Bullet Through Concrete??

[CoyoteChallenger]

I work for a company called Solid Rock Fencing where we make and install 100% concrete fences. My boss wants to do a demonstration to add to our other youtube video and he wants to shoot one of the panels which is 4'' thick.

I am in charge of getting the data together and i have been asked to supply some of the rifles. We are starting with the .22 LR then a 22-250 Rem and 7mm Rem Mag. We will be using standard hunting ammunition. I think it will be Sierra 160gr. SBT out of the 7mm Rem Mag if i get them loaded soon.

I am looking for some internet pages talking about energy transfer. And also am looking to you guys for some much needed advice to make this a success. Do you think that the 7mm Rem Mag will make it through, i am not to sure that it will. Is there a different type of bullet that i should try to get and load up? I may be way out to lunch as i have never even thought of shooting concrete so that is why i am asking here.

The .22 Lr will be shot from 50 yards and everything else from between 100 - 200 yards. What do you think is the minimum cartridge need to punch through 4'' of concrete?

Thanks for the help and if you want to see the fences, here is the link to the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wblC7WRGBHk

[Faststeel]

I'm gonna guess 50 caliber is what you will need to punch through 4 inches of concrete.FS

[leo]

I have witnessed first hand the damage done to a fully cured 4" basement slab with a 338 magnum 210 gr Nosler partition. Thats about all I care to say...

[altaberg]

back in my younger years we did play those games.

They were called infantry combat training and urban warfare. This was in a place where houses are build from concrete and brick and our training grounds had some real old buildings.

So from what I remember single rifle round should not penetrate 4" concrete wall (excepting 50cal of course). Concrete isn't concrete of course, but medium or high density, rebar-reinforced a rifle round will not get through.
I'm old enough so that "rifle bullet" meant 7.62NATO and not the stuff they use today.

Having said that, a SMG, even in 7.62NATO will make short work of a concrete wall in surprisingly short order. Especially if you know what you are doing and start aiming for appearing cracks. 50 cal MG will produce very quickly secondary shrapnel from the wall itself. Very bad for anybody behind.

For giggles you can watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMO...eature=related
No concrete wall though.

Bottom line we were told: best protection against incoming is a hole in the ground. Clausewitz said that defense is the stronger formation of battle. With the accuracy and firepower of today's weapons (even infantry) he would be in for a rude surprise (and that's before the A10 and Apaches show up, at that point run).

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by altaberg

back in my younger years we did play those games.

They were called infantry combat training and urban warfare. This was in a place where houses are build from concrete and brick and our training grounds had some real old buildings.

So from what I remember single rifle round should not penetrate 4" concrete wall (excepting 50cal of course). Concrete isn't concrete of course, but medium or high density, rebar-reinforced a rifle round will not get through.
I'm old enough so that "rifle bullet" meant 7.62NATO and not the stuff they use today.

Having said that, a SMG, even in 7.62NATO will make short work of a concrete wall in surprisingly short order. Especially if you know what you are doing and start aiming for appearing cracks. 50 cal MG will produce very quickly secondary shrapnel from the wall itself. Very bad for anybody behind.

For giggles you can watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMO...eature=related
No concrete wall though.

Bottom line we were told: best protection against incoming is a hole in the ground. Clausewitz said that defense is the stronger formation of battle. With the accuracy and firepower of today's weapons (even infantry) he would be in for a rude surprise (and that's before the A10 and Apaches show up, at that point run).

Isn't it still 7.62Nato? for Medium MG's. Squad weapons have moved down to 5.56... either way I have seen both 7.62 and .50BMG go through more than 4 inch concrete walls. Doesn't take much if your a decent shot

[eltorro]

It depends what kind of concrete. A 25 MPa. will not be the same as a 32 MPa. Air entrainment, type of reinforcing (using mesh, 10M or fiber).

Do you want this test to fail or succeed in penetrating the 4" concrete?
Load the 22-250 with Barnes (solid copper, not varmint grenade) to the max and you might be surprised. Same goes for a regular 308 with mil-grade FMJ.
As long you're using Ballistic tips and such, you'll be safe with pretty much anything but the "big boys".

There is a lot one can do to prepare the success or fail of a test like this. It is not cut and dry. Energy transfer tables will help you only if you manage to convince your program to take into account the punch in the rebar area, not only in between, then you can start playing with the steel type use in the reinforcing.

[Solothurn]

"I work for a company called Solid Rock Fencing where we make and install 100% concrete fences. My boss wants to do a demonstration to add to our other youtube video and he wants to shoot one of the panels which is 4'' thick."

He may want to reconsider using the footage once he realizes that with some common calibers his fence has effectively changed 1 projectile into hundreds there by causing ALOT more danger and potential risks to anyone on either side of his concrete fence.
Some dogs are best left sleeping

[Roughneck12]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

[Jerry D]

I think a lot of bullets will penetrate 4" of concrete, especially if its just for "fence" use as I doubt it will be reinforced much if its not structural by any means.

[CoyoteChallenger]

Originally Posted by Solothurn

"I work for a company called Solid Rock Fencing where we make and install 100% concrete fences. My boss wants to do a demonstration to add to our other youtube video and he wants to shoot one of the panels which is 4'' thick."

He may want to reconsider using the footage once he realizes that with some common calibers his fence has effectively changed 1 projectile into hundreds there by causing ALOT more danger and potential risks to anyone on either side of his concrete fence.
Some dogs are best left sleeping

He is not trying to sell it as a safety barrier in is to show what it can stand up to.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Solothurn

"I work for a company called Solid Rock Fencing where we make and install 100% concrete fences. My boss wants to do a demonstration to add to our other youtube video and he wants to shoot one of the panels which is 4'' thick."

He may want to reconsider using the footage once he realizes that with some common calibers his fence has effectively changed 1 projectile into hundreds there by causing ALOT more danger and potential risks to anyone on either side of his concrete fence.
Some dogs are best left sleeping

My thoughts exactly. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM9R0YIwmVk

I think there's some exageration about the range, but I once caught a .22 hangun slug, bouncing off a propane bottle at 20 yards. It Hurt. So Altaberg, you guys had 7.62 SMGs in the forces. That's a new one on me. As I recall, they were 9mm. Let see you put a few of those through a concrete wall?

Grizz

[Solothurn]

Originally Posted by CoyoteChallenger

He is not trying to sell it as a safety barrier in is to show what it can stand up to.

I think if I was buying a concrete fence I would rather see what happens when you crash a vehicle into it.
Showing it being shot with bullets "could" set him up as having existing knowledge of the consequences should some nut case ever shoot 1 of his fences and should someone get hurt. Just something to ponder before you start.
I am NOT a lawyer by any stretch, but do understand about setting ones self up needlessly for litigation. It seems that in todays age folks will sue for any reason they can.

[bingo1010]

Originally Posted by Solothurn

. It seems that in todays age folks will sue for any reason they can.

no doubt, it seems that some people will threaten to sue others on a seemingly daily basis!!

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Solothurn

I think if I was buying a concrete fence I would rather see what happens when you crash a vehicle into it.
Showing it being shot with bullets "could" set him up as having existing knowledge of the consequences should some nut case ever shoot 1 of his fences and should someone get hurt. Just something to ponder before you start.
I am NOT a lawyer by any stretch, but do understand about setting ones self up needlessly for litigation. It seems that in todays age folks will sue for any reason they can.

You have a good point, but my curiosity is aroused. How thick would a concrete wall have to be to stop one of your Fifties?

[altaberg]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

So Altaberg, you guys had 7.62 SMGs in the forces. That's a new one on me. As I recall, they were 9mm. Let see you put a few of those through a concrete wall?

Grizz

with SMG I mean "squad machine gun", in some countries and circles also known as SAM "squad automatic weapon" or by some other name. We had "sub-machine guns" too but we called them machine pistols MP, as they were firing 9mm Para, Uzis and MP5.

The belt-fed machine guns back then were 7.62NATO and in many cases still are and they haven't much changes since 1942:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3

Still have a scar on my hand from burning it with a red hot barrel. At 19 I thought I was cool and needed only one asbestos glove to change the barrel. I was young and stupid back then; sadly I'm not young anymore.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by altaberg

with SMG I mean "squad machine gun", in some countries and circles also known as SAM "squad automatic weapon" or by some other name. We had "sub-machine guns" too but we called them machine pistols MP, as they were firing 9mm Para, Uzis and MP5.

The belt-fed machine guns back then were 7.62NATO and in many cases still are and they haven't much changes since 1942:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3

Still have a scar on my hand from burning it with a red hot barrel. At 19 I thought I was cool and needed only one asbestos glove to change the barrel. I was young and stupid back then; sadly I'm not young anymore.

I thought that SMG was short for sub-machine gun? It was my personal weapon for a good chunk of my time in the military. It was a 9mm.

For machine guns our combat troops are using the C9 with a 556 round, the C6 with a 762 round and the 50 cal. The old 762 GPMG (general purpose machine gun) has been retired.

My experience with shooting metal jacketed military ammo at buildings is this: 9mm, 556 and 762 ammo will not go through a solid piece of 4" thick concrete wall but the 50 cal might do it. I can't say for sure because we were letting the wall have it with allot of bullets and I don't know if the first one made it through or not. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving side of the wall after the first few rounds though.

[triggerpress]

A few years ago I watched and assisted as some engineers from the U of A did a study on what kinds of wall are resistant to bullet penetration. They built fake wall panels using every common method in use today. We did the shooting. The result was simple...brick and concrete stop bullets cold, everything else was penetrated.

We were able to get through the brick with a 50 BMG but it stopped everything else. This allowed the engineers to recommend brick and concrete walls for buildings where bullet resistance was a requirement.

The whole study was published, but I'm not sure it it's on the net. I'll see if I can find it and will post the link if I can. I probably have a copy in my files somewhere. If it'll help you Coyotechallenger, PM me and I'll see what I can dig out.

EDIT: Found it. The study is still on the web and you can read it here:
http://www.ccmpa.ca/_Uploads/BulletinBoard/CMRI.pdf

It's not written clearly in a few spots, but the conclusion sums everything up quite well...wood frame walls won't stop even a .22 rimfire and brick will stop everything but the big 50. Note that the tests were only single shots, we did no multiple hit (like from an MG) testing.

triggerpress

[Jerry D]

Hey Trigger was reading through that study because I'm sure some rifle bullets will penetrate those walls and my conclusions are that they can.


Many bullets penetrated house bricks but never got through the stud wall behind

Also many bullets were able to penetrate the concrete blocks, probably having to due with them being hollow.

A 4" solid wall though, I think should stand up pretty well to common hunting rifles.

[triggerpress]

The final write-up was (in my opinion) not done terribly well, so there is some confusion in the body of the report about what penetrated which walls. Remember, they used ALL kinds of walls, not just brick walls. The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Conclusion sums up the finding accurately when it says that only the 50 cal was able to fully penetrate the clay and cement brick walls (and some of these were brick veneers on a framed wall).

In any case the lesson I took away from watching the whole test, was that if you ever need cover (as opposed to concealment) in an urban setting, look for a brick wall!

triggerpress

[KodiakHntr]

Not sure what you exactly want to prove, but I know for a fact that a 53gr TSX will penetrate through one side of a cinder block at 100yrs, and that a 300RUM with a 168TSX will fully penetrate two cinder blocks at 600yrs......Whereas a 168gr SMK will only lightly divot the cinder block face at 600yrds....

[SCO]

My buddy and I shot a 3'x4' chunk of reinforced concrete 8" thick with our 378 weatherby and it blew the center out and the biggest piece left was not much bigger than a cantoulope.

[DavyBoy]

Not at 100 yards, but a 12g slug will turn 4” concrete fencing to ruble at 25’. Tried this on 6” solid block wall many years ago. Lets just say the “Old Man” was not as impressed as I was.