DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In art. , Jim Yanik
wrote:
wrote in :

BIG SNIP be me to this particular point

There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating -
such as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks,
and enemies wearing lighter-weight body armor.

such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten
carbide. Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was
designed for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into
production. Then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the
teflon was only intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for
better windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing
quality.(which it doesn't have...)

check out Raufoss ammo.....

I was thinking of usual military small-arms rifle rounds, which in
my
bits of Wiki experience tend to be FMJ "spitzer" bullets.

Such as usual implementations of 5.56x45 mm NATO, and 7.62x51 mm
NATO.

(Although 5.56x45 mm NATO did run into standardization to SS109
bullet, more-penetrating, to penetrate a steel helmet, largely in
response to many complaints of the previous 5.56 mm M193 round
producing devastating wounds.)

According to the Wiki article on 5.56x45mm NATO.

(Then again, what is warfare?)

more soldiers are wearing body armor,too,so penetration has become more
important.

the earlier 5.56 round was not efficient at short ranges because it would
yaw on impact.
when they changed the projectile,they also had to change the barrel rifling
twist rate to better stabilize the new bullet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com