McCall911's Penetration Predictor

Status
Not open for further replies.
RyanM said:
Actually, according to MacPherson, the biggest change is when a bullet exceeds the cavitation threshold velocity of the target medium. In gelatin, most roundnose bullets have a cavitation threshold of 500 fps. Below that, penetration is linear. Above it, penetration is logarithmic. Speed of sound in air, and speed of sound in water, seem to make no difference at all.


And I think I finally got a workable equation for determining "bonus" penetration for various expanding rounds. I also used a modified version of McCall911's equation, which just takes the maximum penetration and multiplies it by .57/drag coefficient. Looks like the original energy-based one is a little closer for high-powered rifles, for some reason.

RyanM, thanks for helping me in beta-testing this new version. Your ideas are always welcome. If I didn't have to work all this weekend, I'd be doing some beta-testing myself. (It's too cold here in the southeast to go shooting anyway.)


Since I'm off next weekend and since it always rains on my off days, then I'll be in a better position to fine tune some of this stuff. Or work on Version 3!

:what:

:D
 
I forgot to mention, if you want to try to incorporate my "bonus penetration" equations, you're welcome to them.

Part 1:
1. If the bullet doesn't expand, if it shrinks, or if expanded diameter is greater than 3x the original diameter assume no "bonus" penetration
2. Calculate: (velocity^.25 * mass^.5 * 0.0525)
3. If the bullet expansion is between 1x and 2.5x the original, multiply the result of step 2 by: (expanded diameter / original diameter - 1)
4. If the bullet expansion is over 2.5x but less than 3x, skip step 3, and multiply the result of step 2 by: (expanded / original * -2 + 6)
5. The number you have there is your unadjusted bonus penetration. Write down the number or use M+ or whatever. Now calculate: (velocity / 900 * 2)
6. Use whichever of these two numbers is smaller, for part 2.

Part 2.
1. If the bullet didn't fragment, you're done. Use your number from part 1.
2. If the bullet did fragment, add your number from part one to: (fragmentation% / 10 * velocity / 2850)
3. Now you're done.

So for the unknown brand .308 softpoint in my last post, it's:

1. .768 / .308 = 2.49X expansion. Has bonus.
2. 2923^.25 * 99.9^.5 * 0.0525 = 3.858
3. .768 / .308 - 1 = 1.494
3.858 * 1.494 = 5.764
4. Skip.
5. 2923 / 900 * 2 = 6.496. 5.764 is smaller, so 5.764" is used for part 2.

1. Skip.
2. (150 gr - 99.9 gr) / 150 gr * 100 = 33.4%
33.4% / 10 * 2923 / 2850 = 3.426
3.426 + 5.764 = 9.19
3. 9.19" is your bonus penetration.

I should probably make fragmentation bonus use the average of the bullet's penetration with and without the fragmentation, but that's probably too hard.

edit. Oh, it's actually not too hard, with a spreadsheet. Still, the procedure above will get you within spitting distance, probably.
 
In the ongoing (obsessive) quest for accuracy, I have made a couple of slight modifications to the predictor. Instead of re-posting the whole cotton-pickin thing, I have simply highlighted the new changes in red.

I'm contemplating a couple of more refinements to "PenPred", but for now Version 2 is The One. The refinements will include velocity loss due to skin penetration and bone penetration.

Stay tuned, friends and fellow whiz kids!

:)

As of NOW, I've made all the changes for the time being.

And, as always, feedback makes me nervous but is welcome.

;)
 
Last edited:
Velocity loss adjustment for penetration through skin and bone

For whoever is interested, here is the corrected version of the formula I had posted earlier, which is an attempt at estimating the velocity losses after a bullet penetrates skin and bone. This corresponds somewhat with the findings of several ballisticians/scientists, such as Sellier. Mention of his formulas can be found on this Italian
webpage:

http://www.earmi.it/balistica/baltermi.htm




Instead of doing that walkthrough for the desktop calculator, I'll just explain how it works. I came up with a shortcut for it, but this doesn't really show how/why this application might be valid.

As always, you'll need these four variables:

Bullet Diameter (in inches)
Bullet Weight (in grains)
Impact Velocity (in feet per second)
Drag Coefficient/"Form Factor" (unitless)
Values:
0.52 - 0.55 for spitzer-type bullets
0.55 - 0.57 for flatpoint/hollowpoint bullets
0.57 for roundnose bullets
0.7 for mushroomed bullets
0.83 for flat cylinder

Deceleration through 0.06 inch layer of skin:

Deceleration = 0.5 x V^2 x Density x Tensile strength / Atmospheric pressure (lbs per cubic ft) x area x drag coefficient / Bullet Mass

Where: V= Impact Velocity
Density = 62.4 lb per cubic ft (density of skin)
Tensile strength = 62656 lb per sq ft (tensile strength of skin)
Atmospheric pressure = 2116.8 lb per square ft
Bullet mass = Bullet weight / 7000 = mass in lbs
Area = (Bullet diameter/12) x pi / 4
(Acceleration due to gravity figured in the original equation, but is canceled out in the final version of the formula above.)

Remaining velocity after skin penetration (assuming a 0.06 skin layer)

This is easily solved using textbook physics:

Velocity-resulting = (V^2 - 2 x Deceleration x Depth/12)^.5 [in other words, the square root]

Where Depth = the skin thickness of 0.06 inch

(Note: if the value within the parenthesis is zero or a negative number, then there is no further penetration!)

Deceleration through 0.25 inch bone:

Use the same formulas for Deceleration and Velocity-resulting above, substituting the previously obtained Velocity-resulting as the V value. Also substitute:
Density = 124.8 lb per cubic ft (density of bone)
Tensile strength = 3550.5 lb per sq ft (tensile strength of bone)
Depth = 0.25 inch (estimate of bone thickness)

So, even if it's wrong, this is it! If you like the results, you can substitute these in the original Version 2 formula above.

I've worked a few examples for purposes of illustration:

.380 ACP (90gr)
Initial: 1000 fps
After skin penetration: 847 fps
After bone penetration: 788 fps

9mm NATO (124 gr FMJ)
Initial: 1189 fps
After skin penetration: 1061 fps
After bone penetration: 1008 fps

.45 ACP (230 gr FMJ)
Initial: 850 fps
After skin penetration: 771 fps
After bone penetration: 738 fps

.30 Carbine (110 gr FMJ)
Initial: 1572 fps (@ 100 yards)
After skin penetration: 1429 fps
After bone penetration: 1370 fps

.45-70 USG (405 gr RN)
Initial: 1168 fps
After skin penetration: 1106 fps
After bone penetration: 1078 fps
 
Last edited:
You guys need to use Excel - skip this "Memory Clear" stuff.

Have you looked at the Poncelot penetration equation?
 
I use MS Works spreadsheet, and OpenOffice spreadsheet. Kind of like Excel, but much crappier. And the Poncelet equation is totally inaccurate. Or it may be based on penetration into seasoned oak, or something. I believe it said a 9mm FMJ will penetrate about 8". The real value is around 30".

Anyway, that skin penetration thing is way off. I think you must have used the values for steel instead of skin, or something. Or maybe 0.06 foot thick skin, like an elephant. I get 663 fps as the remaining velocity of a .45 cal, 230 gr bullet at 850 fps. For humans, velocity loss for that kind of bullet will actually be about 1 to 3 fps. The higher the velocity, the less is lost on going through skin.
 
RyanM said:
I use MS Works spreadsheet, and OpenOffice spreadsheet. Kind of like Excel, but much crappier. And the Poncelet equation is totally inaccurate. Or it may be based on penetration into seasoned oak, or something. I believe it said a 9mm FMJ will penetrate about 8". The real value is around 30".

Anyway, that skin penetration thing is way off. I think you must have used the values for steel instead of skin, or something. Or maybe 0.06 foot thick skin, like an elephant. I get 663 fps as the remaining velocity of a .45 cal, 230 gr bullet at 850 fps. For humans, velocity loss for that kind of bullet will actually be about 1 to 3 fps. The higher the velocity, the less is lost on going through skin.

Oops!!

Yes, and I just realized too late that there's a hole in the equation big enough to drive a truck through! So don't use it until I correct it.

:eek:

Here's what I'm looking at with regard to skin penetration: Skin has a density of 1 gm /cm^3, or 62.4 lb/ft^3, and a tensile strength of 3000 kilopascals, or 62656 lb/ft^2. The resisting force on the bullet will increase with half the square of the velocity, multiplied by these two factors, divided by acceleration due to gravity. This result will be in pounds^2 per foot^4. This is in turn divided by atmospheric pressure, or 2116.8 pounds per square foot, conveniently yields a unit of pounds per square foot (just what we need.) Multiply pounds per square foot by the area of the bullet (the area acted on) gives us the resisting force. And what is force? Force = mass x acceleration. (See where I'm heading?) And it's acceleration (or actually deceleration) which is what we need to estimate the velocity loss, per that guy Newton.

(Whew!)
 
Last edited:
Finally got time to look at this again. I think the equation is still removing much too much velocity. Are you sure resisting force increases as velocity increases? Drag increases, but that's a force in a fluid medium, while skin is much more solid. It seems like resisting force decrease as velocity increases, since a faster bullet is better able to plow through. At least, the proportional amount of velocity lost decreases very quickly as velocity goes up. Running some numbers through, it seems that for a given bullet weight, shape, and caliber, the equation always takes off a certain proportion of the velocity, no matter what it is.

I can't remember the exact figures, but MacPherson said that for a roundnose, heavy-for-caliber bullet (147 9mm, 180 gr .40, etc), at a velocity of 600 fps, only 7 fps is lost in the skin, 3 fps lost at 800 fps, and 1 fps lost at 1000. Something like that.

According to various sources, the threshold penetration velocity various projectiles are:

skin with no backing:
1/8", 2 grain steel spheres, 170 fps
1/8", 7 grain lead spheres did not penetrate at 161 fps (unknown threshold; same as steel?)
150 gr bullet, unknown caliber, 125-150 fps

cadaver thigh skin:
11.25mm, 131 gr lead sphere, 234 fps
.177, 8.25 gr lead airgun pellet, 330 fps
.22, 16.5 gr lead airgun pellet, 245 fps
.38 cal, 113 gr LRN, 190 fps

According to Wikipedia, human skin averages 2-3mm. That's about .08 to .12 inches. Couldn't find anything on tensile strength, but 3 mPa sounds about right, given that newborn rat skin has a tensile strength of 1.6 mPa. All I could find on human skin is that Young's Modulus is about 65.6 mPa for humans aged 15 to 30. I think I converted it right, anyway. It was given as 6.7 kg/mm^2.
 
Last edited:
RyanM, I'm really not sure of anything in this area to be perfectly honest. :D ;) :eek:

What I was going by concerning velocity loss through skin was what I read from this website (in Italian) several years back:

http://www.earmi.it/balistica/baltermi.htm

You can translate it into English with the Windows tranlator with some amusing results. ("Ballistics Finishes Them" :D )
 
I think I found an accurate set of equations for predicting skin penetration velocity loss.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/hudgins.pdf

First, find P.

P=(2 * m) / (rho * T * A)
m = bullet mass in grams (grains / 7 / 2.205)
rho = density of skin, 1.06 g/cm^3
T = thickness of skin, they say 0.31 cm (.1 to .2 cm may be more accurate)
A = average presented area; with bullets, it's just plain old PI*R^2

Then find the penetration threshold velocity.

V(threshold) = 309.13 * P^-0.38708

This will give you velocity in m/s. Convert to fps by dividing by .3048. Their R-squared value for this equation, using 7 different sources for their data, was .974. That's insanely good.

Then find the velocity remaining after penetration. No tests were done in this article, but they suggest

V(after) = (V(before)^2 - V(threshold)^2)^.5

The results are close enough for me.

Playing around with the remaining velocity equation, using V(before) / V(threshold) instead of 2, and 1 / (V(b) / V(t)) instead of square root seems to give reasonable values, if I'm correctly remembering what MacPherson's test results were. At velocities above about 800 or 1000 fps, velocity loss due to skin was truly insubstantial.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top