I'll take it... in a .22cal size please.

I'll take it... in a .22cal size please.

Guss
Guss

December 12th, 2011, 4:45 pm #1

So I just got done reading about the 0.700 cal rifle..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011 ... dinosaurs/
...and I got wondering;

If you were designing an anti-material rifle (fixed amount of energy) would you rather a longer payload with smaller diameter or a larger diameter yet shorter. Assuming both are aerodynamically sound.
Quote
Share

Maker of Toys
Maker of Toys

December 12th, 2011, 5:07 pm #2

Distance is affected energy retention which is affected by ballistic coefficient-- over-simplified, this means small frontal area and high mass.

Damage equates to energy transfer - this gets into what sort of materiel you're trying to anti, but basically means as large a frontal area as you can manage to arrive at the target volume with. If you're trying to trash radio antennas, then a big, slow, slug is probably better-- same with stationary aircraft and other thin-skin or otherwise fragile equipment. The deeper you need to go to reach something vital, the less energy you want to expend on the surface structures, and the narrower the frontal area for a given mass. . . and then the requirements change to energy transfer once you reach the vulnerable volume.

The above is, of course, a gross oversimplification, and the exact details depend on lots of factors that, in turn, depend on the application.


#include std_disclaimer.h

Quote
Share

FireFrenzy
FireFrenzy

December 12th, 2011, 5:58 pm #3

So I just got done reading about the 0.700 cal rifle..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011 ... dinosaurs/
...and I got wondering;

If you were designing an anti-material rifle (fixed amount of energy) would you rather a longer payload with smaller diameter or a larger diameter yet shorter. Assuming both are aerodynamically sound.
Or better yet one of those big and slow herbivores... I've never shot anything so i'd prefer something less likely to eat my face if i mess up...

GO VEGGYSAURUS!
Quote
Share

Robin Bobcat
Robin Bobcat

December 12th, 2011, 8:02 pm #4

So I just got done reading about the 0.700 cal rifle..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011 ... dinosaurs/
...and I got wondering;

If you were designing an anti-material rifle (fixed amount of energy) would you rather a longer payload with smaller diameter or a larger diameter yet shorter. Assuming both are aerodynamically sound.
The long-narrow profile will penetrate easier, but will also lose less velocity due to wind resistance. I will point out that medieval plate armor was generally discontinued due to the invention of the Bodkin Arrow, not the musket (though that helped put the nail in the coffin, to be sure). It's frightening how much F=MV a clothyard shaft can carry to its point of impact, which, being a point, does nasty things.

Generally, when you're discussing anti-materiel, it's all about penetration (giggidy). Once a round gets past any armor/engineblock/etc, you're generally looking at a world of damage, no matter what the round is shaped like. That much force turns steel into butter, and there will be chunks moving about all over the place. If you hit the crew compartment, it's basically like having a good-sized shotgun going off, in addition to the round. The round is also going to tumble a bit once it goes through the armor - getting hit with the side of a round that size and speed will ruin your golf game for sure. There's also structural deformation - how well does your transmission work when it's got a good-sized dent in its side?

So yeah, while a 'fat' round will transfer more energy quickly, if you're actually taking out vehicles/power transformers/hitting snipers through walls you want a nice thin round that can go through the armor first.

Now, if you're actually hunting dinosaurs, then you're not going to need too much penetrating force. A hollowpoint version of that bullet would do nicely.
Quote
Share

Ironbadger
Ironbadger

December 12th, 2011, 8:21 pm #5

Or better yet one of those big and slow herbivores... I've never shot anything so i'd prefer something less likely to eat my face if i mess up...

GO VEGGYSAURUS!
I grew up in a taxidermy family with a serious background in big game hunting..So when I visited the Los Angeles museum of natural history and saw their T rex skeleton on display many years ago..The first thing I did was start analyzing areas I'd aim at to take one down.

The T rex actually has huge tunnels in it's skull for the nostrils..that go straight to the center.
So if it turns towards you, a bullet up one nostril will be channeled right into its brain or spinal cord.
just aim up one hole, biasing towards the centerline.

If you have a side view of a T rex, you'd want to aim at the hip joint.

The entire animal balances on two points- injure or break the hip juncture, even on just one side and its anchored pretty thoroughly.
It could be finished off at leisure with spine or head shots.


Useless information, I know... But its all grist for the mill around here.
(Yes, I also know the points of aim to take down all of the African big 5, the Bengal tiger and Indian leopard, the grizzly and other bears and the north american big cats like the cougar and jaguar... My grandfather made it a point to teach me at a young age...Just in case I ever needed to know for some reason.)



-Badger-
Quote
Share

Ironbadger
Ironbadger

December 12th, 2011, 8:54 pm #6

The long-narrow profile will penetrate easier, but will also lose less velocity due to wind resistance. I will point out that medieval plate armor was generally discontinued due to the invention of the Bodkin Arrow, not the musket (though that helped put the nail in the coffin, to be sure). It's frightening how much F=MV a clothyard shaft can carry to its point of impact, which, being a point, does nasty things.

Generally, when you're discussing anti-materiel, it's all about penetration (giggidy). Once a round gets past any armor/engineblock/etc, you're generally looking at a world of damage, no matter what the round is shaped like. That much force turns steel into butter, and there will be chunks moving about all over the place. If you hit the crew compartment, it's basically like having a good-sized shotgun going off, in addition to the round. The round is also going to tumble a bit once it goes through the armor - getting hit with the side of a round that size and speed will ruin your golf game for sure. There's also structural deformation - how well does your transmission work when it's got a good-sized dent in its side?

So yeah, while a 'fat' round will transfer more energy quickly, if you're actually taking out vehicles/power transformers/hitting snipers through walls you want a nice thin round that can go through the armor first.

Now, if you're actually hunting dinosaurs, then you're not going to need too much penetrating force. A hollowpoint version of that bullet would do nicely.
Its a common misconception that bodkin points will penetrate late period plate armor...because of the video tests that have been done with cheap, lightweight costume breastplates.

Those are generally made in soft, 18 gauge mild steel.
You can put a screwdriver through most of them without that much effort..So punching holes with even a light bow is no challenge.
In the tester's defense, I believe they are unaware that the breastplates they are using are not authentically made, so do not know they are using the equivalent of beer cans as targets.

(Yes, I know of Agincourt and Crecy...Armorers responded by improving the quality of their offerings after they heard about the results of those battles.)



Late period armor breastplates were made in much thicker iron, or more commonly steel, and "proof plate" breastplates were in hardened steel thick enough to resist a heavy crossbow.
(The proofing mark was made originally by shooting a bodkin at said breastplate from a heavy crossbow at short range, and the dent stamped with an inspection mark...)
Later breastplates were often just stamped with a punch to fake it..But the breastplate itself by then was around 10 gauge in thickness..(Around an eighth of an inch,) And many of these harness sets could be fitted with an additional plate called a plastron for additional protection against muskets or wheellock pistols.

What killed the use of plate armor was mostly the expense.
Only a wealthy noble could afford a full harness of proof plate- And the proliferation of muskets and pike hedges steadily made it more and more likely that a cavalryman would lose his horse in a charge even if he survived- Its not pleasant to be forced to march miles and miles in 100 pounds of cavalry armor.
And a full kit from a good armory was the equivalent in price of a Ferrari today.
So abandoning it due to suddenly being on foot would have been a hard decision.


The introduction of full musket formations without pikes really ended fully armored cavalry charges; though cuiraissiers in just breastplate and helmet lingered on into the 19th century.

Since the utility of full armor was obviously much reduced versus its expense, noble officers stopped using it in order to regain the greater speed and mobility an unencumbered horse could provide.
Now, a lot of nobles kept wearing things like a mail shirt under their uniform rather late, because it was a serious advantage against a saber stroke.
I have found mentions of this practice as late as the 19th century among British officers in both India and Europe.
There are also mentions of body armor of various types in the American civil war- But such armor was never general issue, and tended to be quite rare.


-Badger-



Quote
Share

Tohri
Tohri

December 13th, 2011, 12:05 am #7

As lately there's been a shift back towards metal Trauma plates under kevlar and ceramic plate armor to stop steel cored assault rifle rounds. And body armor is starting to get back up into the 100lb range for a full kit.
Quote
Share

KT
KT

December 13th, 2011, 12:44 am #8

I grew up in a taxidermy family with a serious background in big game hunting..So when I visited the Los Angeles museum of natural history and saw their T rex skeleton on display many years ago..The first thing I did was start analyzing areas I'd aim at to take one down.

The T rex actually has huge tunnels in it's skull for the nostrils..that go straight to the center.
So if it turns towards you, a bullet up one nostril will be channeled right into its brain or spinal cord.
just aim up one hole, biasing towards the centerline.

If you have a side view of a T rex, you'd want to aim at the hip joint.

The entire animal balances on two points- injure or break the hip juncture, even on just one side and its anchored pretty thoroughly.
It could be finished off at leisure with spine or head shots.


Useless information, I know... But its all grist for the mill around here.
(Yes, I also know the points of aim to take down all of the African big 5, the Bengal tiger and Indian leopard, the grizzly and other bears and the north american big cats like the cougar and jaguar... My grandfather made it a point to teach me at a young age...Just in case I ever needed to know for some reason.)



-Badger-
While I myself don't hunt, almost every other male member of my family does. From what I've heard, every animal has a common point of aim to get a reliable kill; Aim for the chest, or around the shoulder to hit either the heart, lungs, or best of all, both. The only exception I know is wild hogs, who have that pesky shoulder plate that means you have a better shot if you're standing a bit behind the animal.

Anyway, with a round that big, used on something like the T-Rex, which stands with it's chest in broad sight, what's stopping a good heart/lung shot?
Quote
Share

Bruce Bergman
Bruce Bergman

December 13th, 2011, 5:25 am #9

Something really really big like a T-Rex you could drop with a heart or a head shot with a .500 or .700 Sniper Rifle.

But if you only make a solid hit on a big artery or rip up a lung or an internal organ or two? Yes, he's gonna bleed out and keel over in 5 or 10 minutes (or more) - Meanwhile he's pissed, still ambulatory for a while, and he/she sees or smells you...

You'd better have a really good hidey-hole cave nearby that he can't get to you in, and you'd better start running for it NOW. Or hope you can send a few more rounds down-range and get a stopping hit before he closes the gap.
Quote
Share

Ironbadger
Ironbadger

December 13th, 2011, 9:58 am #10

While I myself don't hunt, almost every other male member of my family does. From what I've heard, every animal has a common point of aim to get a reliable kill; Aim for the chest, or around the shoulder to hit either the heart, lungs, or best of all, both. The only exception I know is wild hogs, who have that pesky shoulder plate that means you have a better shot if you're standing a bit behind the animal.

Anyway, with a round that big, used on something like the T-Rex, which stands with it's chest in broad sight, what's stopping a good heart/lung shot?
Its a matter of scale.

On game in the modern age, most of what you hunt is small enough that a chest shot works just fine.

A full grown T rex is huge...
And its chest is deceptively shaped; being kind of long and narrow.

Unless the animal is turned completely straight towards you, the bullet can easily miss the heart. Passing to the side down the 4 or 5 feet of body cavity, flesh, bone, etc. that it must penetrate...if it penetrates that far...before hitting the heart.
The chest of a T rex adult is the size of a small car- You can easily crawl inside the ribcage of one and stretch out.
Thats a lot of area to try to find a vital spot in, even with a bullet of .50 to .70 caliber.

The nasal cavities are something like 8 inches across and mostly hollow all the way to the brain and spine areas- Just some thin plates and soft tissue in the way.
The bone actually works like a tube to funnel the bullet into the vital areas of the skull.

To give you an idea-
In elephant hunting, a guide usually instructs the hunter to aim at the center of the head, not the chest.
The skull of an elephant has tons of hollow spaces that make it vulnerable to bullets, and they are relatively easy to kill in one shot to the brain or spine from the front.
The aiming point is the size of a canteloupe...And even being a little off will still drop a bull elephant with one round.

But to the best of my knowledge, they always advise NOT to try frontal body shots... Because the elephant will live long enough to kill you after being shot in the heart.

Cape buffalo are the same.
The chest of a cape is all hard bone and thick muscle, and frontal chest shots fail more than half the time.
The advice I read from a guide was to actually shoot them up the nasal cavity if they raised their head to sniff...The sniff usually being the last thing they do before charging.
But a shot up the nasal passage would channel right up to the brain and drop them in one.

-Badger-

Quote
Share