Post by Anders Hoveland on Feb 2, 2011 19:17:01 GMT -8
Many people have wondered about how the effects of an explosive filled projectile compare to a solid metal projectile.
At very high speeds, the kinetic load of a solid round can carry more energy than the ammount of explosives that could be packed inside it.
An object in "low earth orbit" moves at 27,400 km/h, and has an energy density of 33MJ/kg, while HMX has an energy density of 5.7MJ/kg.
Bullets from rifles have velocities up to 1200 meters per second (which is only 78km/h). I will let you do the math.
Remember: mass multiplied by the square of velocity, then divided by two, equals kinetic energy. This means that a kg of something in low earth orbit has about 123 thousand times as much kinetic energy as a bullet from a rifle.
It can be calculated that an equivalent weight of HMX detonating will release 68 thousand times more energy than the kinetic energy from a rifle bullet.
However, it should also be remembered that only a fraction of the energy from an explosion is released as mechanical energy, and not all the kinetic energy released by an explosion is in the optimal direction to cause damage.
The kinetic energy from a projectile stays more focused as it penetrates into the armor than an explosive vortex. A metal projectile also has a much higher density than typical chemical explosives, depleted uranium is exactly ten times more dense than HMX for example.
In conclusion, my quick calculations suggest that filling a projectile with an explosive would be more effective than a plain solid projectile for handheld guns. For high-velocity armor-piercing projeciles, there are a few reasons why explosive filling probably is not as effective. This is a science-focused analysis, and I otherwise know nothing about guns and ammunition.
One reason that ammunition is explosive filled is to spread the damage over a wider area. Shooting an aircraft wing with a solid round, even if it penetrates through the other side, is not going to do too much damage, since the hole will not be very big.
The best that could be hoped for is that it will rupture a fuel tank and cause the plane to eventually make an emergency landing. Or sometimes for assasinations, where there will only be one chance to hit the target, the target being too far away for a reliably accurate head-shot. Using an explosive tipped bullet is more sure to cause damage to internal organs for the same reason as in the aircraft wing example.
At very high speeds, the kinetic load of a solid round can carry more energy than the ammount of explosives that could be packed inside it.
An object in "low earth orbit" moves at 27,400 km/h, and has an energy density of 33MJ/kg, while HMX has an energy density of 5.7MJ/kg.
Bullets from rifles have velocities up to 1200 meters per second (which is only 78km/h). I will let you do the math.
Remember: mass multiplied by the square of velocity, then divided by two, equals kinetic energy. This means that a kg of something in low earth orbit has about 123 thousand times as much kinetic energy as a bullet from a rifle.
It can be calculated that an equivalent weight of HMX detonating will release 68 thousand times more energy than the kinetic energy from a rifle bullet.
However, it should also be remembered that only a fraction of the energy from an explosion is released as mechanical energy, and not all the kinetic energy released by an explosion is in the optimal direction to cause damage.
The kinetic energy from a projectile stays more focused as it penetrates into the armor than an explosive vortex. A metal projectile also has a much higher density than typical chemical explosives, depleted uranium is exactly ten times more dense than HMX for example.
In conclusion, my quick calculations suggest that filling a projectile with an explosive would be more effective than a plain solid projectile for handheld guns. For high-velocity armor-piercing projeciles, there are a few reasons why explosive filling probably is not as effective. This is a science-focused analysis, and I otherwise know nothing about guns and ammunition.
One reason that ammunition is explosive filled is to spread the damage over a wider area. Shooting an aircraft wing with a solid round, even if it penetrates through the other side, is not going to do too much damage, since the hole will not be very big.
The best that could be hoped for is that it will rupture a fuel tank and cause the plane to eventually make an emergency landing. Or sometimes for assasinations, where there will only be one chance to hit the target, the target being too far away for a reliably accurate head-shot. Using an explosive tipped bullet is more sure to cause damage to internal organs for the same reason as in the aircraft wing example.