Posted: 1/4/2013 12:00:13 PM EDT
|
The reference for this thread is this one Flash Bainite Lots of details in this post ref size and weights, etc... no sense in repeating here.
A little background. After some on and off line dialog the manufacturer, Falsh Bainite, he sent me a plate made of AR500 Flash Bainite equipped with a piece of thin, soft sheet steel that serves to capture some of the "splash" from the bullet striking the steel plate. In the other thread there had been discussion regarding efficacy of using steel as PPE and I had offered to test his product. I tried best to capture in photos what occurred and I don't plan on extrapolating too much or drawing conclusions from this testing as it was clearly unscientific and somewhat ad hoc. Finally a word of thanks and encouragement to Flash Bainite. Rounds used in testing were: One round each from the following- - 9mm 124 gr Milspec ball fired from a G-34 - .45ACP 230 Gr, Ball fired from a 1911 - 5.56 855 62gr fired from a 16" AR15 - 7.62 x 54r 162gr AP fired from a 16" modified PSL Pistol rounds were fired from 10 yds and rifle rounds were fired from 25 yds. Angle of fire was about 10 degrees off of perpendicular. I did not attempt to measure energy or penetration of the splash. Salient points: Results were interesting. Almost all splash from both rifle and pistol rounds traveled at a shallow angle from the point of impact. At 12" from POI the splash was about 2-3"s from the surface of the plate. Neither of the pistol rounds penetrated the splash shield. Instead they deformed it until in contacted the AR500 steel and then the bullet disintegrated. For some reason the 9mm seemed to have a much more significant splash pattern than the .45. The 5.56 855 penetrated the splash shield and the splash seemed to be well contained by the sides of the splash shield, which were bent around the plate. The top and the bottom of the splash shield were open, as this was a prototype, and significant splash exited from these openings. The 7.62 x 54r AP round went through the plate. Note that an ESAPI is designed to stop 30.06 AP which is a bit hotter than 7.62 x 54r. I can assume then that 30.06 AP then would also penetrate this plate, at least from 25 yards. Some pics: Here is the test set up. The Flash Bainite plate was mounted to a piece of Pine board and the cardboard was used to mask each 4 sides. After each round the cardboard was replaced. 
Test 9mm pistol and ammo 
9mm round strike from 10 yards 
9mm splash patterns on all 4 sides. These, IMO, produced the most significant splash pattern though the 5.56 855 could be assumed to have much higher velocity. Top 
Bottom 
Right 
Left 
Next tested was the .45 ACP in 230 grain ball from a full size 1911 
Pic of the round strike 
Pics of the splash patterns 
Rifle and ammo for the 5.56 test 
Pic of 5.56 round strike 
and pic of the 5.56 splash. Note that the TOP cardboard test piece slipped though the splash pattern is evident on the box. There are some holes though that were a result of the previous pistol round tests. Also note that the splash was completly contained on the sides, where the splash "guard" was bent over. This is quite interesting at least in terms of 5.56 frag containment. TOP 
Bottom and sides 
Finally the 7.62 x 54r AP. Complete penetration. I'll measure later but it appears that the exit and entrance holes are the same diameter. Wicked stuff..... Weapon and the AP round 
Impact photo. Note that the round knocked the chair and test box over. 
Greater detail 
|
|
Quoted:
a thickness would be awesome penetrated by the 7.62 ap 
Please take a momemt and refer to the base link that I posted in the first sentance of this thread. There is a wealth of information and reading it will preclude numerous extraneous questions. The plate that I tested was 0.25" in thickness. How does the standard plates do that close? How often do you think you will face bad guys shooting AP in their rifles trying to steal our cookies? Please refer to the 3rd para of the OP of this thread...."I tried best to capture in photos what occurred and I don't plan on extrapolating too much or drawing conclusions from this testing as it was clearly unscientific and somewhat ad hoc." Ref your "stealing cookies" comment....Are you commenting on range or energy? Here is a link to ESAPI test data that may answer your questions: ESAPI Tes data
Not sure I understand your comment.... At 25 yards.... Are you commenting on range or are you commenting on terminal ballistics? What exactly does 25 yards have to do with equation? Is it a question of velocity and mass? Can you be more specific with your comment?
|
|
Thanks for the testing.
If you get the chance, can you re-test with a proper backing? If I recall correctly, the NIJ uses 2" of modeling clay, then you lie the armor against that, put the whole thing vertically and shoot. A "more realistic" test would be with the backing, some soft armor if you had it, then the plates. Note, I realize you may not have any soft armor lying around to test with... It may not change the results of the rifle penetration testing vs steel armor, but it might vs frangible ceramic plates. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for the testing. If you get the chance, can you re-test with a proper backing? If I recall correctly, the NIJ uses 2" of modeling clay, then you lie the armor against that, put the whole thing vertically and shoot. A "more realistic" test would be with the backing, some soft armor if you had it, then the plates. Note, I realize you may not have any soft armor lying around to test with... It may not change the results of the rifle penetration testing vs steel armor, but it might vs frangible ceramic plates. I believe that you're correct ref the clay. I believe that it's used to measure backside deformation. To be honest I didn't see utility in using the clay as AR500 normally will not deform but rather shatter or be penetrated with enough energy. My goal for this ad hoc test was really to test the efficacy of the splatter shield in capturing the splash from the rounds impacting the AR500 steel. There had been discussion in the previous thread (and other, more detailed threads) on how best to mitigate resultant splash from round strikes on the hardened steel. The discussion centered around very low cost solutions, hence the "splatter shield". Also important to note that the 7.62 x 54r AP round wasn't really a component of the splatter shield test. That's a wicked round and more effective, imo, that the 30.06 AP. The soviets used a solid tungsten projectile, IIRC, in the these rounds and it's very effective. The US uses a sub penetrator which is a bit easier on the barrel. I may be wrong here but that's what I recall. So the 7.62 x 54r AP was really just a very unscientific way to see if the Flash Bainite process yielded a more durable Abrasive Resistance (AR) level, beyond AR500. I would not construe the penetration by this round on the Bainite plate as negative. That was expected. I'm also confidant that this steel will stop 7.62 x 51 and 54r ball with no problem. I know this from experience. To be honest 855 is one of the worst rounds for steel target erosion. 7.62 ball is pretty easy on steel in my experience. Note that for this test the rounds that I examined were the 9mm, .45 and the 5.56 as previously mentioned. The next test that I'll do is to provide a gap of 1/2" between the splatter shield and the plate by using some type of inexpensive and light material. I'm considering high density foam or some light weight rubber. Maybe one of these materials...Foam The parameters, as I see them, are to examine the efficacy of the splatter shield in containing the splash from round strikes. The solution constraints are: 1. as light as possible and 2. as inexpensive as possible. A successful solution will contain 100% + or - of all resultant splash for a limited number of round strikes, perhaps 3. My instinct is that this plate, with a 1/2" high density foam layer to provide stand-off and then covered with a wrap around soft steel "splatter shield" might be pretty effective at mitigating the problem of splatter. Spectra or kevlar backers would probably not be required. The resultant solution will probably weigh in at about 12-14lbs and meet the cost constraints of cheap. NOTE: my logic ref the stand-off is that the relatively low velocity pistol rounds caused the soft steel splatter guard to deform vice the pistol round penetrating it. This resulted in a significant round splatter once the bullet was disrupted. My thought is that a degree of standoff would allow the pistol bullet to penetrate the splatter shield, travel through the foam material and the disrupt on the AR500. The resultant splash should then be captured much in the same way that the 5.56 was. What does all this mean? Well from my perspective it's academic discussion to gather a modicum of data and maybe help thise guys that are looking for a very low cost PPE solution. Personally I'm going to use my ESAPIs. They weigh about 4 lbs each and are proven effective. As I said in the other thread when you need body armor, you NEED body armor. You generally also need ammo and water. A 20lb delta in weight equates to 21 mags or 10 quarts of water....or combination thereof. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
a thickness would be awesome penetrated by the 7.62 ap
Please take a momemt and refer to the base link that I posted in the first sentance of this thread. There is a wealth of information and reading it will preclude numerous extraneous questions. The plate that I tested was 0.25" in thickness. How does the standard plates do that close? How often do you think you will face bad guys shooting AP in their rifles trying to steal our cookies? Please refer to the 3rd para of the OP of this thread...."I tried best to capture in photos what occurred and I don't plan on extrapolating too much or drawing conclusions from this testing as it was clearly unscientific and somewhat ad hoc." Ref your "stealing cookies" comment....Are you commenting on range or energy? Here is a link to ESAPI test data that may answer your questions: ESAPI Tes data
Not sure I understand your comment.... At 25 yards.... Are you commenting on range or are you commenting on terminal ballistics? What exactly does 25 yards have to do with equation? Is it a question of velocity and mass? Can you be more specific with your comment?25 yards is pretty close for any steel to stop AP in a round like 7.62x54R. I'm not terribly concerned by that. I am going to shoot my piece with standard Russian light ball and see how it does. If it stops that it will stop just about any standard rifle round. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the testing. If you get the chance, can you re-test with a proper backing? If I recall correctly, the NIJ uses 2" of modeling clay, then you lie the armor against that, put the whole thing vertically and shoot. A "more realistic" test would be with the backing, some soft armor if you had it, then the plates. Note, I realize you may not have any soft armor lying around to test with... It may not change the results of the rifle penetration testing vs steel armor, but it might vs frangible ceramic plates. I believe that you're correct ref the clay. I believe that it's used to measure backside deformation. To be honest I didn't see utility in using the clay as AR500 normally will not deform but rather shatter or be penetrated with enough energy. My goal for this ad hoc test was really to test the efficacy of the splatter shield in capturing the splash from the rounds impacting the AR500 steel. There had been discussion in the previous thread (and other, more detailed threads) on how best to mitigate resultant splash from round strikes on the hardened steel. The discussion centered around very low cost solutions, hence the "splatter shield". Also important to note that the 7.62 x 54r AP round wasn't really a component of the splatter shield test. That's a wicked round and more effective, imo, that the 30.06 AP. The soviets used a solid tungsten projectile, IIRC, in the these rounds and it's very effective. The US uses a sub penetrator which is a bit easier on the barrel. I may be wrong here but that's what I recall. So the 7.62 x 54r AP was really just a very unscientific way to see if the Flash Bainite process yielded a more durable Abrasive Resistance (AR) level, beyond AR500. I would not construe the penetration by this round on the Bainite plate as negative. That was expected. I'm also confidant that this steel will stop 7.62 x 51 and 54r ball with no problem. I know this from experience. To be honest 855 is one of the worst rounds for steel target erosion. 7.62 ball is pretty easy on steel in my experience. Note that for this test the rounds that I examined were the 9mm, .45 and the 5.56 as previously mentioned. The next test that I'll do is to provide a gap of 1/2" between the splatter shield and the plate by using some type of inexpensive and light material. I'm considering high density foam or some light weight rubber. Maybe one of these materials...Foam The parameters, as I see them, are to examine the efficacy of the splatter shield in containing the splash from round strikes. The solution constraints are: 1. as light as possible and 2. as inexpensive as possible. A successful solution will contain 100% + or - of all resultant splash for a limited number of round strikes, perhaps 3. My instinct is that this plate, with a 1/2" high density foam layer to provide stand-off and then covered with a wrap around soft steel "splatter shield" might be pretty effective at mitigating the problem of splatter. Spectra or kevlar backers would probably not be required. The resultant solution will probably weigh in at about 12-14lbs and meet the cost constraints of cheap. NOTE: my logic ref the stand-off is that the relatively low velocity pistol rounds caused the soft steel splatter guard to deform vice the pistol round penetrating it. This resulted in a significant round splatter once the bullet was disrupted. My thought is that a degree of standoff would allow the pistol bullet to penetrate the splatter shield, travel through the foam material and the disrupt on the AR500. The resultant splash should then be captured much in the same way that the 5.56 was. What does all this mean? Well from my perspective it's academic discussion to gather a modicum of data and maybe help thise guys that are looking for a very low cost PPE solution. Personally I'm going to use my ESAPIs. They weigh about 4 lbs each and are proven effective. As I said in the other thread when you need body armor, you NEED body armor. You generally also need ammo and water. A 20lb delta in weight equates to 21 mags or 10 quarts of water....or combination thereof. I am not just looking at this for body armor. I am thinking about hardening buildings and vehicles. If 1/4 will stop rifle fire then it gives us lots of potential. I would think your idea of foam is a good one. I still want to see aluminum bonded to the steel with flexible glue. I would want only localized separation from the steel to contain the splatter. |
|
25 yards is pretty close for any steel to stop AP in a round like 7.62x54R. I'm not terribly concerned by that. I am going to shoot my piece with standard Russian light ball and see how it does. If it stops that it will stop just about any standard rifle round.
A couple points to consider. I was using a 16" barrel for the 7.62 x 54r. IIRC muzzle velocity for that round from a 21" barrel is around 2800 fps. I normally deduct 100 fps for every inch of reduced barrel length so using that formula the muzzle velocity on the 16" would be around 2300 fps. This may not be completely accurate but illustrates a key point which is that the velocity at 25 yds from a 16" barrel is most likely equivalent to the velocity of a 21" barrel at 75-100 yards. The other point is NIJ Body armor tests use a distance of 15 yards to test rifle rounds. Level 4 protection must stop a 30.06 AP round at that distance. Your point ref vehicle and construction use is a good one. I think there's good utility for this product on that space. Also, just got back from the range and decided to see if I could do a comparison of ballistic erosion between know AR500 steel and the Flash Bainite. I used the base of a MGM AR500 target and shot it with 855. I did the same with the flash plate. Interestingly enough it appears that the Flash plate held up a bit better, that's to say less of a divot was observed. This would confirm the brinell testing that showed the flash plate to be a bit harder than AR500. I'll see if I can take some pics that illustrate the comparison. |
|
Quoted:
I wonder if using a polyethylene 1/8" sheet bonded to the front surface with adhesive then the sheet steel overlay might be a better spacer than expanded foam as it being denser but not that much heavier and would trap any frags. I think you're right. What concerned me about using foam, after I thought about it, was that the foam might allow the splatter shield to deform. If the gap is lost then the function of the splatter shield would be lost. So, yes agree, foam is probably not the best option. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if using a polyethylene 1/8" sheet bonded to the front surface with adhesive then the sheet steel overlay might be a better spacer than expanded foam as it being denser but not that much heavier and would trap any frags. I think you're right. What concerned me about using foam, after I thought about it, was that the foam might allow the splatter shield to deform. If the gap is lost then the function of the splatter shield would be lost. So, yes agree, foam is probably not the best option. Might try something like fiberglass, coat strips in resin and wrap the plate. |