The point of this informal terminal ballistic test was not to test the various manufacturers of ammunition, types of guns, or to prove anything at all.  We conducted these test with as little time and monetary investment as possible.  I purposefully did not take any measurements or make any analytical judgments.  It was done purely to achieve some generic results with various calibers.

The rounds we used for the test were 5.56, 5.45x39, 7.62x39, and 9mm.  All of which were hollow points (HP).  The rifle rounds were a mix of Wolf and Silver
Bear, with the 9mm from Winchester (green box).  The firearms used were an AR15, AK-74, AK-47, and SigPro respectively.

The wall test was made up of two 5/8” thick sheets of drywall spaced 3.5” apart using 2x4 dimensional lumber.  This was to simulate a typical household wall of double wall construction.  The “wall” was set about 20 feet from the firing line and the cardboard proof sheet was set back 5 feet behind the “wall”.  One shot from each caliber was shot through the “wall”.  The results on the proof sheet are described as follows:
   5.56 - Bullet passed clean through the “wall” and through the proof sheet with no apparent drop
   5.45x39 – Bullet tumbled out of the “wall” and keyholed the proof sheet after dropping about a foot
   7.62x30 – Bullet tumbled out of the “wall” and keyholed the proof sheet after dropping about eight inches
9mm – Bullet passed clean through the “wall” and through the proof sheet with no apparent drop

The wet media test consisted of phone books that were about 3” thick dry and 4” thick wet.  They were prepare by wrapping the loose-leaf end with silver duct tape and fully immersed in water overnight and were completely soaked through.  The books were located about 20 feet from the firing line, resting on a table.  The cardboard proof sheets were set behind the books by about 3 feet.  One shot from each caliber was shot through the books simultaneously with the results on the proof sheet are described as follows:
   5.56 – Bullet fragmented creating 4 pea sized holes in a close cluster with about 25 bb sized holes all pretty much dead center.
   5.45x39 – Bullet remained relatively intact creating a keyhole with about 12 bb sized holes.  The keyhole was located about 6” right and 6” down with the smaller fragment holes in a pattern leading from center to the keyhole.
   7.62x30 – Bullet fragmented creating a cluster of 2 pea sized holes and 1 marble sized hole with about 12 bb sized holes.  The cluster of holes were located about 8” left and 3” down with the smaller fragment holes in a pattern leading from center to the pea hole cluster
9mm – Bullet did not exit the wet media

The steel penetration test was not conducted due to time restraints.

Thanks, I always wanted to know what would happen if I was attacked by wet phonebooks and had to use plinking ammo to defend myself.  At least you guys had fun and that's what counts.

I need to rethink about getting into some 5.45x39 ammo


http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/4672/phbooksback5452tn.jpg

Have you heard of Old_Painless?  He has done many tests like yours.  Check out his work here

Cool test.

I never knew phone bucks could be so fun to use!

Some of those 5.45x39 rounds look like they were keyholing.In any evevnt Peter Kokalis from SOF tetsted out the 5.45x39 many moons ago back in the late 80s.Wet phone books are not indicative of what the round does on flesh.If 5.56 were working like that there would be no experimenting with 6.8 and such..looks cool though.

This "test" was done purely to achieve some generic and repeatable results with various calibers.

We were not trying to simulate flesh, or balistic wounds of any sort.  The purpose of the "wet media"
test was to give the bullet something soft and wet to pass through as opposed to something hard and
dense (like a wall) so that we could induce different bullet behavior.  By looking at the "proof targets"
we can get a snapshot of what the bullets are doing just after they pass through the medium.  And the
results are that the 5.56 had a stable fragmentation pattern, and the 7.62x39 and 5.45.39 yawed. Just
as expected...But we got to see it first hand.

However, I was surprised that the 5.56 did not show any indication that it was effected by the "wall",
and I was expecting that the 7.62x39 would have penetrated more "cleanly".

btt

Looks like you had some fun. Itd be interesting to see what those bullets did to three wet phone books clamped together.

awsome test!
i would also like to see what a .308 does to a wet phone book!!!

Understanding that a wet phone book is not a human, I'm still shocked to see the 5.45 do so well in that particular "medium."

Looks like it was designed to move something outta it's way, that's for damn sure!

cool!

Our next test (in Janurary) will be the same calibers shot at a 5/8" thick steel plate and 4x4 lumber.

I anticipate the 5.56 to pass the steel like butter but not the lumber, the 7.62x39 doing the opposite, and the 5.45x39 could go either way.

If you are in Hawaii, these shoots are open to the public and any member of the Hawaii Rifle Association can participate.

Quoted: However, I was surprised that the 5.56 did not show any indication that it was effected by the "wall",

You used cheap crap ammo and are surprised by the results?

Quoted: Quoted: However, I was surprised that the 5.56 did not show any indication that it was effected by the "wall", You used cheap crap ammo and are surprised by the results?

I was looking for generic results, as in the 5.56 will fragment in wet media, and tumble and die off affter passing a hard surface.  I don't think using "expensive" ammo would have made any difference in these non-formulated tests.

A freind of mine put up some more pictures of the "event".  You can see more wide angle shots and get an idea what the set up looked like.

kaneohegs.com/events.htm

Dragonfly228,

Just FYI...the 5.56 is supossed to have maximum penetration at 200m from a 20" barrel (150-175 from a 16").  This is when the round has slowed enough that it will not fragment on hitting a hard target.  Any chance you could do the steel/lumber test at this range too?

Here's alink with the info...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm#par2

Quoted: Have you heard of Old_Painless?  He has done many tests like yours.  Check out his work here

Wow cool site.  I really like the sayings like:
It went through the vest like an ex-wife through your life savings.

I too would like to see some Real M855 with the steel core penetrator in these tests as well as some of the MK262!

The penetrator might have just gone straight through the phonebook while shedding the jacket right away.  I don't know though.

Anyone have anything to donate for the testing?  I've got Lake City XM193 & I could send you 20 rounds.  

neat

As a civilian I am very happy with the 5.56 characteristics.  I would feel very comfortable shooting a "bad person" in my house with hollow point bullets with out worry of over penetration....just don't miss.

Quoted: I was looking for generic results, as in the 5.56 will fragment in wet media, and tumble and die off affter passing a hard surface.  I don't think using "expensive" ammo would have made any difference in these non-formulated tests.

You couldn't even claim generic results.  When testing ammo, you are only testing the ammo that you are actually shooting.  Comparing the behavior of cheap Wolf 5.56 to anything else is not being honest.  Even within 55 grain bullets you will have different materials and techniques, as well as physical characteristics.  When you start talking about loaded rounds, you have even greater variances from different manufacturers, or even within the same manufacturer if the loads are speced differently.
Using "expensive" ammo could very well have given different results.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: However, I was surprised that the 5.56 did not show any indication that it was effected by the "wall", You used cheap crap ammo and are surprised by the results? I was looking for generic results, as in the 5.56 will fragment in wet media, and tumble and die off affter passing a hard surface. I don't think using "expensive" ammo would have made any difference in these non-formulated tests.

IT most definately would have.  REAL scientific testing has borne that out time after time.  All 55gr projectiles are not equal (I suggest doing some research on the subject - start with the links posted at the top of the Ammo Forum then go from there).  M193 is not AE 55gr which is not Wolf 55 which is not Silver Bear 55gr.  Velocities differ, bullet design differs, jacket thickness differs, as does the alloy.

Well, in his defense, he did point out that these were very informal tests.  And as O_P likes to say "its fun to shot things"

Yes, Informal-  I love shooting weird things.  (Not everything in the world is made of gelatin!)

Quoted: Our next test (in Janurary) will be the same calibers shot at a 5/8" thick steel plate and 4x4 lumber. I anticipate the 5.56 to pass the steel like butter but not the lumber, the 7.62x39 doing the opposite, and the 5.45x39 could go either way.

I am interested to see, but I will let you know from experience, the 5.56 (Or the other two rounds) will not even be slowed down by 4X4 lumber. Maybe you should add some bigger pieces of wood into the test
Thanks for the post, I too like to see ammo results in the real world. Half the fun of shooting is going and seeing what the bullet did when it hit!!  

But there is always room for jello

Quoted: (Not everything in the world is made of gelatin!)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: However, I was surprised that the 5.56 did not show any indication that it was effected by the "wall", You used cheap crap ammo and are surprised by the results? I was looking for generic results, as in the 5.56 will fragment in wet media, and tumble and die off affter passing a hard surface.  I don't think using "expensive" ammo would have made any difference in these non-formulated tests.

Try the same test, with the same books, with any of the Open Tip Match bullets (68-77 gr). You will see a HUGE difference in the results with the .223. Or lacking those, just XM193. The russian rounds (Wolf, Barnaul, Silver Bear), use thick jackets, and fragmentation with those bullets is rare. Full-power 5.56x45 loads will show the true potential of the round.

Regarding shooting the 4x4, the .223 will fly through it like it wasn't even there. The same with the 5/8 metal plate. I'm talking from experience with full-power XM193 and  XM855 loads. The Russian rounds are somewhat underpowered, and for shooting metal, velocity is key. You will find that the 7.62x39 round will make a dissapointing, shallow indendation. The 5.56 will make a hell of a crater, if not go right through it.

Do yourself a favor and try at least XM193 or XM855. There IS a difference!!

Just what exactly do you guys expect would be "different"?  Shooting at a wet phone book or a double wall, from about 21 feet away with a test sheet about 3 feet behind it.  I will say that I would expect the same result.  Being, nice fragmentation in a tight pattern directly behind the wet media, and zing through the soft wall.

I still believe that there would be no diffence.  If someone else wants to try this test on their own, I would certainly like to see what happens.  Though like I said before, the intent of these tests was not to test bullets, guns, or other factors.  I just wanted to get generic, repeatable results with hollow point ammunition.