Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,230
And a beer.then he better bring me pie if hes coming over........
And a beer.then he better bring me pie if hes coming over........
FMJ is a terrible performer on flesh, that's the reason for its use according to The Hague Convention. Use a good expanding bullet and the 5.56 is extremely effective and less likely to penetrate multiple walls.
As a person with significant experience in both design and construction (and firearms) this is not as simple as it can seem at first blush.were to build a house, or have one built, I think it might be wise to put something in the walls to make them "bullet proof"
It's also pretty expensive, which means you are not going to practice enough with it, like as not. There is something to be said for, when the chips are down, knowing that you have shot the ammo currently in the chamber a thousand times versus a dozen, or six, or just the once. It's a choice--all things are a choice.Frangible ammo is an option.
Yes, I figured it would only be an option for someone very rich. And then, if one has good enough security in the first place, no one is going to get in the house in the first place. Great information!As a person with significant experience in both design and construction (and firearms) this is not as simple as it can seem at first blush.
Ideally, across the wide range of projectiles, we would want a number of laminations with void spaces between to quickly (we really only have about 4" of space, and for projectiles distance becomes time; at 150fps, or 1800 inches per second, 4" is 1/450 of a second). What that leaves us with is finding "single thickness" solutions which do not "rob" us of interior space.
The only "sure" material would be polycarbonate sheets or heavy FRP panels. These would want to be over an inch thick (teller window spec for point-blank handguns is 1 5/8"PC or 1 5/16" laminate glass). This is going to be an inelegant solution as we want the wall space to also pass electircal wires, plumbing, ductwork and the like. Metal sheeting is a problem, as it's remarkably not bullet resistant, even at considerable thickness. It's also expensive and heavy to complicate your construction (Installing 1/2" face-hardened steel sheets on a second floor means beefing up the floors and walls considerably).
There is a compromise, but, like most compromises, it does not leave everyone "happy." That would be in using "cementitious board." This is a portland cement product poured over a nylon mesh with glass fiber infill. This is used as a backing surfcae for heavy tile and stone veneer applications. This, because it only is 3/8" or 1/2" thick, and installs in 4x8 sheets, rather than building up a 1 5/8" mud bed over lath. It's more bullet resistant than "plain" drywall (which is gypsum plaster between paper sheets). Installing rock wool insulation batts would help slow any penetrations, too. (Yes, this is right around the tornado-resistance design spec recommendations, which are meant to resist 8 foot 2x4 at 150 mph, perhaps 10-15% of the way to "bullet resistance.") And, each wall you did this to is going to be around 4x to 5x more expensive to build or renovate.
It's also pretty expensive, which means you are not going to practice enough with it, like as not. There is something to be said for, when the chips are down, knowing that you have shot the ammo currently in the chamber a thousand times versus a dozen, or six, or just the once. It's a choice--all things are a choice.
Well, not so much rich as "able to plan." Retrofitting a tract house is tough, as they are built for speed and low construction cost. If a person can afford to pay for design, which might only be $5K-10K, less if temed in with a good Design-build firm, then getting a "tornado room" (scans more commonplace than "safe room" does) is not a huge cost addtition. That's 4" CMU with a 2" partition wall and a 16" corrugated metal sheet ceiling over the "appearance" ceiling, yields a fairly 'normal' looking room.it would only be an option for someone very rich.
It's not a bad thought, it's just an entirely different subject.Just a thought, asking for a friend.
Truth. My bad. But.......!!!It's not a bad thought, it's just an entirely different subject.
Yep!I learned this in 1995 while working at a gun shop with an indoor rifle range. It left an impression on me then just how loud a Mini14 was firing indoors.I've read the responses and can't comment on what firearm to use but I can attest to this the muzzle blast and concussion of a 223 fired indoors is something you'll want to experience only once. I go to an indoor range that allows rifles up to 50 BMG and been around with someone firing an AR and even with hearing protection it's border line painfull.
Doesn't/wouldn't planning for shooting in the house, in the dark, and what weak and ineffective ammo to use show a total lack of planning as far as securing the house so that evil dudes don't just appear in your bedroom and wake you up in the middle of the night? Or the old: "honey, I think someone is downstairs". !!!
The graphs are about M855, yet his data supports his statement "When M855/193 fragment quickly, they can be very effective. Unfortunately, they could just as easily exhibit poor performance without the end user really knowing how well his particular rifle/ammo performs."On the contrary.
All the GKR supporting data is RE: the M855 62 gr. "green tip" penetration round, stabilized in 1:7" high-twist rate barrels.
The M193 55 gr. ball round mentioned, was not supported.
Here is the Wound Profile for the M193 round:
Showing upset at a little past 4", followed by massive damage to 10", consistent with the results of the gel test provided.
Both the test rifle and Ruger Mini-14 have lower 1:9" twist rate barrels as well.
Oh no, I'm not really taking sides on the ammo issue, that just seemed to be where the conversation was going. Just puzzled that everyone seems to "expect" intruders to get into the house quietly, which I do believe shows lack of planning.Might makes right?
Interesting considering that planning on shooting weak ammo shows a lack of planning for security. Many SWAT teams use comparatively weak and ineffective ammo in their guns opposite of what you suggest. It shows planning and security concerns for non-combatants. The point here is that the power factor of the ammo does not justify or refute that there is planning for the security of the home. Different people have different wants and needs.
Are you less planned for your home security because you are using the weak and ineffective .223 compared to your neighbor that has a powerful and effective 30.06?
How would the amount of noise they make getting in or how long it takes be relevant either way? The question remains the same regardless.Oh no, I'm not really taking sides on the ammo issue, that just seemed to be where the conversation was going. Just puzzled that everyone seems to "expect" intruders to get into the house quietly, which I do believe shows lack of planning.
I will agree to disagree there. It is not expensive to make a door extremely difficult to breech. Windows I don't know about, but I'm sure there are solutions.In reality, unless you are spending some serious money on doors and windows,
Sure, but it doesn't change what a given round will penetrate, which is the question at hand.Time buys you options.