On projectiles

[Terminal Effect]

I have tried without luck to get some info on this so I am posting it here- I would assume it's the right place.

I am looking for good information on the design of bullets and the effect that has(design of the projectile ) on the terminal performance. I am not really looking for internet links, although they'd be greatly appreciated, but books or articles-something I don't have to strain my eyes with...

The information should, in my oppinion, contain information about nose design, jacket thickness, shape, shank and ogive length, ballistic coefficient, core material, jacket material, velocity, core/jacket design, etc. Overall design basically.

Or is "Bullet Penetration" by Macpherson the only source?

My gut level feeling tells me that there are more reasons than just the increased size for the superior performance of the 6.8mm over the 5.56 NATO. I believe it comes down to Physics and Mechanical Engineering. There is a logical reason why the 115 grain Hornady 6.8mm will fragment so well for example.

Any information would be fantastic... Dr. Roberts was once again rightly hailed as one of THE experts on this, so I thought I could move it here. I have posted this in the reloading forum; generated 0 responses.

My motivation for re-posting it: many of us could benefit from the additional information.

Thank you in advance.

[Terminal Effect]

I just saw that Beat Kneubuehl has written a new book. It is in German and called "Geschosse"- projectiles. It is in German, which works fine for me, however IIRC Dr. Roberts once said something on TF to the effect that the Swiss, as opposed to the Americans were trying to make their projos less deadly... hence I would assume there would be better chioces available in the US.

Maybe someone can help? Anyone know a publishing house that specializes on the issue of projectile design and related issues?

[Abraxas]

Were I you, I would probably send a PM to DocGKR as well

[Terminal Effect]

Hey Abraxas, thank you for the response... but, uh, well, Dr. Roberts hasn't answered any of my PMs:(:(:(

You are now the second person to tell me, besides Anthony G. Williams.

Maybe the good doctor will chime in, if he's not too busy. It would be much appreciated.

[ToddG]

Were I you, I would probably send a PM to DocGKR as well

I'm guessing Doc Roberts gets about two dozen PMs per day from each forum he's on, most of them asking the same exact question as the others.

[Terminal Effect]

Mr. Green,

I understand that Dr. Roberts is a busy gentleman. I absolutely respect that, believe me, and his work.

Although the question regarding projectile design/effect on wounding mechanism potential has been discussed, see above for details, and we all know that JHP projos' wounding mechanism depends on it expanding and that FMJs use the wounding mechanisms of yaw, TC, frag, PC...
but I am requesting more detailed and scientific material in this case.

Surely, somewhere along the way of his many years of experience, Dr. Roberts has stumbled across this. As a matter of fact, I doubt he "stumbles" across things, he probably researched them.

Perhaps this individual looks interesting: http://www.secrab.eu/Publications.htm

http://www.secrab.eu/CVBJz.htm


Not that I am claiming his articles are scientifically more valid than Dr. Fackler's or Dr. Roberts', I just added it because it looked intersting.

Bottom line: there is a large amount of engineering and physics involved in the design of a center-fire bullet with effective wounding mechanisms. Should no one want or be able to point me to literature, could someone direct me towards projectile designers and how to reach them? For example, Tom Burczynski, although he IIRC never designed rifle bullets...

Yes, I am neither M nor LE, but I believe we all have the RIGHT to learn.
I am taking the issue of terminal ballistics as seriously as possible and am thankful for every tidbit of valid information I can get.

I do my best to stay on topic and avoid BS statments.

So, Mr. Green, even though this topic has been discussed, I have not seen it...
No offence, I like your courses very much and respect to your experience.

Anything constructive would be superb...

David; Berlin.

[ToddG]

Mr. Green,

I understand that Dr. Roberts is a busy gentleman. I absolutely respect that, believe me, and his work.

I'm not sure how you read anything more into my one sentence, but for what it's worth that is all I meant. I'm in the same boat. Every day I get multiple PMs from folks asking questions, often the same question I've answered 10 times already in previous PMs. :cool: So it sometimes takes time to cull through them all. It's not personal.

[Terminal Effect]

Mr. Green,

I hope I didn't give you an uncomfortable feeling...sorry if I did.

I will just PM Dr. Roberts again then, he might get around to answering some time.

In case anybody finds anything worth mentioning to the discussion topic (I firmly believe that this type of knowledge is beneficial to all forum visitors ) please do so...

And Happy Easter/ Resurrection Day.

And of course Zissen Pessach;)

[Glock17JHP]

One obstactle I would think you would encounter in this quest for knowledge on bullet design is that you have different companies who are competing with eachother, using differing thought and designs. The answers would be 'secrets' these competing companies are trying to keep from eachother. So... you would likely not have a lot of luck getting any real specific answers, I would guess.

[DocGKR]

"I believe it comes down to Physics and Mechanical Engineering."

Bullet design and manufacturing is ALL about physics and engineering; bullet terminal performance is all about anatomy and physiology.

There are some superb bullet engineers--most of whom work for ATK, Barnes, Berger, Hornady, Nosler, Remington, Sierra, Swift, etc... that have expertise on the engineering and physics end of things. As I am neither an engineer or physicist, my knowledge base lies on the anatomy and physiology side of the equation. I am not aware of any books specifically on the subject of bullet engineering.

I have not read Beat Kneubel's new book, but look forward to hearing more about it. "Terminal Effect", perhaps you can read it and write a good review. In general, I am not enamored about the Swiss terminal ballistic philosophy.

[ToddG]

In general, I am not enamored about the Swiss terminal ballistic philosophy.

Because it's all about putting lots of holes in things?

http://www.alaskalawblog.com/swiss_cheese.jpg

:p

[Terminal Effect]

Dr. Roberts, Glock 17 JHP, Mr. Green,

thank you all very much for responding.

Unfortunate that there are no comprehensive books on the issue. Maybe there are, but they are limited to only very few individuals- some of which I assume would be Tom Burczynski, Dave Emory (?), etc. Surely, in the mechanical engineering field there must be literature, probably regarding very specific areas of expertise- metallurgy for example.

Dr. Roberts, I shall take your suggestion to heart and it would be an honor to write a review on the book ASAP. As I've said before, Kneubuehl's book "Wundballistik", second printing, was extremely informative, but a bit too complex mathematically...

And lastly Mr. Green- funny picture!

Respectfully,

David


PS Can anyone, Dr. Roberts maybe, do me a great favor and forward me to a bullet designer that I could get in touch with in order to enhance my knowledge? I would be willing to pay USD for your troubles...

PSPS got a complaining mother in the background telling me to see a shrink because of the 5 inch thick folder marked terminal ballistics/Fackler/LAIR...women...gotta go

[DocGKR]

Several of the major designers read this forum--it they choose to, they can contact you. I suspect the problem is one Glock17JHP hit on--most designs are proprietary and the companies wish to guard their information...

[sinister]

Modern Exterior Ballistics: The Launch and Flight Dynamics of Symmetric Projectiles, Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; illustrated edition (January 1, 2004) covers bullets and projectiles in their internal and external ballistic phases.

I don't believe there are any detailed works for the terminal phase in tissue besides wound ballistics.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Exterior-Ballistics-Symmetric-Projectiles/dp/0764307207/ref=pd_sim_b_4

[Terminal Effect]

Sinister- thanks for your response, but I am seeking info regarding the design of the bullets and that effect on terminal potential, and not how they fly or what happens in flight. But thanks anyway...


Dr. Roberts- well, umm, sorry for asking this question, I understand that the designers like to stay in the background, but how can I get them to contact me?
This could be seen as an invitation to the bullet designers to PM me

Or failing that, does anyone know a bullet designer here?

I am not trying to intrude; it would be interesting to know how they got into their business, i.e. what kind of education is needed, when they started, where a good place would be to look should one also want to design projetiles...

Thank you to all.
David

[Glock17JHP]

I would suspect that if one wanted to get into a field like bullet design, one would want to take courses in physics and the like... then you would want to get into the field on perhaps an apprenticeship sort of way with a specific company (assuming they would want to hire you), learning from the more senior people already in that position at that company. You would be likely limited in a sense to the way they thought and designed, unless you had ideas the more experienced people already there thought would make sense to try. You would not be free to share the knowledge you gained there, also.

[Pasteur]

There is some controversy about the Marshall and Sanow "Stopping Power" books, but most of this relates to their one-shot stop statistics.

These books also contain a significant amount of information on bullet design, including a number of chapters authored by experts, such as Tom Burczynski.
If Burczynski is writing on bullet design, it is usually pretty good.

[Glock17JHP]

Call me what you will, but I tend to follow the advice given in a courtroom to prospective jurors.

The advice goes something like: If any portion of the testimony from a particular witness is rejectable, reject the entire testimony entirely. It is a matter of trust.

I would not reject parts of M&S's books and then accept other parts. If the source is 'suspect' in some areas, I will typically reject it entirely.

[Terminal Effect]

Glock17JHP, well said. It has been stated over and over that the M&S books are basically just B&S=BS. Information regarding the validity of it can be found on firearmstactical.com

Not only Dr. Martin Fackler but also Duncan Macpherson and many other experts agree that the work of M&S is, well... see above.

Not trying to get personal here.

Again, any bullet designers around, I would be flattered and honored to hear from you via PM or email... I am NOT interested in industrial espionage, just trying to learn

Thank you.
David

PS just wanted to clarify that I do not want to question anything Mr. Burczynski is stating. In fact, I've been trying to get in touch. No luck...

[sinister]

"Again, any bullet designers around, I would be flattered and honored to hear from you via PM or email... I am NOT interested in industrial espionage, just trying to learn"

I would think this is exactly what you're going to run into.

Military ballisticians are concerned with hitting targets.

Surgeons and pathologists are concerned with repairing and protecting the body.

Bullet and cartridge merchants catering to sportsmen and police markets try to expand and maximize profit margin within production and marketing budgets.

Take a look at our SHOT Show (or the European equivalent) directory (IWA?) and you'll see as many different bullet theory designs in production as there are bullet and cartridge makers.

[Terminal Effect]

Thank you, Sinister. So, it's all about the $$$ then. That's a shame, considering that good men and women are putting their lives on the line.

What would probably be optimal, is if the designers and the end users, i.e. M/LE could get together at the drawing table and say exactly what is needed before the bullet fails/passes tests (IWBA, FBI, etc. )

Not trying to be reticent here, but my request to the designers remains...


Does anybody here know the screen name of bullet designers? Then I could try it myself and see what happens.

[Pasteur]

I'd say that the free market system is working well in motivating improved bullet designs, even if it causes some of the design process and details to remain proprietary.

There are a lot of designs on the market, and the research and standardized testing has yielded much better bullets today than 30 years ago. The current crop of designs meets performance specifications (penetration and expansion) over a much wider range of velocities and intermediate barriers.

In the end, bullet quality is determined largely by what the end user is willing to pay and also by political considerations. The military wants cheap bullets, and political factors dictate that they must meet the standards of a century old agreement that the US did not even agree to. Other political subdivisions insist that their LEOs survive without JHPs. For $1 a bullet (perhaps a lot less) and willingness to cast aside political preferences, our soldiers could be much better served.

See: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

[Terminal Effect]

Pasteur, right on again.

Dr. Roberts critisised the blindness of the Hague Conventions in his stupendous PDF presentation, which I printed out a while ago.

Let's see, which famous bullet designers do we have?
>Tom Burczynski of Federal
>Alan Corzine of ATK
>Joe Zambone, R.I.P

Those are all I know...
Yes, the M&S books are questionable. I believe Shawn Dodson put it succinctly.

Again, anybody know if any other designers are here on M4? Dr. Roberts, if you could help me out, I'd be grateful... I am quite sure you know. Judging by the time I spend on this issue, maybe I should be studying mechanical engineering or what these gentlemen studied. . . :D

[Glock17JHP]

Don't forget that what sells drives the market...

If there are a lot of uninformed buyers out there, LE and Military included, the manufacturers will make what they want/buy...

There are a lot more uninformed people out there than you realize, folks...

And the manufacturer will not make what is best regardless of what is selling well...

[Marcus L.]

Don't forget that what sells drives the market...

If there are a lot of uninformed buyers out there, LE and Military included, the manufacturers will make what they want/buy...

There are a lot more uninformed people out there than you realize, folks...

And the manufacturer will not make what is best regardless of what is selling well...

Glock17JHP is on the money.

When it comes to the defense market, the civilian buyer often negatively effects the direction of ammunition design. Why?.....because civilians rarely use their defensive weaponry and when they do, they do not use it in a large sample of data in order to accurately make a decision on what is effective and what is not. The public's knowledge of classic ballistics science is very weak, and they are easily influenced by gimmick marketing such as high energy and fragmenting ammunition.

There have been a number of instances where the popular load used by the civilian market, was deemed to be woefully inadequate when put to actual use by LE in shootings. The most well known example was the Winchester 9mm 115gr ST at almost 1300fps and 430ft-lbs of energy. This was one of the premier loads in the mid 1980s and was hailed as an excellent manstopper in the civilian world. The general public was dazzled by muzzle energy, and "knockdown power" at this time which was constantly being touted in gun magazines. In the 1986 Miami shooting agent Dove didn't experience any "knockdown power" with this load on Michael Platt, even though his shot was placed perfectly......but the penetration was inadequate sparing Platt's heart. The FBI assembled a team of experts(even Marshall) and devised a standardized testing method which took into account the results of actual shootings. The result was the FBI ballistics gel test which has proven to be a very reliable method of testing ammunition for real world use. The 115gr ST load that Dove used had an average penetration depth in bare gel of only 9-10". The FBI protocol test has directly influenced ammunition design as virtually all manufacturers design their ammunition around this test. From an LE standpoint, shootings have gone significantly better since this innovation.

Simply put, it is more often the case that LE or military influence the direction of ammunition development in a positive direction than the civilian market. In many cases, the civilian market takes the defense market for ammunition in a negative direction as they tend to devise tests that are not relivant to the shooting of humans in dynamic environments. However, civlians do tend to take the hunting market into positive directions due to large samples of field use.

[DocGKR]

Tom Burczynski of Federal
Alan Corzine of ATK
Joe Zambone, R.I.P

Tom does not work at Federal/ATK, although they have licensed some of his designs.

Alan did most of his designs at Winchester; he no longer works for ATK.

Joe Zambone should not be grouped as a projectile designer with the other two gentlemen...

----------------

Terminal Effect--We don't you contact the major projectile manufacturers and speak with them about what qualifications, education, and background they are looking for when hiring ammo engineers? In your AO, you could speak with Lapua, Nammo, Norma, RUAG, etc...

[Glock17JHP]

You have the gun magazines adding to the bad information, and then you have supposed 'experts' in the scientific community that pump out loads of 'junk science', too. Many folks don't know enough to separate the truth from the fiction.

Sadly, folks like Fackler and MacPherson have all but stopped creating any new wound ballistics information, so the 'junk scientists' in a sense sort of have free reign as their ranks seem to swell. DocGKR and a few others still put out some of the only good information, but the 'junk scientists' and skeptics are multiplying as we speak.

We are already outnumbered, but resistance is NOT futile...

[Terminal Effect]

Umm, would Dr. Courtney and Dr. Vail be one of the junk scientists, right?

Dr. Roberts, since you are using the first names of the ammo engineers mentioned above, may I assume that you personally know/knew them? Sorry if I am wrong here.

Thank you so much for your suggestion, Dr. Roberts, but I fear that my Math skills are not too hot...I'm a language/history fellow. Better to leave such a serious matter to the right gentlemen-it could save a life, after all...
The last name on the list, Zambone, was something the matter with him? You saind not to add him to the group.

Right, so which projectile designers are here? Excuse my curiosity!

Glock-good points. Thankfully, DocGKR's still around.

What other prominent designers were/are there? Which are most likely to allow me to contact them? What can I do to accelerate the process?

[Pasteur]

You have the gun magazines adding to the bad information, and then you have supposed 'experts' in the scientific community that pump out loads of 'junk science', too. Many folks don't know enough to separate the truth from the fiction.

Sadly, folks like Fackler and MacPherson have all but stopped creating any new wound ballistics information, so the 'junk scientists' in a sense sort of have free reign as their ranks seem to swell. DocGKR and a few others still put out some of the only good information, but the 'junk scientists' and skeptics are multiplying as we speak.


One wonders whether you are defining “junk science” as any study that calls into question rigidly held views. Ballistic science marches on, and when ideas are tested against carefully controlled experiments, and the results are published, open to peer review, and compared to independently obtained data, the quality of the science is usually good. Most scientists define pseudo-science as adherence to theories in the face of contrary data, appeals to expert opinion rather than published experimental results, and things of this sort. How would you define “junk science”?


When it comes to the defense market, the civilian buyer often negatively effects the direction of ammunition design. Why?.....because civilians rarely use their defensive weaponry and when they do, they do not use it in a large sample of data in order to accurately make a decision on what is effective and what is not. The public's knowledge of classic ballistics science is very weak, and they are easily influenced by gimmick marketing such as high energy and fragmenting ammunition.

… In the 1986 Miami shooting…

The 1986 Miami shootout was 23 years ago. Since that time, the ammo choices that meet or exceed recommended penetration requirements have steadily improved. Some of the fragmenting ammo companies are out of business, others are introducing new lines with better penetration, other fragmenting ammo brands are getting progressively harder to find. On the other hand, as long as ammo meets penetration requirements, most of the published information suggests that increased energy and fragmentation are a good thing. Some recent examples:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Minisi.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Lucid.pdf

Dr. Fackler also had a paper a while ago on how fragmentation enhances wound damage.

[Jim from Houston]

Terminal Effect - The problem with Zambone is that the product with which he is most closely identified - the "Magsafe" line of ammunition - does NOT provide performance that is acceptable for a defensive firearms.

It sounds as if you're interested in pursuing a career in ammunition design...as with many fields, my impression is that you simply have to get into the business and work your way up. A background in engineering would certainly be a good place to start, but beyond that, since you're located in Germany, I would get in touch with these people:

http://www.elisenhuette.de/cms/cms/front_content.php

and these people:

http://www.rws-munition.de/de/rws_ruag/rws_ruag.htm

and ask if they're hiring...if it's what you want to do, the best way is probably to get a job with an ammunition company and work your way up...

[Terminal Effect]

Jim from Houston, I am grateful for you thinking I'd be able to do that, but to be honest (this is crucial) I fear I haven't got the stuff for it. I mean honestly, I'd love to do it and design projectiles that save US soldiers'/LEOs lives, but...there are simply better people out there for it.

It seems I have hit on a bit of a Bermuda Triangle of info here... maybe only the mechanical engineers have access to that literature, or can surmise it themselves.

Umm, I'm still kinda hoping the designers will see this and drop me a line. I mean the ones here. (OPEN INVITATION)

Should I discover that I can hack it, i.e. if a designer would tell me this is what you need, have to learn, etc., I would not be doing anything else!!! But that's wishful thinking.

Gentlemen, please call me David.

[DocGKR]

"if a designer would tell me this is what you need, have to learn, etc."

Why don't YOU call the projectile manufacturers previously listed and tell us what they say?

[Terminal Effect]

Why don't YOU call the projectile manufacturers previously listed and tell us what they say?


Dr. Roberts, I copy. I shall follow your advice. Getting exciting here. I will let you all know what they say. Thank you for the advice. :cool:


One more thing...there are two editions of the Kneubuehl book. One is from 1998, the other is quite new. Judging by the table of contents available on

www.motorbuch.de the second printing is not really so focused on bullet design/effect in a target but external ballistics.

It may take me a while to find the first printing, it is no longer available. I will choose the version most relevant, Dr.

[Pasteur]

The best information on existing bullet designs may well be had through patent searches. Go to www.google.com/patents and try searches like:

"Thomas J. Burczynski"

[Glock17JHP]

The 1986 Miami shootout was 23 years ago. Since that time, the ammo choices that meet or exceed recommended penetration requirements have steadily improved. Some of the fragmenting ammo companies are out of business, others are introducing new lines with better penetration, other fragmenting ammo brands are getting progressively harder to find. On the other hand, as long as ammo meets penetration requirements, most of the published information suggests that increased energy and fragmentation are a good thing. Some recent examples:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Minisi.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Lucid.pdf

Dr. Fackler also had a paper a while ago on how fragmentation enhances wound damage.

Pasteur,

When most folks talk about the failures in the Miami Firefight, they are referring to handgun ammunition. Fackler's comments dealt with rifle ammunition. Please refrain from comparing apples to oranges.

My definition of 'junk science' is: M&S and Michael Courtney, for the most part.

[BuckskinJoe]

Pasteur,

When most folks talk about the failures in the Miami Firefight, they are referring to handgun ammunition. Fackler's comments dealt with rifle ammunition. Please refrain from comparing apples to oranges.

My definition of 'junk science' is: M&S and Michael Courtney, for the most part.

More good hillbilly wisdom when "out to pasture:"
Don't never wrassle wit no pig. Ya both git dirty, and the pig likes it
Just leave him in his own little cocoon at his keyboard in front of his computer.

[Terminal Effect]

Why don't YOU call the projectile manufacturers previously listed and tell us what they say?

Doc-
Just wanted
to let you know that I have sent several emails to RUAG, RWS and MEN. They haven't responded-it says on their site that unless you are M or LE they usually don"t process the request. I think they got a kick though :D.

I will try again, revise my strategy.

[Augusto]

I just saw that Beat Kneubuehl has written a new book. It is in German and called "Geschosse"- projectiles. It is in German, which works fine for me, however IIRC Dr. Roberts once said something on TF to the effect that the Swiss, as opposed to the Americans were trying to make their projos less deadly... hence I would assume there would be better chioces available in the US.

Maybe someone can help? Anyone know a publishing house that specializes on the issue of projectile design and related issues?


Did you read Kneubuehl´s "Wundballistik: Grundlagen und Anwendungen", 2008 edition?
I´m very interested but I think there´s no english translation yet.
And my german is even worst than my english!!

[Terminal Effect]

Yes, I have scanned most of the book. It is a well written analysis with tons of math. A friend of mine, who is a molecular biologist has borrowed it and I'm still waiting.

It's quite good.