Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Don't Panic |
Thanks for the info, all. Looks like an idea that has been tried, but with practical issues in execution; the devil is in the details. Very interesting. | |||
|
Web Clavin Extraordinaire |
To echo what Sigfreund said, that's more or less the experience from the InRangeTV video I referenced (sample size of only 2 rounds, though). The one round keyhole, likely because the sabot broke up. Seems that sabots work well for tanks, but not so well for small arms. ---------------------------- Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter" Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time. | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
And you would be incorrect. Steel plates were prone to failure at higher velocities. Higher velocity rounds were a reason that ceramic plates were invented. That and weight. Even if you took a hit from one of these rounds up close, it is highly doubtful that a quality ceramic plate would give. Adding any distance and you loose a ton of stability on these types of rounds. | |||
|
Member |
Read again - I was saying that I didn't think it would matter as much for ceramic plates, but that it might with polymer plates. There are a lot of polymer plates with ceramic strike faces, but there are also plates that are just a solid block of UHMWPE. | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
My reading is just fine. It is your post that is incorrect. | |||
|
Member |
Can you provide a reference for UHMWPE plates reliably stopping MUCH faster projectiles than the NIJ standards test for? Velocity certainly seems to matter since military body armor standards test for "V50," the velocity at which 50% of the projectiles penetrate the armor. If nothing else, any piece of armor is limited by the amount of energy it can absorb, and higher velocity means more energy. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |