my 22 Magnum revolver with a 3.5-inch barrel, for my everyday concealed carry gun. Due to the ongoing ammo shortages, I have mainly been able to purchase Hornady V-Max 30 grain polymer-tip and CCI Maxi-Mag 40 grain jacked hollow-point. What I want from my ammo is enough penetration to blast through the bad guy’s frontal area of ribs and totally expend the bullet’s energy without exiting the bad guy’s torso/not jeopardizing family members or other innocent bystanders. With my limited knowledge I am guessing the V-Max is what I want. Could you do a ribs and fruit test with those two rounds, or at least give me your expert opinion? Thanks, Dennis Byrne
My suggestion to you, would be to get you some federal punch brand 22wmr... Neither of those rounds are adequate, in my opinion, for self defense. Especially the vmax. The key is penetration. And the vmax especially , dont have it . Its designed for small game.. the hp is a tougher bullet. So if nothing else pick it.. but the vmax , just dont have the penetration. Will it work.. probably. But theres better choices..
The only way he'll do ammo tests is usually if a viewer sends him some ammo, so if you're up for spending the cash for the ammo and shipping im sure you'll get what you're looking for. His email is in the about section of his youtube channel
Paul has closing on a million subscribers and I’ll bet every one of us watches the entirety of each presentation he makes.. rain, snow, sleet or hail (maybe). Paul keeps us watching, because he’s more consistent than ballistic gelatin.
The meat target is why I subscribed years ago. It's nice seeing the wound channel and expansion profile in ballistics gel, but it always lacked the real-world performance data I was looking for. The meat target with its "skin" and clothing fits the bill. As long as meat targets are shot on this channel, I'll be happily tuning in to learn what I can learn.
If it wasnt for Paul's meat targets, I dont know that I would have ever been able to successfully create a load for my .223 ar15 for rabbit hunts. A few years ago I was able to develope a good 25 to 100 yard rabbit round for my .223 using a 35 grain hornady pill and a lesser charge resulting in a lesser velocity on the chrono. Only con is that I have to manually charge the handle each round. I wanted to do this because I wanted to not only hunt rabbit on the fly,but be able to switch out mags quickly enough with my 55 grainers for when I saw opportunity for coyote as well. I have a .22 conversion kit,but it takes an unecessary amount of time to switch on the fly,not to mention it's one more thing you have to ruck in the desert for a few miles. And the .22 long rifle shot placement is also much different compared to the typical .223 round,where as my custom rounds hit on spot at range,which is nice because I dont have to readjust sights to shoot straight. I got the idea from Paul's meat targets to use a raw whole chickens and stuffed them with gummy bears. I tested at 25 yards. 50 yards, and 100. The harvest of my jack rabbits mimic that of the chicken targets . No over penetration and "drt" at those ranges with no considerable excessive damage to harvest. Thank you paul for posting videos that gave me the idea to think out of the box and test a medium that I believe worked better for my situation than ballistics gel could have.
@@PracticalReformation Hey, Sorry for late response. But here is what I have. You can definitely alter as you see fit for your purposes. This load was for my ar15 with an 16 barrel, 1 in 9 twist with a chamber speced for 5.56. I was aiming for 25 yards to 100 for this load. Nosler 35gn .120 bc varmagedon 26.8 gen Hodgdon blc-2 7 1/2 remington benchrest Case 1.745 C.o.a.l. was 2.080 Velocity was 2735 from chrony with 75 degrees, at 1940 elevation on no cloud day. The second one faster,but saw similar results Hornady 35gn vmax b.c.109 26.8 gn blc-2 Cci 440 primer Same case length,same c.o.a.l. Altitude was 1530 barometric was 30.17 at 68 farenheit velocity 2926. Cycled bolt. I gained in velocity at 3005fps with this load at 1940 elevation at 75 degrees I have load data in books for using handgun powder,but have not used that yet. Hope this helps.
I remember beginning watching this channel when there was only a few thousand subscribers…like 3000. I love the straightforward nature, the attitude of not being a cocky know it all even though he knows A TON!!!, and the self deprication comedy value. I don’t know Paul, but I respect Paul. I’m glad he’s a brother Marine. With some UA-cam channels I’m entertained with some I learn, with Paul I get both.
Please Lord NEVER let me get on Paul's bad side. This was the best rebuttal and dismantling of someone ever! And also as always very entertaining. Paul you sir are the goat.
I've seen so many gel test videos that I doubt there is much more info to be gained. PLEASE keep doing what you are doing. I find it much more interesting.
I remember when I was young I thought older people actually grew up & didn't do immature stuff like talk crap about each other & act all tough, boy was I wrong. I'm 49 & work with a bunch of 60 year olds & they still act like punk kids puffing their chest out & crap. People are pathetic. Screw them man & Keep doing your thing Paul
Yep I could feel the frustration Paul had when going through the meat targets. I hate that he has to deal with this kind of childishness and even make these videos (although they are fun to watch in how he proves his points).
Really well done video. The little details like prominently displaying the removal and storage of the ear plugs in the long cut of the soda jug shot or the dramatic eating of the whole apple demonstrate a real mastery of your craft. You do long form really well.
@@shark_byte_clips I manage channels professionally that are significantly larger than this. I cannot make a video this good with paid film crews, professional talent, and a team of editors. I’d love to do some work with Paul, but unfortunately brand safety will not allow. C’est la vie.
Looking back, I just sat through the equivalent of a feature length movie. And dang! It was awesome! Thank you Paul and Crew for sharing this. I rather enjoyed seeing the meat targets dissection and getting a better understanding of their construction.
I love Paul's presentations they're very thorough he backs up what he said with his experience and with evidence and it sticks in your head. My favorite is still hyper-ammunition small bullets flying out of the barrel overly gassed and it's true they'll fly around everywhere. So also I love the reference to Shatneresk pauses and when he does give a presentation it's very smooth and soothing lol, good to listen to them all day. And the humor is incredible.
Based on my hunting experience, I would say the meat targets are about the closet thing I have seen to a realistic medium for target ballistics. Perfect, no. But, it is far closer than gel. I find gel to be pretty useless aside from gauging bullet expansion performance and consistency. But only from a mechanical perspective. The meat target does the same sort of things you see shooting a deer or similar sized game. So, I find it to be a reasonably accurate medium for testing.
@@saskafrass1985 You gotta be careful here. Physicists and Engineers have a lot in common, but they also diverge on a lot of points. If you want true idealism, look to the mathematicians. Just don't be surprised when they give you some pushback! ;-)
Ballistics gel is used by scientists because it removes variables that come from nonhomogeneous mediums. It's absolutely excellent at what it's intended to be used for, but the very thing that distinguishes it as useful is also what makes it a poor analogue for a human body. The human body, after all, is neither homogenous nor particularly consistent from one to another.
@@ghostlygun2138 Some things are very difficult to simulate. Fluid Dynamics is particularly hairy, even with homogeneous mediums. Terminal Ballistics falls into the category of "hard problems".
I've honestly always wondered what the search for the projectiles looked like after each target. Now that I can see it's a tedious and thorough search it's good he edits them out. Very impressed.
People often time are idiots and far too confident in their flawed positions. UA-cam is a case study in the Dunning-Krueger effect. I can tell that your arguments are very well thought out. You are very wise and your life experience has given you an element of humility in your wisdom. The true test of one’s intelligence is the ability to know that you don’t know everything.
in all my years in the Army, I never shot ballistic gel. Not once did we have to go into combat against ballistic gel targets. Every time, it was humans. All of whom had different sizes, weights, bone structures, etc. This is relevant because ultimately, it was about putting bullets in the "center mass" for best effect. I witnessed many who shot "fast". All they usually accomplished was driving the enemy into cover. This is why military training is based on accuracy with general time considerations (timed target exposures) on a range with pop up targets. The key is to hit the enemy, not to contribute to the profits of ammo makers. Would more timed training be of benefit? If done correctly, yes. But time is not the most important factor. Accuracy is. What most people need better training on are safety and handling fundamentals, accuracy, reload drills, and immediate action drills (like SPORTS, BRASS). Get a handle on the fundamentals and your "time" will improve. Focus on "time" and your fundamentals will atrophy.
That's one of the reasons that the US military was perceived as so powerful early on in modern warfare. We were an early adopter of shooting to hit, instead of shooting to shoot.
This rebuttal vid about speed and such is also a perfect (along with your comment) reminder of the lessons that can/have been learned from the miami dade shootout. The FBI agents made very few hits along with lack of preparation on some personal levels cost the FBI some of there field agents lives. Was abit surprised Paul didn't mention that shootout in his rebuttal when talking about time.
Agree 100%. It's the old saying....Slow is smooth, smooth is fast...but fast misses aren't as good as slow hits. Timers and gelatin absolutley have a place, but 99% of what Paul is looking at and showing us is NOT that place.
I have 100% confidence in you. Your methods, presentation, fairness, is wonderful: "In my opinion, for me, from my experience, yours might be different." I'm happy with my Gen2 glock 19 for over 30 years; It' ok, not for everyone! Friend of mine works ER at a major hospital, lots of gun shot calls. He owns guns, has said, Look at ballistic gell for comparison, look at Paul videos to really know what will happen to the target and what well happen to what is BEHIND it! I've seen Paul shoot, he is freaking good. Him with 7 rounds is more useful than me with 25 round extended in my G19!
46:45 I think its also worth noting that this applies to humans too. You might hit someone in a rib, you might not. You might hit a lung, you might not, etc. So having a bit of “inconsistency” in a target media really isnt too bad of an idea Demanding perfect consistency and certainty in a world of uncertain inconsistencies is PEAK mid-wittery
True midwit stuff. It's the intellectual equal of buying a spendy, rare Euro sports car that is mostly a street-legal race car, and thinking the car drives itself at a high level -- instead of knowing the driver is the key, not the car.
I have been in for 15 years, 5 active (Ft. Riley) and the rest National Guard and I've been on 3 deployments so far. Whenever I hear someone making disparaging comments about " Slick Sleeves" I usually tell them the reason we have so many slick sleeves is because nobody wants to challenge the most powerful military on earth and because diplomats and statesman both foreign and domestic have found ways to resolve conflict short of sending other people's children to kill and die. Don't mistake duty for glory; perpetual war is a bad thing the last time I checked
I’ve been in 16 years and counting, all National Guard, from soon to be 3 different States. I’ve been deployed twice and have yet to earn a right sleeve patch or any uniform badges, aside from my Tanker boots, GAFP-B, and general ribbons. First deployment was Kosovo in 2012- hazardous duty, non-combat; second was Poland in 2018- deterrence mission with a combat possibility. No patches for either one. Some of us have time and experience, just no real proof to display. And yes, it’s because no nation is stupid enough to challenge us muzzle-to-muzzle, and Tanks tend to not be as useful in a COIN fight- so they haven’t called us to do what we do best.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Paul say in a video that this technique is the best and you need to be doing it this way. He always says this is how he does it and what works for him. Anyone can tell Paul is a man of integrity and high moral character. I watch Paul to learn and pick up ideas about bullet performance and how that performance is affected by different media. I appreciate the effort and cost incurred with the meat target. Meat target is different and I appreciate the subtle difference in how bullets perform encountering the meat target, people aren’t exact, neither are meat targets. I train with a shot timer, but when I notice my accuracy suffer as I become fixated on getting a lower time, well, shot timer goes back in the case. Paul made it abundantly clear in the 1986 FBI shooting how important accuracy is, the failure of marksmanship was made clear. Paul, I thoroughly enjoy your content, I have learned a lot from you over the years. I will continue to support your Patreon and keep the content coming.
Finally… the explanation we’ve all been waiting for ;) I’m happy that you uploaded a long video but too bad you have to put out another video like this again 🙈 btw love the pop tart ad 😅
Great video I'd like to see the rebuttal....probably none. Respect both parties in their own right. One was infantry and the other was naval intelligence. Not sure how much combat a naval intelligence officer gets, but a grunt who served in two branches of the military versus one. Just remember "you be the Judge..."
I have yet to find any of your presentations to be tedious. Thank you, Mr. Harrell, for all of the dedication and effort you put into your work. I know I am not the only one to say, it is greatly appreciated.
In this presentation I said that I doubted that John really wrote the document in question. Many people have made me aware of the things he has written in the last few days That support the idea that he did write the questioned document. Your points are well taken, and my doubts aren't as "grave" as they were, but I still don't know for SURE that he did.
Paul you react alot better and level headed to things and that says a lot about you as a person. You dont have to say anything to any of these guys and you try to methodically explain yourself about what you do to them and other viewers instead of telling these guys where the monkey bit the bear in the ass for that youre a far better person than those who havent trained nearly as long as you or have instructed nearly as long as you and think they know more simply because theyve seen more through videos... One thing Ive learned is anyone can become an instructor... and many instructors out there are egotistical and full of themselves to the point they ignore any and all other training techniques but their own and tend to simply just fall back on their reputation of "Do you know who I am" when you point out them being wrong or question anything they do rather than humble themselves.
I dont know how many people in how many professions Ive seen over time say IVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 30 years as if that makes what they said any less wrong. You can repeat the same mistakes for thirty years too. Being egotistical doesnt do anything for those you instruct other than teach them that when they're wrong never to admit it and fall back your time doing something as a TITLE VS experience. I have a saying I have to come use alot "Experience is NOT all knowing". You can do anything for a long time and only know alittle bit about it or a specific area of it.
when i was young, i wanted hard fast answers, and plenty of people are willing to give them to you. now i know better, and if the answer to a short question isnt really long, or the answer to a long question isnt short, its questionable. the real answer, invariably is "it depends"
Paul (and crew) thanks indeed for taking the trouble to make this video. I always enjoy your long videos when they are all about real world life skills as this one is.
Talk is cheap, ammo’s expensive, you keep on keeping on and a tip of the cap to ya Sir 👍
Most of us will convey the same idea in a different, nuanced manner, depending on the audience. And it can sometimes be harsh to judge certain private conversations, without proper context. The real shame here is when someone tries to seek fame by riding others coattails, and soiling them in the process.
I had a chance to meet Paul at a pizzeria in my hometown. He invited me to sit down at his table with his crew & shared their pizza. He is just an awesome, humble, amazing asset to our 2A community.
P.S. i also got his autograph
@@Ironsight_Army Nice story. I can just see that as a great experience to ask Paul a couple questions. I really think he would be fun to have diner with.
Nice. Glad to hear that.
I bet he didn't eat all 8 slices...
That's a great story. Unless that pizza had pineapple on it. Then it's sad, yet more understandable why he wanted you to eat their pizza.
"You can slam me all you want.
Just don't backpedal and say you weren't"
Spoken like a true gentleman.
Reminds me of, "Don't piss on my leg and then tell me its raining.
@@Dustin2112 "It was the dog!"
Time stamp please
@@Thatguy-kx8ro at around 1:01:56
Imagine being Paul’s kid and having to hear a fastidiously detailed explanation as to why you can’t have your door closed with a girl in your room.
PT-91 Twardy would sit to explain that
"Son, i could go on for hoursssssss about girls in rooms"
@@tysontomko "In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for the folly of my ways when it comes to girls in rooms... Do I regret my decision on the outcome? you be the judge"
The reason why we are all so willing to sit through 90 minutes of talking about apples and oranges, etc., is because when Paul takes you down these rabbit holes he is always making a solid point. He doesn't say anything without purpose. In a world and time when we often wish we could get back that time we wasted on something, Paul's presentations are always fulfilling and enjoyable. I have never regretted one second of listening to him talk about anything and I always look forward to the next time.
Yeah. I’m just excited to see where this is going.
100% spot on.
@@sasqetshenkley1190 Haha! I thought you were implying that Paul is Yoda in this metaphor, or parable, or whatever this would be. He is sort of the Yoda of gun stuff. Now I kinda want to see him lift a RAV4 out of a nearby pond.
@@sasqetshenkley1190 Haha, yeah I can see what you mean.
Why do I constantly think Paul played in a 70s police action film or something back in the day.
The meat target is a valuable test medium because it demonstrates the reality that humans are not one giant homogeneous medium and a variety of different muscle tissues, bones, organs, and tendons that can all degrade bullet performance.
True, however some people (John) are built more like gel.
I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, if a brand of JHPs expands equally well through multiple meat targets they're just good
I identify as ballistic gel.
Wet newspaper, rolled up wet carpet and water jugs also have their place. More information is simply better. Equally important are the various and mostly pointless examples of penetration through objects before hitting an analog body. Ideally none of us will ever use these bits of information meaningfully, but someone will.
In science falsification is very important. You must use more then one method to come to a proper sigma conclusion. So gel is 1 sigma, wet newspaper 2 sigma, meat target 3 sigma etc. if the projectile can prove itself 3 or more sigma consistent then it is likely very good. (Scientific standards vary from 3-7 sigma depending on the discipline or methodology). Gel is not flesh, dead somewhat inconsistent flesh is not living flesh, people aren’t made out of water jugs or wet newspaper, it goes on. But several examples help form the entity.
Paul is the only person who can do a one-and-a-half-hour presentation consisting of 90% talking while sitting at a table and keeping my attention throughout. I find value in everything that he says. Well done sir.
i agree
i also agree
I find the majority of what John Corria says as bullshitting.
@@diphMO2 Says the bullshitter
Talking and eating an apple. Don't forget eating the apple.
Every time Paul apologizes for "having to sit through" something, I always wonder who he's apologizing to. I could enjoy an hour long explanation from Paul about apples and oranges
Wilbur Force
Not me.
Right? It's like ASMR except actually useful.
It's almost as if we watch his content in order to gain his vast experience points.
I like anyone that can sit in front of a camera and talk without a script. Look at this guy. Zero screen blanks or silent periods. no out takes. Nothing. Just a boss bossin the rules like a boss. 😎
... I take that back .... anyone who's not a jackass.
And this is why I watch this guy, if there is one thing negative about Mr. Harrell, it is that he doesn't put out enough videos.
Absolutely
he doesnt get paid for them i believe, and he has too much integrity to shill shit products
Quality over quantity. As far as I know, Paul has not made many if any videos that look like he is trying to sell something to somebody. He gives good solid information.
A craftsman cannot be hurried when making his masterpiece.
@@NorthLondonArtillery The people who have done the least are the first to tell you what to do and how to do it.
I always thought the reason for using the meat target and not ballistics gel was obvious - people aren't made of ballistics gel. A meat target is more of a real-world measure of the effects of bullets.
And the chaos of reality. Had cheap Russian ammo knock deer down like a brick and the bullet could been used in advertising after. Had stuff that cost 5 bucks a round fail even with a perfect heart shot. Sometimes things just are perfect sometimes perfectly wrong. It's nice to be able to "judge " with an average expectation of performance.
That's where you're wrong, dumpft ard: I for one have a lot of good friends who have fully transitioned from meat-based flesh to gel-based, many of whom are Black by the way, and that's a good thing, because meat is so ray'sis it's literally destroying the planet in less than 24 hours from right now!!!😵😵💫
@@annyonny1224 You think you're funny and edgy, but you're just sad.
@@opscontaylor8195 The iron law of Woke projection strikes again.
Same
Paul Harrell: Firearms expert. Awesome person. Pop tart enthusiast.
And shasta soda lover. Lol
@@jimmieburleigh9549
Lately I missed the Shasta. It might be based on the location/availability that it was Sam's cola or other sodas. I remember a Shasta employee in the comments giving thanks for securing his job. Maybe the beer times got to the company? I'm not in the US.
@@onpsxmember 👍
firearms expert, awesome person and pop tart enthusiast are like oranges and oranges, they go great together . 🍎
"It's a man's life eating Pop Tarts."
(parody of Monty Python's Flying Circus "It's a man's life...." gag in an episode)
I just watched the John Corea video of him bashing the meat target. All I can say is the irony in watching an overweight guy say, "I don't like shooting groceries" is hysterical.
What channel is that?
@@expertadvice4u
Active Self Protection or ASP
John is a buffet warrior earning the distinguished fork
Funny 🙂😉
Ethan Kline clone.
Great video. Me personally, I'm 10X more interested in seeing bullet performance in your meat targets that simulate real world ammo performance rather than ballistic gel penetration!
As per the "Meat Targets" validity I can only add what I know first hand. I was shot from about 4' away with a .22LR 36gr JHP from a small handgun. The bullet went through my front peck, splintered my rib, punctured and shredded my left lung (causing it's subsequent removal by a surgeon) and then embedded itself in my left shoulder where it remains until this day. That being said IMO the "Meat target" is actually more correct and true than any ballistic gel test.
Glad you’re ok!
Okay. WOW. You’re a literal walking miracle. Respect.
Must be quite a story behind that one! Glad you are (relatively) ok, dude.
Damn. Glad you survived!
Removed your whole lung?
My son was shot by his friend while on a coyote hunt. All the boys carried rifles and a sidearm. This particular night, his friend was carrying my sons 1911 .45 ACP. I won't get into the specifics of the shooting but my son was shot with an FMJ round.
It was a through and through in his left wrist and struck bone in his right upper arm. The FMJ performed just as Paul's meat targets have demonstrated. It made a perfect hole in his wrist but when it hit bone in his right arm, it shattered it. The entry and exit wound on the right arm was almost a perfect hole on both sides.
The surgeon said that my son has his arm today because it was FMJ, had it been a hollow point, my son might have lost his arm.
So, anyone who doubts Paul's findings can go get fckd, my son is living proof of Paul's demonstrations.
Glad your son recovered!
Damn, glad your son was able to keep his arm and recover! Could have been really bad.
That’s tough brother , glad your boy is ok !
So glad to hear your son recovered!
I'm glad your son recovered!
Paul rocks.
And is in a genre of his own. Can’t change my mind.
When other Gun-Tubers suggest watching Paul's videos for more in depth information, you know that Paul is on another level👍👍👍
What do you mean by Genre?
@@davidburnett5049 he’s in a UA-cam group of his own where people really can’t talk negatively about and he’s just a good content maker without political drama or nonsense. It’s appreciable to have these days.
@@davidburnett5049 really dude ?
@@hellbillyBob have you ever encountered someone using genre for that meaning? I have not
In my line of work, I've seen young men intentionally not wear gloves when doing "dirty" work with their hands. At the end of the day, they proudly display the dirt under their fingernails as a badge of honor indicating how much of a man they are. One of the things I like about Paul Harrell videos is he doesn't seem to be afraid to wear gloves. He seems sure of who he is and doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. This is a breath of fresh air in the gun community.
I work with gorillas like that, too. Won't wear a jacket when its below 40°, etc. to look tough. Those of us who put out at work just see them as stupid. Their hands are all jacked up and fingernails down to nubs.
“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis
I once met a Fudd who scoffed at me saying I have soft hands because I haven't worked a day in my life (I was like 17 so obv my hands are softer than some old fart) but I just quickly responded 'no, I just wear gloves' and I could tell that pissed him off. Was pretty funny, though annoying that people like him are abundant.
I don't like wearing gloves, not because I wanna be manly or anything but because you just don't have the same dexterity with gloves.
For me, as a machinist we also arent allowed to wear gloves. Our hands are gonna have steel splinters in them for life
Paul: “I apologize that you have to sit through this.”
Me: *gets popcorn*
This. Every time.
I get excited when I hear that from him
Hilarious! Good post. Have me laughing as eyes tearing while typing this reply!
LOL! Same here, but I got pizza and ice cream.
Wife: Did you see that tik-tok I sent you?
Me: No honey didn’t have time to watch
*plays 1.5 hour Paul Harrell video*
This.
😂 hilarious because it's so true for many of us! 👍
Paul Harrell videos improve our well-being. I can't say the same for Tik Toks.
Sorry but I'm allergic to tiktok
Daily reality
You know what the most important part is for me, the teacher. I've watched every other gun channel on UA-cam, and none of them come close to Paul's ability to connect with me. He's taught me an incredible amount over the years and I've improved greatly under his guidance. I don't care how fast Attention Hungry Gunner can shoot, and I don't care if somebody doesn't like the meat target, I love it!
Your rhetoric doesn't fit your name.
This is cultish and cringey.
@@MadMojo93 my teen daughter and her friends use "Cringy" often.
I always get annoyed with the “ ballistic gel mafia” it’s a great tool when you’re focused on repeatable results in a consistent documentable material. It won’t tell you how a bullet will react when it hits bone or a windshield. That’s why other tests exist. To say they’re invalid and ballistics gelatin is all you can trust is ridiculous
A forensic lab doesn’t just do electrophoresis. They also use gas chromatography, mass spectroscopy, flame ionization etc different tools and processes test different things
The "Ballistic Gel Mafia" are all paid for shills. They are sponsored by clear ballistics products which is why they can't say anything bad about them.
The FBI developed ballistics gel in order to test firearms rounds that they deemed would give adequate penetration, due in large part to what happened during the Miami Shootout when a very well placed WInchester Silvertip, a shot which proved fatal and not survivable, didn't penetrate to a depth that would immediately incapacitate the perpetrator. So, a fatal round wasn't fatal soon enough. The guy the agent shot ended up taking the agent with him, and they both died.
LEO guys have a job to do. Most civilians do not have the same standards to live up to. You do not have to take an assailant into custody. You don't have to save the baby seals. Most of the time, we see ballistics gel tests, and when there's a nice stretch cavity, and adequate penetration, and the bullet expands as it should, we say, well, that's what we want to see.
On the street, always bear in mind that you are as much a meat target as the next guy. What we want to see, sometimes; we are led to believe this cannot happen to us, when it most certainly can. The adage live by the gun, die by it, is all too true. What if we could avoid the fight? What if we didn't walk around thinking how cool it would be if little suze got her head splashed into the canned peaches so we could whip out our carry piece and drop the perp from 40 yards? Just sayin. 🤩
I'm another one of those freaks of nature that isn't a real fan of ballistic gel results posted on UA-cam.
My problem with it is while results from it can be extremely beneficial, however as used from most UA-camrs, it's worse than useless.
First thing is gel must be calibrated for any results to be valid. The problem with results obtained by uncalibrated gel were documented by Dr. Fackler back in the early 80s. You typically fire a standard BB through a chrono at each block and calculate if it's penetrating the correct amount for proper ballistic gelatin. If it's very slightly out of whack, you must include that % amount in your resulting data and if it's too far out of spec, the block must be discarded.
Problem is I've only seen 1 UA-camr ever calibrate their gel and post/list the adjustment. Every single other one I've watched (at least 20) has never shown any type of calibration, nor have I spotted a BB track in their gel.
This means their results are far less trustworthy than they would imply and the fact they don't disclose this means almost all gel UA-camrs are either ignorant or too lazy to have results that are worth the effort. Anyone belittling Paul for his meat target while posting/trusting video of results obtained from uncalibrated gel is...laughable.
Besides that, I'm really sick of the lowest-denominator type of UA-camr that spends more time trying to be what a moron might consider entertaining rather than just presenting knowledge (assuming that have any) and testing. There's Paul, gunblue490 and no one? else that just spends their time dropping that priceless knowledge and not trying to entertain for the sake of it. A few others I can somewhat tolerate for what they are but that's it.
“ What if we didn't walk around thinking how cool it would be if little suze got her head splashed into the canned peaches so we could whip out our carry piece and drop the perp from 40 yards?”
Who the hell goes around thinking that way? That’s horrific! I hope to God I never have to use my gun(s) for the intended purpose again. I have had to pull my pistol and return fire at someone shooting at me and it fucked me up bad for a few weeks. It’s been over a year and I am still not completely “over it”, but I have resumed my regular daily life.
We often see Paul in poor weather conditions, and many of us admire him for doing that. What we may not immediately realize and fully appreciate is that Paul is not alone. He has at least one camera man with him and may have others helping him set things up. They are suffering through the same conditions as Paul, but since they are not in front of the camera, they don't get the recognition they deserve. I would like to thank them for helping Paul produce a number of informative videos I have learned from.
I would also like to touch on a safety thing that some viewers might misunderstand. In this video, when Paul is shooting the soda jugs, it is clear that there is a cameraman off to the side of the line of fire when Paul is standing at the table talking. When Paul walks out of the frame to shoot, the cameraman backs up, and then Paul shoots. Obviously if there were a cameraman standing there holding the camera, they would be in a hazardous area. But if you watch closely and listen carefully, you will realize that is not the case. The cameraman skillfully backs up and puts the camera on a tripod without excessive moving of the camera. If you listen carefully, you can hear the cameraman walk away in the mud, much as you are able to hear Paul walking in the mud. The cameraman has retreated to a safe location off to the right of Paul.
Would be great to be a part of Paul's work
What? You don't value John standing in front of green screen back drop and teaching tactics he's never applied and never will? I think John should stick to teaching little girls like the "Range Monkey". They're easy to impress.
Squelch*squelch*squelch*squelch squelch
That's considered nice weather on Paul's part of the country.
Yes but see they don’t want to here that it’s not there format they want to look smart and as usual look dumb
When Paul puts critics in their place it is pure gold. This dude is more thorough and more precise about his content than any other pew pew channel on the UA-cam. He always brings receipts and covers every base. You can not help but love this dude.
I bet they just "pick on him" because they know it generates views and comments......the backpedaling is probably just to trigger more discussion in the comments..
I have said for several years now that this is the absolute best channel on UA-cam! Paul never disappoints!! :-D
Hey buddy ! 👋
For aviation buffs, Mike Machat's "Celebrating Aviation" is equivalent to Paul's channel in terms of excellence.
@@Jerry-Parker How's it going my man?
@@bertg.6056 I will have to check his channel out! Thanks for sharing :-)
Thanks John for giving us more reasons to watch Paul and his great analogies.
Curiousity question: Who is this John you (and others) are referring to?
@Pedro Paramo he’s married, has kids, and runs a UA-cam channel he is absolutely not a priest. He may be a pastor but not a priest
@@joestutzman4519 his channel is active self protection
For what it's worth, you are the only gun channel I watch besides ForgottenWeapons. I cannot *stand* how unnecessarily tacticool the bigger gun channels are. They are so full of concepts and language that I totally don't understand and don't care about that I can't watch even a few minutes of them. On the other hand, you have taught me an enormous amount about the basics and fundamentals of firearms training, and although I wouldn't even consider myself a novice, I feel that I know where to start if I want to become one. Please, never change.
#metoo
Have you considered cnrsenal, bloke on the range, or inrangetv? All associates of forgottenweapons with phenomenal content and similar vibes.
@@wesleygay8918 Karl from Inrangetv is a BLM supporter and possibly Antifa but he has done a good job at avoiding confirmation on the later.
Yeah nah
Forgotten weapons is the finest channel out there,even for an anti guns person as me
Really enjoy watching it
There is nothing tedious about setting the record straight. I personally thank you and all the people that keep this channel running. All of you show the professionalism, dedication, and ambition that most could only dream about. A US Army Drill Instructor (now many years ago) once told my training platoon, "It is not the first shot that wins a battle. It is the first ACCURATE shot." That echoed my WWII Pacific War veteran Grandfather in tone and wording and practice.
Dieu ne pas pour les grand battalions, mais pour sequi teront le meillur.
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but of the best shots"
I think a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of the meat target, and by extension they misunderstand the purpose of ballistic gel...
Ballistic gel is a uniform medium so it removes variables that may cause inconsistencies in outcomes. For instance, if I wanted to test the same ammo out of different barrel lengths (shooting M193 out of a 10.5" barrel and a 20" barrel) then ballistic gel would be a good idea. It removes any other variables that might cause different outcomes and distills my results down to only those differences that can be caused by the barrel lengths alone.
But if I wanted to know what M193 can do to a human body (or body of an animal depending on what you're testing) I wouldn't use ballistic gel because a human body is more than just a uniform gelatinous blob. We have different squishy bits, each with their own consistencies. We also have bones and might be wearing clothes or gear that can change the results of the bullet impact. The meat target is the best way to do this because pig parts are eerily similar to humans. Like freaky similar, actually.
And no, putting some bags of fake blood and a plastic skeleton in a ballistic gel dummy doesn't have the same effect. Not only is that more expensive, but it's never the same consistency. The fake body parts don't offer the same resistance to the bullet that the real meat and bone would. That's often why you see so much worse carnage from the dummies corpses than you do from real ones. Seriously, check it out.
You nailed it.
This is what I would love to say if I was as articulate as you. Can I copy and paste this for future reference/debate?
@@af7119 Be my guest
@@PaulHarrell hey Paul 30 super thoughts maybe a vid incoming in near future dying to hear your take
the question is what you want to know. if you want exact numbers, ballistic gel is your best bet. if you want to know what happens when you shoot something inconsistent and non repeatable like reality the meat target is a viable analog.
We need to protect this man at all cost. I've never seen such a concise explanation on why memes cause decisions to be made not based in reality. People play "sports teams" with everything.
Oh, ain't that the truth.
He does a fine job of protecting himself.
Concise?!
Lol... truth. It is a lot of good things, but "concise" ain't one of them.
Yeah I don't think he needs your regurgitated statements of absolutely useless help. If you want to help him donate money, not empty statements that are trendy.
Less than 1% of all soldiers in the history of the army have earned the distiguished rifleman badge. That is a serious accomplishment.
I've heard stories of recent years where they basically just give it to people
@@ch3cksund3ad oh interesting, I'm just going off the Army website where it said that only 3200 people have the badge but that might not be updated.
Sounds almost like they're, y'know, distinguished riflemen.
@CH3CKS UND3AD Kinda like the Eagle rank in boyscouts. Once girls started joining they passed out that award like candy.
@@thystaff742 it seems like a bunch of girls were "handed" it all at once because it kind of was. To prevent a race for girls claiming to be the first female eagle scout, the first 1000 girls who earned eagle in the three years after they could join were all awarded the rank on the same day.
You know it's going to be good when Paul drops a feature length video
I may have giggled with glee when I saw the length of the video. Just a little. I'll show myself out.
Never in my life have I seen someone take the act of eating an apple and use it in such "shit eating grin" kind of way. Your ability to take something innocent, and use it to make your point is simply amazing. I'm glad you address situations like this how do you. Spending an entire day wasting your time to make sure that bad information isn't spread is one of the things that makes you so valuable to community as a whole, not even limited to the firearms community.
I watch John from time to time and in my opinion he sounds like a guy who will always have the right answer no matter what the situation is. I've always been weary of the "Smartest Guy in the room" personas, especially when the subject of the their knowledge would be up to interpretation by anyone else. I've heard him contradict himself based on the demographics of the content. I retired from the Army after 20 years of service, so I know very well the type of "one uppers" that you spoke of. Keep up the good work Paul, even now I learn a lot watching your channel.
Spoken like a true professional !
Your meat target is completely relevant in demonstration of a human target- shirt, muscles, ribs, lung tissue, fluid filled organs, muscles and ribs in the back, followed by a layer of shirt. The approximate depth of your meat targets are relatively similar to the human thoracic cavity.
[Over penetration.. exit wound.]
I am a retired paramedic from a homicide rich city. I can confidently say, I never had a shooting victim that EVER had the slightest resemblance to a block of ballistic gel.
More like an exploded soda jug.. shotgun in the mouth suicide. Messy !
Those who would disagree with me have never seen a human being before much less one who was suffering from bullet wounds. I too am what you would call a professional.
I enjoyed your video Paul !
Especially since it shows what damage that can be done, when hit.
Thank you for what you do for the public now matter what the patient looks like
@@berniestraight126 thanks for your support
Paul calls it a 'very tedious explanation'.
Personally, I call that a perfect execution of countering stupidity.
People like to say 'dont engage stupidity or trolls'. Problem is, when stupidity, or worse, outright lies and misinformation are allowed to go unchallenged, they grow across nations before the truth has its shoes on.
Well done sir!
He's one of the few people, that I'll watch, no matter how long the video is.
I have to imagine that many guntubers who object strongly to the meat target are, in truth, just defensive about simply not wanting to do something similar. Paul puts a lot of work into these, and as demonstrated, spends a lot of time digging through, and cleaning up, really messy piles of raw meat and citrus. (I imagine this gets really unpleasant during hot and humid weather.)
For the record, I also appreciate the work and thought that goes into these eminently practical experiments. Thank you, Paul!
Ballistic gel is expensive and a pain in the butt to recast.
Love your channel
Tao has a great channel aswell.
@@michealtrevor thank you!
Laughing my ass off at Paul's fake pop tarts advert.
Absolutely hilarious.
Fake?
Im sorry, did you say fake?
Imma apologize too. Was the pop tart ad real?
It seems to be photo shopped from an old Camel magazine ad.
While watching the ballistics gel vs "meat target" segment, I wondered why Paul didn't mention the fact that ballistics gel doesn't contain bones and organs of varying densities like the meat target does. The gel only demonstrates the basic function of bullets while the meat target more accurately demonstrates what happens within "the intended target."
I find Paul's presentations to be humorous, informative and entertaining. I look forward to each new edition with anticipation.
It is a sad age we live in when someone might find it necessary to explain that gelatin does not contain things like bones and organs.
I agree with your take, and to those who say the specific density of the gelatin takes bones into account I say this: Notice how Paul’s bullet hit the bone and flew off into the wild blue yonder? That. The unpredictability and inconsistency is what makes the meat target so valueable. It’s also a more understandable visual for us watching at home.
@@Deltaworks23 It's a sad age when people don't understand ballistics testing and criticize gel for not doing what they think it should do.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD the fact they do different things is a defense of the meat target, assault doesn't attack people for doing gel.
It just so happens it makes their tests redundant though. 5 shots into a meat target show variety of effect in an organically uneven medium like a real body. Hit a bone? Miss a bone? How's that effect hollow point performance? Small holes but explodes oranges? It shows that some designs are brutal on organs but not on muscle. Some stop on the back shirt, some on the leather jacket skin, some on the rear ribs rack.
That set if disparate effects tells us a lot more than just "it went 12" in gel".
The fact is, you learn more from different types of tests than only 1. And Pauo doesn't crap on gel. But his critics do crap on the meat target.
@@ravissary79 It shows a variety of effects after introducing variables. This means controlling for variables, and that would be a huge waste of groceries.
How do you determine that exploding oranges is equivalent to being "brutal" on organs? How is this a property of the bullet rather than of the tissue itself? It makes perfect sense that a pork chop pectoral, which has a slab of layered muscle fibers, resists tearing and impact from a projectile punches in a neat hole, while loosely connected sacks of fluid contained by a peel will show damage from the liquid being compressed (like plastic from a jug being obliterated by a small bullet simply from the pressure of the water against the walls).
The 12 inches in gel is a minimum standard imposed by the necessity for a bullet to make it through oblique shots or possibly an extremity before hitting the torso. The need to make it through skin, muscle and bone before hitting vitals is already accounted for.
Yes, we learn from different types of testing. Test on the meat target, you know how well it works against the meat target. For example as I explained above there's a serious issue with extrapolating data from orange lung tissue due to the way it behaves differently from meat. If I'm learning something, at least be something that can be applicable. I know of an applicable lesson learned from gel. Bullets that were made for "hydrostatic shock", "energy dump", etc. on gel failed in street use - to the point that 9mm was almost discredited as a defensive round. And the twelve inch standard was introduced to deal with that. If you're going to tell me that I'm "learning" from a different test then please make it clear what exactly I'm learning. Because judging performance from the oranges gives me the vibe that I'd be falling into the same trap as people did decades ago.
My problem isn't Paul, it's the audience.
Paul spent an hour and a half proving why I love his channel
Excellent video Paul. I've been involved in firearms training and research for a living for a bit over 40 years, and one of the main reasons I don't make firearms videos is that you do such a great job, that I seriously doubt that anything I could say or present would add anything significant to the discussion, and certainly nothing different. Each time I think I have come up with a great idea for something that would make a great video, I check your channel and see that you've already done it! Having done enough video work in professional settings to know how much work it is, I truly appreciate what you do, and multiple times a week I send students to your channel.
Having been at this game a while, I'll make a few observations. First, there is an entire generation of UA-camrs that I refer to as "Vidiots". Many of them got their first gun well after they got their computer games and their video cameras. Many were not even alive prior to the advent of the FBI ammunition standards, and to them, ballistics gel tests are the be-all and end-all when choosing ammunition. To them, the 9mm is the only caliber worthy of consideration, and the polymer-framed striker fired auto pistol is the only handgun they've ever known. To them, everyone knows that any gun with a double action trigger, or heaven forbid, a safety lever, is impossible to learn to use, and will get you killed if you try. With all this wealth of experience most of them claim to have, most have never even heard a shot fired in anger.
You, Paul, are not a Vidiot. You have a wealth of solid experience earned over time, and you use it to illustrate useful concepts and debunk myths related to guns and shooting, in a way that normal people can understand and relate to. I'm amazed that you even bother to respond to critics, who as far as I can tell, are not yet ready to even post targets on the range for you. You are not just entertaining, but also an excellent role model for what the shooting community should strive to be, and how we should behave ourselves. Don't change a thing.
As someone who has actually spent some time in a real live ballistics laboratory and participated in actual FBI standard gel tests, I can say that not one in ten UA-camrs are doing their so-called "testing" correctly anyway. Most are not using real organic ballistic gel, and very few are testing under properly controlled conditions. Even fewer understand the significance, or lack thereof, of the results. They are the subject of a great deal of humor at their expense among the pros who do this sort of thing for a living. I find your "meat target" to be entertaining and informative, because it shows the unpredictability of what happens when "the bullet hits the bone" to quote an old song. These demonstrations also show that often, there is not much real difference between the most highly sought-after high tech bullet de jour and what can be bought at the local Walmart. Sometimes there is, and when we see such results, that too is valuable.
Finally, with regard to what I call the "Bang N' Clang Gang", I get so tired of watching someone unload a high capacity pistol onto an overly large piece of steel at close range as fast as humanly possible, consulting their electronic timer, and then rhapsodizing over doing it one-tenth of a second faster than with some other gun. They then suggest that this matters one bit in a defensive encounter. If you did such a thing in an actual shooting, you should be prepared to spend years of your life showering with other men, because a jury certainly isn't going to understand why you needed to shoot that much. We are preparing ourselves to manage an armed robbery attempt in a dimly lit parking lot with one or two thugs, not going to war. I'm also always a bit suspicious of gun "reviewers" who don't want to show their results on a paper target. Hearing steel ring is entertaining, but tells me very little about a firearm's accuracy potential.
I'll just end this very long comment with what I hope you will take as a compliment. I am in regular contact with people who have been in the business of carrying, using, and training with firearms for decades, and for a living. Almost without exception, if we watch UA-cam gun videos at all, we watch yours. Best wishes.
I spend very little time responding to critics. In this case, some of what was said has great potential for damage.
Your point about bullet de jour and local wal mart ammo is well taken and that is often what I am trying to illustrate.
I have seen someone claim that AK's are just as accurate as AR's and then prove his point by shooting an eight inch clanger at 20M and hit it every time with both rifles. This type of demo is what I call the "sleight of hand" so many people use. I have no sponsors, and no interest in the outcome.
My real goal is to put out useful entry level information in a manner that is interesting enough to keep the audiences attention.
Your comment, coming from someone in your position, means a lot, thank you.
Walmart no longer sells pistol ammunition. You must not get out much. I avoid the place for many reasons so no judgement.
@@brianhillis3701 Other supermarkets still do
So I get the point regardless
But we can order online now
Low grade ammo is easier than ever to get...
Is what I would say if we lived in 2019 and prices and stock weren't still asinine right now
What an incredible and well earned compliment. I've never "fired a firearm" in a video game.
I do have 8mm, not Super 8mm, film showing by Dad teaching me to shoot a .22LR Marlin in the New Mexico desert ~ 1963.
Different generations, technology and attitudes. At least we are all (hopefully) still human. ~10% are psychopaths. Even they are needed for certain things.
I do not think humans are very far from building mobile hybrid or synthetic machines that will have 10 single hole #10 hits in
Spot on Tom... :-)
I think the meat target is a great representation of our intended targets. I hunt hogs, I've never shot 2 hogs that were exactly the same. And most criminals are again not exactly the same. And I really do prefer the lack of gadgets in your videos. Thank you for what you do and the information you bring.
Im pretty sure militaries used to test weapons on pig cadavers before jello was invented.
Exactly. You are going to get slightly different results if you shoot me, a 275 lb man who has done hard physical labor in my life than if you shoot a teenage girl who is 5'6" and weighs 105lbs soaking wet. I have more fat and muscle and my bones will be denser.
@@lililililililili8667 At one time the US Army used pine boards. ua-cam.com/video/OUM1r_444CY/v-deo.html
@@lililililililili8667 french Army used live pigs and human corpses initially used for medical school
If we cannot learn anything from the meat target because it’s inconsistent, then we cannot learn anything from studying wounds on humans or animals as they are never alike.
Paul Harrell's videos are so entertaining to watch. He really knows his stuff.
He knows a lot of stuff - I didn't even know there was a new schnazberry phone out!
Plus he has snow frogs in the background
I was very glad to see the difference between how the 22Mag performed vs the 5.7 fired from a 16" carbine barrel. I would not have guessed the results and it would not have been discoverable using balistic gel.
So yes, it adds insight and information.
Paul, I love "Story Time with Paul". Your meat target is really good. That's what got me interested in your videos. It's a more real medium of which to compare the effects of different bullet performance. Ballistic gelatin is also good as it demonstrates what happens to a bullet as it passes trough a transparent material, especially when recorded with high speed camera equipment (thank you Scott at Kentucky Ballistics). There's one more thing I would like to add to training. Fun. Shooting is fun. Let the training of new people be fun, make it fun. Don't wear out a new shooter with too much in one dose. Some of us can shoot all day which wears out others quickly.
Thanks Paul.
I love how You react to critics and haters in such a calm , rational manner. I learn so much from your approach. Thank you Paul Harrell !
I love these videos, but I truly hate that Paul has to deal with this stuff. It’s complete nonsense.
@@jamespruitt6718 while it is, he wouldn't be doing thisnif he didn't want to. He's a thinker and a teacher. He's perfectly at home in all this.
@@brahtrumpwonbigly7309 very true. He obviously does it easy enough too. In Paul’s case, he has so many actual facts and does his homework, there’s very little if any you can refute.
Apparently I upset Hungry Handgunner by posting this video link to his video. Somehow I “slipped through his block list”. Apparently several people disagreed with his opinion.
@@jamespruitt6718 I looked at his channel briefly after Paul mentioned him....I suspect he'll suffer the same effects as the last guy Paul demolished. And he'll have deserved every iota of it.
Paul, I love it when you feed the trolls. We actually love sitting through you addressing the never ending troll attacks you attract so easily.
Paul your going to need the 13 round pistol when the zombies come..don't you know that!
@Paul Martin Porky John has grown increasingly narcissistic over the last few years. Agreed, the video clips are entertaining but after his first couple of years , he began to grow more and more full of himself.
@@Julian-bq9qv Yeah, I ended up taking a poke at one of his videos. I'm not even an expert on anything.
Paul doughts John trolled him. And yes John is over the top self promoting.
As Paul mentioned, ASP has a lot more subscribers. Seems odd for him to chase clout, by attacking a smaller channel. That said, I would love for a bigger channel to take a swipe at me. I might get monetized. 😛
@@michaelblacktree If I was any good at expressing coherent thoughts, I'd love to grow my channel and get monetized too!
When I found this channel, I completely changed the way I look at EDC. And I absolutely mean that as a compliment. I was doing a lot of stupid things based on nonsense I have encountered over the years. The wealth of knowledge I've gained has made smarter and safer. Thank you Paul.
I would have to ask skeptics of the meat target these questions: if a round does poorly in the meat target test, would you expect it to do significantly better in a real life self defense situation? If it does well in the meat target test, would you expect it to do significantly worse in a real life self defense situation?
As for shot timers, they are great tools. That's literally it. Nothing more to say.
Of course, if you train with a shot timer in a home defense situation you have to press the button before shooting.
I'll answer your question about the meat target. How a round does in the meat target is irrelevant to what it will do in a real life self defense shooting. I will also say that about any other youtube ballistic tester no matter what method they use. I'll give you my experience. I have been in LE for over a decade and a ballistic nerd. I have studied and read everything I can find on the subject. I have access to all the FBI data and have had numerous conversations the Agent Boone of the FBI BRF and Dr. Gary Roberts. As I have been told, it is extremely difficult to do a proper ballistic test and very easy to do it wrong. What I can say is that the FBI tests have been around for 30 years and due to the FBI having access the information people like Paul don't, they can analyze data from actual shootings. There are 30 years and thousands of shootings that confirm that rounds that do well in the FBI test, perform well in real life shootings. There is no data the supports how a bullet that does good or bad in the meat target does well in real life shootings.
Example, several months ago Paul tested the Hornaday TAP 55 gr bullet in the meat target. It performed very well in the test. Now that same bullet performed terribly in the FBI test because it severely underpenetrates. I was personally involved a shooting using that same bullet. I shot a man who weighed all of 140 pounds. He was in the process of raising his gun to fire at another officer. His arm got in the way and my bullet hit his arm just above the elbow. It basically severed his arm but did not go through arm. It performed just as the FBI test data predicted it would. We soon changed ammunition. So while I enjoy Paul's videos, I use the information from meat targets just as I do the ballistic gel tests from other youtubers. It for entertainment, not real world ballistic data.
@@newerest1 yes the example I just referenced in my post
@@jamesellis5027 Who gives a flying f*** about what the Democrat party's gestapo aka FBI have to say about anything.
@@jamesellis5027 There would have been a debate if Paul didn't acknowledge the use of a ballistic gel, he just says he prefers the meat target better for a more visual appeal. He didn't even dismiss it and it's all dowm to preference why he jist wants to use a meat target. This whole meat target vs ballstics gel is a complete nothing burger in the end. This is like debating if you prefer briefs vs boxers and it's laughable that people have too much time to argue about personal preference whem both does the job or the other doew better but still prefers the other.
I love Paul’s rebuttal videos even more than his firearm videos. It’s great to see someone bring logic and professionalism injected with dry humor into an internet disagreement. Most of the time all of those qualities are in short supply on today’s internet.
I enjoy the casual birds he throws in them. Wish I would have seen one or two in this video. 😂
Another great video. I will never hear ”apples and oranges” the same way again. It always amazes me that Paul catches flak like this from trolls, when he is far more careful with his explanations, qualifications, and demonstrations than other content providers I see on UA-cam. I have great respect for this, as it is much more difficult to try to predict and counter all possible criticisms when presenting an argument than to just make unsupported opinion statements like many of his critics. I am grateful that he chooses to share his knowledge, experience, and insight, and this is admirable work. On the other hand, I am troubled that he has to spend so much time and effort countering critics who may be threatened by his careful, detailed reasoning and integrity. If he’s making the rebuttals for them, I don’t know that they are worth the trouble, but I appreciate the lesson nevertheless. Thank you.
P.S. “Well I’ve never seen him do it” reminded me of something Carl Sagan wrote, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
I have never understood the 'Apples vs Oranges', as I would do the same thing and most people would get annoyed but for some, it would click also.
Any time Paul wants to sit and talk, I’m all ears. Paul and his crew are credits to the society in which we live.
As always thank you Paul and crew.
I have been a competitor-shooter for over 65 years. Travelled the world with a shooting team. I have also worked as a consultant to firearm and ammo companies, including a stint in a ballistics lab and the technical director of a small ammo company making specialty ammo for police and military contracts.
I regularly watch many of the shooting channels. Paul, you are the best.
I usually think I know the results of your proposed test before you do it. I remember thinking that the concern about a pass through was groundless. Then you put 380 FMJs through 2 meat targets. Very educational.
In all the hours and hours of your presentations I have only heard one thing that I would disagree with.
You are an excellent presenter and teacher who often makes presentations on subjects I find most interesting. I enjoy them because the test methods are valid.
You are 100% correct on the observation that we don't need another ballistic gel test. If a bullet blows up on contact with a bone, your test will reveal the flaw - jello would not.
.
Paul, I LOVE that you're calling out paid salesmen in the gun world.
I also love the content of your videos, ESPECIALLY when I disagree with your opinions. Thank you for everything that you do. You deserve every ounce of success you achieve and more.
Paul, I can’t express enough how much I admire your collective knowledge, your skill and your integrity.
I only recently discovered these videos. As a physicist and scientist who has published results of multiple experiments, when I watch these demonstrations, I greatly appreciate the disclaimers, attempt at controls, and transparency with calling out factors that may adversely impact a given test. The .44 vs .357 magnum videos come to mind especially.
I did a similar project to these videos as an independent research project as a capstone in undergrad....evaluating the effectiveness of then relatively new Tungsten and Bismuth shot shells in comparison to steel and lead.
By the way, no 2 people, clothing, deer, etc. are going to be 100 percent exact. Are the differences going to substantially effect the outcome, or be indicative of general performance? No, not at all.
The testing of some older cartridges reinfces most everything my father said, through his years of observation....though dad became out of date on anything since the late 90s.
I have been playing on the internet long before most people knew it existed. I have observed that more lies and falsehoods than truth have always been presented. The trick is to determine the difference. Paul, you do a very good job. Keep it up, and thank-you for the effort.
3 minutes in and Paul is having guns talk to each other. This is gonna be a good video.
Update: He's analytically comparing the similarities and differences between an apple and an orange
Is that a high capacity orange ?
Paul is an absolute legend.
Shot timers: "I have never seen a timer brought to a gunfight!" Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. Shot timers among other things, induce stress. Clint, with his gravely voice and Marine DI demeanor has his own way of inducing stress
Paul seems like a calm nice guy...let John go after Clint the same way, he will get a different kind of rebuttal.
I get your desire to set records straight , address issues , and clarify things . However , you really don't have to explain yourself or justify anything to anyone . Those that know , know ... your a legend , even all the way over here in the uk . Keep up the good work 👍
Paul answers the trolls so that their misinformation doesn’t hang out there and then become believed as fact because it was not answered and corrected.
Most of us know that Paul would never intend to mislead anyone ever, but it seems there is always a few who feel the need to be a troll. Shame on them.
I love it when a troll gets pointed out and people figure out who they really are !!!!!
When Paul says he's sorry I have to sit through something he has to say, I pull up a comfortable chair, select the appropriate beverage with back ups just in case and shut the rest of the world out (wife and dogs) and turn up the volume-this is going to be important. Thank you Paul for this video and know that there are those of us, who having never met you, know your integrity, knowledge and character are always on display in your videos and are not in doubt. Take care, stay well.
As always, Paul is the definitive example of respectful, valid, reasonable, and accurate, both in point and shot placement.
After watching both channels, over a long period of time, I've found that Paul is an excellent instructor and I've learned quite a bit from him. He is very informative and practical. John is a Monday Morning Quarterback. Every video of his is the same, he shows the incident and then picks it apart regardless of the outcome because he can always do it better. What I've learned from ASP is you should always have your weapon at low ready and constantly have your head on a swivel ready to shoot at a second's notice. I'll stick with Paul.
lol. Your description of how ASP would have us thinking was hilarious.
@Paul Harrell•• You aren’t Paul. You are a scammer trying to take advantage of Paul’s success.
I gotta say that I disagree. Yes he absolutely Monday morning quarterbacks people. But I don’t think for one moment that it’s because he can do it better. It’s because he wants other people to see those mistakes and learn from them. The worst way to learn about a defensive gunfight is to be in one. We would much prefer to learn in advance and do better on that day. That’s why I love both Paul and Johns channels. Paul teaches me things about my firearm and ammunition that have real world value. And John teaches me things about awareness and training that have real world value. I like to have both in my life.
@@robertdean7778 I agree that John's content is useful and worth the watch but John does have an off putting habit of doing Billy Mays style sales pitches, often claiming that that day's sponsor is selling the only whatever John will ever use and it is in fact the greatest. Paul doesn't do that and guys like Ian and Karl don't either so apparently you don't have to have a successful show.
John C is too worried about the PC mob canceling him so he spends time grooming the comments for no-no words and virtue signaling.
No one willing to learn would be disappointed after such a mature and thoughtful reaction. Thank you so much for your time and efforts.
I have watched hours upon hours of firearm related videos. All I can say is when I needed firearm advice in a real life threatening situation I turned to Paul. Nothing beats having real life experiences to draw from and a teacher who understands the common everyday man or in this case woman may not have massive amounts of money to spend buying the "latest and greatest" equipment.
“Never stop learning”, I wrote this as a comment to an ASP video, and was told I’m already a victim.. because now I’m paranoid..... because I have become more observant.
Paul’s videos give me ballistic knowledge in a way I understand, and enjoy watching. To me the “ meat target” is realistic to what may actually happen. ASP gives me actual situation awareness, that has helped me identify my vulnerable times, and make adjustments to where, when and how I do things.
I enjoy shooting, believe in 2A, and have a very strong need to understand things, and become knowledgeable and proficient in all things I enjoy doing.
“ Never Stop Learning”..... use common sense, Keep your mind open to different views, and gain more knowledge and understanding from those with more experiences. I just try to be at my best in all things me.
Paul, I love your videos, the info you share, the way you do it. You give me info I need to be best I can be,.
Thank you
49:00 is exactly right. I often ask my organic gel testers to test the same ammo I test in Clear Gel, then we both be like well lets see what Paul got when he tested that. It's fun and educational to see how they all stack up, and if they are consistent results it's hard to say that's bad ammo. As where the few guys that use plain gel, no denim and that's it, nope not gonna trust that test.
Gun Sam- Wait!! You mean you never heard about those people who were savagely attacked by naked gel blocks??? Oh, never mind, I think I heard about that back when I used to drink....
I'm hoping Paul will find the time to test the BB 19H on the meat target in comparison with Remington HTP and give his impression on the recoil difference. The 19H is expensive stuff, even by BB standards. I haven't yet done a cylinder with it even though I now have a few boxes. Mind you, I've had the 20A for a few years now without shooting any of it! LOL.
I routinely advise friends, family members and other acquaintances to watch your videos. I rarely provide unsolicited advice. You are the rare exception. I truly enjoy all of your presentations.
Paul Harrell for life lol. They always hating on Paul but Paul always knows what to say. Between Paul and the other dudes, I’d rock with Paul everytime. Keep it up 👍. Ain’t gonna stop me from watching
I'm pretty biased since PH says that his information is just that ... information to see and absorb ..
When someone tells me what to think vs to think for myself ...
I'm going to go with the person who tell me to think for myself every time. That's what PH does ...
As for your expertise in subjects of self defense, Paul, we recently expanded our home defense arsenal by the addition of a 12 gauge shotgun, and following your advice we went looking to purchase birdshot as our defensive round of choice. The gentleman at the gun store we visited was a local police officer, and he asked me what kind of ammo I was looking for. "Birdshot," I replied. "WHO TOLD YOU THAT?" he demanded, which kind of surprised and frightened me for a moment because I wasn't prepared for a debate. I said, "Paul Harrell on UA-cam." The gentleman is very serious looking when he says, "Well, he is... ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!" He was a rather enthusiastic gentleman it turned out and a pleasure to talk to, and he made all the same points about the utility of birdshot as a home defense load.
John is a perfect example of Paul's "Fake Expert" video. John ALWAYS has an answer to something even when he pulls it out of thin air and can't explain why. I have caught him several times doing this. He has even banned me from commenting on both of his channels.
Yeah, Doughboy has a lot of schoolin but apparently no real experience.
Whenever im teaching people im super careful to avoid overgeneralizations because if that video, its really easy to forget and just say something that's flat out wrong
Getting banned from commenting on *>Certain Channels
John corriea?
That proves you did something right. Well done.
Paul is so very intelligent, and just seems to be awesome. Very great role model. I love his videos and explanations.
One of the best lines I've heard about shot timers comes from James Yeager: "If you have to ask if you need a shot timer, you're not ready for one". Master the fundamentals before you concern yourself with speed. Don't just learn the fundamentals. Master them. Mastering the fundamentals will, in itself, produce an increase in speed over simply learning those fundamentals.
That’s a great quote, agree 💯
Huh?! Wadya jus say? 😂
I was taught - One Shot, One Kill. Who cares how fast you can shoot if you can't hit your target. Some police officers in the past have gotten themselves in trouble for being too quick on the draw before identifying their target.. Shot timers are great for competition.
"I have never seen a shot timer in a gun fight!" Clint Smith
If you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast.
Rener Gracie.
Never shot ballistics gel and have never seen anyone do it in person. Have been around hunting camps where firearms and archery have been used to take game of all sizes. This experience makes the "meat target" more relatable to me and I suspect it does to many of your other viewers.
The only benefit I personally see of ballistic gel is that the channel of the projectile is clearly and easily visible.
@@thebored14 It's also very consistent
If you need 100% no possible flukes (despite the feds probably fudging numbers when they use it anyway) and something easy to measure penetration in
It's great
The meat target having some small potential inconsistencies actually is very nice because in practical situations it isn't perfectly consistent
Both have a place
@@newerest1 The internal voids as well as the different densities of flesh, hide and bone have produced some interesting results for us over the years. Especially when we started doing most of our hunting with with bows. My buddy shot a bull elk with a 70 pound bow and the arrow literally bounced back at us. The bull just stopped and looked and my buddy's second shot was a clean through with a double lung shot, When we dressed him out the first shot had dead centered the the scapula ridge and the second shot had hit a few inches back and gone between ribs on both sides with only minor blade cuts on the ribs. Enough randomness to make Paul's Meat Target very relatable from my point of view.
@@1stCallipostle :) maybe we should get Paul to put the meat target in front of some gel then followed the gel up with the new and improved high tech fleece bullet stop! enjoyed your comment!
@@thebored14 I am sure that we both find gel shooting interesting and the visibility is great as you said. Gives a great visual of what a bullet does in gel. I do find shooting "things" more interesting though. We were cleaning out wild hogs from some property when I was a kid and shot lots of hogs with lots of things. Shotguns, pistols and rifles from .22 to 300 mag. bird shot to slugs. Learned a lot of the things Paul shows on his channel through experience. Buck shot and slugs have a lot of penetration. hollow points transfer energy more than FMJ. .22 can do a serious amount of damage and is somewhat under rated in a lot of peoples mind. enjoyed your comment. Be Safe!
Paul’s anecdote about the unfortunate lady in the grocery store queue had me chuckling - and yet it’s so valid.
Dear Paul Harrell: First, let me say thanks for your excellent videos. I’m an old man, 71+, these past few years I’ve been experiencing wrist pain from the recoil of my 9MM. this week it has become intolerable. I’ve decided to drop down to my 22 Magnum revolver with a 3.5-inch barrel, for my everyday concealed carry gun. Due to the ongoing ammo shortages, I have mainly been able to purchase Hornady V-Max 30 grain polymer-tip and CCI Maxi-Mag 40 grain jacked hollow-point. What I want from my ammo is enough penetration to blast through the bad guy’s frontal area of ribs and totally expend the bullet’s energy without exiting the bad guy’s torso/not jeopardizing family members or other innocent bystanders. With my limited knowledge I am guessing the V-Max is what I want. Could you do a ribs and fruit test with those two rounds, or at least give me your expert opinion?
Thanks, Dennis Byrne
My suggestion to you, would be to get you some federal punch brand 22wmr... Neither of those rounds are adequate, in my opinion, for self defense. Especially the vmax. The key is penetration. And the vmax especially , dont have it . Its designed for small game.. the hp is a tougher bullet. So if nothing else pick it.. but the vmax , just dont have the penetration. Will it work.. probably. But theres better choices..
The only way he'll do ammo tests is usually if a viewer sends him some ammo, so if you're up for spending the cash for the ammo and shipping im sure you'll get what you're looking for. His email is in the about section of his youtube channel
Paul has closing on a million subscribers and I’ll bet every one of us watches the entirety of each presentation he makes.. rain, snow, sleet or hail (maybe). Paul keeps us watching, because he’s more consistent than ballistic gelatin.
The meat target is why I subscribed years ago. It's nice seeing the wound channel and expansion profile in ballistics gel, but it always lacked the real-world performance data I was looking for. The meat target with its "skin" and clothing fits the bill. As long as meat targets are shot on this channel, I'll be happily tuning in to learn what I can learn.
If nothing else I love seeing the meat target cuz it’s different. Gel is cool but watching another medium get shot is always cool.
Thank you for your service Mr Harrell
Both in the US military and for your great UA-cam contributions
If it wasnt for Paul's meat targets, I dont know that I would have ever been able to successfully create a load for my .223 ar15 for rabbit hunts.
A few years ago I was able to develope a good 25 to 100 yard rabbit round for my .223 using a 35 grain hornady pill and a lesser charge resulting in a lesser velocity on the chrono. Only con is that I have to manually charge the handle each round.
I wanted to do this because I wanted to not only hunt rabbit on the fly,but be able to switch out mags quickly enough with my 55 grainers for when I saw opportunity for coyote as well. I have a .22 conversion kit,but it takes an unecessary amount of time to switch on the fly,not to mention it's one more thing you have to ruck in the desert for a few miles. And the .22 long rifle shot placement is also much different compared to the typical .223 round,where as my custom rounds hit on spot at range,which is nice because I dont have to readjust sights to shoot straight.
I got the idea from Paul's meat targets to use a raw whole chickens and stuffed them with gummy bears. I tested at 25 yards. 50 yards, and 100. The harvest of my jack rabbits mimic that of the chicken targets . No over penetration and "drt" at those ranges with no considerable excessive damage to harvest.
Thank you paul for posting videos that gave me the idea to think out of the box and test a medium that I believe worked better for my situation than ballistics gel could have.
based and questionable name pilled
This is amazing! Anecdotal though it may be, this shows that there IS merit in homemade penetration test targets.
I’m just wondering what kind of gummies you used and how they tasted
I have been considering making such a load. Wondering if it would be possible. Would you have specs on what propellant and how much you used?
@@PracticalReformation
Hey,
Sorry for late response. But here is what I have. You can definitely alter as you see fit for your purposes. This load was for my ar15 with an 16 barrel, 1 in 9 twist with a chamber speced for 5.56.
I was aiming for 25 yards to 100 for this load.
Nosler 35gn .120 bc varmagedon
26.8 gen Hodgdon blc-2
7 1/2 remington benchrest
Case 1.745
C.o.a.l. was 2.080
Velocity was 2735 from chrony with 75 degrees, at 1940 elevation on no cloud day.
The second one faster,but saw similar results
Hornady 35gn vmax b.c.109
26.8 gn blc-2
Cci 440 primer
Same case length,same c.o.a.l.
Altitude was 1530
barometric was 30.17 at 68 farenheit
velocity 2926. Cycled bolt.
I gained in velocity at 3005fps with this load at 1940 elevation at 75 degrees
I have load data in books for using handgun powder,but have not used that yet.
Hope this helps.
I remember beginning watching this channel when there was only a few thousand subscribers…like 3000. I love the straightforward nature, the attitude of not being a cocky know it all even though he knows A TON!!!, and the self deprication comedy value. I don’t know Paul, but I respect Paul. I’m glad he’s a brother Marine. With some UA-cam channels I’m entertained with some I learn, with Paul I get both.
Here Here!!
It's not "self deprivation"; it's "self deprecation"--unless deprivation is what you really mean.
Please Lord NEVER let me get on Paul's bad side. This was the best rebuttal and dismantling of someone ever! And also as always very entertaining. Paul you sir are the goat.
I would feel honored to receive a rebuttal from Paul. You can trust it'll be honest and well thought out.
Amen.
I've seen so many gel test videos that I doubt there is much more info to be gained. PLEASE keep doing what you are doing. I find it much more interesting.
I remember when I was young I thought older people actually grew up & didn't do immature stuff like talk crap about each other & act all tough, boy was I wrong. I'm 49 & work with a bunch of 60 year olds & they still act like punk kids puffing their chest out & crap. People are pathetic. Screw them man & Keep doing your thing Paul
So true on point
So true. When I was a kid, I thought every old person was wise and patient. Boy was I wrong! Most old people are just gray-haired children.
Yep I could feel the frustration Paul had when going through the meat targets. I hate that he has to deal with this kind of childishness and even make these videos (although they are fun to watch in how he proves his points).
Really well done video. The little details like prominently displaying the removal and storage of the ear plugs in the long cut of the soda jug shot or the dramatic eating of the whole apple demonstrate a real mastery of your craft. You do long form really well.
The apple eating was genius
@@shark_byte_clips I manage channels professionally that are significantly larger than this. I cannot make a video this good with paid film crews, professional talent, and a team of editors. I’d love to do some work with Paul, but unfortunately brand safety will not allow. C’est la vie.
Looking back, I just sat through the equivalent of a feature length movie. And dang! It was awesome! Thank you Paul and Crew for sharing this. I rather enjoyed seeing the meat targets dissection and getting a better understanding of their construction.
I love Paul's presentations they're very thorough he backs up what he said with his experience and with evidence and it sticks in your head.
My favorite is still hyper-ammunition small bullets flying out of the barrel overly gassed and it's true they'll fly around everywhere.
So also I love the reference to Shatneresk pauses and when he does give a presentation it's very smooth and soothing lol, good to listen to them all day. And the humor is incredible.
The proper word is "Williamesk, not Shatneresk". Call people by their first names, not their last names.
This slow and methodical humiliation of John Correia of Active Self Protection for his petty driveby attack on Paul is classic and total.
Every video Paul does that's refuting someone, I've never seen that person's video. So, small fries vs the GOAT I guess.
I like ACTIVE SELF PROTECTION, and it is a good analytic, but do not understand why John C attacked Paul.
I don't know why.
ASP is a great source of information.
I don't think he attacked him, he just doesn't like the meat target, unless there's a video I missed.
@Paul Martin
Everything turned woke turns to Shit.
Even the person who said that went woke.
It’s like the law of attraction of woke.
Based on my hunting experience, I would say the meat targets are about the closet thing I have seen to a realistic medium for target ballistics. Perfect, no. But, it is far closer than gel. I find gel to be pretty useless aside from gauging bullet expansion performance and consistency. But only from a mechanical perspective. The meat target does the same sort of things you see shooting a deer or similar sized game. So, I find it to be a reasonably accurate medium for testing.
Gel is awesome for the engineers. The meat target is awesome for those who actually have a real world expectation of firing a gun.
@@saskafrass1985 You gotta be careful here. Physicists and Engineers have a lot in common, but they also diverge on a lot of points. If you want true idealism, look to the mathematicians. Just don't be surprised when they give you some pushback! ;-)
Ballistics gel is used by scientists because it removes variables that come from nonhomogeneous mediums. It's absolutely excellent at what it's intended to be used for, but the very thing that distinguishes it as useful is also what makes it a poor analogue for a human body. The human body, after all, is neither homogenous nor particularly consistent from one to another.
@@ghostlygun2138 Some things are very difficult to simulate. Fluid Dynamics is particularly hairy, even with homogeneous mediums. Terminal Ballistics falls into the category of "hard problems".
The meat target is a good comparison to flesh. Different textures, different hardness, ect. I find it more helpful than gel tests.
I've honestly always wondered what the search for the projectiles looked like after each target. Now that I can see it's a tedious and thorough search it's good he edits them out. Very impressed.
No kidding! We've now seen the man behind the curtain!
People often time are idiots and far too confident in their flawed positions. UA-cam is a case study in the Dunning-Krueger effect. I can tell that your arguments are very well thought out. You are very wise and your life experience has given you an element of humility in your wisdom. The true test of one’s intelligence is the ability to know that you don’t know everything.
in all my years in the Army, I never shot ballistic gel. Not once did we have to go into combat against ballistic gel targets. Every time, it was humans. All of whom had different sizes, weights, bone structures, etc. This is relevant because ultimately, it was about putting bullets in the "center mass" for best effect. I witnessed many who shot "fast". All they usually accomplished was driving the enemy into cover. This is why military training is based on accuracy with general time considerations (timed target exposures) on a range with pop up targets. The key is to hit the enemy, not to contribute to the profits of ammo makers.
Would more timed training be of benefit? If done correctly, yes. But time is not the most important factor. Accuracy is. What most people need better training on are safety and handling fundamentals, accuracy, reload drills, and immediate action drills (like SPORTS, BRASS). Get a handle on the fundamentals and your "time" will improve. Focus on "time" and your fundamentals will atrophy.
Well said thank you
Like my Mother used to tell us kids, you gotta learn to walk before you can run.
That's one of the reasons that the US military was perceived as so powerful early on in modern warfare. We were an early adopter of shooting to hit, instead of shooting to shoot.
This rebuttal vid about speed and such is also a perfect (along with your comment) reminder of the lessons that can/have been learned from the miami dade shootout. The FBI agents made very few hits along with lack of preparation on some personal levels cost the FBI some of there field agents lives. Was abit surprised Paul didn't mention that shootout in his rebuttal when talking about time.
Agree 100%. It's the old saying....Slow is smooth, smooth is fast...but fast misses aren't as good as slow hits. Timers and gelatin absolutley have a place, but 99% of what Paul is looking at and showing us is NOT that place.
I have 100% confidence in you. Your methods, presentation, fairness, is wonderful: "In my opinion, for me, from my experience, yours might be different." I'm happy with my Gen2 glock 19 for over 30 years; It' ok, not for everyone!
Friend of mine works ER at a major hospital, lots of gun shot calls. He owns guns, has said, Look at ballistic gell for comparison, look at Paul videos to really know what will happen to the target and what well happen to what is BEHIND it!
I've seen Paul shoot, he is freaking good. Him with 7 rounds is more useful than me with 25 round extended in my G19!
46:45
I think its also worth noting that this applies to humans too. You might hit someone in a rib, you might not. You might hit a lung, you might not, etc.
So having a bit of “inconsistency” in a target media really isnt too bad of an idea
Demanding perfect consistency and certainty in a world of uncertain inconsistencies is PEAK mid-wittery
True midwit stuff. It's the intellectual equal of buying a spendy, rare Euro sports car that is mostly a street-legal race car, and thinking the car drives itself at a high level -- instead of knowing the driver is the key, not the car.
I appreciate these videos over others. They're very informative to me and get the points across very effectively.
I have been in for 15 years, 5 active (Ft. Riley) and the rest National Guard and I've been on 3 deployments so far. Whenever I hear someone making disparaging comments about " Slick Sleeves" I usually tell them the reason we have so many slick sleeves is because nobody wants to challenge the most powerful military on earth and because diplomats and statesman both foreign and domestic have found ways to resolve conflict short of sending other people's children to kill and die. Don't mistake duty for glory; perpetual war is a bad thing the last time I checked
I’ve been in 16 years and counting, all National Guard, from soon to be 3 different States. I’ve been deployed twice and have yet to earn a right sleeve patch or any uniform badges, aside from my Tanker boots, GAFP-B, and general ribbons. First deployment was Kosovo in 2012- hazardous duty, non-combat; second was Poland in 2018- deterrence mission with a combat possibility. No patches for either one. Some of us have time and experience, just no real proof to display. And yes, it’s because no nation is stupid enough to challenge us muzzle-to-muzzle, and Tanks tend to not be as useful in a COIN fight- so they haven’t called us to do what we do best.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Paul say in a video that this technique is the best and you need to be doing it this way. He always says this is how he does it and what works for him. Anyone can tell Paul is a man of integrity and high moral character. I watch Paul to learn and pick up ideas about bullet performance and how that performance is affected by different media. I appreciate the effort and cost incurred with the meat target. Meat target is different and I appreciate the subtle difference in how bullets perform encountering the meat target, people aren’t exact, neither are meat targets. I train with a shot timer, but when I notice my accuracy suffer as I become fixated on getting a lower time, well, shot timer goes back in the case. Paul made it abundantly clear in the 1986 FBI shooting how important accuracy is, the failure of marksmanship was made clear. Paul, I thoroughly enjoy your content, I have learned a lot from you over the years. I will continue to support your Patreon and keep the content coming.
Finally… the explanation we’ve all been waiting for ;) I’m happy that you uploaded a long video but too bad you have to put out another video like this again 🙈 btw love the pop tart ad 😅
Mine started with, "Jackass Forever." 😆
Great video I'd like to see the rebuttal....probably none. Respect both parties in their own right. One was infantry and the other was naval intelligence. Not sure how much combat a naval intelligence officer gets, but a grunt who served in two branches of the military versus one. Just remember "you be the Judge..."
I have yet to find any of your presentations to be tedious. Thank you, Mr. Harrell, for all of the dedication and effort you put into your work. I know I am not the only one to say, it is greatly appreciated.