Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98

Preparing ballistic gelatine—review and proposal

for a standard method
Jorma Jussila*
Police Technical Centre, P.O. Box 20, 00561 Helsinki, Finland
Received 25 August 2003; received in revised form 20 October 2003; accepted 8 November 2003

Abstract

Meaningful assessment and comparisons on the injury potentials of various types of ammunition and credible forensic
reconstruction require an agreement on standard tissue simulant. Gelatine blocks are relatively inexpensive and easy to
produce and they meet most of the criteria for a good terminal ballistic simulant. This research looks into the variables of
preparing ballistic gelatine and their effects on penetration resistance. It was found out that consistent quality gelatine
blocks are easy to make and that the variables like water temperature have a far smaller effect than previously thought. Also
water acidity variances allowed by European Council directive on drinking water do not have any measurable effect. A
proposed standard method for gelatine preparation is presented together with penetration function for verification of gelatine
quality.
# 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gelatine; Penetration; Ballistics; Simulant

1. Introduction
extrapolation of temporary cavity diameter;

Ballistic a.k.a. ordnance gelatine is a widely used tissue
simulant in terminal ballistic testing and an important tool
for assessing the effects of a projectile to living tissue. It is
also the basic building material for wound ballistic forensic
reconstructions. A number of requirements can be defined
for a good simulant ([1]. p 189). Some requirements may,
however, be in contradiction to the use of a simulant as a
measurement tool and the requirements should maybe be
modified and complemented as follows:
A good tissue simulant must possess the following qua-
lities:

similarity in the deceleration of the projectile between the
simulant and the living tissue the simulant has been
validated for;

similarity in the deformation behaviour of the projectile;

similarity in the kinetic energy dissipation;

kinetic energy dissipation measurability with reasonable
accuracy;
*
Tel.: þ358-9-83888075; fax: þ358-9-83888088.
E-mail address: jorma.jussila@ptk.poliisi.fi (J. Jussila).

elastic behaviour similar to living tissue for observation
and measurement of temporary cavity formation and
tissue compression;

extrapolation of permanent cavity diameter; and

reproducibility.
The above mentioned list of requirements means that the
simulant does not need to possess exactly the same biome-
chanical properties as living tissue as long as the results can
be measured and appropriately extrapolated or scaled [2] to
reflect what happens in a living tissue. In fact a simulant with
lower tensile strength than that of muscle tissue might allow
for more accurate measurement of the cavities and kinetic
energy dissipation; hence the requirement for extrapolation
instead of similarity.
The credibility of scientific reports associated with the use
of gelatine have, however, been questioned due to the fact
that no agreed standards exist for preparing it. Some
researchers use 10%, while some use 20% concentration
in different temperatures. The question on concentration is
irrelevant as long as the gelatine has been validated to
produce results that can be extrapolated to living tissue.
There are claims [3] that water temperature and storage time

0379-0738/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.11.036
92 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98
affect the physical properties of gelatine. There are also
many more parameters that might also affect gelatine prop-
erties. In order to obtain good and reproducible results, the
conditions of production and storage must remain constant
([1]. p. 191).
There is a lot of controversy (see [4]) on what type of
simulant should be used for ballistic testing. Without
wishing to enter this debate in depth, I want to express
one fact which, is almost totally overlooked. The control of
gelatine preparation process is entirely in the hands of the
researcher. Any kind of gelatine can be produced at will to
simulate virtually any kind of biological system. Any real
or simulated organs can be embedded [5]. This speaks
strongly for the use of gelatine as a standard research
simulant.
Standard simulants and measurements also commensu-
rate the results and greatly facilitate possible meta-analysis
of combined results of several researchers.
2. Review on various preparation methods
Ballistic gelatine is usually used in 10 or 20% nominal
concentrations. The actual concentration should be adjusted
i.e. calibrated for every batch of gelatine powder to give
precisely the desired penetration and to compensate for
possible manufacturing tolerances. Gelatine blocks are pre-
pared by dissolving the calibrated amount of usually 250A
bloom gelatine powder into warm water, possibly adding
preservative and pouring the solution into moulds where it
first cools off and then solidifies. To avoid dehydration and
unnecessary contamination by airborne microbes the moulds
should be covered with plastic foil. The gelatine blocks are
then placed in a refrigerator for storage and cooling into a
prescribed usage temperature. Before use the gelatine block
properties are verified by shooting 4.5 mm steel pellets into
them and measuring both impact velocity (Vi) and penetra-
tion depth (Lp). An accepted de facto standard [3] is that at
Vi ¼ 180 m/s the Lp should be 85  5 mm. The terms cali-
bration and verification are often used inaccurately in
various reports.
The first to use gelatine as a ballistic simulant was Harvey
[6] in the 1940’s. He used 20% concentration at þ24 8C.
Lewis [5] poured 6 l of water within the temperature range
90–95 8C over 1200 g of 250A gelatine, stirred at low speed
for 3 min before adding 3 ml of cinnamon oil as microbial
growth inhibitor (MGI). The solution was allowed to stand in
room temperature for 1 h without agitation and was then
poured into moulds that were allowed to cool in room
temperature overnight. The blocks were then stored at 5–
8 8C tightly wrapped in plastic.
The classic and often referred recipe for gelatine is that of
Fackler and Malinowski [7]. They recommend using 10%
solution i.e. for example 1000 g of gelatine with 9 l of water.
The gelatine powder is poured into cold (7–10 8C) water,
mixed and allowed to remain in refrigerator for 2 h. The mix
is then slowly heated in water bath to þ40 8C and slowly
stirred until all gelatine has dissolved. Five milliliter per litre
of propionic acid is added to inhibit microbial activity. The
solution is poured into moulds and set into a refrigerator (7–
10 8C) for overnight. The blocks are then removed from
moulds, wrapped tightly in plastic bags and stored in refrig-
erator at þ4 8C for at least 36 h before use. This recipe is
followed also by Sellier and Kneubuehl [1] and Thompson
[8].
As the method is rather awkward several modifications
have appeared. Berlin [9] mixed 20% of gelatine straight
into distilled water at 85–90 8C, used no MGI and let the
solution stand in refrigerator at þ4 8C for a minimum of
72 h. The gelatine was conditioned to þ20 8C before
use.
Firearms Tactical Institute [10] recommend dissolving
1000 g of gelatine into 6 l of hot tap water (49–60 8C) and
mixing well, add 5 ml of propionic acid and then three more
litres of water (49–60 8C). The filled moulds are allowed to
stand in room temperature for 4 h before placing them in
refrigerator (þ4 8C) for at least 48 h.
Federal Bureau of Investigation [11] claimed to use 10%
solution into water at þ60 8C. ‘‘Foam Eater’’ is added to
prevent foaming and instead of propionic acid cinnamon oil
is used. The filled moulds are allowed to stand in room
temperature for 4 h before placing them in refrigerator
(þ4 8C) for at least 36 h.
H.P. White Laboratories [12] follow the Fackler and
Malinowski recipe for 10% gelatine with the exception that
the gelatine is not conditioned to þ4 8C but also used in 7–
10 8C for at least 20 h. Yoganandan and Pintar [13] use the
same recipe but use distilled water instead.
The first attempt to quantify the effects of different
preparation parameters was done by Post and Johnson
[14]. The results were somewhat inconclusive due to lack
of statistical confidence. Many sources quote Fackler who
warns about detrimental effects of excessive heat [3]. The
gelatine manufacturer, Gelita, however, indicates [15] that
gelling power does not significantly decrease after several
hours with a temperature of 60–80 8C.
Ragsdale and Josselson [17] used 20% gelatine at þ4 8C
to investigate temporary cavity formation. As both increased
concentration and low temperature make gelatine stiffer it
can be suspected that the recording sensitivity and thus
accuracy of the results were significantly impaired.
The purpose of this research was to find out:

how consistent and homogenous gelatine could be pro-
duced using reasonable controls;

whether the water temperature has significant effect;

whether water acidity have significant effect within the
European Council directive 98/83/EC recommendations
[16] for drinking water acidity;

whether gelatine batches differ significantly;

whether increase in cooling time makes the gelatine
stiffer; and
 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98

to define standard penetration function and recommend a
standard gelatine preparation procedure.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Research equipment

Testostor 171 temperature and humidity data logger no.
6102070085

Thermometer Testo 925

Water purifier Nerox NE2002UC (new)

Ph-meter pHScan2 by Eutech Instruments

Plastic container 30 l Orthex 358 made of PE-HD (max
þ65 8C)

Stainless steel kettle

Air rifle Daisy Power Line 856

Copperhead 4.5 mm steel pellets (BB)

Stainless steel casting moulds: 150 mm  150 mm
400 mm

Refrigerator/freezer: Porkka 9010117.

Bullet velocity measurement: Oehler 35P proof chrono-
graph with three mod 55 screens (double measurement).

Accuracy scales: Mettler PJ3600 Delta Range

SPSS: statistical analysis software
3.2. Research materials

250A bloom gelatine Extraco (Gelita )SG-720N charges
no. 3610 and 6397. Charge 3610 was acquired in 1999 and
has been stored in cool, dry and dark place. Charge 6397
was acquired in December 2002.

Silicone spray: Würth 089221-C/SF

Helsinki tap water with standard pH 8.6

Acidity adjusting substances sulphuric acid (H2SO4 ) in
10% solution and natrium hydroxide (NaOH) in 10%
solution.
3.3. Gelatine preparation method
1. Moulds were cleaned and sprayed with silicone. Plastic
container was well cleaned of any previous gelatine
residue
2. Ten percent per weight (1000 g) of gelatine powder was
measured. Nominal concentration was used without
calibration because the intent of this research was to
look into possible effects of different variables.
3. Forty percent per weight (4 l) of cool tap water was
taken through the water purifier into the plastic container
and its temperature TA was measured. Water purifier was
seen as a necessary precaution in order to stabilise the
water and remove impurities and most of the microbes
[18].
4. For testing the effects of acidity all water was first
poured into the plastic container where the acidity was
adjusted to the EC directive [16] prescribed lower and
93
upper pH limits of 6.5 and 9.5. After adjustment the 50%
was transferred into the kettle for heating as described
below.
5. Fifty percent per weight (5 l) of cool tap water was
poured through the water purifier into a stainless steel
kettle and heated to temperature TB, which was
calculated to produce the desired final temperature TF
of the total solution. As the water was approaching the
temperature TB the gelatine powder was thoroughly
mixed into the cool water in the plastic container until
the mix was lumpless and smooth porridge. This allows
the gelatine particles to hydrate for a few minutes that is
needed for the small 250A particles to swell [15].
6. As the water in the kettle reached temperature TB it was
poured into the gelatine mix and thoroughly stirred to
dissolve any lumps. The solution was then stirred with
electric paint mixer for 10 min. Foam was removed from
the surface and the solution was poured into moulds.
The moulds were covered with polyethylene wrap to
prevent evaporation and to protect them from airborne
microbes and allowed to stand and solidify in room
temperature for 24 h. This lets the gelatine cool off
slowly allowing time for any air bubbles to float to the
surface before the gelatine solidifies. After that the
moulds were transferred to a refrigerator at þ4 8C for at
least 24 h for final solidification and to condition them
for proper testing temperature. For this research the
temperatures were monitored with data logger.
7. Before shooting, the gelatine block was removed from
the mould with compressed air, its internal temperature
was measured at the depth of 40 mm and recorded. The
prevailing range temperature was also recorded. The
specified verification shots were fired. After ballistic
testing the internal temperature was recorded again.
3.4. Tests
Table 1 presents the tests conducted and an inventory of
gelatine blocks and their properties.
3.5. Test arrangement
Penetration was measured as follows (Figs. 1 and 2). A
rod was pushed into the bullet cavity until it touched the
pellet. Depth of penetration Lp was measured from the rod
and 4 mm added to include the pellet diameter. Velocity was
measured at 2.5 m and 4 m/s subtracted to correct for impact
velocity Vi at 5 m.
3.6. Statistical analysis
Variable Lp/Vi (penetration in mm divided by impact
velocity in m/s) was calculated for every shot.
Significance of difference of means was tested with
Mann–Whitney test for independent samples with confi-
dence level of 95%.
94 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98

Table 1
Inventory of gelatine blocks and their properties

Test number Block number Charge number Water pH TA (8C) TB (8C) TF (8C) Note

1: process repeatability 1 3610 8.5 (unadjusted) 19 74 43 1

2 3610 8.5 (unadjusted) 19.8 73 43
3 3610 8.5 (unadjusted) 21 72 43.5
7 3610 7.8 (unadjusted) 21.1 60 41.1 2
2: effect of water temperature 4 3610 8.2 (unadjusted) 18.8 60 56.5 3
5 3610 8.2 (unadjusted) 81 81 4
11 3610 7.7 (unadjusted) 90.4 83.2 4
3: variation between 8 3610 7.8 (unadjusted) 21.1 95 58.5
different gelatine batches
4: effect of cooling time 6 6397 7.8 (unadjusted) 19.6 60 40.8
5: effect of water acidity 7 3610 7.8 (unadjusted) 21.1 60 41.1 5
9 3610 6.5 (H2SO4) 18.5 63.2 41.7
10 3610 9.5 (NaOH) 20.0 60.4 41.4
Note 1: Blocks 1–3 were made in completely separate processes.
Note 2: First eight shots were included in this test after 24 h cooling time.
Note 3: Block 4 was discarded due to incomplete dissolution of gelatine.
Note 4: Gelatine was dissolved in hot water.
Note 5: The first eight pellets were shot after 24 h in þ4 8C. The block was wrapped tightly with plastic wrap and put back into þ4 8C. The
second series of eight pellets was shot after 48 and the third series after 72 h.

In addition the process reproducibility was analysed as

follows:

difference between impact directions (homogeneity of
block) with Kruskal–Wallis test;

normalised regression function for pellet penetration Lp
and correlation coefficient were calculated;

standard error was calculated; and

estimate for minimum and maximum acceptable Lp was
Fig. 1. Test arrangement. (A) Test gun, (B) chronograph gates and established.
(C) gelatine simulant.

Fig. 2. Three series of test shots were fired into every gelatine block from three sides (S-side, B-bottom and T-top). Each series consisted of eight
shots at different velocities achieved with 3, 6, 9, 12, 3, 6, 9, 12 pumps of the airgun. The approximate velocities were 110, 150, 170 and 190 m/s.
 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98 95

4. Results Table 2
Statistics of the results
4.1. Preparation monitoring Number of shots Lp/Vi SD

The solidification took place in a dark storage room. Its Minimum Maximum Mean
temperature varied between 16.7 and 18.7 8C and humidity 1 24 0.41 0.51 0.48 0.03
between 24.6 and 35.1% RH. The cooling took place in a 2 24 0.40 0.52 0.47 0.03
refrigerator with its thermostat set to þ4 8C. The internal 3 24 0.43 0.52 0.48 0.02
temperature varied between þ1.3 and 8.2 8C with mean of 5 24 0.44 0.53 0.49 0.03
3.0 and standard deviation 1.3 8C. The internal temperatures 6 24 0.40 0.51 0.47 0.03
of the gelatine blocks were measured prior to shooting at an 7/24 (h) 8 0.42 0.50 0.47 0.03
approximate depth of 40 mm. They varied between 3.6 and 7/48 (h) 8 0.40 0.50 0.46 0.04
4.4 8C. The shooting took place within 20 min and there was 7/72 (h) 8 0.39 0.49 0.45 0.03
8 24 0.42 0.52 0.48 0.03
no measurable change in the internal temperature. The
9 24 0.42 0.54 0.47 0.03
ambient temperature at the indoors shooting range varied 10 24 0.43 0.52 0.47 0.02
between 19.8 and 22.6 8C. 11 24 0.43 0.54 0.49 0.03
1, 2, 3, 7/24 (h) 80 0.40 0.52 0.48 0.03
4.2. Basic statistics
Note: The group ‘‘1, 2, 3, 7/24h’’ is the base group for assessing
effects.
Table 2 shows the basic statistics of the results

4.3. Process reproducibility

N ¼ 80 shots with mean Lp =Vi ¼ 0:48and velocity inde-
pendent standard error S:E: ðLp Þ ¼ 2:16 mm. Because the
S.E. is very small the reproducibility of the process i.e.
gelatine block similarity is very good.
The best fit regression function for Lp was polynomial
y ¼ 0:0007x2 þ 0:7874x30:316 with R2 ¼ 0:9844.
The second best was linear y ¼ 0:5935x16:767 with
R2 ¼ 0:9838. The latter was chosen for simplicity and
due to the fact that there was hardly any difference
between correlation coefficients. The regression function
was adjusted to produce Lp ¼ 85 mm at Vi ¼ 180 m/s.
Although the standard error was much lower (2.16 mm)
an arbitrary tolerance of 5 mm was considered acceptable.
This resulted in the following penetration function (see
Fig. 3):
Lp ¼ 0:594  Vi  21:92  5 (1)
Instead of attempting to shoot verification pellets at precisely
180 m/s one can use any velocity and check with Eq. (1)
whether penetration is within tolerances. The equation is
represented graphically below.
4.4. Block homogeneity
N ¼ 24 shots per direction for three gelatine blocks were
tested for significant difference with Kruskal–Wallis test.
The asymptotic significance (two-tailed) was 0.494 denoting

100
4,5 mm steel BB penetration Lp

90

80
min
(mm)

med
70
max

60

50

40
90 140 190
Impact velocity Vi (m/s)

Fig. 3. Normalised gelatine penetration (y ¼ 0:594x  21:92  5).

96 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98
that the differences in penetrations were not significant i.e.
block homogeneity is good.
4.5. The effect of cooling time
After 48 h no significant change in Lp could be observed.
Mann–Whitney significance was 0.163. After 72 h, however,
the significance was only 0.025 denoting significant change.
This result calls for further research.
4.6. The effect of water temperature
With solution temperature TF ¼ 58:5 8C no significant
effect could be observed (asymp. sig: ¼ 0:835). When TF
was raised to over 80 8C the change seems to be significant
(asymp. sig: ¼ 0:006 > 0:05). The slope of the penetration
function (angular coefficient), however, seems to remain
unchanged (0.614 versus 0.594 of the standard Eq. (1)). It
seems therefore likely that the effect of high temperature can
be compensated with adjusting the amount of gelatine. What
this, however, does to tensile strength and elasticity and
therefore measurements other than penetration resistance is
unknown.
4.7. Water acidity
Neither low pH of 6.5 nor high pH of 9.5 seemed to have
any significant effect on penetration (asymp. sig: ¼ 0:142and
0.217, respectively).
4.8. Differences between gelatine batches
No significant difference was observed (asymp. sig: ¼
0:104). As there was 3 years storage time between the two
batches one can conclude that the properties of gelatine
powder do not significantly change when stored in dark, dry
and formaldehyde free room temperature.
4.9. Other results and observations
Despite vigorous stirring no air bubbles were trapped in
the gelatine blocks. This may be due to the fairly low
gelatine concentration (10%) and the slow cooling of the
solution. No significant change of penetration resistance has
been observed during the first 40 min at ambient temperature
of approximately 22–24 8C.
5. Discussion
As mentioned in the beginning the first thing to do is to
find the actual gelatine concentration for any batch of
gelatine powder. The amounts required for adjustment
should not exceed 10% of the nominal amount of gelatine
(e.g. 100 g per nominal amount of 1000 g). Otherwise one
can assume that there is something wrong with either the
preparation process or gelatine powder. The bloom number
might be incorrect or the gelatine powder has been exposed
to formaldehyde, which makes it insoluble to water.
This test demonstrates not only the effects but also the
great number of variables involved in preparing ballistic
gelatine. The repeatability test was done using four blocks of
gelatine from four separate preparation processes and thus
gives a reliable platform for comparisons. If in any test the
properties of a gelatine block would significantly differ from
this platform we can say that the change in the variable being
tested has a significant effect even if we did not repeat the
test with several gelatine blocks.
There also remains the question on how long the gelatine
is usable after removing from the refrigerator. It depends on
the block size and the ambient temperature of the shooting
range. It is safe, however, to say that with the block size used
in this research the shooting should take place within 30 min.
The size of the gelatine blocks might also be standardised to
avoid inducing any possible error due to target size [2,20]. The
current size used by the author is 150 mm  150 mm
400 mm. This is slightly thin for high power rifle ammunition
and does not easily accommodate more than two to three pistol
shots. A better size would be 200 mm  200 mm  250 mm.
It can handle all calibres and also several shots with pistol
ammunition. Its length also better resembles that of the length
of a real wound channel.
6. Conclusions
The gelatine preparation process described in the begin-
ning seems to give good, consistent results. The following
recommendations should be observed:

Purified water should always be used to stabilise its
quality and to get rid of most of the micro-organisms.

Every gelatine batch should be calibrated with the pre-
paration process to achieve the required penetration.

Temperature is not crucial, but extreme temperatures
should be avoided.

Water acidity variations within EU recommendations do
not affect gelatine properties.

Gelatine powder can be stored for a long time in dark, dry
and formaldehyde free conditions without measurable
loss of the gelling properties.

Penetration should be verified with two shots at different
velocities to ascertain both penetration and slope of the
penetration curve i.e. response to events of various speeds.

The preparation method presented produces homogenous
gelatine blocks of consistent quality.
7. Gelatine preparation guideline
This guideline describes the calibration and preparation
methods for producing 200 mm  200 mm  250 mm gela-
tine blocks for terminal ballistic testing.
 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98 97

7.1. Materials 2. Measure the calibrated amount of gelatine powder (10%

per weight (1000 g) nominal mix).

250A bloom gelatine e.g. Extraco (Gelita )SG-720N. 3. Measure 50% per weight (4.5 l) of cool tap water

Silicone spray e.g. Würth 089221-C/SF. through the water purifier into the mixing container and

Filtered tap water. measure its temperature TA. Water purifier is a necessary

Water purifier e.g. Nerox NE2002UC. precaution in order to stabilise the water and remove
impurities and most of the microbes.
7.2. Storage of gelatine 4. Measure 50% per weight (4.5 l) of cool tap water
through the water purifier into a stainless steel kettle and
Gelatine powder can be stored for years (refer to man- heat it to temperature TB, which is calculated to produce
ufacturer’s recommendations) in dry and dark place with the desired final temperature TF is approximately 45 8C
normal room temperature. Gelatine powder should, how- of the total solution. As the water is approaching the
ever, not be exposed to formaldehyde as it makes the powder temperature TB the gelatine powder is thoroughly mixed
insoluble to water. into the cool water in the mixing container until the mix
is a lumpless and smooth porridge. This allows the
7.3. Gelatine calibration gelatine particles to hydrate for a few minutes that is
needed for the small 250A particles to swell.
The nominal 10% per weight amount of gelatine must be 5. As the water in the kettle reaches temperature TB it is
adjusted to obtain the actual amount of gelatine powder which poured into the gelatine mix and thoroughly stirred to
gives the required penetration. Every gelatine powder man- dissolve any lumps. The solution is then stirred with
ufacturer batch must be calibrated. In a calibration test nine electric paint mixer for 10 min. At this point 5 ml of
pellets are shot at approximately three different velocities and propionic acid per litre of gelatine mix can be added to
the penetrations compared with the values given in Table 3. prevent microbial growth and to lengthen the storage
Add or subtract approximately 1% of gelatine (10/1000 g time.
nominal amount) for every millimetre of penetration [19]. In 6. Foam is removed and the solution is poured into moulds.
no case should the adjustment exceed 10% of the nominal A piece of cardboard with the gelatine block identifica-
amount (100/1000 g). This would indicate problems in tion is placed on the surface of the gelatine. The moulds
preparation, incorrect bloom value or contaminated gelatine are covered with polyethylene wrap to prevent evapora-
powder (exposure for example to formaldehyde). tion and to protect them from airborne microbes. They
are allowed to stand and solidify in room temperature for
7.4. Gelatine preparation method 24 h. This lets the gelatine cool off slowly allowing time
for any air bubbles to float to the surface before the
1. Clean the moulds and spray them with silicone. Clean the gelatine solidifies. After that the moulds are transferred
mixing container well of any previous gelatine residue. to a refrigerator at þ4 8C for at least 24 h for final
solidification and to condition them for proper testing
temperature.
Table 3 7. Before shooting the gelatine block is removed from the
The minimum and maximum acceptable penetrations (mm) for
mould with compressed air, its internal temperature is
different impact velocities (m/s)
measured at depth of 40 mm and recorded. The
Vi Lp prevailing range temperature is recorded. The specified
verification shots are fired. After ballistic testing the
Minimum Maximum
internal temperature is recorded again.
120 44 54
125 47 57 7.5. Penetration verification
130 50 60
135 53 63
140 56 66
Shoot two spherical 4.5 mm steel pellets (BB) at two
145 59 69 different velocities (120–190 m/s) into the gelatine block
150 62 72 and measure the penetration by pushing a rod into the bullet
155 65 75 cavity until it touches the pellet. Measure the depth of
160 68 78 penetration Lp from the rod and 4 mm add to include the
165 71 81 pellet diameter. Correct the velocity of the recorded pellet to
170 74 84 obtain the impact velocity Vi by subtracting 1.5 m/s per
175 77 87 every metre between the chronograph measuring distance
180 80 90 and the gelatine. For example if the velocity is measured at
185 83 93
2.5 m, subtract 4 m/s from the recorded pellet velocity to
190 86 96
obtain the impact velocity Vi at 5 m.
98 J. Jussila / Forensic Science International 141 (2004) 91–98
The minimum and maximum acceptable penetrations
(mm) for different pellet impact velocities (m/s) are given
in Table 3.
7.6. Using the gelatine
A prepared gelatine block can be stored in þ4 8C for 2
days. After that the penetration resistance may slightly
increase, but will not make the gelatine blocks unusable
provided that the penetration requirements are met. If longer
storage time is required, microbial growth inhibitor should
be used.
The internal temperature of a 150 mm  150 mm 
400 mm block at the depth of 40 mm rises under 1 8C during
the first half hour in room temperature. The test shooting
shall take place within this period of time or when the
internal temperature of the gelatine block at the depth of
40 mm is less than 5 8C.
Multiple shots can be fired into one gelatine block. The
radial fissures of the bullet channel must, however, neither
intersect nor reach to the block surface.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express special thanks for all their
help to Dr. Bo Janzon of Swedish Defence Research Agency
(FOI) and Mr. Shawn Dodson of Firearms Tactical Institute.
References
[1] K.G. Sellier, B.P. Kneubuehl, Wound Ballistics and the
Scientific Background; Elsevier, 1994, ISBN 0-444-81511-
2.
[2] B. Janzon, B. Schantz, T. Seeman, Scale effects in ballistic
wounding, J. Trauma 28 (Suppl.) (1988) S29–S32.
[3] M.L. Fackler, A. John, Malinowski, Ordnance gelatine for
ballistic studies—detrimental effect of excess heat used in
gelatine preparation, Am. J. Foren. Med. Path 9 (3) (1988)
218–219.
[4] International Workshop on Wound Ballistics, Thun, Switzer-
land, 23–24 March 1999.
[5] R.H. Lewis, M.A. Clark, K.J. O’Connell, Preparation of
gelatine blocks containing tissue samples for use in ballistics
research, Am. J. Foren. Med. Path. 3 (2) (1982).
[6] E.N. Harvey, J.H. Butler, E.G. McMillen et al. Mechanism of
wounding. in: J.B. Coates (Ed.), Wound Ballistics, US Army
Surgeon General, Washington D.C., 1962, pp. 143–235.
[7] M.L. Fackler, A. Malinowski, The wound profile: a visual
method for quantifying gunshot wound components, J.
Trauma 25 (6) (1985) 522–529.
[8] E. Thompson, Ordnance gelatine testing procedures, AFTE J.
25 (2) (1993).
[9] R.H. Berlin, B. Janzon, B. Rybeck, J. Sandegård, T. Seeman,
Local effects of assault rifle bullets in live tissues. Part II.
Further studies in live tissues and relations to some simulant
media, National Defence Research Institute, Tumba and the
Department of Surgery II, University of Göteborg, Göteborg,
Sweden, 1983.
[10] Firearms Tactical Institute, A simplified 10% ordnance
gelatin preparation and test procedure, Firearms Tactical
Institute, Tactical Briefs, April 2000.
[11] Ballistic gelatine mixing procedures practised by the FBI,
extracted from the Internet address http://www.vyse.co-
mon31.3.2003.
[12] H.P. White Laboratories, Test Procedure, Ballistic Gelatine
Blocks, HPW-TP-0601.02, May 1998.
[13] N. Yoganandan, F.A. Pintar, Biomechanics of penetrating
trauma, Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 25 (6) (1997) 485–501. Review.
[14] S.M. Post, T.D. Johnson, A survey and evaluation of variables
in the preparation of ballistic gelatine, Wound Ballistics Rev.
2 (1) (1995) 9–20.
[15] Gelita web-pages, http://www.gelita.com,extracted31.3.2003.
[16] European council directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on
the quality of water intended for human consumption, Off. J.
Eur. Commun. 5 December 1998.
[17] B.D. Ragsdale, A. Josselson, Predicting temporary cavity size
from radial fissure measurements in ordnance gelatine, J.
Trauma 28 (Suppl. 1) (1988) S5–S9.
[18] P. Raivio, H. Pyysalo, NEROX Drinking Water Filters, Test
Report No. 19950315-006 Finnish Customs Laboratory,
Espoo, 5 May 1995, extracted on 24 June 2003 from http://
www.adlux.fi.
[19] C.E. Peters, A mathemathical model of wound ballistics. J.
Trauma (China) 6 (Suppl.) 319–326.
[20] Gelatine Calibration, Personal communication with Shawn
Dodson, Firearms Tactical Institute, 2 August 1999 and 4
January 2003.