Show Digging Up the Trenches, Sniper Question About "Reversed Projectiles"

Thats all I needed, first you ask me why the White House is painted white and then you Canadians spill your guts about this little secret.

I'm "loading up" and heading north and not coming back to the U.S. until I have a truck load of No.3 bolt heads. :mad:

revbullet.jpg


unclesam2-1.jpg
 
Juster said:
The answer:
[youtube]6zxdNlVABH8[/youtube]

Here's the Box O' Truth on the non-AP use of backward bullets:
http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot50.htm

I suspect there were some naughty fellows who would modify their ammunition to increase wounding potential. And the they would have shot at sniper shields on occasion.
Click to expand...

That vid doesn't prove ####, they never tried with the bullet facing FORWARD..? WTF? That was just pointless....
 
The sniper shield might actually have been toughened to stop the ammunition of the time.
I have a book "Tanks and Trenches" where the commander realises his Mk1 sponson gunners are all dead, the sponsons having thinner armour. "The following day was spent counting the number of holes in each tank caused by armour-piercing bullets, one tank having between 20 and 30" - Arras, p.39. WW2 is not WW1.
Click to expand...

Agreed, WW2 is not WW1 but where is the logic of lets build a big battle tank out of tinfoil and power it with a engine and give our snipers extra armor they can wear on their head.

Unless of course, it is typical military thinking and the snipers figured things out sooner than the brass.

And for you:
I'm "loading up" and heading north and not coming back to the U.S. until I have a truck load of No.3 bolt heads.
Click to expand...

We have enough Canadian beer to keep you at bay! American beer is like ### in a canoe. f**king near water!
 
lol these sniper plates where about 1/2" thick and sor where the tanks of the time a standered ball round or ww1 would not punch through it

even now 1/2" mild steel plate is enough to stop stardered ball ammo from .30 cal's and 7.62 (.308,7.62x39,ect)

1" of aluminum will stop the same all of this at 10ft

this info is from the Improvised Munitions Handbook
 
So who is lining up to hide behind 1/2" of mild steel to test the theory?

I only have 3/8" steel with 30 cal holes burned though it.

I agree the bullet stops. But #### flies out the other side.

It could be a good legal argument. I did not shoot him. The steel plate killed him. LOL
 
SKScanuck said:
So who is lining up to hide behind 1/2" of mild steel to test the theory?

I only have 3/8" steel with 30 cal holes burned though it.

I agree the bullet stops. But s**t flies out the other side.

It could be a good legal argument. I did not shoot him. The steel plate killed him. LOL
Click to expand...

well you will have to talk to the US military as that where the Improvised Munitions Handbook's come from

thats the point of the backwards bullet to punch out the chunk of steel that will go into the snipers head or upper body
 
Could a cupped base of a bullet act like a shaped charge?
It could be a similar principle to explosive charges.
If you look at an RPK the warhead has a hollow cone shaped charge that creats a molton jet that goes through metal.
 
No WWI ball ctg bullet , used by any combatant, either rifle or pistol had a steel core. No .303" ball ctg ever had a steel core.
 
Ap

The first .303 AP was approved for land service in December 1915.It was called .303 inch MARK VII.S. Prior to this time, troops were issued large bore rifles, up to and including .600 Nitro express for defeating German sniper shields, field gun shields, and trenchworks.
 
green said:
No WWI ball ctg bullet , used by any combatant, either rifle or pistol had a steel core. No .303" ball ctg ever had a steel core.
Click to expand...

The first issue .303 AP,Mark VII 7.S had a 2 piece core. The lower portion was of lead/antimony and the upper portion was of steel. This round proved to be a poor penetrator. A new AP round introduced in November 1916, called .303 inch Mark VII.P, had a 2 diameter steel core, enclosed in a lead sleeve.
 
That is pretty cool, Im no ballistics expert either, so hopefully one will show up soon, not that it stops anyone from sharing their opinions anyways....

I can see how a blunt shaped projectile would transfer energy more efficiently through a plate than a pointy ended one that collapses on itself, but I have a hard time imagining that it could ever go through a tank. That does sound like that last bit was exaggerated.
 
Juster said:
The answer:
[youtube]6zxdNlVABH8[/youtube]

Here's the Box O' Truth on the non-AP use of backward bullets:
http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot50.htm

I suspect there were some naughty fellows who would modify their ammunition to increase wounding potential. And the they would have shot at sniper shields on occasion.
Click to expand...

The narrator is dead wrong at 0:45 "At the beginning of the First World War, there was no need really for snipers...."

The Germans had thousands of snipers from the beginning of the war. It was our side that had to play catch up.

Their test is bogus anyway since they are using a piece of modern 1/4" plate rather than the 5/8" plate used for side armour on most WWI British tanks.

They could have at least used a WWI sniper shield and a piece of WWI era plate, if not a piece of an actual WWI tank. There are enough hulks around even now.

But it's only TV after all.:rolleyes:
 
I am positive I saw this tested on one of the history channel shows or possibly discovery channel IIRC the round penetrated the side of one of those early ww1 tanks completely. edit edit edit there it is right above this post. not like I remembered it but there it is
 
The round penetrated the side of one of thoise WW1 tanks because the first tanks rushed into action were training versions without the proper armour plate.
The german answer to tanks was artillery and eventualy a monster rifle. The german cartridge was the predecessor for the .50 Browning.

Now looking at the Mk7 bullet there was an airspace at the tip, so reversing the bullet to get a solid tip probably worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom