Hi guys,
I understand that 5.56mm rounds were intended to cause damage by "tumbling" when it impacts
a human body/flesh and were designed as a high speed round with low mass characteristics to achieve that effect.
I was wondering thus if normal steels (non hardened- aka stainless or medium steel) or would have some stopping/deflect/projectile or slow-down capability on the round where in this case the round could be stopped by a level 2 or 3a vest placed behind the steel.
(which i know 7.62 x 25mm Russian AK would easily punch through from an earlier querry-thanks guys)
Just curious but what is balistic ceramic? Is it similar in composition to normal ceramic tiles for example?
Thanks.
Retro.
Defeat M16-5.56mm query
-
retroblaze
- Archive Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: KK
-
Sasha
- Archive Member
- Posts: 9362
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: State of permanent bemusement
Ballistic ceramics is a whole feild of research engineering.
Normal ceramic tiles will not stof a bullet unless you are hiding behind a whole pallet of them.
If you are this worried about getting shot, then I suggest you move to a quieter country.
Te closest "ballistic ceramics" concept that fits to the contect of your post is a cute idea that goes like this....
Make a tile with strong fibreglass re-inforcing threads running through the ceramic. The veramic should be aerated with millions of small sealed bubbles. The back of the tile should be rubber coated.
A bullet that strikes the tile is either deflected by the initial angle of the surface or alternately penetrates the surface and then encounters lots of resistence form the air in the bubbles, which the bullets impact has turned into super-compressed gass now trying to jet out. This forms a non physical barrier which slows the round dowqn considerably. The bubbles alos provide a great many edge-on and flat or angled surfaces for the bullet to power through or be decelrated/deflected by.
These tiles can be mounted on APC's and similar. Like the Isreali developed percusive armour....but only about 5-8mm thick.
My Lady's youngest sister is now a materials engineer specialising in fluid ceramics. She got to play with these "tiles" as a second year. Monash Uni was doing development testing for the Defense department on them.
A solid ceramic tile just presents a shatterable brittle surface. No defence.
Sasha
Riverforge
Normal ceramic tiles will not stof a bullet unless you are hiding behind a whole pallet of them.
If you are this worried about getting shot, then I suggest you move to a quieter country.
Te closest "ballistic ceramics" concept that fits to the contect of your post is a cute idea that goes like this....
Make a tile with strong fibreglass re-inforcing threads running through the ceramic. The veramic should be aerated with millions of small sealed bubbles. The back of the tile should be rubber coated.
A bullet that strikes the tile is either deflected by the initial angle of the surface or alternately penetrates the surface and then encounters lots of resistence form the air in the bubbles, which the bullets impact has turned into super-compressed gass now trying to jet out. This forms a non physical barrier which slows the round dowqn considerably. The bubbles alos provide a great many edge-on and flat or angled surfaces for the bullet to power through or be decelrated/deflected by.
These tiles can be mounted on APC's and similar. Like the Isreali developed percusive armour....but only about 5-8mm thick.
My Lady's youngest sister is now a materials engineer specialising in fluid ceramics. She got to play with these "tiles" as a second year. Monash Uni was doing development testing for the Defense department on them.
A solid ceramic tile just presents a shatterable brittle surface. No defence.
Sasha
Riverforge
-
Lazarus Wyß
- Archive Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: SW Michigan
- Contact:
-
retroblaze
- Archive Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: KK
-
retroblaze
- Archive Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: KK
-
Gundo
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5309
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Otter River MA, USA
- Contact:
That tumbling thing, I think, is a myth. NATO rounds are [so I was told] actually supposed to go right through you, and the low mass is to reduce the size of the exit wound. The idea is to wound [and put out of action] but not necessarily kill.
Based on some stuff I saw at the range, while in the Army: A steel-jacketed 5.56 round will punch right through 16ga [or lighter, of course] mild steel if it hits relatively square, but will dent the steel and deflect off without penetration at a 45 degree angle. That's a 50m range....I dunno the breakdown on how it'd act further out, or against heavier steel.
------------------
<B>Gundobad,
Wise Ogre Armory
Wise Ogre Pic of the Day
Wise Ogre Armory T-shirts & more</B>
A nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects that which has never been and will never be - Thomas Jefferson
A position worth taking, is worth defending.
Based on some stuff I saw at the range, while in the Army: A steel-jacketed 5.56 round will punch right through 16ga [or lighter, of course] mild steel if it hits relatively square, but will dent the steel and deflect off without penetration at a 45 degree angle. That's a 50m range....I dunno the breakdown on how it'd act further out, or against heavier steel.
------------------
<B>Gundobad,
Wise Ogre Armory
Wise Ogre Pic of the Day
Wise Ogre Armory T-shirts & more</B>
A nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects that which has never been and will never be - Thomas Jefferson
A position worth taking, is worth defending.
Retroblaze wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hi guys,
I understand that 5.56mm rounds were intended to cause damage by "tumbling" when it impacts
a human body/flesh and were designed as a high speed round with low mass characteristics to
achieve that effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gundp replied: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That tumbling thing, I think, is a myth. NATO rounds are [so I was told] actually supposed to go
right through you, and the low mass is to reduce the size of the exit wound. The idea is to wound
[and put out of action] but not necessarily kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both wrong.
The original tumbling PROBLEM was due to a change in the specs for the barrel (lowering the twist rate)without changing the specs for the round. This was corrected many years ago, and the weapon is very accurate, and the round does not tumble or deflect easily.
The 5.56 round was developed to lower the weight that a soldier has to carry- the weapon is lighter than the M14 it replaced, and for the same ammo load, you have more rounds. All military rounds are full metal jacket, but that doesn't mean that it is "supposed" to go through the target. It is supposed to stop the target (ok, person). It also is a fast bullet, so the exit wound (if any) will still be nasty. Yes, wounding an enemy can be more effective than killing them, but that isn't the primary goal.
Oh, btw, IIRC, most of NATO still using the 7.62 (.308). An FNFAL is a bitch to carry.
------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hi guys,
I understand that 5.56mm rounds were intended to cause damage by "tumbling" when it impacts
a human body/flesh and were designed as a high speed round with low mass characteristics to
achieve that effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gundp replied: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That tumbling thing, I think, is a myth. NATO rounds are [so I was told] actually supposed to go
right through you, and the low mass is to reduce the size of the exit wound. The idea is to wound
[and put out of action] but not necessarily kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both wrong.
The original tumbling PROBLEM was due to a change in the specs for the barrel (lowering the twist rate)without changing the specs for the round. This was corrected many years ago, and the weapon is very accurate, and the round does not tumble or deflect easily.
The 5.56 round was developed to lower the weight that a soldier has to carry- the weapon is lighter than the M14 it replaced, and for the same ammo load, you have more rounds. All military rounds are full metal jacket, but that doesn't mean that it is "supposed" to go through the target. It is supposed to stop the target (ok, person). It also is a fast bullet, so the exit wound (if any) will still be nasty. Yes, wounding an enemy can be more effective than killing them, but that isn't the primary goal.
Oh, btw, IIRC, most of NATO still using the 7.62 (.308). An FNFAL is a bitch to carry.
------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"
-
Karl-Magnus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Lakewood,OH
Owen is spot on when he describes the myth of the "tumbling" M-16 Bullet. Early in it's life the M-16 had a light bullet and IIRC a 1:9 twist. The bullet was flailing around the moment it left the barrel. A later 1:7 twist corrected to a degree and the a heavier bullet was adopted. Current Issue M-4 Carbines ( M-16 Short ) utilize the 1:9 ratio even with their Abreviated barrel length.
As to Ceramic trauma plates....I understood that they are effective because the are destroyed upon impact! I Wore the ( Now Standard ) RBA from '94-'98. It was a LV III kevlar carrier with Ceramic plates front and rear. Total Weight was about #30. A guy in my unit sustained multiple hits from Soviet 7.62x39 while rocking with the M-2. He was struck low right, center, and high left. He lived because he was lucky. The ceramic fractures upon impact to absorb the projectiles energy and allow the ballistic fabric to stop penatration. He had a large enough piece left over from each sucessive impact to defeat the next bullet. He had his bell severely rung mind you but he lived!
If you have the resources..Experiment with a laminate of Titanium or steel and Kevlar ( spetra etc.) for your trauma plate. I believe you must a. blunt the nose of any rifle projectile and b. slow it down considerably to stand a chance. A laminate of steel and ballistic fibers may do that for you.
hope this helps,
RLTW
As to Ceramic trauma plates....I understood that they are effective because the are destroyed upon impact! I Wore the ( Now Standard ) RBA from '94-'98. It was a LV III kevlar carrier with Ceramic plates front and rear. Total Weight was about #30. A guy in my unit sustained multiple hits from Soviet 7.62x39 while rocking with the M-2. He was struck low right, center, and high left. He lived because he was lucky. The ceramic fractures upon impact to absorb the projectiles energy and allow the ballistic fabric to stop penatration. He had a large enough piece left over from each sucessive impact to defeat the next bullet. He had his bell severely rung mind you but he lived!
If you have the resources..Experiment with a laminate of Titanium or steel and Kevlar ( spetra etc.) for your trauma plate. I believe you must a. blunt the nose of any rifle projectile and b. slow it down considerably to stand a chance. A laminate of steel and ballistic fibers may do that for you.
hope this helps,
RLTW
-
retroblaze
- Archive Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: KK
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gundo:
<B>That tumbling thing, I think, is a myth. NATO rounds are [so I was told] actually supposed to go right through you, and the low mass is to reduce the size of the exit wound. The idea is to wound [and put out of action] but not necessarily kill.
Based on some stuff I saw at the range, while in the Army: A steel-jacketed 5.56 round will punch right through 16ga [or lighter, of course] mild steel if it hits relatively square, but will dent the steel and deflect off without penetration at a 45 degree angle. That's a 50m range....I dunno the breakdown on how it'd act further out, or against heavier steel.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm , Gundo based on your observations,
it would seem that if a knight were to be equipped with say Milanese or Maximillian breastplate (or any other rounded/angled of 16ga or below thickness) and say,(hyphothetically speaking) someone took a potshot at them using using an M16 it should just richochett off at 50m right?.
That's interesting seeing as it is only mild steel. wonder if stainless would have a better result at a closer range.
<B>That tumbling thing, I think, is a myth. NATO rounds are [so I was told] actually supposed to go right through you, and the low mass is to reduce the size of the exit wound. The idea is to wound [and put out of action] but not necessarily kill.
Based on some stuff I saw at the range, while in the Army: A steel-jacketed 5.56 round will punch right through 16ga [or lighter, of course] mild steel if it hits relatively square, but will dent the steel and deflect off without penetration at a 45 degree angle. That's a 50m range....I dunno the breakdown on how it'd act further out, or against heavier steel.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm , Gundo based on your observations,
it would seem that if a knight were to be equipped with say Milanese or Maximillian breastplate (or any other rounded/angled of 16ga or below thickness) and say,(hyphothetically speaking) someone took a potshot at them using using an M16 it should just richochett off at 50m right?.
That's interesting seeing as it is only mild steel. wonder if stainless would have a better result at a closer range.
-
retroblaze
- Archive Member
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: KK
That's true CBA but an M1A1 wouldn't be able to drive down or hide for the matter in narrow lanes and would be a nice big and noisy enough target in a CQB or FIBUA scenario for a antitank weapon equipped crew who comes along or if it gets its tracks blown off- someone armed with a supply of Molotov cocktails.
I read a news journal about the rescue effort of a downed US chopper somewhere in Somalia during the UN mission there where it describes a real FIBUA(fighting in built up areas) nightmare.
Running street battles,roadblocks and ambushes by heavily armed groups of locals gunmen and sniper's armed with AK-47's, Heavy MG's and RPG's who knew the terrain like the back of their hand as well as tactical blunders coupled with radio communication interference by surrounding buildings made life very nasty for the rescuing force comprised of trucks and humvee's.
Retro
I read a news journal about the rescue effort of a downed US chopper somewhere in Somalia during the UN mission there where it describes a real FIBUA(fighting in built up areas) nightmare.
Running street battles,roadblocks and ambushes by heavily armed groups of locals gunmen and sniper's armed with AK-47's, Heavy MG's and RPG's who knew the terrain like the back of their hand as well as tactical blunders coupled with radio communication interference by surrounding buildings made life very nasty for the rescuing force comprised of trucks and humvee's.
Retro
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Guys,
The M-16 - even after it's initial modification/butchery by the US Army as condition of it's acceptance never had a problem with rounds tumbling on leaving the barrel - this is utter Horse hockey. The problems in service in Vietnam were due to the modification to the breech itself, and the extractor. The gun would jam in field conditions, which the original Armalite design was not prone to. The Air Force and South Vietnamese Army had bought hundreds of unmodified guns that preformed well.
The idea behind the 5.56 round (I am no balistics expert) is that it was stable in flight but would destabalize or "tumble" when it hits a semi-solid mass like balisitc gelatin blocks or human flesh. If you doubt it does this, you should get a gander of entrance/exit wounds made by the slug. The Army had messed around with the rifling as mentioned above, but that only lessend the preformance of the round inflicting trauma - it didn't adversely effect it's accuracy at combat ranges. If it "Tumbled" out of the barrel, it would never hit the target.
From first hand experience with a better weapon - an FN FNC - that fires the same round - it's damn bloody accurate - not out to 1000 yrds like a 308, but within 300 yrds it sure as hell is. Interestingly enough though, a thin sheet of aluminum cocked at a very slight angle (an old liscence plate) will deflect a round though occasionaly - 1 deflection out of three rounds by my count. I wouldn't want to be in a Medieval harness and be shot at with any contemporary assult rifle shooting 5.56 - it would be very messy.
Someone on another thread posted a 15th c. Milanese breastplate tested during WWII stopped every type of rifle ammunition thrown at it - I find this dubious in the extreme. I'd LOVE to see the documentation for that one (sounds like a samuri sword slicing a 50 cal barrel story to me)
------------------
Bob R.
The M-16 - even after it's initial modification/butchery by the US Army as condition of it's acceptance never had a problem with rounds tumbling on leaving the barrel - this is utter Horse hockey. The problems in service in Vietnam were due to the modification to the breech itself, and the extractor. The gun would jam in field conditions, which the original Armalite design was not prone to. The Air Force and South Vietnamese Army had bought hundreds of unmodified guns that preformed well.
The idea behind the 5.56 round (I am no balistics expert) is that it was stable in flight but would destabalize or "tumble" when it hits a semi-solid mass like balisitc gelatin blocks or human flesh. If you doubt it does this, you should get a gander of entrance/exit wounds made by the slug. The Army had messed around with the rifling as mentioned above, but that only lessend the preformance of the round inflicting trauma - it didn't adversely effect it's accuracy at combat ranges. If it "Tumbled" out of the barrel, it would never hit the target.
From first hand experience with a better weapon - an FN FNC - that fires the same round - it's damn bloody accurate - not out to 1000 yrds like a 308, but within 300 yrds it sure as hell is. Interestingly enough though, a thin sheet of aluminum cocked at a very slight angle (an old liscence plate) will deflect a round though occasionaly - 1 deflection out of three rounds by my count.
I wouldn't want to be in a Medieval harness and be shot at with any contemporary assult rifle shooting 5.56 - it would be very messy.Someone on another thread posted a 15th c. Milanese breastplate tested during WWII stopped every type of rifle ammunition thrown at it - I find this dubious in the extreme. I'd LOVE to see the documentation for that one (sounds like a samuri sword slicing a 50 cal barrel story to me)
------------------
Bob R.