The Box O' Truth #29 Kevlar helmets
 

Several people have asked me to shoot a new Kevlar helmet. Helmets are mostly designed to protect against shrapnel. I don't have any hand grenades, but I do have some handguns. Today, we're going to shoot the helmets with some common handgun calibers and see if they will be stopped.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm

There is a water jug used as the support for the helmet. If you get through all the pages (5) check out the difference in damage to the jug between the 7.62 (.308) and the 5.56 (.223).

Quote:

Lessons learned: 1. Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. (Seems like I heard that somewhere http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/smile.gif) The rifles had no problem penetrating at these short ranges. 2. We were surprised that the 9mm, .45 ACP, and the .357 Magnum were stopped by the helmet. 3. The 7.62 X 25 seems to be the big penetrator that we heard that it was. We're going to have to shoot this one some more. 4. These helmets were tougher than I would have thought. They're not designed to stop pistol rounds, but seemed to do the job just fine. It was almost 100 degrees today with 110% humidity here in Southeast Texas. But it was still a fine day at the range. http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/smile.gif Thanks to Tman for the photo help and the use of the Truck O' Truth.

7,62, the real deal mofoos! :)

I think the 7.62 x 25 is a type-O. He calls it a 7.62 x 39 on the page where he is shooting his SKS.

There are good 7.62's, and then there are other 7.62's.

The CZ-52 pistol he uses fires 7.62x25mm Tokarev. The SKS fires 7.62x39.

As I said before, and will say again, the AR-15/M-16 is one of the deadliest rifles on the battlefield. This should show you why. Nice little juggie! :D

http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/29-18.jpg

-S

No it is deffinately not a typo, there is a wealth of 7.62 cartriges 7.62x25 is one of them as is 7.62x39, 7.62x51 etc.

Correction, it should be one of the deadliest rifles on the battlefield, but it isn't. The fault is not so much with the rifle as it is with the M855 round. I've heard different reasons for why the round is so useless, including the substitution of ball powder for stick and overall poor manufacturing quality, but for whatever reason, this bullet does not do what it is supposed to on many occassions.
On the flip side, the AP 5.56 round is ownage in a tiny bottle. I can't remember the actual designation, but I know it has a tungsten core and it goes through steel plating like butter, and creates some impressive exit wounds.

Of course, no complaint about the M16 would be complete without mentioning the rifle's penchant for unreliability, but again I do not think the fault lies with the weapon most of the time. Imo, the primary problem is the lubricant that is often used in U.S. military small arms.
CLP (cleaner, lubricant, preservative) is the worst invention since modern art. In my experience, it actually attracts dirt and then turns it into an extremely viscuous paste when exposed to heat from firing. With prolonged usage it becomes more or less solid.
I don't think CLP was actually intended for use in servicing weapons. I think it was actually devised as a means to make sure that no one ever passed a weapons inspection on the first try.
I used a Remington-brand spray lubricant on my weapon, the notoriously finicky M249 SAW, and proceeded to put over 8,000 rounds through it over 9 months and under combat conditions without a single malfunction other than a heat-warped barrel (caused by an eager, trigger-happy corpsman on the range) and a bad sear pin (old weapon, no replacement parts)

Another fault of the M16 that has nothing to do with the weapon is the 30-round magazine. Even the new HK-manufactured magazines cannot be loaded to capacity without causing frequent double-feeds. Imo, the spring is the problem. There is no reason why one should have to strain to push in every round from the 20th onwards. As the spring becomes worn, the mag functions properly for a little while, but then begins half-feeding rounds, regardless of whether or not you unload it when not in use.

The only real problem I've ever seen with the M16 itself is the occassional tendency for for misfired (and especially blocked) rounds to explode the upper reciever into the face of right-handed users. It needs some reinforcement on the left side of the bolt-carriage group housing.

Overall, though, I think you're right. It is a superb weapon.