7.62 / 6.5 / 5.56 vs concrete block
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by QuadCam View Posti was thinking the m855 with the steel penetrator core would have penetrated through all the jugs. I guess not.
I would like to see this test with the Barnes solid 110 grain.
Going to have to give it a try.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by QuadCam View Posti was thinking the m855 with the steel penetrator core would have penetrated through all the jugs. I guess not.
Also, for tough barriers like this, there's no substitute for mass. Even though the 7.62 and 6.5 MatchKings lack the steel tip of M855, their post-barrier effects were far greater.
Comment
-
-
The core separating from the rest of the bullet should be no surprise.
They need to do that so the harder material can do its thing.
It's too early to generalize about the value of mass. While mass and the KE associated with it makes exciting splashes, one needs the bullet to get through in order to get on the table for effects. The lighter M855 core penetrated as far as anything else and was a lot lighter. Hence one could also draw the conclusion that there's no substitute for steel, since the M855 was the only round with a steel core.Last edited by Guest; 08-20-2011, 05:29 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JASmith View PostThe core separating from the rest of the bullet should be no surprise.
They need to do that so the harder material can do its thing.
It's too early to generalize about the value of mass.
Rifle calibers (7.62mm 147gr FMJ vs 5.56mm 55gr FMJ) and pistol calibers (.45 ACP 230gr FMJ vs 9mm 115gr FMJ), the result was the same.
While mass and the KE associated with it makes exciting splashes, one needs the bullet to get through in order to get on the table for effects.
The lighter M855 core penetrated as far as anything else and was a lot lighter.
Hence one could also draw the conclusion that there's no substitute for steel, since the M855 was the only round with a steel core.
There is no substitute for mass.
Comment
-
-
I think the difference in how one interprets the information is the focus on a single dimension or effect versus looking at the challenge as a constrained system where trades need to be made.
As near as I can tell, the context of almost any discussion in this forum is the Grendel. My interest is in what bullet designs, etc. might help it perform better in various encounters.
To be sure, mass is important, but it is only a part of the system and the Grendel platform puts significant constraints on the mass that can be brought to the problem.
I will repeat, one has to get through any intervening material before the response in gel (or any liquid) begins to be important.
Further, the milk jug tests more closely illustrate the dynamic wound cavity than the permanent wound cavity. Martin Fackler and others have shown that the dynamic cavity, while capable of presenting spectacular pictures, does not adequately represent wound potential in torso-sized objects with individual weapons.
To illustrate, consider the difference in how that milk jug responds to the 5.56 to how a 5 gallon plastic can will. Or to get more graphic, a squirrel coming apart when hit by that round versus a small hole in a deer - both responses from the same bullet at the same velocity. You just can't count on the dynamic cavity causing significant damage unless the body is small enough that the skin (or package) ruptures.
To repeat:1) Hydrodynamic shock, while interesting, is a minor player in the terminal effects the Grendel needs to generate.
2) When working to get the most out of a cartridge, trades in penetration, energy, and bullet construction are needed.
Bottom Line: If the purpose of this thread is merely to entertain, then I will read with amusement. If, however, the comments appear to impact the Grendel (or other cartridge) design space, I will likely add more comments.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JASmith View PostTo be sure, mass is important, but it is only a part of the system and the Grendel platform puts significant constraints on the mass that can be brought to the problem.
I will repeat, one has to get through any intervening material before the response in gel (or any liquid) begins to be important.
Bottom Line: If the purpose of this thread is merely to entertain, then I will read with amusement. If, however, the comments appear to impact the Grendel (or other cartridge) design space, I will likely add more comments.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostDoes this mean you still don't understand that the 6.5 and 7.62 MatchKings did get through the barrier???
Comment all you wish. But it'd be nice if you show evidence that supports your claims, instead of just posting your beliefs.
Comment
-
-
Very informative video. Never seen anything done on the 6.5 grendel like this. I must say even though it was smaller than the .308 i would say it held up nicely in doing the job. I would have liked to have seen an amax or a scenar but still was very good. You can see the extra womp the .308 put on it. But this video does prove that the 6.5 will do the job on any human especially since they dont wear bricks most of the time lol . Not to mention the grendel would do better at extended ranges. I also have to say i was proud of the little 5.56 i was aware that block like that was a weak point for the 5.56 but given the terms of the test and size of that bullet it still did a good job. In a zombie killing situation i wouldnt be firing one round anyway so getting several on target quickly and having them work effectively is good. Great test i enjoyed the video. I believe this is the same man that did the test with m855 with the metal and the beef rib, roast and jello to see the results and that was a good video for the 5.56 as well. Thanks for sharing this video. Good stuff!
Keith
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View Post...Too bad there's no 6.5 FMJ to put up against 7.62 M80.
I'm really hoping someone can scare up some 6.5 AP bullets for the test.
Comment
-
Comment