This was sent to me by a buddy at CSFB who knows my hobbies. An AK is a relatively low powered rifle round - even at that close range. But this is still VERY impressive - particularly the second and third shots which would have the cracks created by the first to exploit.
8 comments:
Chess
said...
Holy crap doesnt describe it!!..What if that was the one plane of glass that was made when pedro was stoned outa his mind???>??? wowser....
understood about low-power muzzle velocity, however - bullet construction should come into consideration.
Mythbusters confirmed that an off th shelf 9mm will pnetrate water with greater lethality than a .50 bmg - fired at the same distance with the same intended target depth.
The FMJ's travelling over 1200 FPS would fragment - often seperating the jacket from the core at impact with the water.
With that said - if they tried that with a .44 spl loaded with lead wad cutters or even off the shelf .40 swc fmjs - you might see that experiment fail.
Ikaika...I have read your msg and have to believe that with that much knowledge about deadly force that you are being watched by some government organization 24/7....
I think the thing the Mythbusters guys were mistaken about was the behavior of water when struck at high velocity, not the behavior of the bullets striking them. Water allows better penetration when struck at lower velocity, that's all.
There is a whole field of study concerning newtonian fluid dynamics that could have told them so, but that's just a little too 'sciency' for prime time on discovery channel.
But this is a totally different thing entirely. Here I think it's a question of finding a place to put all that energy as rapidly as you need to. If you multiply V, then the E to dissipate is larger too. No getting around the basic math.
And that's not some non-newtonian fluid you're looking at there, it's a transparent composite. No way you're getting through it with wadcutters and pistol calibers if it can withstand a FMJ 7.62x39. (Of course that a bullet assumption... but I think it's a safe one.)
Try this... layer an inch of water between two thin plastic sheets, fire a 45acp and a .338 Lapua through it and see which delivers more energy out the other end. Not going to be a contest.
Yeah... we both know how long that argument has been going on. But there is a difference between hunting (where you want the critter to fall down where you hit him) and combat (where if he hangs on long enough to have to take 3 other guys to carry him off the field - that's OK too).
Also, since combat is not an individual activity and it's participants need to be trained, there might be some probability advantage in not having to teach them all to manage the bullet drop that comes with bigger and slower.
8 comments:
Holy crap doesnt describe it!!..What if that was the one plane of glass that was made when pedro was stoned outa his mind???>??? wowser....
nuts!
understood about low-power muzzle velocity, however - bullet construction should come into consideration.
Mythbusters confirmed that an off th shelf 9mm will pnetrate water with greater lethality than a .50 bmg - fired at the same distance with the same intended target depth.
The FMJ's travelling over 1200 FPS would fragment - often seperating the jacket from the core at impact with the water.
With that said - if they tried that with a .44 spl loaded with lead wad cutters or even off the shelf .40 swc fmjs - you might see that experiment fail.
Ikaika...I have read your msg and have to believe that with that much knowledge about deadly force that you are being watched by some government organization 24/7....
I think the thing the Mythbusters guys were mistaken about was the behavior of water when struck at high velocity, not the behavior of the bullets striking them. Water allows better penetration when struck at lower velocity, that's all.
There is a whole field of study concerning newtonian fluid dynamics that could have told them so, but that's just a little too 'sciency' for prime time on discovery channel.
But this is a totally different thing entirely. Here I think it's a question of finding a place to put all that energy as rapidly as you need to. If you multiply V, then the E to dissipate is larger too. No getting around the basic math.
And that's not some non-newtonian fluid you're looking at there, it's a transparent composite. No way you're getting through it with wadcutters and pistol calibers if it can withstand a FMJ 7.62x39. (Of course that a bullet assumption... but I think it's a safe one.)
Try this... layer an inch of water between two thin plastic sheets, fire a 45acp and a .338 Lapua through it and see which delivers more energy out the other end. Not going to be a contest.
Understood. I've never shot a .338 lapmag, but I have shot (at game) .375 H&H .416 NE, .458 win mag, .470 NE etc...
I'll argue bullet weight and construction over hyper-velocity anyday of the week. :p
Yeah... we both know how long that argument has been going on. But there is a difference between hunting (where you want the critter to fall down where you hit him) and combat (where if he hangs on long enough to have to take 3 other guys to carry him off the field - that's OK too).
Also, since combat is not an individual activity and it's participants need to be trained, there might be some probability advantage in not having to teach them all to manage the bullet drop that comes with bigger and slower.
I hope I never see combat.
Me too. Middle aged guys have no business in combat. I was just speaking theoretically. Right tool for the right job ...etc.
Post a Comment