Quote: DaButt @ January 26 2012, 3:47 PM GMTNot sure what you're talking about. There are shotgun shells with steel BBs instead of lead that are required because birds eat the lead pellets because they think they're seeds. All the handgun ammo that I'm aware of uses lead shells.
I think I'm thinking of bullets that go through bullet-proof vests.
Or maybe bullets that assassins would use to increase efficiency from afar?
Oh there's a whole variety of diferent makes of armour piercing bullets by diferent companies.
So am I right in thinking that most bullets are made of lead but for from afar or through vests, you'd have a steel core?
*wonders what AJGO is writing...*
My hitlist, of course 
Quote: AJGO @ January 26 2012, 3:58 PM GMTSo am I right in thinking that most bullets are made of lead but for from afar or through vests, you'd have a steel core?
You are correct AJ, they have a steel core rather then a lead core. But thanks to the wars, body armour technology has lept leaps and bounds. Most soldiers wear Level IV body armour which can stop even large calibre steel core bullets.
Oh, techincally, it's not bullet proof, it's bullet resistant. There is no such thing as bullet proof.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 26 2012, 4:02 PM GMTOh, techincally, it's not bullet proof, it's bullet resistant. There is no such thing as bullet proof.
Bullshit...
Quote: AJGO @ January 26 2012, 3:58 PM GMTSo am I right in thinking that most bullets are made of lead but for from afar or through vests, you'd have a steel core?
You're not planning on shooting some one?
But ok the most common technique is to have a solid core of steel or possibly something more exotic such as tungsten. With as much power behind it as possible
Alot of modern pistol bullets are designed from the ground up to penetrate body armour (such as the newer .40 calibers). Albeit usually the thinner concealed body armours (justice department 1-2 possibly 3).
Some guns have historically had good penetration. Such as the Russian Tokarev 7.62mm which for a 70 year old, cheap design is scarily effective.
And the FN 5.7mm is supposedly able to penetrate even titanium and kevlar jd level iv armour. Despite being tiny, it's just very high velocity and very solid.
Don't hate me I like Tom Clancy and his books are lousy with this stuff.
My sons favourite saying!
Adore Homer.
Quote: sootyj @ January 26 2012, 4:07 PM GMTYou're not planning on shooting some one?
But ok the most common technique is to have a solid core of steel or possibly something more exotic such as tungsten. With as much power behind it as possible
Alot of modern pistol bullets are designed from the ground up to penetrate body armour (such as the newer .40 calibers). Albeit usually the thinner concealed body armours (justice department 1-2 possibly 3).
Some guns have historically had good penetration. Such as the Russian Tokarev 7.62mm which for a 70 year old, cheap design is scarily effective.
And the FN 5.7mm is supposedly able to penetrate even titanium and kevlar jd level iv armour. Despite being tiny, it's just very high velocity and very solid.
Don't hate me I like Tom Clancy and his books are lousy with this stuff.
All true, though after penetrating body armour, the 5.7mm round loses a lot of energy and won't cause a lot of damage. The newer .40 calibre pistol rounds are actually tamer and shorter versions of the venerable 10mm Auto round, which has the same ballistics as the .357 Magnum, but with less recoil.
If the victim in your narrative is wearing a vest, then just arm your sniper with a .50 calibre rifle. They'll pretty much shred the most effective body armour and they carry so much energy, they'll liquify your victim's innards through hyrdostatic shock alone, never mind the size of the wound cavity and kinetic damage.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 26 2012, 4:02 PM GMTYou are correct AJ, they have a steel core rather then a lead core. But thanks to the wars, body armour technology has lept leaps and bounds. Most soldiers wear Level IV body armour which can stop even large calibre steel core bullets.
Oh, techincally, it's not bullet proof, it's bullet resistant. There is no such thing as bullet proof.
Except it's incredibly heavy still, so even elite troops take out the titanium or carbon plates. The famous quote from the Mogadishu raid being
"were you planning on getting shot in the back running away?"
Apparently chainmail like dragon skin is more effective but very heavy (and very expensive).
And unfortunately China, Iran and North Korea all produce specilised AK47 bullets designed to pierce body armour.
In the final days of the NI conflict, when the IRA were taking pot shots at the Brits with a Barrett (about the most powerful rifle before you start using cannons). The Brits wore Chromium boride steel armour, as it was the only thing that could stop it.
Problem being the plates were so heavy the soldiers could patrol maybe a couple of miles a day before becoming exhausted.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 26 2012, 4:14 PM GMTAll true, though after penetrating body armour, the 5.7mm round loses a lot of energy and won't cause a lot of damage. The newer .40 calibre pistol rounds are actually tamer and shorter versions of the venerable 10mm Auto round, which has the same ballistics as the .357 Magnum, but with less recoil.
If the victim in your narrative is wearing a vest, then just arm your sniper with a .50 calibre rifle. They'll pretty much shred the most effective body armour and they carry so much energy, they'll liquify your victim's innards through hyrdostatic shock alone, never mind the size of the wound cavity and kinetic damage.
Or give them a thin concealed vest and then arm your protagonist with anything from a Tokarev T-33 upwards.
Albeit Carlos the Jackal famously loved a Czeck pistol called the CZ 52 Which could penetrate most armour and looked kinda funky.
Quote: sootyj @ January 26 2012, 4:14 PM GMTAnd unfortunately China, Iran and North Korea all produce specilised AK47 bullets designed to pierce body armour.
In the final days of the NI conflict, when the IRA were taking pot shots at the Brits with a Barrett
Just mentioned a .50 cal, spooky. Modern body armour has dropped in both weight and portability and protection.
Whenever you trade a standard round for armour piercing, you're decreasing the amount of damage caused by the round, as it won't expand. Plus, there is also the cost of armour piercing ammo, so most militaries limited these rounds to specialist units instead of issuing them to front line troops.
Interesting... thanks guys.
So how often do new guns get developed? As in, something is changed or invented to the extent it can be marketed as a new weapon?
Honestly, every pistol, rifle and shotgun available on the market today can trace it's roots to a handful of designs invented way back when, with the newest being at least 60 years old.
EDIT: I suppose you can liken them to car manufacturing. New models come out regularly, but the car itself hasn't really changed that much from the Model T.
This is the kind of discussion that if we had on AARSE would get us both banned, mocked and possibly beaten up.