Andrew Wyatt
Member
the legs on flash targets take rifle rounds just fine, because they're very thin tubing and the rounds just poke a hole.
PSA: 5.45mm will NOT damage an AR500 target
- Thread starter Objekt
- Start date
- Status
So, here are the photos (long - you were warned)
That earlier photo was just a taste. I have even more than these, but here are the most informative. Each side shot is of the target immediately above it (e.g. after being hit by whatever round specified on the label):
Gee, I don't know how I missed that gaping hole in my steel from the 100 yard 5.45 hit.
OH LOOK THERE ISN'T ONE!
People who want me to subject my steel to "thousands and thousands of rounds" can either ship me some ammo, or shut it. I can only do so much in testing, and there is only so much I am willing to do for free, for the benefit of the few who read with an open mind.
From what I've been able to look up, it does seem 5.45 is truly "steel core." Hardened or not, this steel core did little or no damage to my target, but I can see why people wouldn't want to shoot them at anything hard closer than 200 yards. Making a hit farther than that is questionable with an AK (at least for me!), so it's probably a dead issue as far as local 3-gun (whose rules are up to *US*, not you, by the way).
I'm starting to wonder how smart it is to shoot steel with a rifle under 100 yards. Even with the "no steel" rule, our Sunday 3-gun matches have the rifle gongs at about 90 yards and...yeah, I'm not sure that's such a great idea.
Regarding steel-sandwich 7.62x54R: It also didn't put a dent or hole in the target, and is - as some have noted - actually LESS damaging than steel-free bullets from certain large magnum rounds. I really expected it to do some damage, especially at 100 yards. Lesson learned.
We can debate the edge nicks all day long. I'm genuinely curious whether a big steel-free round (perhaps .30-06) would do the same thing, but it's pretty much impossible to get hits like that on purpose. Any steel plate is weaker at the very edge, especially with regard to a hit angled away from the bulk of the plate. That question will just have to remain open.
Now I'm really wondering why our local Precision Tactical Rifle folks are OK with people using belted magnums on their steels, which are often as close as 300 yards. Seems like a recipe for Swiss cheese targets. Or maybe they plan to replace them on a schedule. Belted magnums are generally prohibited from use on steel on our rifle range, because they tend to do things like the .300 Weatherby previously described. I'll have to ask for clarification the next time I attend a match.
Anyone who is still getting upset the very discussion of this topic is free to quit following the thread. Really. The "close" button is usually somewhere to the upper right on your browser. There is also the "unsubscribe" item in the "Thread Tools" menu.
Conclusions:
1) Ricochet hazard being what it is, it's probably not a great idea to hit steel with 5.45 at less than 200 yards.
2) 5.45 is no hazard to AR500 at greater than 200 yards, not any more than a belted magnum or other ridiculously powerful round. It is not the Eastern Destroyer some claim. AR500 > steel core.
3) 7.62x54R isn't likely to damage AR500 at 100 yards or greater. Completely different bullet, different ballistics. Still not going to do it at <200 yards!
4) Some people just can't stand honest disagreement, especially when the dissentor is so rude as to conduct research to back up his position.
5) I believe this will be my last post here. A few people contribute positively, but there sure is a lot of whining and people taking personal offense at someone having a differing opinion. Perhaps I just notice the whiners more, because they're annoying. It's a shame, but they are drowning out the adults who wish to have a rational discussion. Not sure this forum is worth any more of my time.
That earlier photo was just a taste. I have even more than these, but here are the most informative. Each side shot is of the target immediately above it (e.g. after being hit by whatever round specified on the label):
Gee, I don't know how I missed that gaping hole in my steel from the 100 yard 5.45 hit.
OH LOOK THERE ISN'T ONE!
People who want me to subject my steel to "thousands and thousands of rounds" can either ship me some ammo, or shut it. I can only do so much in testing, and there is only so much I am willing to do for free, for the benefit of the few who read with an open mind.
From what I've been able to look up, it does seem 5.45 is truly "steel core." Hardened or not, this steel core did little or no damage to my target, but I can see why people wouldn't want to shoot them at anything hard closer than 200 yards. Making a hit farther than that is questionable with an AK (at least for me!), so it's probably a dead issue as far as local 3-gun (whose rules are up to *US*, not you, by the way).
I'm starting to wonder how smart it is to shoot steel with a rifle under 100 yards. Even with the "no steel" rule, our Sunday 3-gun matches have the rifle gongs at about 90 yards and...yeah, I'm not sure that's such a great idea.
Regarding steel-sandwich 7.62x54R: It also didn't put a dent or hole in the target, and is - as some have noted - actually LESS damaging than steel-free bullets from certain large magnum rounds. I really expected it to do some damage, especially at 100 yards. Lesson learned.
We can debate the edge nicks all day long. I'm genuinely curious whether a big steel-free round (perhaps .30-06) would do the same thing, but it's pretty much impossible to get hits like that on purpose. Any steel plate is weaker at the very edge, especially with regard to a hit angled away from the bulk of the plate. That question will just have to remain open.
Now I'm really wondering why our local Precision Tactical Rifle folks are OK with people using belted magnums on their steels, which are often as close as 300 yards. Seems like a recipe for Swiss cheese targets. Or maybe they plan to replace them on a schedule. Belted magnums are generally prohibited from use on steel on our rifle range, because they tend to do things like the .300 Weatherby previously described. I'll have to ask for clarification the next time I attend a match.
Anyone who is still getting upset the very discussion of this topic is free to quit following the thread. Really. The "close" button is usually somewhere to the upper right on your browser. There is also the "unsubscribe" item in the "Thread Tools" menu.
Conclusions:
1) Ricochet hazard being what it is, it's probably not a great idea to hit steel with 5.45 at less than 200 yards.
2) 5.45 is no hazard to AR500 at greater than 200 yards, not any more than a belted magnum or other ridiculously powerful round. It is not the Eastern Destroyer some claim. AR500 > steel core.
3) 7.62x54R isn't likely to damage AR500 at 100 yards or greater. Completely different bullet, different ballistics. Still not going to do it at <200 yards!
4) Some people just can't stand honest disagreement, especially when the dissentor is so rude as to conduct research to back up his position.
5) I believe this will be my last post here. A few people contribute positively, but there sure is a lot of whining and people taking personal offense at someone having a differing opinion. Perhaps I just notice the whiners more, because they're annoying. It's a shame, but they are drowning out the adults who wish to have a rational discussion. Not sure this forum is worth any more of my time.
1KPerDay
Member
People are taking offense at your childish, combative attitude and statments. You apparently have a huge chip on your shoulder. But I doubt you'll agree.
Thanks for the pics. The first 5.45 hit appears to me to have hit the bolt and splattered on the target. The impacts near the edges look to me to have done significant damage. Kinda silly to claim it did NO DAMAGE and then post pics of some damage as evidence to support your claim. But I guess that's just me whining.
So out of, what... 8 rounds fired or so? You have 2 large nicks on your steel. Right? If your posts are truly evidence based, we should consider the evidence...
Thanks for the pics. The first 5.45 hit appears to me to have hit the bolt and splattered on the target. The impacts near the edges look to me to have done significant damage. Kinda silly to claim it did NO DAMAGE and then post pics of some damage as evidence to support your claim. But I guess that's just me whining.
So out of, what... 8 rounds fired or so? You have 2 large nicks on your steel. Right? If your posts are truly evidence based, we should consider the evidence...
Last edited:
Andrew Wyatt
Member
its great that you went out and did that, however, there are two flaws in your testing protocol.
the first flaw is the targets aren't rigidly affixed to anything, which allows them to flex and absorb the energy of the projectile.
the second one is the steel you're shooting is thicker than most of the targets i've seen in use in matches. all the armor used at the SOF 3-gun match was 3/8ths thick, not half inch.
the first flaw is the targets aren't rigidly affixed to anything, which allows them to flex and absorb the energy of the projectile.
the second one is the steel you're shooting is thicker than most of the targets i've seen in use in matches. all the armor used at the SOF 3-gun match was 3/8ths thick, not half inch.
ScratchnDent
Member
6 hits and the edges are already getting chewed up. I reckon that target would be about half its original size within a couple matches.
Yep, I think match directors have every right to disallow whatever ammo they wish.
Yep, I think match directors have every right to disallow whatever ammo they wish.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,162
This seems like you are more interested in antagonizing folks. There are other forums for that but this one is called The Highroad.
It depends on how the AR500 was cut but they are common. If you can split a business card at 100 yds you can make an edge hit, if you wanted to.
At 100 yards old Norinco “yellow box” FMJ223 does more to an AR500 target (tiny dimple) than a 300 win mag with non FMJ projectiles.
I refer you back to the top.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,162
At our 3 gun matches we like to have visual conformation of a hit on steel so it’s not ridged.
These are photos of one of my “flash“ targets. It has been shot a bazillion times and still works, we even used it in the very first NRA Tactical Police Competition our club hosted.
The idea is you have a target hanging from a pivot and while at rest just a black block above it.
Upon bullet impact the energy swings the target to the rear, lowering the black block while raising a red block making a hit definite and obvious to the shooter and SO.
It’s a simple device using EMT conduit for legs. They just slip into some brackets I built and the cross bar is clamped in.
I used an oillite bushing for the pivot and made a relatively simple means to adjust the visual part to allow for easy setup in different locations. It breaks down into a small (albeit long) package and no tool are required for setup and if it can get lost in the grass it is painted bright red.
FWIW the rear face of this one HAS been ruined by .30 cal AP.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
i completely understand where you're coming from, but flash targets (at least the originals and the MGM design) have a lot of inertia, and they provide more resistance than the coat hanger the OP used.
I was suggesting that the test protocol should test for damage under the worst case scenario, which would be a rigidly affixed gong.
I like that flash target design. it loks like it would be lighter than the original design.
on the flash targets that i have, the cover cards are painted tan, with some sage stripes to break up the outline, which keeps shooters from mistaking the card for the target.
I was suggesting that the test protocol should test for damage under the worst case scenario, which would be a rigidly affixed gong.
I like that flash target design. it loks like it would be lighter than the original design.
on the flash targets that i have, the cover cards are painted tan, with some sage stripes to break up the outline, which keeps shooters from mistaking the card for the target.
Tim the student
Member
So you want people that pointed out a flaw in you methodology and the fact your results don't stand for the proposition you claim to shut it. Nice. It is pretty clear that the wear and tear of a few rounds or even a few hundred rounds is not the same as shooting it many thousands of times. For any kind of meaning in your results you need a control group as well. In sum your results while interesting do not serve to prove anything at all.
One simply cannot say that there is not a target life issue with out a higher round count and control groups. I understand that you may not be willing or able to shoot that many rounds at your target and that's fine. Getting angry over people pointing out the limits/flaws of your test is juvenile and does nothing to prove your hypothesis.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Up until now I had no dog in this fight, but it does look like the 100yd 5.45x39 shot cratered the steel and the 200yd test was inconclusive due to poor aim. More to the point, it has already been established that a two-shot test is hardly proof positive of much of anything, and I cannot find fault with that logic.
Frankly, your style is rude and combative and pretty much the antithesis of what we expect on The High Road. Yes, some folk have reacted poorly in return, but there is no doubt that your behavior engendered that (inappropriate) response. It is simply childish for you to claim no culpability in how your threads have been received, and even more so to sniff your nose in the air and claim to be retreating to some moral high ground.
Having said all that, if THR is not to your liking, then it's probably for the best that you find more appropriate places to hang your hat.
I'm going to close this down, since it doesn't seem that we can add much more useful content and it doesn't look likely that the thread originator is going to stick around and engage in meaningful dialog.
- Status
