Weapon experts, question for you

[GScholz]

Originally posted by storch
I often hunt in heavy brush.  I usually take a .35 Reminton or a shotgun for this type of boar hunt.   the reason being is that more than once I've had 30.06 rounds deflected by palmetto leaves.

This is the case I described above. The bullet is not deflected by the leaves (lol) but they upset the bullet making it skew through the air.

Originally posted by storch
Anything from refridgerators to abandoned cars to beer cans.  I would guess aluminum and A36 mild steel would be the most common.  certainly nothing thicker than 18 ga. which is .047  How thick is a beer can?

The car door is made of steel and usualy around .080 to .100 inch in thickness. A beer can is much less, .010 perhaps?

Don't tell me you've had bullets ricocheting off beer cans.

[storch]

Originally posted by GScholz
This is the case I described above. The bullet is not deflected by the leaves (lol) but they upset the bullet making it skew through the air.




The car door is made of steel and usualy around .080 to .100 inch in thickness. A beer can is much less, .010 perhaps?

Don't tell me you've had bullets ricocheting off beer cans.

The hood of most cars and the roofs are probably around .047 but I'll check.  The door panels or fenders really don't matter because they would present a zero degree point of impact.  I didn't know that Scandanavian vehicles were so stoutly built.  16 ga. is .065 inch  which is what most mfgs use for door/fender material except for the Japanese.  I believe Mercedes still uses 14 ga. which is .074  I doubt any mfg uses anything heavier as we are approaching 1/8 inch thickness at this point.  That would make it impenetrable to pistol ammunition even at point blank.  It would also be very very heavy.  Some refers are made out of thin insulated aluminum others still use steel in any event the sheet metal is also thin.

A beer can will deflect a B.B travelling at 1000fps if the hit is to side but not a .22 I don't think but I will try it out this weekend just to be sure.

[joeblogs]

Let's face it, that is not going to be a nice meal...

Originally posted by GScholz
Take a look at how thin aircraft skin is:








Anyone who thinks that rifle or cannon rounds would "bounce" off aircraft skin is in serious need of a firepower and penetration demonstration at their nearest army base.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by storch
I believe Mercedes still uses 14 ga. which is .074  I doubt any mfg uses anything heavier as we are approaching 1/8 inch thickness at this point.

Actually .080 is approx. 1/12 inch thickness. 1/8 inch is .125.

Modern cars with few exceptions use thinly rolled plates, but it is not unusual for older cars to have 1.5-2.0 mm plates. Lada used/uses over 3 mm thick plates ... it's almost a tank. 2 mm is aprox. .080 inch.

Originally posted by storch
A beer can will deflect a B.B travelling at 1000fps if the hit is to side but not a .22 I don't think but I will try it out this weekend just to be sure.

Be sure to nail the beer can down, or weigh it down. An empty beer can does not weigh much more than a rifle bullet, and a gracing shot might just make the can move out of the way. Try it with the BB too. Also an empty beer can will give in to the bullet, try filling it with water or sand and see what happens.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by GScholz
Why wouldn't it go through the wing?

I never said it would not.
I just said that using the word «impossible» was a dumb idea.
I agree that it's «improbable», I disagree that it's impossible.

I am talking about a bullet travelling almost parralel to the wing barely touching the upper surface here.
Seems likely the bullet would not penetrate in this situation.
Are you telling me that's not possible.

[GScholz]

How does a bullet travel parralel to a curved surface like a wing?

This was my first post in this thread:

Originally posted by GScholz
Bullets do not skip off water, nor do they skip off thin sheets of aluminium. However the skin on the wings and most fuselages is curved and therefore a projectile may very well just grace a small portion of the surface, leaving a furrow that makes it look like the projectile skipped off.

[Tony Williams]

What we are still lacking is any hard evidence one way or the other - we just have opinions (including mine). Now it would be nice of some of those warbird owners would line them up and allow them to be shot at from behind with a variety of weapons, but somehow...

The next best thing would be to find a shot-down wreck with evidence of 'grazing shots' and try the 'rod' test I suggested earlier - if the bullet was NOT deflected, the rod should be in contact with the groove all the way; if the bullet WAS deflected, the middle of the groove would be slightly deeper.

There would seem to be four variables at work:

1. The power of the projectile; the heavier and faster-moving it is, the harder it will be to deflect.

2. The shape of the projectile; a very tapered nose (like a .50 bullet) would actually encourage deflection as it would make it more likely that the body of the projectile, quite far down from the tip, would strike first. This surface would be almost parallel with the surface it was hitting. Blunt-nosed cannon shells would be less likely to deflect.

3. The construction of the target; how thick is the alloy skin? What if the bullet strikes the skin at a point where it is supported by a rib or other structural member?

4. The angle of the strike.

I have read nothing in this thread to change my opinion that in the right circumstances, deflection would have been possible. However, I doubt that we're going to be able to prove it either way.

Tony Williams

[Tony Williams]

Forget my last comment - I've just had a Eureka moment - I remembered a small detail in a report I read at the Public Record Office in preparation for writing 'Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945'. This is a quote form the book, taken from that report on the 30mm Aden cannon:

"Besides, the theoretical effectiveness was not always achieved. A February 1957 report admitted that with the existing Aden ammunition, 20% of all strikes on target would ricochet and another 55% to 60% would explode prematurely, on the target’s skin!"

Gotcha!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[GScholz]

What target did the report cite? And your quote does not say that the shells would ricochet off the skin. There is no argument on projectiles ricocheting off hardened components or armoured surfaces.

[Tony Williams]

The expected target would have been Russian bombers. And the shells wouldn't ricochet after penetration because they would have detonated. - the fuzes were very sensitive.

TW