Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Angled shots onto body armour using 9 mm ammunition: the effect on potential blunt injury
  1. Alison Lyall1,
  2. D J Carr1,
  3. C Lankester1 and
  4. C Malbon2
  1. 1Impact and Armour Group, Centre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham, UK
  2. 2Mechanical Engineering, Material Science and Civil Engineering, Centre for Applied Science and Technology, Home Office Science, St Albans, Hertfordshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr D J Carr, Impact and Armour Group, Centre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham SN6 8LA, UK; d.j.carr{at}cranfield.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Some military specialists wear body armour that is more similar to police armour and provides protection from ammunition fired from pistols. During ballistic testing, these armours are mounted on a standardised type of modelling clay and the back face signature (BFS; depth of depression) formed as a result of the non-perforating impact event on to the armour is measured. This study investigated the effect of impact angle on the BFS and on the deformation of the bullet.

Methods Two commonly worn types of armour (HG1/A+KR1 and HG1+KR1) were considered that provide protection from pistol ammunition and sharp weapons. Armours were tested against two types of pistol ammunition (9 mm full metal jacket and 9 mm hollow point) at eight different impact angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 70°, 75° and 80°).

Results Increased impact angles resulted in smaller BFSs. Impact angle also affected whether bullets were retained in the armour; as the impact angle increased, the probability of a round exiting the side of the armour increased. Bullet deformation was affected by impact angle.

Conclusions Understanding the deformation of bullets may assist with recreating a shooting incident and interpreting forensic evidence.

  • body armour
  • wounding potential
  • bullet deformation
  • Received October 6, 2015.
  • Revision received January 15, 2016.
  • Accepted January 18, 2016.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

  • Received October 6, 2015.
  • Revision received January 15, 2016.
  • Accepted January 18, 2016.
View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.