GBullet,
First of all my apology that I made it appear that I was responding to your post.
Glenn, if you don't believe me, and I have researched this topic, check out this link
Actually I was replying to 223 Fan not you, you write respectfully and get respectful answers from me.
As to the issue: I do not for a minute doubt that high velocity fragmenting rounds will more readily pass through body armor because of the velocity, nor that high velocity frangible rounds would do likewise. The point of this discussion was that frangible ammunition that travels at much lower velocities than those quoted by the all knowing expert 223 Fan are also passing through body armor. This is regardless of the fact that:
The whole purpose of frangible bullets is NOT to penetrate.
Now while they were designed not to pass through a target, those targets for which these rounds were designed to break apart upon impact were in fact hard targets such as walls, hard plate armor, aircraft bodies and so forth - and not soft body armor. These rounds were not designed for anything to do with soft body armor. One of the main reasons they were designed was to arm the original US Sky Marshals with ammunition that would not penetrate an aircraft body (Glasser Safety Slug).
Yes they were designed to break apart upon impact with hard surfaces, and no they were not designed with soft body armor in mind.Therefore, the consternation of all parties including professional firearms and ammunitions experts when it came to the repoted soft armor penetration properties of the lower velocity frangible ammo - which by the way is the velocity of most frangible rounds. The whole thing about 223 Fan's claims are that they have little to do with the original discussion because it is like discussing apples and watermelons. No one was talking ammo at 2,000 fps but closer to 1200 to 1400 fps. No one was talking fragmenting ammo, or split point ammo but commercially available frangible ammo made from metal dust and other materials that bond the metal dust, and that have velocities much lower than 2,000 fps.
By the way I read the article on the link you supplied and it makes my point about the possible penetration of soft body armor and states the same source I cited. Now how does that support GKs argument at all? In fact, I do not believe it said anything about 2,000 fps frangible rounds in there anywhere did it? Only 223 Fan knows about them being the only ones capable of penetrating soft body armor, and allow me to quote him here to remind you that such is in essence exactly what he meant when he said what he said:
223 fan said:
The frangibles do not pierce armor UNLESS they have quite high velocity, as in 2000 fps or so.
The real people in the real business of testing such claims, not 223 Fan, are quite concerned about this UNEXPECTED yet reported property of some frangible ammunition, and to date they have stated that their initial testing shows these concerns to be worthy of additional and more complete tests because the regular velocity stuff was possibly penetrating soft body armor. As for the satement by Hard Rock:
Hard Rock said:
Frangibles aren't designed to penetrate vests. Just the opposite actually. They are designed to minimize penetration on hard targets such as aircraft bodies and such.
That is not exactly correct. They were never designed with soft body armor in mind at all, so no they were essentially not
DESIGNED to penetrate a vest. However, they have in some instances reportedly done just that. Yet they were not designed, as hard Rock said, to do just the opposite of penetraing soft body armor. That would mean they were designed NOT to penetrate soft body armor. That statement is in essence incorrect. Rather what they were actually designed to do was to NOT penetrate HARD surfaces. Soft body armor was not in the picture with regard to their development. It is however now in the picture because of findings that some types of frangible may in fact penmetrate some types of soft body armor. That is why extensive tests are being conducted (or were being as they may already be over but not yet reported on). Look at the test parameters of the National Institute of Justice as seen in the article to which I originally supplied a link, here they are in brief, and note the date:
May 2003 Update
As a result of the preliminary ballistic penetration tests that indicated the need for more extensive tests done on a broader range of materials, a test plan has been developed. Currently, testing materials are being procured for these studies. Ballistic panels of standardized constructions are being made from the full range of ballistic resistant materials commonly used today, specifically: Aramids, PBOs, and Polyethylenes. Both woven fabrics and shield fabrics will be assessed, at both normal (0-degree) and 30-degree angles of incidence. Three types of frangible bullets will be used in this evaluation, sintered/pressed metals, jacketed pressed metals, and metal/polymer composites. After all test materials have been procured, the ballistic tests will occur in the first quarter of 2004. .
Quoted from source:
http://www.justnet.org/testing/frangible.html
Funny how they at the NIJ still wanted to perform testing after the Orange County testing (which was reported on in a 2002 dated article), isn't it! Did you read them closely and notice that the types of bullet make up of the bullets to be tested by the NIJ are specified! What about by the Orange county PD? Sure they told you what velocity they were, but did they tell you of what type of composition/construction the frangible ammo was made? Did they use the same type of ammunition against each vest? No they did not! In fact on one vest they used only 2 types of frangible ammunition not three like the others, why do you think they did that? Did they fire at different angles of impact as would the NIJ - if they did this at Orange County they failed to report it. Did they fire at the same type of vest as would be used by the NIJ? I don't know enough about vest construction to say if they did or not, but my bet would be no. What was the backing for the vests into which they fired? Was there a backing at all? (These factors make a substantial difference.) Did they use vests in various states of wear, and of various ages representative of various stages in the normal lifespan of the tested vests? There are just too many vasriables of which that report seemingly fails to make reference, and to which I believe it should have made reference.
I heard, at work, reports of the tests done by Orange County shortly after they performed them, and the consensus among firearms professionals with whom I communicated seemed to be that they had not performed valid scientific testing to in essence relaibly state that these rounds pose no penetration threat on soft body armor of all currently used types. They had reportedly, as I understand, jumped the gun due to eagerness to get some sort of recognition. Maybe their results are correct across the board, but I will not surmise that they are with the limited testing they apparently performed. Certainly I do not doubt that the ammo they used did not penetrate the vest they used, but that does not necessarily support any claim that frangible ammunition will not penetrate all commonly used types of soft body armor. I will wait for the more complete testing to be accomplished by the NIJ, unless of course it is determined that such testing is no longer needed based upon the Orange County or other testing. As I pointed out though, the NIJ was still intent on more complete testing subsequent to the completion of the Orange County test. Go figure.
I enjoy a good discussion of the issues. I would like to be able to discuss this some more in nice respectful tones and with presentation of more factual data. So to 223 Fan, and/or Andy I say this: TICSMYD (you should know that by now but in case you forgot it: Talk Is Cheap Show Me Your Data). Do you have any date 223 Fan and/or Andy? Or is it all talk as usual? I am more than amenable to seein the testing facts, and figures that you have come up with and please be as complete as is possible. I am certain that the NIJ would also be interested in your scientific findings if you really have any that hold water. They are, however, not interested in Brown Smelly Stuff even if it winds up being right in the long run. You see they try to do it through rigorous scientific testing and they really try to scientifically ascertain the reliability and validity of their results before they open their mouths because people's lives may depend upon what they find. If you have such evidence of your claims, that only high speed (2,000fps or better) frangible rounds will pierce soft body armor please produce it; I would be interested in reviewing it even if it proves wrong the theory that such penetration may be taking place with lower velocity frangible ammunition. I await your data with high anticipation. Thanks.
