PDA

View Full Version : plywood test


nedfig
October 30, 2000, 11:57 AM
I did some test's Saturday with # 8 and 00 buck on 3/4" plywood. Tests done with Rem 870 w/20" barrel. Winchester Super Speed #8 birdshot and Remington Express 00 buck.

I had 3 sheets of 3/4" plywood set up back to back.

Result with #8 shot:
At 5 yards all pellets stopped in first sheet. Same at ten yards.

Result with 00 buck:
At 5 yards, all pellets penetrated first sheet, and 8 of the 9 pellets stopped in the second sheet. One pellet stopped in third sheet.

At 10 yards, all pellets stopped in second sheet.

Much more pellet deformitty at 5 yards than 10. Recovered pellets from 5 yd were flat or twisted elongated. At 10 yds, the pellets were semi-rounded.

Disclaimer: Of course everyone's results will vary and don't expect these results in real life scenario. These are my results with my ammo.

Dave3006
October 30, 2000, 01:54 PM
This is why the short barreled shotgun is the ONLY acceptable weapon for home defense in an urban environment. Handguns and rifles will zip through common building materials and possibly kill the kid next store.

Of course, all the guys with the fancy .223s will argue with me because they have spent a bunch of money and want to look like urban commando's.

LIProgun
October 31, 2000, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dave3006:
This is why the short barreled shotgun is the ONLY acceptable weapon for home defense in an urban environment. Handguns and rifles will zip through common building materials and possibly kill the kid next store.[/quote]

This statement has been proven simply incorrect, at least as far as 5.56mm/.223 rifle ammo is concerned. For example:

"Since all of the 5.56mm/.223 bullets fired through the interior wall had significantly less penetration than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 12 ga. shotgun projectiles which were fired through an interior wall, stray 5.56mm/.223 bullets seem to offer a reduced risk of injuring innocent bystanders and an inherent reduced risk of civil litigation in situations where bullets miss their intended target and enter or exit structures. 5.56mm/.223 caliber weapons may be safer to use in CQB situations and in crowded urban environments than 9mm, .40 S&W, or 12 ga. weapons."

"12 gauge shotguns have significant limitations when used as general purpose law enforcement shoulder fired weapons: ... Potentially excessive penetration in urban settings."

"In contast, 5.56mm/.223 semi-automatic carbines offer significant advantages for use as a general purpose law enforcement shoulder fired weapon: ... Reduced downrange hazard to innocent bystanders in an urban environment when missed shots unintentionally penetrate structures, compared to handguns, SMG's, or shotguns."

- Roberts, G.K., "The Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Carbines Compared With 12 ga. Shtoguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Stimulant," Wound Ballistics Review, 3 (4):16-28, 1998.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dave3006:
Of course, all the guys with the fancy .223s will argue with me because they have spent a bunch of money and want to look like urban commando's. [/quote]

When one has the facts and data to back up one's argument, there is no need to resort to ad hominems like Dave3006. And BTW, I like 12 ga. shotguns for personal and home defense, but I recognize their limitations, and don't delude myself.

ljlcdl
October 31, 2000, 11:33 AM
What were they shooting out of the shotguns? Slugs, #8, OO .... ? Big difference.

ljlc

Dave3006
October 31, 2000, 05:39 PM
I have read the same reports you mention. Did you ever think they could be lying? Could they be trying to justify a previous or pending purchase?

DO THE TEST YOURSELF. I have. Federal FMJ or HP .223 will sail through the media mentioned above. Do the test. Gun owners can be a gullible lot.

Dave McC
October 31, 2000, 07:01 PM
Gentlemen....

I suggest some public spirited person do this test using some drywall,and add in a .223 round, maybe those white box Milspec FMJs as well as a softpoint. Then post the results. Theories are great, but actual data is what we need here..

deanf
October 31, 2000, 07:01 PM
Well I'm glad to see my thread about slugs is not the only one to have gotten people's dander up . . . .

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited October 31, 2000).]

Oleg Volk
October 31, 2000, 08:21 PM
In my experience, .223 FMJ did not fragment in solid obstacles. I shot up several layers of thin plywould and glass all sandwiched together and .223 sailed right through, as did 45acp ball. #8 birdshot would make through several layers and stop.

THat said, my house gun is a 7.62x39 -- I live in a ferroconcrete building and want all the punch I can get in case intruders take/wear cover.

Badger Arms
November 1, 2000, 01:52 AM
The .223 DOES penetrate more than buckshot. Duh! Whatever experts suggest otherwise are being paid by somebody impartial. Not only that, but it also travels many times further and is lethal at beyond 1000 yards. Say that about any shotgun or handgun round.

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot here. The reason for such articles is firmly grounded in logic. When a department spends thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars buying weapons, they want to be sure they aren't going to spend many times more than that on litigation. You can pay many 'experts' to say anything you want about any product and then put them up on the witness stand when the lawsuit goes through. I like this because it messes with lawyer's heads. Let it fly. Bottom line is you can justify using most any gun if you get the right expert behind you. I'll stick with bird shot myself. In my house, it all arrives in one big clump anyhow.

LIProgun
November 1, 2000, 09:55 AM
Here are a few of the published references supporting my side:

- Gunsite Training Center Staff, "The Call-Out Bag: A Comparison of .223 Penetration Versus Handgun Calibers", The Tactical Edge, pp. 63-64, Summer 1994.

- "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons, The Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared With 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant", Gary K. Roberts, The Police Marksman, pp. 38-45, July/August 1998. (and Wound Ballistics Review, cite above).

- Mesa AZ PD and AZ Dept of Public Safety, Ammunition Penetration Tests, from R. Furr Rangemaster, to Tactical Team Committee, dated Jan 6 1992 (distributed as part of Gunsite course notes)

- "M16 A1/A2 Rifle .223 Caliber Penetration Tests (Average Penetration)", Gunsite carbine course handout

- "Rifle Ammunition Performance Through Barriers", Lt Stephen C. Robertson, Indianapolis PD, Wound Ballistics Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 25-34, 1996.

Please point me to the published results of controlled tests supporting your position, or in the alternative, point me to articles or studies disproving the results in these studies. Statments calling into question the findings of these studies are meaningless in the absence of either contrary proof or compelling evidence of error.


[This message has been edited by LIProgun (edited November 01, 2000).]

ljlcdl
November 1, 2000, 10:57 AM
What were they shooting out of the shotguns? Slugs, #8, OO .... ? Big difference.

ljlc

ctdonath
November 1, 2000, 10:59 AM
Which shotgun rounds do those articles test? As observed previously, there's a big difference between, say, #8 birdshot and 00 buckshot.

One nice thing about a shotgun is that you CAN load it with wildly different loads, depending on need.

LIProgun
November 1, 2000, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ctdonath:
Which shotgun rounds do those articles test? As observed previously, there's a big difference between, say, #8 birdshot and 00 buckshot.[/quote]

The Roberts study tested 00 Buck and 1 oz rifled slug, which are by far the most common choices for defensive shotgun usage.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ctdonath:
One nice thing about a shotgun is that you CAN load it with wildly different loads, depending on need.[/quote]

I agree 100%. I also maintain that if you did a survey of those who keep a shotgun for home defense more would be found to use buckshot than say, #8s.

To the others, I am still waiting for cites to any published controlled studies showing that 5.56mm rounds penetrate more in interior wall construction (i.e., two layers of sheetrock separated by a stud) than typical self-defense shotgun load like buckshot. I'm keeping an open mind here. Show me that data.

Dave3006
November 1, 2000, 12:39 PM
Do the tests yourself. Don't believe everything you read. Do the tests yourself. Don't believe everything you read. Do the tests yourself. Don't believe everything you read. Do the tests yourself. Don't believe everything you read. Do the tests yourself. Don't believe everything you read.

LIProgun
November 1, 2000, 06:11 PM
I have done numerous tests on various firearm related matters, including external ballistics. I have not tested penetration in building materials as I am not equipped with facilities for such a test. Nor do I feel the need to do so considering the work that has been done in the field by respected authorities over an 8 (or more) year period.

As for not believing everything I read, thanks for the tip. It never occurred to me. It is certainly good advice here.

What I do know is how to value a source, analyze a report, and think critically. I'm not sure the same can be said for those who make unsupported blanket statements touting the "ONLY acceptable weapon for home defense..." or those who cannot produce data upon request to refute contrary data presented.

Dave3006
November 1, 2000, 10:48 PM
You have chosen to take someone elses word for what you believe. You stated my belief that the .223 will easily penetrate house materials is incorrect. I know exactly why I believe what I do. The .223 will overpenetrate. I SAW it do so.

Do the test. Then report back.

LIProgun
November 2, 2000, 09:42 AM
Okay Dave, since you already did the test, report to us now. Tell us how you constructed test walls that duplicate typical interior wall constructions, and specify the thickness of the sheetrock, the distance between layers, whether the air space was filled with insulation, what kind of studs were used and how they were spaced.

Tell us the details of the loads and guns used, including the chronograph data of the actual loads fired, barrel length and twist, choke, etc. Certainly you tested numerous 12 ga. and .223 loads suitable for defensive use, including those special application loads like the Hornady TAP, prefragmented, and frangible loads. And tell us what the selection criteria for the loads tested was, including why that criteria is relevant and appropriate for a home defense load, and at what ranges. Be sure to include the performance data for each round that you relied upon (whether it be FBI protocol, IWBA protocol, manufacturer data, or even the suspect "Fuller Index" or Marshall & Sanow "One Shot Stop" type data).

Tell us about the ordnance gelatin you placed behind the testing media to judge how much damage the projectiles passing through the walls could do to a living target. Certainly, you didn't just look at holes and say, "Wow, that zipped right through" and stop there. And tell us how you prepared the ordnance gelatin and calibrated each block. Tell us how you maintained the proper temperature after preparation and during testing, and tell us how you measured the penetratin depths in the blocks. And show us the differences between bare gelatin and that covered by cloth to simulate clothing.

Also be sure to tell us for each shot whether it hit a stud in the wall or not. Tell us the distance to the wall for each shot. And tell us after how many shots you replaced the sheetrock so as not to have results skewed by prior shot damage.

And be sure to tell us how many shots you fired of each round, and how you averaged the data. After all, you wouldn't be so naive as to rely on data from one or two rounds to draw a conclusion, would you?

So the ball is in your court. Impress us with the soundness and thoroughness of your methodology, and with the detailed and articulate presentation of your results, including the photographs. I know I'm on the edge of my seat.

Dave3006
November 2, 2000, 01:32 PM
I think you must read too many gun magazines. You have an incredible ability to parrot all the correct lingo. Go back to the original post. Plywood. My tests showed identical penetration of F127 00 9 pellet buck through 3/4" plywood at identical distances. The AE223 55 FMJ sailed through 5 layers in a 16" 1:9 twist Bushmaster. It hit a backstop with considerable energy. No, I would not have wanted to be behind it. I don't need a crono tell me it would be hazardous. AE223 52 hollowpoint performed identically.

I have also shot the same .223 rifle with the same loads through walls in an abandoned house. Easy penetration. Your comments about hitting studs are stupid because they don't deal with the worst case scenario.

Worst case scenario says a guy like you with his gun magazine propaganda filled head believes everything he reads. Someday, he uses his superdupper .223 gun in an urban environment. He misses and kills the 5 year old little girl in the neighboors house because his rifle round went through her bedroom wall. He formed his opinions based on what he read in a magazine instead of doing a simple test. If he would spent 1/2 of a day testing his beliefs he would of known better. The fool deserves what he gets.

Do your own tests.

Oleg Volk
November 2, 2000, 02:00 PM
Gentlemen,

Please be civil to each other. I'd like to continue to address all present with the term I use at the top of this post.

Thanks.

Oleg