Centrefires V 12mm Steel Plate

[Deker 3,478]

The plate is 12mm thick steel, I will find out exactly what it is known as next time I'm at the steel stockholder...he wants to see the results as well.

 

Speaks for itself really, but the .223 was a 62g FMJ and not a 55g.

 

Front view and rear view.

 

Plate was 100yards down line for all shots!

 

It is much more impressive than it looks, pictures taken on my phone, sorry I don't haave a better camera and I'm not a better photographer!

[RicW 67]

Deker -

Interesting and a little scarey! Could you measure the extent of penetration? File the raised rim flat and use a depth gauge. Or ask the steel stock holder to do it?

 

Also, it would be intriguing to see how .204 compares with .223. During the NATO tests for a new standard calibre the British 4.85mm outperformed the 5.56 due to its superior Ballistic Coefficient. 4.85mm = .19"; .204 is 5mm. .204 should give better penetration than .223. I'm interested because as you know I am planning to build a .204 but I think it would be of more general interest as well.

 

Ric

Edited November 8, 2009 by RicW

[jamie g 17]

wouldnt want to get hit buy one would you !

 

here is one me and a friend of mine shot at last year. 100 yards and 200 yards. i cant remember the ammo he was using in 223 the holes that went through was from my 22/250 with 50 grain sako softpoints

[Deker 3,478]

Deker -

Interesting and a little scarey! Could you measure the extent of penetration? File the raised rim flat and use a depth gauge. Or ask the steel stock holder to do it?

 

Also, it would be intriguing to see how .204 compares with .223. During the NATO tests for a new standard calibre the British 4.85mm outperformed the 5.56 due to its superior Ballistic Coefficient. 4.85mm = .19"; .204 is 5mm. .204 should give better penetration than .223. I'm interested because as you know I am planning to build a .204 but I think it would be of more general interest as well.

 

Ric

 

The .308 and .243 are BOTH as close as I can measure 13mm deep, the .308 simply made a wider hole, interesting, as the metal is 12mm, so if you filed the bump flat on the back there would be 3 holes clean through the plate, due to the quality of the steel flexing I suspect.

The .223 is 6mm deep!

 

This could get deep and I don't know the answer, so how come the .243 with approx 50% more power than the .223 made a 13mm deep hole and wider as well?

 

And how come both the .308 made the same depth of hole as the .243 but wider still, when they were approx double the power of the .223??

 

On the .204 issue, BC is important of course but it seems size and weight are to when hitting a lump of steel like this...the 62g .223 FMJ was producing 1345ft lb at the muzzle according to the manufacturer, most .204 are around 32-40g and 1250-1350ft lb, so similarish power but lighter, I don't know, and don't have one to try, but I somehow think it is not going to penetrate as far as the .223 in this steel, perhaps it may penetrate further though if it hit flesh!!

[blackfox 9]

Check this out - After 8 mins is what you want to see shooting at 1/4" steel with .204 ruger

 

 

cheers sam

[Mr_Logic 5]

Apologies for getting the 223 wrong

 

The Scenar hit may not have been 100% square, so that accounts for the size of its dent.

 

I was reading that penetration is largely due to velocity, so a faster projectile should penetrate deeper if they have the same amount of energy - might be worth trying it again with a 125gr SP going much quicker and seeing what difference occurred...

[RicW 67]

Deker -

Interesting and a little scarey! Could you measure the extent of penetration? File the raised rim flat and use a depth gauge. Or ask the steel stock holder to do it?

 

Also, it would be intriguing to see how .204 compares with .223. During the NATO tests for a new standard calibre the British 4.85mm outperformed the 5.56 due to its superior Ballistic Coefficient. 4.85mm = .19"; .204 is 5mm. .204 should give better penetration than .223. I'm interested because as you know I am planning to build a .204 but I think it would be of more general interest as well.

 

Ric

 

The .308 and .243 are BOTH as close as I can measure 13mm deep, the .308 simply made a wider hole, interesting, as the metal is 12mm, so if you filed the bump flat on the back there would be 3 holes clean through the plate, due to the quality of the steel flexing I suspect.

The .223 is 6mm deep!

 

This could get deep and I don't know the answer, so how come the .243 with approx 50% more power than the .223 made a 13mm deep hole and wider as well?

 

And how come both the .308 made the same depth of hole as the .243 but wider still, when they were approx double the power of the .223??

 

On the .204 issue, BC is important of course but it seems size and weight are to when hitting a lump of steel like this...the 62g .223 FMJ was producing 1345ft lb at the muzzle according to the manufacturer, most .204 are around 32-40g and 1250-1350ft lb, so similarish power but lighter, I don't know, and don't have one to try, but I somehow think it is not going to penetrate as far as the .223 in this steel, perhaps it may penetrate further though if it hit flesh!!

[/quote

 

During the NATO trials the 4.85 was totally out performing the 5.56 M193 round. The Americans got all upset about this, and Lo and Behold FN introduced the 62gr SS109, FMJ with a redesigned lead and steel core and a much heavier charge. This got close to the performance of the 4.85 FMJ spire-point boat-tail and the decision was made to stay with 5.56 but adopt the new round. One area where the 4.85 retained the edge was on long range armour penetration!

 

This is relevant to the ever returning question of using mil spec 5.56 ammo in civilian arms proofed for .223. The M193 was pretty much the hunting .223, but using FMJ, and loaded to similar pressures.It could safely be used in .223 arms. The SS109, loaded to greatly increased pressure, could not so be used,

 

By the way, Deker, that steel plate? Lousy grouping.

 

Ric

Edited November 9, 2009 by RicW

[cyclonebri1 8]

The plate is 12mm thick steel, I will find out exactly what it is known as next time I'm at the steel stockholder...he wants to see the results as well.

 

Speaks for itself really, but the .223 was a 62g FMJ and not a 55g.

 

Front view and rear view.

 

Plate was 100yards down line for all shots!

 

It is much more impressive than it looks, pictures taken on my phone, sorry I don't haave a better camera and I'm not a better photographer!

 

 

Very nice nipples

[RicW 67]

What I would like to see is the effect on a steel plate of a 7.62 NATO Armour Piercing Round. Steel jacketed, spire point, boat-tail, Teflon coated. Completely irrelevant as a hunting round but HOO BOY I do not want to be in the way!