How many grains of powder ?

[jringo8769]

You forgot to say "God Bless" and I don't have time for your games. If you don't know the answers to any of the Topic questions, why do you post a bunch of posts ?

I have no games as you are the one being elusive and game playing

You are not honest to why u are here and to why you Need this info

Did i ever say I did not know the info u want?

I asked repeatedly why you wanted this info and u attack me like u have no right to ask...

As anyone looking for honest answers would simply state why u need this info and we all would gladly provide it

Why deflect instead of answering simple questions?

Why attack me when i have asked you for info?

Do not help this person

God Bless,John

I am done interacting with this person
Please everyone be careful

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Tom K]

That's a lot of words! But you got one thing wrong, I nowhere said what you called the real question,

"With the pulled armor piercing bullet of the original Winchester AP ammo, at what muzzle velocity would the bullet fired at contact distance stay inside a human body?"

it even looked like a quote!

I said nothing about "stay inside a human body" I several times said "go through" a body or a 2x4

True, I was paraphrasing. Here is your actual quote: "What would be the minimum gr of factory powder necessary for this particular bullet to just go through a human body, not any further, if you hold the gun directly to the chest ? Whats the sufficient velocity ?"

That is what we call here in America, splitting hairs. The only way for a bullet to go through a body and "not any further" (do you expect the bullet to just drop to the floor?) is for it to not exit the body. Hunters sometimes find that when field dressing an animal that they've shot, that the bullet has complete traversed the animal's body and come to rest just under the skin on the far side. That is the kind of performance that would be required to satisfy your requirement.

But ok, the scaremongers misled you.

You are the only misleading person here.

Now, your text, i did find something useful. You say

"Even the plain old 158 grain round nose lead bullet in .38 Special (typical muzzle velocity of 850 feet per second) has a reputation for over penetration. One would think a pointed, metal capped AP bullet would be even more likely to exit a body, but there is no way to know at what velocity it would not. 400fps? 600? It is purely guesswork."

which in a couple of ways contradicts

Originally Posted by ddixie884
If the factory round has a jacketed 158gr bullet14gr of 2400 powder giving @ 1300fps. Reducing it by 1gr would probably only reduce by 50 or 75fps. 2gr less 100 or 150fps. At @ 10gr you would be less than 1,000fps. Going down to 8gr would be taking a chance on sticking a bullet in barrel.

The bullet of my interest is correctly a "158gr bullet14gr of 2400 powder giving @ 1300fps" and you now say it could penetrate a body at 850fps

Nothing I said contradicts what ddixie884 said. You said "The bullet of my interest is correctly a "158gr bullet14gr of 2400 powder giving @ 1300fps"..." and that is incorrect - the bullet of your interest is a "158gr bullet 14gr of an unknown powder giving an unknown velocity". Tex1001 has stated that he measured a weight of 14.0 grains of an unknown powder, and that he has not chronographed the load - that is, he has not measured its muzzle velocity. We can guess that it might be 1300fps or so because that is typical of .357 Magnum ammo with a 158gr bullet, but that is only a guess. Being designed as armor piercing ammo, the velocity could be considerably higher.

If 10gr "would be less than 1,000fps" then 8gr would be 850fps and enough to penetrate a body. But you didn't say at what distance ?

ddixie884 was making educated guesstimates about potential bullet velocity using Hercules/Alliant 2400 powder (not the unknown powder of the original cartridge) - "less than 1000fps" could be a little less or a lot less. And sure, that Winchester AP bullet at 850fps could penetrate a body through and through. Or it might not, there is no way (without some real world experimentation) to determine that. I didn't say at what distance, because you had already specified contact distance.




When I first started reading this thread I thought of a quote:

"Everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects."
--Will Rogers

After having gone through it a couple of times, this quote from the character Mr. Garrison on the cartoon series "South Park" seems more appropriate:

"Remember kids, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

 

[Warren Sear]

What warms my heart is that the OP has not gleaned one bit of useful information towards fulfilling his "e vial" and nefarious objective.

 

[Sevens]

Here are some truths as I know and understand them. Were I put on a stand under oath, I would speak each of these as a statement of fact, according to me:

1) if you took a modern, high grade, expensive box of new production .357 Magnum 158gr defense ammo, and you attempted to shoot a 2x4 or some chunk of known wood of any certain size or thickness, you could repeatedly do the test and you would likely get (mostly) consistent results.

2) if you took this old 1960's or 1970's ammo and did the same testing, you might get consistent results but likely less consistent results than with new production modern ammo, because the new production modern ammo has a lot more technology and development behind it and production wise, it's likely been built to a higher standard of consistency because the production facility and machinery that built it has evolved for the better.

3) if you took this new, current production modern ammo and you fired it directly in to a human or an animal made of skin, tissue, muscle and bone, and you did this repeatedly, you would likely get different results each time depending on precisely where the bullet hit, which direction it deflected and a myriad of unknown relative to how the bone, muscle and tissue reacts to the hit. This should be common knowledge to anyone that has ever done even limited research in to hunting or criminal forensics. In fact, you'd literally need perfect genetic and physical CLONES for each and every shot you fired. This is not possible, science doesn't support it. No two people or animals will have the same physical makeup of matter so the bullet cannot be sent in to the same thing with each shot. As a scientific test, there is no solid control.

4) do the same as #3 above but now do it with 50 year old ammo that was built with earlier technology and less consistent industrial control and it stands to reason that you would get even less consistency in the results on skin, flesh, tissue and bone.

5) no matter the powder used, you cannot and will not get linear changes that can predicted easily when you simply reduce the powder charge by X. The closest we have come to this without actually building the round, shooting it and measuring the speed with a chronograph is with a piece of software called "QuickLOAD" written by Hartmut Bromel. Search that and purchase the software. If you do that, I predict that you will immediately find yourself at the early stages of finally agreeing that you are asking questions that do NOT have simple answers even though you seem to think they should have simple answers. Further, you better enjoy mathematics if you go this route.

6) Your attitude sucks. Consider that you arrived at a place where almost everyone gets along extremely well and you've chosen adversarial words and a writing style that doesn't exactly support the idea that you'd be any manner of successful as an author... leading many to surmise that you might simply be a after some darker goal.

7) There are better places to ask these questions than this particular forum but if you approach those folks with a similar chip on your shoulder, they'll shred you in an entertaining fashion.

 

[AndrewWeber]

True, I was paraphrasing. Here is your actual quote: "What would be the minimum gr of factory powder necessary for this particular bullet to just go through a human body, not any further, if you hold the gun directly to the chest ? Whats the sufficient velocity ?"

That is what we call here in America, splitting hairs. The only way for a bullet to go through a body and "not any further" (do you expect the bullet to just drop to the floor?) is for it to not exit the body. Hunters sometimes find that when field dressing an animal that they've shot, that the bullet has complete traversed the animal's body and come to rest just under the skin on the far side. That is the kind of performance that would be required to satisfy your requirement.

You are the only misleading person here.




Nothing I said contradicts what ddixie884 said. You said "The bullet of my interest is correctly a "158gr bullet14gr of 2400 powder giving @ 1300fps"..." and that is incorrect - the bullet of your interest is a "158gr bullet 14gr of an unknown powder giving an unknown velocity". Tex1001 has stated that he measured a weight of 14.0 grains of an unknown powder, and that he has not chronographed the load - that is, he has not measured its muzzle velocity. We can guess that it might be 1300fps or so because that is typical of .357 Magnum ammo with a 158gr bullet, but that is only a guess. Being designed as armor piercing ammo, the velocity could be considerably higher.




ddixie884 was making educated guesstimates about potential bullet velocity using Hercules/Alliant 2400 powder (not the unknown powder of the original cartridge) - "less than 1000fps" could be a little less or a lot less. And sure, that Winchester AP bullet at 850fps could penetrate a body through and through. Or it might not, there is no way (without some real world experimentation) to determine that. I didn't say at what distance, because you had already specified contact distance.




When I first started reading this thread I thought of a quote:

"Everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects."
--Will Rogers

After having gone through it a couple of times, this quote from the character Mr. Garrison on the cartoon series "South Park" seems more appropriate:

"Remember kids, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

Thank you for

"We can guess that it might be 1300fps or so because that is typical of .357 Magnum ammo with a 158gr bullet"

I now got that from you, ddixie884 and a third source.

If a "plain old 158 grain round nose lead bullet in .38 Special (typical muzzle velocity of 850 feet per second) has a reputation for over penetration" when fired at contact distance.

But then of course a metal piercing bullet would do the same at 600 feet or 500 feet per second.

it's obviously possible to reduce it's factory powder charge from 14.0 gr to 7.0 and still get a penetration of the body when fired at contact distance.

I think that after some mumbo jumbo, I got the answers to my questions, thank you all for your contribution and God bless (this time for real)

Andrew

 

[Sevens]

That's absolutely wrong.

 

[Warren Sear]

^^^ That information, along with a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee at almost any MacDonald's restaurant.

 

[jringo8769]

They obviously know more than we do

Like I have said from the start
They want info that will end up hurting someone or many people

Anyone with any smarts knows the info they seek takes more than numbers on a piece of paper and speculation to something they clearly do not comprehend and understand the ramifications of getting this wrong

God help us all if this foolish individual actually tries to make this happen in the real world ....

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[SMSgt]

Thank you for

"We can guess that it might be 1300fps or so because that is typical of .357 Magnum ammo with a 158gr bullet"

I now got that from you, ddixie884 and a third source.

If a "plain old 158 grain round nose lead bullet in .38 Special (typical muzzle velocity of 850 feet per second) has a reputation for over penetration" when fired at contact distance.

But then of course a metal piercing bullet would do the same at 600 feet or 500 feet per second.

it's obviously possible to reduce it's factory powder charge from 14.0 gr to 7.0 and still get a penetration of the body when fired at contact distance.

I think that after some mumbo jumbo, I got the answers to my questions, thank you all for your contribution and God bless (this time for real)

Andrew

Unfortunately, there is no validity to any of the conclusions on which you arrive. Pure speculation.