Bullet-Penetration...

[andersson 285]

I remember from a book I read that the russian 5.45 do more damage than nato 5.56 because its center of mass is more to the back of the bullet making it less stable. So when the bullet hits a body the bullet will tumble around making alot of damage, more damage than the nato 5.56. But because of this the bullet will also richochet more and change direction if it hits something on the way to the target.

The book also pointed out that the effect of the 5.45 ammunition are abit to nasty but it is design is just within the "legal" limits.

This is taken from memory and I do not remember the name of the book so take this for what it is, some information on the internet one person remember reading...  

[max power 21]

I remember from a book I read that the russian 5.45 do more damage than nato 5.56 because its center of mass is more to the back of the bullet making it less stable. So when the bullet hits a body the bullet will tumble around making alot of damage, more damage than the nato 5.56. But because of this the bullet will also richochet more and change direction if it hits something on the way to the target.

The book also pointed out that the effect of the 5.45 ammunition are abit to nasty but it is design is just within the "legal" limits.

This is taken from memory and I do not remember the name of the book so take this for what it is, some information on the internet one person remember reading...

While I've heard of a medic's account that that seems to agree with your statement, there aren't any scientific findings to support that. The statement was a post on a forum that I was participating in. He was an eastern bloc medic who served fighting some assymetric warfare against combatants that had all kinds of different weapons. Of course, this is a primary source but it is dubious. Furthermore, there's a lot of propaganda and politics involved in weapons development, and people are susceptible to that. There may also be political motivations to come to certain findings during weapons tests and studies too, though. The diagrams I've seen of wounding factors of various rounds (including the 5.45) indicate that all of them will tumble over, that the airpocket in the 5.45 round's nose does little to nothing, and that it doesn't fragment. A round that fragments inside tissue, like the various 5.56 rounds that NATO and America use, will always do more physical damage. The diagram of the unjacketted 308 winchester was

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I remember from a book I read that the russian 5.45 do more damage than nato 5.56 because its center of mass is more to the back of the bullet making it less stable. So when the bullet hits a body the bullet will tumble around making alot of damage, more damage than the nato 5.56. But because of this the bullet will also richochet more and change direction if it hits something on the way to the target.

The book also pointed out that the effect of the 5.45 ammunition are abit to nasty but it is design is just within the "legal" limits.

This is taken from memory and I do not remember the name of the book so take this for what it is, some information on the internet one person remember reading...  

I think you might have the rounds mixed up because the 5.56mm round is a tumbler. 5.45 might be also, but 5.56 definitely is.

[max power 21]

I remember from a book I read that the russian 5.45 do more damage than nato 5.56 because its center of mass is more to the back of the bullet making it less stable. So when the bullet hits a body the bullet will tumble around making alot of damage, more damage than the nato 5.56. But because of this the bullet will also richochet more and change direction if it hits something on the way to the target.

The book also pointed out that the effect of the 5.45 ammunition are abit to nasty but it is design is just within the "legal" limits.

This is taken from memory and I do not remember the name of the book so take this for what it is, some information on the internet one person remember reading...

I think you might have the rounds mixed up because the 5.56mm round is a tumbler. 5.45 might be also, but 5.56 definitely is.

All rifle bullets that I know of 'tumble' after they enter the human body (except the 308 winchester that I noted above, which just seems to explode). The tumbling is actually the bullet trying to finding a new stable orientation through the new medium. It's not the tumbling action itself that really causes a lot of wounding, but the fragmentation as a result of the accidental weak engineerning of the 5.56 rounds. Fragmentation for these rounds will only happen over 2700 feet per second for these bullets. With the m193 round you can expect it to hold that for up to 200 meters on an average day (pressure, tempurature) at sea level, and up to 150 meters for the m885 round.

You can learn more about it here.

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#m193orm855

Most of the images on that site appear to be broken. It's sort of sad to see all of the things I read a few years ago now decaying.

There are also a lot of articles about wounding Firearmstactical.com. This site also has many useful diagrams.

The air pocket at the head of the 5.45 round is thought to be an attempt to induce yaw in the bullet by putting its C of G further back. They were hoping to mimmick the fragmentation of the m193 round, according to some sources. In that event, it wasn't successful, because the lead core just squishes up to the head of the steel jacket on penetration with those things.

Interestingly, I found some information about the penetration of those rounds.. and apparently through some mediums, like soft steel, the m885 outperforms the steel jacketed .308. The m885 penetrates through 3 times the RHA of the m193, and a new round, the m995, penetrates 2 times that... so modern m995 rounds can apparently penetrate up to 6mm RHA due to increasing technology in terms of core design.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/556.htm

[urbanwarrior 0]

Here you go. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE

There's 40 mm grenade, .50 BMG, some SMAW also.

Yeah. Cinder block are bad.

Here's another clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0UdI1No82A

excellent videos, thanks for the link's. the 30mm cannon was interesting, if it was like that in arma there would be no such thing as cover! i think the most bewildering point in that video was the results of the m16 versus the SAW, cant see how the saw performed better, i would have thought the m16 had the longer barrel and would have possibly had a slightly higher muzzle velocity and so would have performed better but apparently not, makes you think.

[bana 0]

Quote (Col. Faulkner @ Mar. 24 2007,02:26)

Quote (urbanwarrior @ Mar. 24 2007,01:27)

[...]m14's or SLR's would definately do it, i think the question is more like what range they (5.56/7.62) could do it at.

Dunno about the 5.56mm but I carry in the squalid junk-

room that is my memory the fact that British L2A2 7.62mm

ball rounds (nb. "ball", not "armour piercing") for the SLR and

GPMG (ie. much the same as the ammo used in the M240)

would completely penetrate about 40 inches of stacked pine

boards, or c. 2 inches of concrete, or c. 8 inches of cinder

block at 200m. Penetration in fact, and possibly surprisingly,

increased with range up to a limit, although I cannot off-hand

remember what the optimum was; I seem to remember that

it was 300m or so (but i may be mistaken in that last bit).

I once saw a GPMG demolish a brick wall in a demo, and

there were also occasions when 7.62mm ball rounds fired

from SLRs went right through houses in N. Ireland (in and

out through two brick walls).

I have personally have demolished a reinforced concrete wall with an L1A1 (Aussie semi auto version of the L2A2). The wall section was approx 2mx2m and at about 100m. 8 rounds was all it took. The AK 47 required a few more rounds but did the job admirably. Both were using ball. The 5.56 from an M16 wasn't in the ball park.

Using iron sights on a bolt action rifle I have a reasonable chance of hitting a target the size of a dinner plate using 7.62 at 800m. No such luck with the 5.56. In a cross wind, the 7.62 stays truer in flight when compared to the 5.56

While I understand the choice of 5.56 for personal firearms, it still amazes me that for support weapons, the fullbore weapons like the M60 and MAG58 are being replaced by 5.56, eg the Minimi (or SAW as the Americans call it).

[max power 21]

Here you go. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE

There's 40 mm grenade, .50 BMG, some SMAW also.

Yeah. Cinder block are bad.

Here's another clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0UdI1No82A

excellent videos, thanks for the link's. the 30mm cannon was interesting, if it was like that in arma there would be no such thing as cover! i think the most bewildering point in that video was the results of the m16 versus the SAW, cant see how the saw performed better, i would have thought the m16 had the longer barrel and would have possibly had a slightly higher muzzle velocity and so would have performed better but apparently not, makes you think.

I read somewhere that the SAW uses a different ammo load than what they issue with the m16.

Also I think they expended more ammunition with it...

Yes, that 30mm demo was quite telling! It sort of gives credence to what some have professed to be the strange design decision of making the sandbag walls destroyable!

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Yeah, the ammunition for the 249 has a higher grain. You can take bullets from an M16/M4 mag and use them with a 249 with some reliability problems, but you cannot take rounds from a 249 box and use them with your M16 or M4.

[urbanwarrior 0]

would it not have been smarter to just design the saw to use m16 ammuntion full stop. that way there would be no worries about compatabilites.

[HamishUK 0]

Dunno about the 5.56mm but I carry in the squalid junk-

room that is my memory the fact that British L2A2 7.62mm

ball rounds (nb. "ball", not "armour piercing") for the SLR and

GPMG (ie. much the same as the ammo used in the M240)

would completely penetrate about 40 inches of stacked pine

boards, or c. 2 inches of concrete, or c. 8 inches of cinder

block at 200m. Penetration in fact, and possibly surprisingly,

increased with range up to a limit, although I cannot off-hand

remember what the optimum was; I seem to remember that

it was 300m or so (but i may be mistaken in that last bit).

I once saw a GPMG demolish a brick wall in a demo, and

there were also occasions when 7.62mm ball rounds fired

from SLRs went right through houses in N. Ireland (in and

out through two brick walls).

I am wondering if you saw the same demo video as I did?

It was one in basic training where they taught you the facts about 'Actual' vs 'Hollywood' bullet penatration.

Remember the brick wall with the GPMG and the SLR 7.62mm going clean through a tree trunk.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

would it not have been smarter to just design the saw to use m16 ammuntion full stop. that way there would be no worries about compatabilites.

No, the two weapons have different requirements to fire. The M16 / m4 round is too weak for an automatic rifle, in my opinion, it's too weak for an assault rifle too.

[urbanwarrior 0]

would it not have been smarter to just design the saw to use m16 ammuntion full stop. that way there would be no worries about compatabilites.

No, the two weapons have different requirements to fire. The M16 / m4 round is too weak for an automatic rifle, in my opinion, it's too weak for an assault rifle too.

well thats my point, if the 5.56 wasn't up to the job then why didn't they just keep the 7.62 and conversely if the 5.56 is up to the job then why charge up the catridge for use with the saw, just seems like dumb logic to replace a good servicable support weapon calibre (7.62) with a cartridge that is a charged up or a compressed load version of a regulaar 5.56. Have you got anymore info on those special m249 rounds, if thats how it is in reality then maybe it should be included in a mod or addon (it may already be there in the game but i haven't noticed)

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

would it not have been smarter to just design the saw to use m16 ammuntion full stop. that way there would be no worries about compatabilites.

No, the two weapons have different requirements to fire. The M16 / m4 round is too weak for an automatic rifle, in my opinion, it's too weak for an assault rifle too.

well thats my point, if the 5.56 wasn't up to the job then why didn't they just keep the 7.62 and conversely if the 5.56 is up to the job then why charge up the catridge for use with the saw, just seems like dumb logic to replace a good servicable support weapon calibre (7.62) with a cartridge that is a charged up or a compressed load version of a regulaar 5.56. Have you got anymore info on those special m249 rounds, if thats how it is in reality then maybe it should be included in a mod or addon (it may already be there in the game but i haven't noticed)

Complain to NATO, the same argument can be said about the .45 ACP switch to 9 x 19mm.

[orson 0]

First 5 -6 posts are about topic title .. rest is just OT waffle about video ...

anyway here is a question .. is the penetration in AA actually part of a physics engine ....

.... or did you guys just make the walls thiner in the hit points lod ?

Years back in ofp you could make walls /floors penetrable , infact it was harder to make them un-penetrable

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I have personally have demolished a reinforced concrete wall with an L1A1 (Aussie semi auto version of the L2A2).

L2A2 is/was the designation for the ammo type: Round,

7.62mm, Ball, L2A2.

Both the British and Australian service rifles were L1A1s

(both semi-auto only and identical in all but small details).

[Second 0]

First 5 -6 posts are about topic title .. rest is just OT waffle about video ...

Those videos show what is penetrable with what... Those videos are good base to talk about ArmA's penetration-values.

To ArmA:

All trees are penetrable with M240 and PKM, only thinest are penetrable with rifles and SAW. That big hotel has strudy outer walls: i think that M16 and AK can't pierce them, but PKM and M240 can... Inner walls can be punched thru with allkinds of weapons (floors too).

Infact i'm suppriesed that no-one offers andkind testing results about ArmA's materials and what is penetrable with what... I was sure that this would be first thing someone would check and report. Well... Those who have knowledge (and don't share it) have upper hand in MP (i'm not against that)