Armor Piercing Bullets: Do They Underperform in Terminal Ballistics?
The question of whether armor-piercing (AP) bullets perform poorly in terminal ballistics compared to standard ammunition is a complex one. Terminal ballistics refers to the study of the effectiveness of ammunition upon impact. The term is relative and depends on the target and the context in which the ammunition is used. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's consider all ammunition as being designed with armor-piercing capabilities.
When evaluating AP bullets, it is crucial to understand their primary intended purpose. These rounds are designed to penetrate hard surfaces such as armor plating, vehicle hulls, and other fortified structures. While they excel in this role, their performance in scenarios involving soft tissue is another matter entirely.
Performance Comparison Based on Intended Use
The effectiveness of AP rounds can vary significantly depending on the context. For instance, in hunting, AP bullets are generally not favored due to their tendency to over-penetrate, which results in serious damage to unintended targets. In self-defense situations, the same characteristic poses a significant threat of friendly fire.
When it comes to intentional targets, such as armored vehicles and fortified structures, AP rounds are highly effective. They are capable of penetrating the external enclosures of these targets to reach the more vital parts, such as engines and transmissions. Additionally, AP rounds can cause spalling, which refers to the fragmentation of armor, and this spalling can be lethal to personnel inside the vehicle. In the context of fortified positions, AP rounds can breach some amount of enclosures, though the extent of this penetration is limited.
Technical Explanation
The effectiveness of AP bullets in stopping power or other aspects of terminal ballistics is not their primary design feature. AP rounds are specifically engineered to penetrate armor. When they reach soft tissue, they do not perform as well. The focus of their design is to maintain penetration through hard targets, which means their terminal ballistics in soft tissue contexts are not optimal. This is true for any unguided ballistic projectile, including standard hunting ammo and standard ammunition for self-defense.
The trend towards using shaped-charge rocket-propelled weapons in anti-tank warfare (such as the legendary RPG-7) is a testament to the limitations of traditional AP rounds. Shaped-charge warheads deliver a focused energy output that can be more effective in specific scenarios compared to standard AP rounds. This is due primarily to the characteristics of the shaped charge and the limited energy that can be effectively expended by a traditional AP bullet.
Concluding Thoughts
Therefore, when considering the performance of AP bullets in terminal ballistics, it is essential to look at the specific context in which they are used. For their intended purpose, which is to penetrate armor, AP rounds excel. However, when it comes to soft tissue damage, they perform poorly. This is because their design focus is on penetration, not energy dissipation in soft tissue.