McCall911's Penetration Predictor

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

McCall911

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
1,617
Location
Alabama
McCall's Penetration Predictor
(simplified for desktop calculator)


This is just one portion of the penetration predictor that I worked up some time back from my own independent research (i.e. I ain't read it from no books.) It is intended for use in small arms applications and approximates the results from ballistic gelatin tests, in particular.
What follows is a walkthrough for use on Windows desktop calculator, set to scientific View Mode. All units will be in English measurements.
(My apologies to you calculator wizards for the "baby steps.")

A. Variables (what you need to make it work)
1. Bullet diameter (bd) in inches
2. Bullet weight (w) in grains
3. Impact velocity (v) in feet per second.
4. Bullet shape factor (Cd) unitless
(assume a value of .52 to .55 for most spitzer bullets, .55 to .57 for flatnose to roundnose bullets, .70 for mushroomed, and .83 for
flat cylinder.)

''B. Procedure
1. Find ballistic coefficient
a. Divide bullet diameter by 12, press [=] or [enter]
b. Square [x^2] result of (a)
c. Multilply result (b) by pi and divide by 4
d. Multiply (c) by bullet shape factor, press [=] or [enter]
e. Store this result using [M+] key
f. Clear display using [C]
g. Divide bullet weight by 7000, press [=] or [enter]
h. Divide result of [g] by stored value [MR] and press [=] or [enter] to get ballistic coefficient
i. Clear previously stored value using [MC] and store ballistic coefficient using [M+]
(Note: This ballistic coefficient will look entirely different than the one you may be accustomed to seeing in ballistics tables.)

2. Determine average kinetic energy
(There are two ways to do this, both easy.)
a. Divide impact velocity by 2, press [=] or [enter]
b. Square result (a) by [x^2] multiply by bullet weight, press [=] or [enter]
c. Divide result (b) by 7000, divide again by 32.174, divide once more by 2; press [=] or [enter] to obtain average kinetic energy
(Alternate method:)
a. Square impact velocity with [x^2], multiply by bullet weight, press [=] or [enter]
b. Divide result (a) by 7000, divide again by 32.174, divide once more by 2, divide finally by 4; press [=] or [enter] to find average kinetic energy.
(Explanation: The "average kinetic energy" is important because the bullet stops within the medium. In other words, the velocity
becomes zero.)

3. Obtain unadjusted penetration value
a. Multiply average kinetic energy result from (2c) by stored ballistic coefficient by using [MR]
b. Divide by the constant 52130, press [=] or [enter]
c. Using the result of (b), hit the [x^y] key and enter 0.25; press [=] or [enter]
d. Multiply result of (c) by 12, then hit [=] or [enter] to obtain the unadjusted penetration value (in inches)
e. Clear memory with [MC} and add result (d) back into memory with [M+]
f. Clear display with [C]

4. Obtain estimated penetration (in inches)
a. Estimate bullet surface by dividing bullet diameter by 2 and multiplying by pi; hit [=] or [enter]
b. Use [+/-] key to make result (a) negative
c. Add result of (b) to the memory using the [M+] key; clear display with [C]
d. Review stored value using [MR]
(Note: If this value is zero or a negative number, then stop right here! There is no penetration!)
e. Multiply the value from (d) by 3 for the estimated minimum penetration or by 5 for estimated maximum penetration.
f. Of course, hit [=] or [enter]

I can offer explanations if anyone is interested.

<whew!>

Hit [=] or [enter].
 
Last edited:
McCall911's Penetration Predictor
Click to expand...

Footnotes:

1-- For expanded bullets, use the expanded diameter as bullet diameter.

2--Assuming less than 100 percent fragmentation, use the recovered bullet weight as the bullet weight. (I do have an estimator for bullet weight retention, but didn't include it here.)

3--For best results, use a bullet shape factor of .70 (mushroomed) with expanded bullets
 
McCall911's Penetration Predictor
Click to expand...

For those of you who have already looked at it, I think I have tidied up a few loose ends of the baby steps.

Hit [=] or [enter]

;)
 
Let's see. For a 9mm 124 gr FMJ at 1120 fps, the calculator returns 17.2" to 28.6". MacPherson's equations say 29.6". Close, but no cigar.

.308 150 gr softpoint, 2600 fps, double expansion, 100% weight retention:
McCall: 21.1"-35.1". MacPherson: 18.0". Kinda close. I guess.

.45 230 gr hardball, 800 fps.
McCall: 17.6"-29.3". MacPherson: 28.6". Closer.

Hypervelocity, spherical magical grain of indestructible sand, .02 cal, .005 grain, DC .355, at 0.1 C (1/10th the speed of light, or 98,357,106 fps). Maybe a diamond micrometeorite or something. And you're in space when you get hit with it.
McCall: 166.4"-277.3". MacPherson, 4.3". Way, way, way off.

I think the main problem, evident by the extreme overpenetration of high-velocity projectiles, is the fact that your equation uses energy. Penetration is not determined by energy. It's actually momentum and drag. Drag increases exponentially as velocity increases, so the relationship between velocity and penetration depth is logarithmic, not exponential.

You can discover this by a very simple experiment. Inflate a balloon. Throw it with moderate force in a room with still air. Note how far the balloon goes. Pick up the balloon, and throw it again, twice as hard. Twice the velocity behind the balloon is four times the energy. Does the balloon go four times as far? Or is it closer to 1.5 to 2 times as far?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the critique, RyanM. (And I'm not being sarcastic in any way.) :)

No, I honestly didn't think I'd found the Mathematical or Scientific Discovery of the Millenium. It was more or less tongue-in-cheek that I threw this "predictor" out there because it was frankly very simplistic. I just wanted to get some input as to whether the "predictor" sank or swam.

So it looks like it swims just a little before it sinks. maybe?

:eek:

:D
 
No man, no reason to stop trying. Hell, I enjoyed reading and sure couldn't come up with anything better, or even as good.
A little healthy debate is fun.:)
Biker
 
Thanks for the replies, Biker and Lucky.

The explanation for why I didn't use momentum: It just didn't fit it in with what I was working on. That's all.

Why I came up with this: I was looking for something quick and simple that got fairly close when it came to real-world small arms applications (not some hypothetical BS about a single grain of sand traveling at 1/10 the speed of light or a horse's fart or whatever.)

Bud, whiz kids, give me a break already! I've tested it enough to know that it works reasonably well within the narrow range of small arms! I think it's at least marginally satisfying. But, no, it's not perfect. I didn't intend it to be perfect! I knew damn well it wasn't perfect when I came up with it! So go impress someone else with your knowledge, unless you have something better to offer.

And McPherson! Who says McPherson is right in his calculations? Show us the proof, if you have any. Show us something better if you've got anything! And read my sig line, because I mean it: "Put up or shut up!"
 
MacPherson's proof is in his books. Pages and pages and pages of scatterplots, showing actual shooting data from actual gelatin, compared to his equation's predictions. And the data follows his equations very closely, with very few discrepencies. The few "flyers" are well explained; for instance, a very small percentage of flat-nosed bullets would penetrate way deeper than his model predicted. This had something to do with stability and yaw and whatnot, and basically it was because those bullets were acting like full wadcutters with the diameter of the meplat, because no gelatin was touching the sides at all. I only had the book on interlibrary loan and I have no scanner, so I can't show you any of the graphs, unforntunately.

Plus there's the fact that he wrote aerodynamic equations for rocket launches, which were in fact used for several successful rocket launches. I believe they were used in all of the Gemini and Mercury launches, as well as a few others. Too bad NASA didn't hire him to help with that Mars lander. Rocket aerodynamics is a lot more complex than bullet penetration, since you've got winds, the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher, gravity decreases with height, the rocket gets lighter as it burns fuel, etc.

So all told, I think the guy knows what he's doing.

Your model looks good other than using energy instead of velocity vs. drag. That's really the only major flaw. The general rule is that penetration increases proportionally to mass, but not always to velocity. Double the bullet mass, keeping everything else the same, and you double penetration. But velocity is all over the place. Doubling velocity from 100 fps to 200 fps may result in almost 4 times as much penetration, but doubling it from 1000 to 2000 would probably be more like 1.5 times as much.

Shoot some play-dough or throw a balloon or something, and the empirical evidence will bear this out. The higher the velocity is, the less you gain from increasing it more. I only used the grain of sand thing as an example of how the results are way too high, especially with rifles, and with "light and fast" projectiles.

Like here's some actual, calibrated gelatin shooting data.

9mm, 100 grain +P Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 10.9"
MacPherson - 10.6"
Yours - 12.4"-20.7"

.40, 135 gr Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 11.6"
MacPherson - 11.7"
Yours - 13.3"-22.2"

.45, 165 gr +P Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 12.1"
MacPherson - 11.7"
Yours - 13.4"-22.4"
 
RyanM said:
MacPherson's proof is in his books. Pages and pages and pages of scatterplots, showing actual shooting data from actual gelatin, compared to his equation's predictions. And the data follows his equations very closely, with very few discrepencies. The few "flyers" are well explained; for instance, a very small percentage of flat-nosed bullets would penetrate way deeper than his model predicted. This had something to do with stability and yaw and whatnot, and basically it was because those bullets were acting like full wadcutters with the diameter of the meplat, because no gelatin was touching the sides at all. I only had the book on interlibrary loan and I have no scanner, so I can't show you any of the graphs, unforntunately.

Plus there's the fact that he wrote aerodynamic equations for rocket launches, which were in fact used for several successful rocket launches. I believe they were used in all of the Gemini and Mercury launches, as well as a few others. Too bad NASA didn't hire him to help with that Mars lander. Rocket aerodynamics is a lot more complex than bullet penetration, since you've got winds, the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher, gravity decreases with height, the rocket gets lighter as it burns fuel, etc.

So all told, I think the guy knows what he's doing.

Your model looks good other than using energy instead of velocity vs. drag. That's really the only major flaw. The general rule is that penetration increases proportionally to mass, but not always to velocity. Double the bullet mass, keeping everything else the same, and you double penetration. But velocity is all over the place. Doubling velocity from 100 fps to 200 fps may result in almost 4 times as much penetration, but doubling it from 1000 to 2000 would probably be more like 1.5 times as much.

Shoot some play-dough or throw a balloon or something, and the empirical evidence will bear this out. The higher the velocity is, the less you gain from increasing it more. I only used the grain of sand thing as an example of how the results are way too high, especially with rifles, and with "light and fast" projectiles.

Like here's some actual, calibrated gelatin shooting data.

9mm, 100 grain +P Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 10.9"
MacPherson - 10.6"
Yours - 12.4"-20.7"

.40, 135 gr Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 11.6"
MacPherson - 11.7"
Yours - 13.3"-22.2"

.45, 165 gr +P Pow'R'Ball
Actual - 12.1"
MacPherson - 11.7"
Yours - 13.4"-22.4"
Click to expand...


Seriously: Thanks.

I'm working on getting the kinks out.

Who knows? Maybe it'll be enough to make everybody happy.

:D
 
McCall's Penetration Predictor
Version 2


Gather round, whiz kids, for my new, improved version of the Penetration Predictor. (Well, I'll say it's "new and improved" at least until I find another gaping hole in it... ) Now if it has to get much deeper than this, then I'm afraid that I'll have to go back to school and redo a lot of the math and physics that I used to sleep through.

As always, you can do this on your Windows desktop calculator (with View mode on Scientific, of course.) I will leave the original posted so that you can compare the differences, if you're so inclined.

A. Variables (what you need to make it work)
1. Bullet diameter (bd) in inches
{Note: If you have an expanding-type bullet, use the final (recovered) diameter in this calculation. I'm working on coming up with a (possible) means of predicting this.)
2. Bullet weight (w) in grains
(Note: For bullets which fragment less than 100 percent, use the recovered bullet weight here. I have an estimator for this (somewhere) but don't have time to dig it out and put it up today.)
3. Impact velocity (v) in feet per second.
4. Drag coefficient/"shape factor" (Cd) is unitless
(Yes, I've added it back in.)
Assume the following values for Cd:
0.52 to 0.55 for most spitzer-type bullets
0.55 to 0.57 for hollowpoints or flat-point bullets
0.57 for roundnose
0.7 for mushroomed
0.83 for flat cylinder
B. Procedure [Note: First make sure your calculator's memory is clear! If not, clear it with [MC].]
(I'll do the "tricky" part first. It's not hard, just has to be done right.)
1. Penetration component #1
a. Multiply Impact Velocity by Bullet weight and divide by 7000; hit [=} or [enter]
b. Square (a) with [x^2] key, divide by 32.174, and again by 52130; hit [=] or [enter]
(Here's the tricky part. Don't hit enter until this step is through, or it'll screw up fo sho.)
c. Using the result from (b), hit [x^y], then 6, then [1/x]; now [=] or [enter]
(End of tricky part)
d. Now store the result of (c) into the memory using [M+] key

2. Penetration component #2
a. Divide Bullet Diameter by 12 and hit [=] or [enter]
b Square [x^2] the result of (a), multiply by [pi], and divide by 4; Multiply again by the drag coefficient/shape factor and then [=] or [enter]
c. "Flip" the result of (b) by using the [1/x] key
d. Multiply (c) by the Bullet Weight and divide by 7000; [=] or [enter]
e. Divide (d) by 62.4; [=] or [enter]

3. The Final Destination (no, not the Grim Reaper just yet!)
a. Multiply the result of (2e) by the stored value using the [MR] key; [=] or [enter]
b. Take the square root of (a) by using the [x^y] key, followed by the value 0.5; [=] or [enter]
c. Multiply the result of (b) by 12; clear the memory with [MC] and add (b) to memory with [M+]
d. Clear the display with [C]
e. Enter the bullet diameter and, with [+/-], make this value negative
f. Add (e) to memory with [M+] and then clear display with [C]
g. Review the stored value with the [MR] key
(Again, if the value is zero or a negative number, then we will assume that there is no penetration.)
h. Clear the display with [C]
i. Obtain the natural logarithm of the impact velocity by entering the impact velocity and pressing the key [ln]
j. Divide the number from (i) by 2 and multiply by [MR}; [=] or [enter]
This is the minimum predicted penetration. (Jot this down or note it.)
k. Clear display with [C] and redo step (i)
l. Divide the number from (k) by 1.25 and multiply by [MR]; [=] or [enter]
This is the maximum predicted penetration.

It won't be perfect, but maybe it'll do until I can (maybe) cook up a Version 3...

Monkey wrenches are dreaded but welcome.

.
 
Last edited:
I think one of us did something wrong. Version two says 9mm FMJ penetrates -0.33 * 2-4 inches, and .45 hardball is -0.42 * 2-4

Well, let's see. Didn't round anything, just did that to keep the lines short.

.355
124
1120

1.
a. 1120 * 124 / 7000 = 19.84
b. 19.84^2 / 32.174 / 52130 = 2.347E-4
c. 2.347E-4 ^ (1/6) = 0.2484
d. M = 0.2484

2.
a. .355 * 12 = 4.26
b. 4.26 ^ 2 * pi / 4 = 14.25
c. 1 / 14.25 = 0.07016
d. 0.07016 * 124 / 7000 = 0.001243
e. 0.001243 / 62.4 = 0.00001992

3.
a. .2484 * .00001992 = 4.947E-6
b. sqrt(4.947E-6) = 0.002224
c. 0.002224 * 12 = 0.02669
d. 0.02669 - .355 = -0.32831

Oh, yeah, for the time being, I can only give estimates of penetration of non-deforming solids. On doing some comparisons between MacPherson's equations and expanding round jello data, it looks like his add 2" thing only works for bullets of a certain sectional density (around 0.16-.165), at velocities of 800-1000 fps. With light and slow bullets, 2" is too much, and with heavy and fast bullets, 2" is too little. Still working on a more accurate equation to replace the "add 2" rule. Unfortunately, I don't even know if the major factor here is the sectional density, velocity, or both; or whether the "bonus" penetration should be added or multiplied in (i.e., "add X*Y/Z" vs "multiply by X*Y/Z"). This could take awhile.
 
RyanM said:
I think one of us did something wrong. Version two says 9mm FMJ penetrates -0.33 * 2-4 inches, and .45 hardball is -0.42 * 2-4

Well, let's see. Didn't round anything, just did that to keep the lines short.

.355
124
1120

1.
a. 1120 * 124 / 7000 = 19.84
b. 19.84^2 / 32.174 / 52130 = 2.347E-4
c. 2.347E-4 ^ (1/6) = 0.2484
d. M = 0.2484

2.
a. .355 * 12 = 4.26
b. 4.26 ^ 2 * pi / 4 = 14.25
c. 1 / 14.25 = 0.07016
d. 0.07016 * 124 / 7000 = 0.001243
e. 0.001243 / 62.4 = 0.00001992

3.
a. .2484 * .00001992 = 4.947E-6
b. sqrt(4.947E-6) = 0.002224
c. 0.002224 * 12 = 0.02669
d. -0.32831

Oh, yeah, for the time being, I can only give estimates of penetration of non-deforming solids. On doing some comparisons between MacPherson's equations and expanding rounds, it looks like his add 2" thing only works for bullets of a certain sectional density (around 0.16-.165), at velocities of 800-1000 fps. With light and slow bullets, 2" is too much, and with heavy and fast bullets, 2" is too little. Still working on a more accurate equation to replace the "add 2" rule.
Click to expand...



Doh!

I know what I did wrong, so I'm going back to change it.

Thanks.
 
That seems to work much better. Let's see if there are any definite trends in the accuracy...

Looks like FMJ is right around the maximum, hollowpoints are about 80-85% of maximum, and the wadcutter was 70.6% of max. .57 * (1 / 85%) ~ .68, and .57 * (1 / 70.6%) ~ .83, hint hint. I think if you put the coefficient of drag constant back in and use the current maximum as the median, it will be extremely accurate, at least for pistols. Rifles will probably be a bit different.

9mm NATO ball, 124 gr @ 1189 fps
Yours - 14.1-28.2
MacPherson - 30.6
Actual - 27.6 (tumbled twice)

M1911 ball, 230 gr @ 869 fps
Yours - 15.7-31.4
MacPherson - 30.3
Actual - >25.6 (exited block)

6mm steel sphere, 14 gr @ 3382 fps
Yours - 5.5-11.1
MacPherson - 17.5
Actual - 16.9

.69 cal lead sphere, 488 gr @ 540 fps
Yours - 14.7-29.5
MacPherson - 26.2
Actual - 28.7

.38 SPL Safe-Stop plated wadcutter snubby load, 148 gr @ 744 fps
Yours - 14.6-29.3
MacPherson - 20.7
Actual - >20 (exited block)

Then some deforming rounds that are close to .16 SD and 800-1000 fps (still working on those equations)...

.38 +P FBI load, 158 gr @ 880 fps, .59" expanded
Yours - 8.1-16.2
MacPherson - 13.1
Actual - 12.6

9mm Win "supreme" SXT, 147 gr @ 921 fps, .50" expanded
Yours - 9.8-19.7
MacPherson - 16.3
Actual - 17.6 (17.1 corrected)

.40 S&W Win Ranger T, 180 gr @ 905 fps, .70" expanded
Yours - 6.8-13.7
MacPherson - 11.3
Actual - 11.2
 
I am not a mathematiacian, ballistics expert, or a rocket scientist. I have read Duncan McPhershon's book, and he looks like he knows what is going on in terminal ballistics.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a dusty old formula for predicting penetration. I think I read it in an old American Rifleman column. It is only good for sub-sonic velocities and non-expanding bullets. Perhaps you can add appropriate fudge factors for expanding sub-sonic bullets, but I suspect its accuracy rapidly decreases when you do so. Still, it may be worth the price. Bear with me, as I said, I am not a mathematician.

Take the diameter of your bullet. I will use the .45 ACP as an example. It is .451" in diameter. Add .033 to this and you end up with .484. (This .033 is a constant fudge factor added to any diameter handgun bullet).

Multiply .484 by itself. (.484 x .484, for the mathematically inclined. This comes out to .234256). Divide the weight of the bullet by .234256. This should come out to 981.384, according to my calculator.

Dividing this number by 7000 gives us .1402616! Which is slightly less than the sectional density of a 230 grain .451" bullet, due to the addition of the .033" fudge factor.

Now, most terminal ballistics experts agree that it takes 200 FPS to penetrate skin with a blunt projectile. So, subtract 200 from the muzzle velocity of my Gov't model pistol, which is 840 FPS. 640 x .1402616 = 89.767424. Now, for another fudge factor, and I can not remember if this one is correct for 10% gelatin, or 20% gelatin. A mind is a terrible thing to waste! Anyway, multiply 89.767424 by .233, which is 20.915809".

This is for a round nose bullet. There are fudge factors to account for SWC and WC bullets. Expanding bullets probably require a little real life experimentation. As stated before, there is a fudge factor to account for 10 or 20% gelatin. I have used the 2" rule, plus the expanded diameter of the bullet to predict penetration. My tests used water filled OJ cartons, so they are only accurate at 4" increments. (IOW, not accurate at all, but cheaper and easier than gelatin.

I have compared this model to a chart of shotgun pellet penetration in ballistic gelatin. The correlation was pretty good, the worst discrepancy was about 5%, and most of the time it was within 3% of what the people who prepared the chart reported. I assume that as long as projectiles are round nosed, and travelling between 600 and 1000 FPS, this model is fairly accurate. Probably serves better as a comparison for different loads than anything else. Get trans-sonic, and it ceases to have any value.

I hope this helps. As I said, I am not a mathematician, and I only present it for entertainment value.
 
I think you need to go back and read the skin penetration part of Bullet Penetration, Grendelbane. While 200 fps is the threshold velocity for skin penetration, above that, the amount of FPS removed drops off a lot. By the time you hit about 500-600 fps, you're losing less than 10 fps by penetrating the skin. There was a chart somewhere, that estimated what various bullet weights and calibers would lose by going through skin. Wish I had written down those equations...

If you use 835 fps instead of 640, you end up with a more accurate value, of 27.3". Hm. Accuracy isn't too bad within the parameters given, 600-1000 fps and roundnosed.

Also, milk or orange juice cartons are pretty accurate. The bullet will penetrate water-filled cartons about 1.6 times as much as 10% gelatin, so each 4" carton = 2.5" of gelatin.
 
The bullet will penetrate water-filled cartons about 1.6 times as much as 10% gelatin, so each 4" carton = 2.5" of gelatin.
Click to expand...

This is pretty close to what I remember. Seems like what I remember is actually .666. This would work out to 2.663. I am not going to get excited over minor differences such as that.

I do believe that as soon as velocities go super-sonic, and the bullet starts expanding, that you might as well forget a simple model predicting what is going to occur. I know that Duncan McPherson shows graphs predicting bullet expansion versus velocity, and velocity versus expansion, and I think he has done wonderful work in this area. Still, there is no simple. (I define simple as something that I can understand when I am sober), calculation to determine penetration of non-expanding solids, let alone expanding solids. Yes, I do believe that Duncan McPherson can come close. I just dont believe that his principles can be reduced to some thing so simple that I can use them.:banghead:
 
Actually, according to MacPherson, the biggest change is when a bullet exceeds the cavitation threshold velocity of the target medium. In gelatin, most roundnose bullets have a cavitation threshold of 500 fps. Below that, penetration is linear. Above it, penetration is logarithmic. Speed of sound in air, and speed of sound in water, seem to make no difference at all.


And I think I finally got a workable equation for determining "bonus" penetration for various expanding rounds. I also used a modified version of McCall911's equation, which just takes the maximum penetration and multiplies it by .57/drag coefficient. Looks like the original energy-based one is a little closer for high-powered rifles, for some reason.

.22 LR Aquila super max, 30 gr @ 1266 fps, .38"
McCall - 4.2-8.3
McCall, modified - 7.0
McCall, orig - 7.4-12.4
MacPherson- 5.8+2=7.8
Me - 5.8+1.2=7.0
Way too many Ms - yes
Actual - 7.4

.32 ACP Win Silvertip, 60 gr @ 813 fps, .43"
McCall - 5.7-11.4
McCall, modified - 9.5
McCall, orig - 8-13.4
MacPherson - 7.1+2=9.1
Me - 7.1+0.8=7.9
Actual - 7.1 (7.5 corrected)

.380 Hor XTP, 90 gr @ 1010 fps, .45", 79.8 gr
McCall - 7.1-14.2
McCall, modified - 11.9
McCall, orig - 10.5-17.5
MacPherson - 10.0+2=12.0
Me - 10.0+1.1=11.1
Actual - 11.2 (10.6 corrected)

.380 Win "supreme" SXT, 95 gr @ 865 fps, .59"
McCall - 5.1-10.1
McCall, modified - 8.5
McCall, orig - 9.1-15.1
MacPherson - 6.6+2=8.6
Me - 6.6+1.8=8.4
Actual - 7.6

.38 Fed nyclad, 125 gr @... that site just died. On to the rifle data, then.

.223 Nos partition, 60 gr @ 2685 fps, .41" and 52.5 gr
McCall - 7.0-14.1
McCall, modified - 11.8
McCall, orig - 15.2-25.4
MacPherson - 12.3+2=14.3
Me - 12.3+3.5=15.8
Actual - 18.5

6.8mm SPC Barnes X, 85 gr @ 2865 fps, .53"
McCall - 7.2+14.5
McCall, modified - 12.1
McCall, orig - 17.9-29.8
MacPherson - 12.5+2=14.5
Me - 12.5+3.2=15.8
Actual - 19.3

6.8mm Sierra pro-hunter, 110 gr @ 2500 fps, .64"
McCall - 6.4-12.9
McCall, modified - 10.8
McCall, orig - 17.2-28.7
MacPherson - 10.8+2=12.8
Me - 10.8+5.1=15.9
Actual - 15.6

.308 unknown, 150 gr @ 2923 fps, .768" and 99.9 gr
McCall - 4.1-8.3
McCall, modified - 7.0
McCall, orig - 16.1-26.8
MacPherson - 7.3+2=9.3
Me - 7.3+9.2=16.5
Actual - 16.5

7.62x39 Saspan JHP, 124 gr @ 2297 fps, .63" and 100.5 gr
McCall - 6.0-11.9
McCall, modified - 10.0
McCall, orig - 15.8-26.3
MacPherson - 9.8+2=11.8
Me - 9.8+5.3=15.1
Actual - 15.0

.308 Hor JSP, 110 gr @ 3087 fps, .63" and 56.4 gr
McCall - 3.5-7.1
McCall, modified - 5.9
McCall, orig - 13.5-22.4
MacPherson - 6.1+2=8.1
Me - 6.1+8.4=14.5
Actual - 16.9

.308 Hor AMAX, 168 gr @ 2418, .56" and 144.5 gr
McCall - 10.0-20.1
McCall, modified - 16.8
McCall, orig - 21.1-35.1
MacPherson - 18.0+2=20.2
Me - 18.0+4.8=22.8
Actual - 18.1
 
grendelbane said:
I am not a mathematiacian, ballistics expert, or a rocket scientist. I have read Duncan McPhershon's book, and he looks like he knows what is going on in terminal ballistics.

.
Click to expand...


Heck, I'm not any of those either, grendelbane. Plus I can't even balance my blasted checkbook and have the disadvantage of not yet having read Duncan's book.

Anyway, the predictor you posted was very interesting. Thanks.

You mentioned about the velocity loss from penetrating skin, which is a very important matter because skin has a very high tensile strength compared to soft tissue (about 63000 pounds per sq ft versus 835 lb/sq ft.) Neither of my penetration predictors takes this into account, which IMO is one of their many shortcomings.

There have been quite a few penetration calculators from both pros and amateurs (like me) over these many years. From this, it's easy to conclude that trying to predict anything pertaining to terminal ballistics is a very slippery slope! The problem is that none of them appear to be totally right, yet none appear to be totally wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Sellier's Formula--Penetration Predictor
Replies
4
Views
999
KPersimmon
K
M
  • Locked
Momentum density & penetration
Replies
24
Views
3K
Zoogster
Z
M
  • Locked
Physics of the Ballistic Pressure Wave
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
P95Carry
P
R
  • Locked
Statistical Analysis of "Energy Transfer"
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
7K
P95Carry
P
M
  • Locked
Ballistics Testing Group 2008 Publications
Replies
0
Views
378
Michael Courtney
M
Back
Top