Fun anecdote I’m sure you can corroborate. A ballistics engineer once told me that getting shot while wearing a bullet proof vest is like laying down next to a table and having a 300LB person jump on you with a pogo stick.
Fun anecdote I’m sure you can corroborate. A ballistics engineer once told me that getting shot while wearing a bullet proof vest is like laying down next to a table and having a 300LB person jump on you with a pogo stick.
Probably not: bullets are usually very small and so don’t have that much energy even when traveling faster than the speed of sound. It’ll hurt, but it shouldn’t be anywhere near as severe as what you’re describing.
The other way to look at it is that the force of a bullet can’t be more than the recoil of the gun that shot it. That’s the whole equal and opposite reaction you might have heard about in physics.
At the time I was developing methods to fight fires. Biggest problem with battery fires is that the reaction is primarily happening inside a battery, which is usually wrapped in metal. That’s why the gold standard is to bury it in sand and go for lunch.
So, imagine you have a fire. And you’re American. So, you slap a mag of little miniature fire extinguishers that explode on contact into your AR-15, and you shoot the fire until it stops burning.
The armor piercing is to make sure that if the fire is in cover, such as hiding inside the shell of a battery, your antifire bullets still shoot it successfully.
The original idea was fire fighting artillery, so that instead of having the fire crew have to go do stuff they can just sight in their howitzer on the reported location of the fire and start dropping 155mm fire extinguishers on it from however far away they are. Turns out Boeing already patented that tho.
In all seriousness though, it’s about as stupid/genius as it sounds. Out biggest stumbling block was actually dispersing the firefighting materials. The bullets worked fine, some custom modified ammo we spent a week making. Turns out, you can get rid of 3/4ths of the steel core and still have adequate terminal ballistics to put significant holes in large batteries. Edit: note I’m talking about like. Batteries the size of shipping containers. The kind that pulls up in a truck and powers entire industrial buildings. When one of those catches fire, the standard protocol is literally “run”.
The benefits of artillery shells is that you have a significant parabolic arc, which means if you have the shell start venting firefighting chemicals (baking soda) once it drops below like, 50’ altitude, you get proper coverage. Bullets, you can’t do that without adding secondary explosives. At that point, you just don’t have enough payload in a 5.56 to make a meaningful difference, and relying on impact to disperse the chemicals just won’t cut it in the case of batteries.
Also I got to expense several rifles on a corporate card. Didn’t keep them, not a gun guy myself, but we had both an AR-15 and a .308, both official science guns. Unfortunately, finance folks flagged me when I tried to expense a 50. Apparently, once you try to get anti materiel rifles, they draw the line.
Firefighting artillery is pretty genius though. Sad that Boeing hasn’t done anything useful with it.
Edit2: I never answered one of your first questions. Never been shot, and I’ve got a least one draft dodging charge to prove it.
Sorry are you developing bullets or armour?
Fun anecdote I’m sure you can corroborate. A ballistics engineer once told me that getting shot while wearing a bullet proof vest is like laying down next to a table and having a 300LB person jump on you with a pogo stick.
Probably not: bullets are usually very small and so don’t have that much energy even when traveling faster than the speed of sound. It’ll hurt, but it shouldn’t be anywhere near as severe as what you’re describing.
The other way to look at it is that the force of a bullet can’t be more than the recoil of the gun that shot it. That’s the whole equal and opposite reaction you might have heard about in physics.
At the time I was developing methods to fight fires. Biggest problem with battery fires is that the reaction is primarily happening inside a battery, which is usually wrapped in metal. That’s why the gold standard is to bury it in sand and go for lunch.
Okay but can you please elaborate on this? It literally broke my brain.
So, imagine you have a fire. And you’re American. So, you slap a mag of little miniature fire extinguishers that explode on contact into your AR-15, and you shoot the fire until it stops burning.
The armor piercing is to make sure that if the fire is in cover, such as hiding inside the shell of a battery, your antifire bullets still shoot it successfully.
The original idea was fire fighting artillery, so that instead of having the fire crew have to go do stuff they can just sight in their howitzer on the reported location of the fire and start dropping 155mm fire extinguishers on it from however far away they are. Turns out Boeing already patented that tho.
lmfao
In all seriousness though, it’s about as stupid/genius as it sounds. Out biggest stumbling block was actually dispersing the firefighting materials. The bullets worked fine, some custom modified ammo we spent a week making. Turns out, you can get rid of 3/4ths of the steel core and still have adequate terminal ballistics to put significant holes in large batteries. Edit: note I’m talking about like. Batteries the size of shipping containers. The kind that pulls up in a truck and powers entire industrial buildings. When one of those catches fire, the standard protocol is literally “run”.
The benefits of artillery shells is that you have a significant parabolic arc, which means if you have the shell start venting firefighting chemicals (baking soda) once it drops below like, 50’ altitude, you get proper coverage. Bullets, you can’t do that without adding secondary explosives. At that point, you just don’t have enough payload in a 5.56 to make a meaningful difference, and relying on impact to disperse the chemicals just won’t cut it in the case of batteries.
Also I got to expense several rifles on a corporate card. Didn’t keep them, not a gun guy myself, but we had both an AR-15 and a .308, both official science guns. Unfortunately, finance folks flagged me when I tried to expense a 50. Apparently, once you try to get anti materiel rifles, they draw the line.
Firefighting artillery is pretty genius though. Sad that Boeing hasn’t done anything useful with it.
Edit2: I never answered one of your first questions. Never been shot, and I’ve got a least one draft dodging charge to prove it.
There should be a water hose connection mandated for every battery.
Eh, just sticking a packet of baking powder in it would do the trick.
Good luck convincing battery folks (who are more size obsessed than a 14 year old incel) agreeing to that.
Laws don’t have to convince anyone of anything.