Armor Piercing Limited Penetration Discussion

Spetsznaz

New Member
I first hear about the armor piercing limited penetration rounds or "Blended metal" as they are called in the book:BlackWater: Rise of the most powerful mercenary army by Jermey Scahill (Not sure thats how you spell his name)

I am afraid I don't have a page number source of what he :( said in his book but it goes something like this:

So basically a a private contractor of Blackwater or DynCorp got hold of this ammunition. He was a former SOCOM. While in Iraq he was fired upon by insurgents and in the process he shot his M4 Carbine at the man from a distance of 100-110 yards. You wont believe what happened:eek:

The Bullet entered the mans Buttocks and exploded tearing away the lower stomach, his death was said to be instant.:flame

Here is an article of this: (I am allowed to copy and paste articles right...)

By John G. Roos
Special to the Times

Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them.
In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.

He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

“It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,” Thomas said.

Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and controversial — bullet.

The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is “nonstandard” and hasn’t passed the military’s approval process.

“The way I explain what happened to people who weren’t there is … this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round,” he said, even though the ammo does not have an explosive tip. “Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot.”

The bullet Thomas fired was an armor-piercing, limited-penetration round manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio.

A new process

APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called “blended-metal” process, said Stan Bulmer, president of sales and manufacturing for Le Mas Ltd. of Little Rock, Ark. Le Mas is the distributor of RBCD ammo.

Various bullet types made by RBCD are designed for different effects, Bulmer said.

The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist’s clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating “untreatable wounds.”

Le Mas gave Thomas a small number of APLP rounds after he contacted the company.

After driving off their attackers, Thomas and his colleagues quickly searched the downed enemy fighter for items of intelligence value. They also took time to examine the wound.

“There’s absolutely no comparison, whatever, none,” to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo, Thomas said in a telephone interview while on home leave in Florida.

He said he feels qualified to assess a bullet’s effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops.

Thomas was the only member of the four-man group who had RBCD ammo. He said that after the group returned to base, they and other members of his group snatched up the remaining rounds.

“They were fighting over it,” he said. “At the end of the day, each of us took five rounds. That’s all we had left.”

Congress wants tests

Last year’s defense budget included $1.05 million for testing blended-metal bullets, Bulmer said. Fourteen months into the 24-month period during which those research and development-testing funds must be spent, the military has not purchased a single bullet from Le Mas.

Publicly, at least, military officials say RBCD ammo is no more effective than other types now in use and, under certain conditions, doesn’t even perform as well. Those conclusions are derived from a series of tests conducted a few years ago in which RBCD ammo’s effects were observed in ballistic gelatin, the standard means for testing bullets.

Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Gary Roberts, a recognized ballistics expert and member of the International Wound Ballistics Association, conducted the gelatin tests in March 2002.

According to his findings, “Claims that RBCD bullet terminal performance can vary depending on target thickness, size or mass were not shown to have merit, as bullet performance remained consistent irrespective of gelatin block size.”

Roberts found that in gelatin, a 9mm, 60-grain slug exhibited “tissue damage comparable to that of other nonexpanding 9mm bullets and is less than that of standard 9mm [jacketed hollow point] designs, since the RBCD bullet does not create as much tissue damage due to its smaller recovered diameter.”

A .45-caliber bullet “offered average terminal performance in bare and denim-clad gelatin, similar to that noted with the 9mm bullet. ... The RBCD bullets do not appear to be a true frangible design, as significant mass is retained after striking a target.”

Not surprisingly, Roberts’ assessment remains a major impediment to getting RBCD ammo into military hands. Considering his standing in the ballistics community, his findings are accepted as gospel by many influential members of the special-operations community.

But Bulmer insists that tests in ballistic gelatin fail to demonstrate RBCD ammo’s actual performance because the gelatin is chilled to 36 degrees. Their bullets seem to shatter most effectively only when they strike warmer targets, such as live tissue. Bulmer said tests using live animals clearly would show its effects. Despite his appeals for such testing, and the funds set aside by Congress to conduct new tests, the military refuses.

Bulmer said authority to spend the testing funds initially went to U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which delegated testing responsibility to the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Queries to the command confirmed that it was aware of the testing requirement but had not decided when, or if, the tests will be conducted.

Bill Skipper, president and CEO of the American Business Development Group, is a lobbyist representing Le Mas on Capitol Hill. “When I heard of the ballistic characteristics of this ammo, as a retired military officer, I realized it has to stay in the good guys’ hands,” he said, adding that SOCom’s reluctance to test it is “irresponsible.”

“This is an issue of national security,” he said.

Some supporters of RBCD ammunition suggest SOCom officials may be reluctant to test the ammo because it threatens “in-house” weapons and ammunition programs underway at the command.

Special-operations forces long have sought a more potent standard round than the 5.56mm, which lacks the punch needed during the long-distance engagements that frequently occur in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response, SOCom is working with weapons and ammunition manufacturers to develop a new round and new upper receivers for M4 and M16 rifles.

The command apparently has narrowed its search to a 6.8-by-43mm round.

Indication of industries’ involvement in this effort was seen in October during the annual Association of the U.S. Army exhibition in Washington.

If Le Mas’ 5.56mm APLP round delivers the performance SOCom is seeking in the new 6.8mm ammo — and Bulmer insists it does — the rationale and the potentially lucrative contracts for producing a new ammo type and modifying thousands of weapons used by special-operations forces would disappear.

Thomas said he isn’t familiar with the reasons that might keep RBCD ammo from getting a realistic test within the military.

“The politics, that’s above my pay grade,” he said. “All I really care about is that I have the best-performing weapon, optics, communications, medical equipment, etc. I’m taking Le Mas ammo with me when I return to Iraq, and I’ve already promised lots of this ammo to my buddies who were there that day and to their friends.”

When military officials in the United States got wind that Thomas had used the round, he quickly found himself in the midst of an online debate in which an unnamed officer, who mistakenly assumed Thomas was in the service, threatened him with a court martial for using the nonstandard ammo.

Although Thomas was impressed by RBCD ammo’s performance, he feels it should not be the standard ammunition issued to all U.S. forces.

“The first thing I say when I talk to people about Le Mas’ ammo is, make sure that 22-year-old infantrymen don’t get a hold of this, because if they have an accident ... if they have a negligent discharge, that person is dead. It doesn’t matter how much body armor you have on.

“This is purely for putting into bad guys. For general inventory, absolutely not. For special operations, I wouldn’t carry anything else.”

A video clip on RBCD ammo that was shot at the annual Armed Forces Journal Shootout at Blackwater is online at ARMED FORCES JOURNAL - Customer Service.

John G. Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal.

This ammo is very controversial and and is widely considered immoral.

I want to know what you guys this should this ammunition be allowed, and too whom (military, retired personnel, civilians)

ALSO IF ANYONE HAS VIDEO OF THIS AMMUNITION EFFECT PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK:D
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
While there's no question that the "blended ammunition" I question is some pretty powerful stuff, I certainly think war stories and manufacturer's claims may exaggerate the power of this bullet. It certainly can do a world of hurt, but I'd take some of what's being said with a grain of salt.

First of all, you usually shoot someone with the intent to kill them. (yes, I know you can "shoot to wound" but in a combat situation, most soldiers are trying to kill their opponents.) Delibrately hitting someone with a chunk of lead moving at supersonic speeds, and then complaining that it kills them seems a bit contradictory to me.

(one a side note, the orginal 5.56mm was designed to wound rather than kill, since a wounded enemy soldier absorbed more resources, unfortunately this also reduced its penetration and was frustrating in situations where you where trying to kill people...)

As barbaric as this round may be, as long as its used appropriately, it seems acceptable. I certainly wouldn't dole it out to the average soldier or use it in situations where civilian casualties or friendly fire was a concern, but for Special Forces or marksmen, it would be appropriate.

However, whether or not civilian contractors need such a bullet is rather questionable.
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
While there's no question that the "blended ammunition" I question is some pretty powerful stuff, I certainly think war stories and manufacturer's claims may exaggerate the power of this bullet. It certainly can do a world of hurt, but I'd take some of what's being said with a grain of salt.

First of all, you usually shoot someone with the intent to kill them. (yes, I know you can "shoot to wound" but in a combat situation, most soldiers are trying to kill their opponents.) Delibrately hitting someone with a chunk of lead moving at supersonic speeds, and then complaining that it kills them seems a bit contradictory to me.

(one a side note, the orginal 5.56mm was designed to wound rather than kill, since a wounded enemy soldier absorbed more resources, unfortunately this also reduced its penetration and was frustrating in situations where you where trying to kill people...)

As barbaric as this round may be, as long as its used appropriately, it seems acceptable. I certainly wouldn't dole it out to the average soldier or use it in situations where civilian casualties or friendly fire was a concern, but for Special Forces or marksmen, it would be appropriate.

However, whether or not civilian contractors need such a bullet is rather questionable.
I don't see a problem with Contractors or full out mercenaries having this ammo;)

I understand that the media and the manufacture often exaggerate this stuff, but there is a body of an insurgent who dies because a 5.56 round hit him in the but and torn out his lower stomach:confused:

This ammo is as bad as it gets
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
I don't see a problem with Contractors or full out mercenaries having this ammo;)

I understand that the media and the manufacture often exaggerate this stuff, but there is a body of an insurgent who dies because a 5.56 round hit him in the but and torn out his lower stomach:confused:

This ammo is as bad as it gets
The contractor's job is to provide security, not go on offensive military operations. While I understand they have a need to carry weapons, I'm of the opinion that they really don't need that level of lethal force.

As for the body. Most insurgent forces tend to drag their dead away to prevent the enemy form getting an accurate body count (the Viet Cong did this in Vietnam). Also, the contractors in question in effect did a drive-by shooting and I doubt they stopped in the middle of an ambush, ran a 100 yards, checked out the dead terrorist, and then ran back to their Suburbans, all while under intense automatic weapons fire.

I'm not saying the incident didn't happen, I'm just saying it would be hard to verify.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
From the sound of it the bullet was a bit of a lucky shot. If the guy was hit in the bum and it took out his stomach then it sounds like it maybe was deflected by the pelvis upwards. It's hard to be definative about whether a second bloke shot the same way would also exhibit similar wounds.

I have no doubt that it probably does perform better than a ball round under some circumstances - but its illegal, and the ballistics expert (someone who studies the effects of ammunition under controlled scientific repeatable basis) didn't believe the round was that crash hot... So, good luck to the contractors.
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
From the sound of it the bullet was a bit of a lucky shot. If the guy was hit in the bum and it took out his stomach then it sounds like it maybe was deflected by the pelvis upwards. It's hard to be definative about whether a second bloke shot the same way would also exhibit similar wounds.

I have no doubt that it probably does perform better than a ball round under some circumstances - but its illegal, and the ballistics expert (someone who studies the effects of ammunition under controlled scientific repeatable basis) didn't believe the round was that crash hot... So, good luck to the contractors.
Yep. All the ballistics experts I've ever read concur that "no two gunshot wounds are the same."

As for the "legality," have any international groups said anything about this? Or would this fall under the Hague's 1899 banning of expanding "dum-dum" bullets?

The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yep. All the ballistics experts I've ever read concur that "no two gunshot wounds are the same."

As for the "legality," have any international groups said anything about this? Or would this fall under the Hague's 1899 banning of expanding "dum-dum" bullets?

The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
I do not believe the round is "illegal" itself, but I would expect that its would be be restricted by internaionatl treaty. Expanding rounds, be they blended metal, hollow point, polymer tipped, etc are banned for use by regular forces. Irregular (or special...) forces are not similarly restricted and the same holds true for civilians, which I expect would cover the PMCs and police/law enforcement.

I do have to question the "performance" of the round though, as I consider it unlikely that a round could be developed which can pen armour reliably, but be not overpen a person or pen drywall...

-Cheers
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
You guys all seem to think that the ammunition is a bit exaggerated.

The Bullet knows when to "Shatter" because it is sensitive to body heat?
Can some one provide a source that explains this in-depth.
Is there like a thermometer in the bullet?
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
You guys all seem to think that the ammunition is a bit exaggerated.

The Bullet knows when to "Shatter" because it is sensitive to body heat?
Can some one provide a source that explains this in-depth.
Is there like a thermometer in the bullet?
I believe if there's any difference between performance when firing into objects of different temperatures, it would be a question of the physics of the object affecting the bullet differently rather than the bullet "knowing" when to react.

That said, I also believe the performance of this round is most likely exaggerated, as for all the anecdotal claims, attempts to reproduce such effects in a controlled environment have been unsuccessful. Sounds more like marketing than real performance to me.
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
You guys all seem to think that the ammunition is a bit exaggerated.

The Bullet knows when to "Shatter" because it is sensitive to body heat?
Can some one provide a source that explains this in-depth.
Is there like a thermometer in the bullet?
When the bullet gets fired, it's going to be subject to really intense heat....

I'm not a metallurgist, but I really doubt that you can create a durable metal capable of reacting violently only to a small range of specific temperatures (i.e. body heat) and not to any others (e.g. the temperatures when the bullet is fired, ambient air temp, etc.).

It's a very demanding spec...
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
When the bullet gets fired, it's going to be subject to really intense heat....

I'm not a metallurgist, but I really doubt that you can create a durable metal capable of reacting violently only to a small range of specific temperatures (i.e. body heat) and not to any others (e.g. the temperatures when the bullet is fired, ambient air temp, etc.).

It's a very demanding spec...
When I first heard about this ammo I also though that it knew when to explode because of the different vibrations it encountered. However here is proof that it actually works by reacting to body heat:D

Here is the part of the article where it mentions how the bullet works:

Calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin literally pulls heat away from the Blended Metal Technology (BMT) bullet as the bullet passes through it. This results in the BMT bullet remaining intact, and not going frangible like it would in living tissue. Live/living tissue, with its much higher temparature, has a totally different effect on the Le Mas/RBCD BMT rounds. A living body’s heat is the necessary mechanism for the LeMas/RBCD Blended Metal Technology (BMT) SPLP bullet to deploy as it was designed to do.

HERE IS THE FULL ARTICLE: (Just copy and paste):(

http://www.defensereview.com/le-mas-ltd-blended-metal-technology-ammo-vs-ads-transparent-armor-afji-video/
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
When I first heard about this ammo I also though that it knew when to explode because of the different vibrations it encountered. However here is proof that it actually works by reacting to body heat:D

Here is the part of the article where it mentions how the bullet works:

Calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin literally pulls heat away from the Blended Metal Technology (BMT) bullet as the bullet passes through it. This results in the BMT bullet remaining intact, and not going frangible like it would in living tissue. Live/living tissue, with its much higher temparature, has a totally different effect on the Le Mas/RBCD BMT rounds. A living body’s heat is the necessary mechanism for the LeMas/RBCD Blended Metal Technology (BMT) SPLP bullet to deploy as it was designed to do.

HERE IS THE FULL ARTICLE: (Just copy and paste):(

Le Mas Ltd. Blended Metal Technology Ammo vs. ADS Transparent Armor: AFJI Video!
I looked at the page indicated, and I found a few problems with the conclusions presented, especially since the way it was written makes it look as though it is presenting facts (instead of conclusions...) Incidentally, the various inserted links to a rebuttal page all lead me to a dead page instead of a rebuttal to problems someone else found with the round and/or statements about the rounds.

A flaw I found immediately in the suggested testing methodology is that there were differences in both temperature and testing material... To thus conclude that due to a difference in temperature, the round would perform differently in a completely different material/medium is IMO bad science. The only really accurate way to make such a determination would be to test the outcomes with the round passing through different sets of the same materials and having comparisons on the bullet performance made between the same materials at different temperatures.

Some additional food for thought. There are generally two different (often opposing) schools of thought in the US on how to accurately determine real round/bullet performance via testing. The two schools are those who test using ballistic gelatin, known as 'Jello junkies' and those who examine the effects on actual bodies, either human or animal (sometimes both...) and these people are known as 'morgue monsters'. While I do not wish to discuss the difference between the two groups too much unless someone would like me to, I did want to point out that IMV tests using ballistic gelatin are of questionable value in determining the effectiveness of a particular round.

Lastly, we still have not gotten independing confirmation of the bullet performing as 'advertised' from an independent source, or any valid explanation/confirmation of the physics behind how the bullet would perform as 'advertised' and absent that, the stories to me sound like just that, stories.

-Cheers
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some additional food for thought. There are generally two different (often opposing) schools of thought in the US on how to accurately determine real round/bullet performance via testing. The two schools are those who test using ballistic gelatin, known as 'Jello junkies' and those who examine the effects on actual bodies, either human or animal (sometimes both...) and these people are known as 'morgue monsters'. While I do not wish to discuss the difference between the two groups too much unless someone would like me to, I did want to point out that IMV tests using ballistic gelatin are of questionable value in determining the effectiveness of a particular round.
Actually mate that sounds interesting, so more details would be appreciated. I don't know a great deal about the topic but would be keen to hear more. It seems to me that relying solely on ballistic gelatin tests might be fine for observing ballistic properties, but as a measure of stopping power it's going to result in a limited data set without testing on bodies. From what little I've read, isn't the uniform consistency of ballistic gelatin a problem? Seeing as the human body has hollows and bones and so on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 5.7x28mm round from FN would possibly serve as an example of the problems of gelatin testing. If I remember correctly the round performed rather well when fired into ballistic gelatin, due to its habit of tumbling inside the target. Beautiful in theory, and yet I've read several articles written by professionals who contend the actual stopping power is pretty much on par with 9x19mm.

I realise the round's primarily intended for armour penetration but it's hardly the "super bullet" some people seem to think it is...

Veering off topic, sorry all, just thought it might serve as a good example. :)
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Actually mate that sounds interesting, so more details would be appreciated. I don't know a great deal about the topic but would be keen to hear more. It seems to me that relying solely on ballistic gelatin tests might be fine for observing ballistic properties, but as a measure of stopping power it's going to result in a limited data set without testing on bodies. From what little I've read, isn't the uniform consistency of ballistic gelatin a problem? Seeing as the human body has hollows and bones and so on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 5.7x28mm round from FN would possibly serve as an example of the problems of gelatin testing. If I remember correctly the round performed rather well when fired into ballistic gelatin, due to its habit of tumbling inside the target. Beautiful in theory, and yet I've read several articles written by professionals who contend the actual stopping power is pretty much on par with 9x19mm.

I realise the round's primarily intended for armour penetration but it's hardly the "super bullet" some people seem to think it is...

Veering off topic, sorry all, just thought it might serve as a good example. :)
I am not an expert, but I would be happy to share what I know and have observed/learned. Other people please feel free to chime in if I make an error or go too far off topic, or one just has questions.

From my perspective, there is a significant direct issue with using ballistic gelatin as medium to test and rate the effectiveness of rounds, and there is a significant indirect issue (which is related to the direct issue) as well.

The direct issue is fairly obvious, in that ballistic gelatin is a significantly from that of the human body, so how accurate and relevant is a homogenous gelatin in replicating the various materials which make up the organs and structures of the human body? In short, how closely will the behaviour of the bullet when entering, inside, and/or exiting the gelatin mimic that of a bullet doing the same to a person's/animal's body?

The indirect issue is how bullet behavior within the gelatin is related to the bullet's expected effect upon a body. Here too, there tend to be different schools of thought amongst the aforementioned 'Jello Junkies'. In a story related by Massad Ayoob, one school of thought which had not been completely discounted (at the time) by its adherents had a modeling prediction which suggested that being shot by a small calibre pistol round (.380 ACP?) would have a net positive impact upon the person being shot. In other words, they would feel better and be healthier after being shot and they did beforehand. I will look through my books to see if I can relocate the story to make sure I recall it correctly, but the essence I should still have gotten correct, if not all the details. Basically though the predictive model ran directly opposite to what real and observable results would be.

Another common area of contention is that many of the gelatin models only consider a bullet to have effected material/tissue that has come into direct contact with it. This runs into a problem as it ignores the pressure wave which accompanies and immediately proceeds a bullet that has been fired.

Unfortunately that is all for right now, I need to get some... :sleepy2

More to follow later.

-Cheers
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 5.7x28mm round from FN would possibly serve as an example of the problems of gelatin testing. If I remember correctly the round performed rather well when fired into ballistic gelatin, due to its habit of tumbling inside the target. Beautiful in theory, and yet I've read several articles written by professionals who contend the actual stopping power is pretty much on par with 9x19mm.
Sorry to get off topic, but can you please provide a link to the articles were it talks about the 5.7*28 having the same stopping power as a 9*19:)

Also does anyonw know why this ammunition has not been released into the military:confused:

PS: Yay corporal!
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sorry to get off topic, but can you please provide a link to the articles were it talks about the 5.7*28 having the same stopping power as a 9*19:)

Also does anyonw know why this ammunition has not been released into the military:confused:

PS: Yay corporal!
Are you referring to 5.7x28 mm ammunition not being released to the military? if so, the matter would revolve around which military wants it, and what weapons they use... For instance, 5.7x28 mm ammo would be completely useless in the hands of a US soldier with standard issue equipment since the standard weapons are either chambered for 5.56x45 mm NATO (rifles/carbines) or 9x19 mm Parabellum (pistol).

Some of the FN 5.7x28 mm ammunition was made with a steel core, which improved the bullet's ability to penetrate body armour, however, the bullet itself is still roughly the same size as a rifle bullet. Due to the significantly smaller bullet size (32gr/2g vs.123gr/8g) of a 5.7 mm bullet instead of a 9 mm bullet, a 5.7 mm bullet needs to have significantly higher velocity to achieve similar effects. Comparing the velocities of the bullets, it does appear that the two rounds reach comparable energy levels 716 m/s for 5.7 vs. 360 m/s for 9 mm.

-Cheers
 

riksavage

Banned Member
The Chinese developed a steel core round for the AK and standard sidearm. Caused a bit of controversy amongst vehicle armouring companies. However B6 & B7 rated vehicles stopped both.
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
The Chinese developed a steel core round for the AK and standard sidearm. Caused a bit of controversy amongst vehicle armouring companies. However B6 & B7 rated vehicles stopped both.
If I remember correctly, the Russian did something similar with some of their small arms as well. Especially their pistols. Apparantly they did nasty things to anybody wearing Fabric/Kevlar body armor, since the steel cores of the small rounds slipped right through the vest material.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sorry to get off topic, but can you please provide a link to the articles were it talks about the 5.7*28 having the same stopping power as a 9*19:)

Also does anyonw know why this ammunition has not been released into the military:confused:

PS: Yay corporal!
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you mate, all the articles I had about the issue were hard copies so I can't exactly provide a link. However if you googles "5.7x28mm ballistics" or something like that I'm sure you'll be able to find some information on the subject. :)
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
If I remember correctly, the Russian did something similar with some of their small arms as well. Especially their pistols. Apparantly they did nasty things to anybody wearing Fabric/Kevlar body armor, since the steel cores of the small rounds slipped right through the vest material.
But that's just plain AP ammo:(

And aren't vest like the American Interceptor capable of stopping AP rounds

Sorry Body Armor is not my best
 
Top