User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 11:57:54 AM EDT
.300 AAC 125 gr REAPR fired from 8" AR15.com upper through a windshield into calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. Both the upper and the ammunition is available for purchase at https://store.ar15.com/
https://youtu.be/q5fwrR4OlQc |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:15:47 PM EDT
[#1]
shill
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:26:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right?
I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:30:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:33:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lmfao I didn't even click on your video because I know you'll just get rich. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. But you'll waste time posting about 300blk 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:35:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But you'll waste time posting about 300blk Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. But you'll waste time posting about 300blk  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:36:39 PM EDT
[#6]
No expansion? Weird.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:39:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:41:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Am I the only one not impressed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:44:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:48:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Have you done the same test with 556? How did it compare? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 12:54:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 1:07:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Everybody wants a magic bullet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 1:45:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you done the same test with 556? How did it compare? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Have you done the same test with 556? How did it compare? Only once, and not with a solid copper round. There are a few other informal tests out there and lots of professional testing in accordance with FBI standards.
https://youtu.be/upyDQyr-3Lk |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 1:49:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everybody wants a magic bullet. Barrier blind rifle rounds are not dark wizardry. This load wasn't intended for that, but there are plenty of barrier blind 5.56mm loads. The Fusion test I posted above indicates that .300 AAC shouldn't have any trouble with this standard, given the right bullet. I've been looking for some .300 AAC Fusion locally. It ought to be a really solid performer since 7.62x39mm is virtually identical. I'm also encouraged by the fact that the 5.56mm version was able to expand all the way down to 1,700 fps in one of my other tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 1:54:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lmfao I didn't even click on your video because I know you'll just get rich. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Ironic with a user name like 10mm_.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 2:21:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. When it's cold outside forgetting to roll the windows down is an easy mistake to make
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 2:22:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ironic with a user name like 10mm_. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Ironic with a user name like 10mm_. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 2:23:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 2:29:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Anti LEO much??????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 2:45:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ITS THE BEST ROUND EVER DON'T YOU DARE Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Ironic with a user name like 10mm_. Honestly, to me the .300blk has only 3-4 main uses. - Decent hunting load from short and lightweight carbines - Suppressed range toy - With the Barnes Tac-tx load, it provides proper expansion and penetration, barriers or not, out to 300 yards out of a 10" or less barrel. - With the proper load, it's a solid home defense round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 3:05:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ironic with a user name like 10mm_.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Ironic with a user name like 10mm_.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 3:09:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anti LEO much?????? ¿Que? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 3:24:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Looks like both 7.62x39 and 556 did a good in your test. So why 300blk?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 3:25:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
¿Que? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anti LEO much?????? ¿Que? Yeah that doesn't make since at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 3:42:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah that doesn't make since at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anti LEO much?????? ¿Que? Yeah that doesn't make since at all. <sigh> "What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... It was tongue in cheek too.... (just in case anyone missed the smartass smilies) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 4:25:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <sigh> "What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... It was tongue in cheek too.... (just in case anyone missed the smartass smilies) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anti LEO much?????? ¿Que? Yeah that doesn't make since at all. <sigh> "What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... It was tongue in cheek too.... (just in case anyone missed the smartass smilies) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 6:39:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like both 7.62x39 and 556 did a good in your test. So why 300blk? The main variable here is the construction of the bullet. .300 AAC is basically a slightly slower 7.62x39mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 8:09:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<sigh> "What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... It was tongue in cheek too.... (just in case anyone missed the smartass smilies) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anti LEO much?????? ¿Que? Yeah that doesn't make since at all. <sigh> "What if I have to shoot a pig, driving a car, wearing IIA armor, but not scare the pig in the passenger seat.... It was tongue in cheek too.... (just in case anyone missed the smartass smilies) Lol, I get it now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 8:12:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eh, the 10mm a useless boutique round.
Honestly, to me the .300blk has only 3-4 main uses. - Decent hunting load from short and lightweight carbines - Suppressed range toy - With the Barnes Tac-tx load, it provides proper expansion and penetration, barriers or not, out to 300 yards out of a 10" or less barrel. - With the proper load, it's a solid home defense round. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Ironic with a user name like 10mm_.
Honestly, to me the .300blk has only 3-4 main uses. - Decent hunting load from short and lightweight carbines - Suppressed range toy - With the Barnes Tac-tx load, it provides proper expansion and penetration, barriers or not, out to 300 yards out of a 10" or less barrel. - With the proper load, it's a solid home defense round. What velocity does that load have at 300 yards from a 10" bbl? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 8:20:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Came here to post...
In before 10mm_... Not even close lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 11:50:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Came here to post... In before 10mm_... Not even close lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:34:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Came here to post... In before 10mm_... Not even close lol! Nobody is IBF 10mm_. I think he might be under cover site staff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:48:35 PM EDT
[#33]
What would happen if the windshield was laid back at it's normal angle? Don't know what it's from, but it's up almost vertical vs. laid back and angle decreased as in a real life shooting event.
Just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:58:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would happen if the windshield was laid back at it's normal angle? Don't know what it's from, but it's up almost vertical vs. laid back and angle decreased as in a real life shooting event. Just curious. What is the standard angle of a vehicle windshield? I think FBI protocol calls for 45° angle for consistency, but in the real world, the angle varies significantly. Think of the difference between a 2012 Corvette windshield and a '75 F150. Further, the shooting can occur at any angle relative to the windshield. Based on my own earlier windshield testing and the tests I've seen other channels do, the windshield doesn't seem to cause a significant change in direction of the bullet. It's obvious that the glass can deform the bullet to the degree that expansion isn't possible. I have no idea what affect angle has on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 1:02:25 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Barrier blind rifle rounds are not dark wizardry. This load wasn't intended for that, but there are plenty of barrier blind 5.56mm loads. The Fusion test I posted above indicates that .300 AAC shouldn't have any trouble with this standard, given the right bullet. I've been looking for some .300 AAC Fusion locally. It ought to be a really solid performer since 7.62x39mm is virtually identical. I'm also encouraged by the fact that the 5.56mm version was able to expand all the way down to 1,700 fps in one of my other tests. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everybody wants a magic bullet. Barrier blind rifle rounds are not dark wizardry. This load wasn't intended for that, but there are plenty of barrier blind 5.56mm loads. The Fusion test I posted above indicates that .300 AAC shouldn't have any trouble with this standard, given the right bullet. I've been looking for some .300 AAC Fusion locally. It ought to be a really solid performer since 7.62x39mm is virtually identical. I'm also encouraged by the fact that the 5.56mm version was able to expand all the way down to 1,700 fps in one of my other tests. you should take a 300blk case and neck it down to 22 and try it with those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 1:07:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you should take a 300blk case and neck it down to 22 and try it with those. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everybody wants a magic bullet. Barrier blind rifle rounds are not dark wizardry. This load wasn't intended for that, but there are plenty of barrier blind 5.56mm loads. The Fusion test I posted above indicates that .300 AAC shouldn't have any trouble with this standard, given the right bullet. I've been looking for some .300 AAC Fusion locally. It ought to be a really solid performer since 7.62x39mm is virtually identical. I'm also encouraged by the fact that the 5.56mm version was able to expand all the way down to 1,700 fps in one of my other tests. you should take a 300blk case and neck it down to 22 and try it with those. 
Dude, you win Arfcom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 1:23:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What velocity does that load have at 300 yards from a 10" bbl? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Eh, the 10mm a useless boutique round. Honestly, to me the .300blk has only 3-4 main uses. - Decent hunting load from short and lightweight carbines - Suppressed range toy - With the Barnes Tac-tx load, it provides proper expansion and penetration, barriers or not, out to 300 yards out of a 10" or less barrel. - With the proper load, it's a solid home defense round. What velocity does that load have at 300 yards from a 10" bbl? IIRC, it's around 1450fps or so at 300. Expansion threshold is around 1300fps. Rsilvers has posted some tests on it on another site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:23:47 PM EDT
[#38]
That's pretty legit. Can you post links?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:30:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Would not want to be sitting behind that windshield. They don't appear to be deflecting much so good shot and you be bleed'n!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 10:01:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Yeah, a windshield send to add a helluva lot of hate to a wound.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 11:39:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's pretty legit. Can you post links? Because of the site involved, uh, probably not. A Google search of ".300blk gel vor-tx 300 yards" will get you there. Also, a bit of info in the following link, including expanded vor-tx at 300 yards from a 9" barrel. http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-blk.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:30:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because of the site involved, uh, probably not. A Google search of ".300blk gel vor-tx 300 yards" will get you there. Also, a bit of info in the following link, including expanded vor-tx at 300 yards from a 9" barrel. http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-blk.pdf Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's pretty legit. Can you post links? Because of the site involved, uh, probably not. A Google search of ".300blk gel vor-tx 300 yards" will get you there. Also, a bit of info in the following link, including expanded vor-tx at 300 yards from a 9" barrel. http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-blk.pdf Good stuff. Is there a rule against linking to other forums? I didn't see the part about barriers, though. Did he test against barriers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 2:33:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good stuff. Is there a rule against linking to other forums? I didn't see the part about barriers, though. Did he test against barriers? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's pretty legit. Can you post links? Because of the site involved, uh, probably not. A Google search of ".300blk gel vor-tx 300 yards" will get you there. Also, a bit of info in the following link, including expanded vor-tx at 300 yards from a 9" barrel. http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-blk.pdf Good stuff. Is there a rule against linking to other forums? I didn't see the part about barriers, though. Did he test against barriers? Yeah, linking to that site is frowned upon, some bad blood from the past. The owner of the other site is a bit of a douche, but there is decent info there. About the barriers, check the .pdf. There is a section there on it, extremely impressive. Rsilvers also posted info on it on other forums during the development of the round. IIRC, that specific bullet was designed for some unnamed military unit for their specific requirements. So in my mind, it's a bit excessive on penetration for general purpose, but the barrier blind capability and expansion at range overcomes that. That bullet is the only reason why I have a .300blk upper. Ideal for a SBR/pistol in a vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:09:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, linking to that site is frowned upon, some bad blood from the past. The owner of the other site is a bit of a douche, but there is decent info there. About the barriers, check the .pdf. There is a section there on it, extremely impressive. Rsilvers also posted info on it on other forums during the development of the round. IIRC, that specific bullet was designed for some unnamed military unit for their specific requirements. So in my mind, it's a bit excessive on penetration for general purpose, but the barrier blind capability and expansion at range overcomes that. That bullet is the only reason why I have a .300blk upper. Ideal for a SBR/pistol in a vehicle. Awesome. It's a large .pdf and was taking forever to load on my phone. Is that tacked in the ammo forum? It should be. Lots of good info in there. I thought that solid copper bullets usually had trouble with windshields and other hard barriers. Is this the exception or is my prejudice incorrect? I concur that the penetration is a bit high for personal defense, but I also believe that the risk of over penetration is largely overstated. I'd also like to see some more testing from people who don't work for AAC, though. Not that I think Rsilvers is being deceitful or anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:18:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the standard angle of a vehicle windshield? I think FBI protocol calls for 45° angle for consistency, but in the real world, the angle varies significantly. Think of the difference between a 2012 Corvette windshield and a '75 F150. Further, the shooting can occur at any angle relative to the windshield. Based on my own earlier windshield testing and the tests I've seen other channels do, the windshield doesn't seem to cause a significant change in direction of the bullet. It's obvious that the glass can deform the bullet to the degree that expansion isn't possible. I have no idea what affect angle has on this. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What would happen if the windshield was laid back at it's normal angle? Don't know what it's from, but it's up almost vertical vs. laid back and angle decreased as in a real life shooting event. Just curious. What is the standard angle of a vehicle windshield? I think FBI protocol calls for 45° angle for consistency, but in the real world, the angle varies significantly. Think of the difference between a 2012 Corvette windshield and a '75 F150. Further, the shooting can occur at any angle relative to the windshield. Based on my own earlier windshield testing and the tests I've seen other channels do, the windshield doesn't seem to cause a significant change in direction of the bullet. It's obvious that the glass can deform the bullet to the degree that expansion isn't possible. I have no idea what affect angle has on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:21:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lmfao I didn't even click on your video because I know you'll just get rich. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Holy fuck, you two are annoying. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:23:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No expansion? Weird. Yes, if they are supposed to be a hunting round I would have expected expansion. Exactly. They aren't designed to be a barrier blind defense round, I just wanted to see how they would do if pressed into that role. Also, like I mentioned above, solid copper bullets tend not to do very well through auto glass. Fair enough. I would not have expected the auto glass to have impeded expansion. I would have expected reduced penetration and expansion, but not to the extent you observed. In any case, if I'm shooting Bambi through a car windshield, then my hunting trip has gone sideways in a big way. I LOLed. That has meme potential...I'm thinking photoshopped movie posters. ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:33:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy fuck, you two are annoying. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. I don't think I'm doing it right. Shouldn't I be making up stuff about dynamic displacement of adaptive battle space destruction capacity? I should at least pretend that this performance is a feature, not a deficiency. Better yet, to properly shill, I shouldn't post any tests that don't show insanely awesome performance, right? I did forget to note that barrier performance isn't the string point for solid copper bullets. Wait, am I shilling again? I want to do it right. Plus 300blk sucks so I'm not wasting my time watching a video demonstration of a useless boutique round. Holy fuck, you two are annoying. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:43:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Awesome. It's a large .pdf and was taking forever to load on my phone. Is that tacked in the ammo forum? It should be. Lots of good info in there. I thought that solid copper bullets usually had trouble with windshields and other hard barriers. Is this the exception or is my prejudice incorrect? I concur that the penetration is a bit high for personal defense, but I also believe that the risk of over penetration is largely overstated. I'd also like to see some more testing from people who don't work for AAC, though. Not that I think Rsilvers is being deceitful or anything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, linking to that site is frowned upon, some bad blood from the past. The owner of the other site is a bit of a douche, but there is decent info there. About the barriers, check the .pdf. There is a section there on it, extremely impressive. Rsilvers also posted info on it on other forums during the development of the round. IIRC, that specific bullet was designed for some unnamed military unit for their specific requirements. So in my mind, it's a bit excessive on penetration for general purpose, but the barrier blind capability and expansion at range overcomes that. That bullet is the only reason why I have a .300blk upper. Ideal for a SBR/pistol in a vehicle. Awesome. It's a large .pdf and was taking forever to load on my phone. Is that tacked in the ammo forum? It should be. Lots of good info in there. I thought that solid copper bullets usually had trouble with windshields and other hard barriers. Is this the exception or is my prejudice incorrect? I concur that the penetration is a bit high for personal defense, but I also believe that the risk of over penetration is largely overstated. I'd also like to see some more testing from people who don't work for AAC, though. Not that I think Rsilvers is being deceitful or anything. I think it depends on the specific bullet and the purpose it was designed for. I think there are some other Barnes bullets that also have good performance through windshields, and some that do poorly and shed petals. In this case, you have to go back to the who and why this bullet was designed. It was designed as an anti personel round for environments with a lot of barriers. In other places, Rsilvers said that the bullet capabilities could be changed to be more civilian/law enforcement centric, but that someone would have to pay for the development. Essentially, some military unit spec'ed out what they wanted and paid for it, and now we get the benefit of the development. I would love to see more testing, it's a shame there isn't someone here who has a .300blk upper, access to gel and a windshield and a camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 1:09:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Using the FBI protocol for windshield angle and offset angle is probably a good idea for consistency sake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What would happen if the windshield was laid back at it's normal angle? Don't know what it's from, but it's up almost vertical vs. laid back and angle decreased as in a real life shooting event. Just curious. What is the standard angle of a vehicle windshield? I think FBI protocol calls for 45° angle for consistency, but in the real world, the angle varies significantly. Think of the difference between a 2012 Corvette windshield and a '75 F150. Further, the shooting can occur at any angle relative to the windshield. Based on my own earlier windshield testing and the tests I've seen other channels do, the windshield doesn't seem to cause a significant change in direction of the bullet. It's obvious that the glass can deform the bullet to the degree that expansion isn't possible. I have no idea what affect angle has on this. Absolutely. I did have 18" between the glass and the gel block but I couldn't get the glass to sit at a 45° angle with my hillbilly rig. (that is the right angle, right?) Next time I do a windshield test, I'll try to remember to bring along something I can use to hold the windshield at the right angle. I don't think it makes any substantive difference, but you're right that consistency is a good thing. Your video where you attempted to skip a bullet off the windshield leaves me thinking it's hard to get any serious deflection from a windshield. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
