Can a .22 mag or .17mag pierce armour?

L

Love&Hate12

New member
Out of a rifle of course.

I ask because of the 5.7 fn being able to do so and with it being essentially a .22 with a rifle bullet design. Out of a pistol it generates 2100 fps or so with a 28 grain weight projectile and the .22 mag out of a rifle generates 1900 fps or so with a 40 grain I believe.

The necked down .17 with the .22 mag case is not far off from the German 4.8mm projectile fired from the MP-7.

Could either of these pierce armour?
 
No. Not even close. The .17 HMR will fragment almost instantly, and the .22 mag just doesn't have enough punch. The FN 5.7 uses steel core ammo. With regular "civilian" ammo a.k.a. V-max bullets, the 5.7 is useless except for varmints, hence "V" max.
 
depends on the velocity of the 22mag....

out of a rifle , no problem, for a standard vest (pistol rated). Out of a pistol....Well....probably not.....but as it packs roughly the same energy as
standard .38's in a much smaller profile (read highly penetrative) I certainly
wouldn't volunteer to be the one to test it.:eek:


Just curious though why would you want to.....
 
Last edited:
Love&Hate, I'm not sure if the .22 mag would have enough velocity to get a steel core bullet moving fast enough to defeat armor. Maybe if you put a saboted .17 caliber hardened steel bullet in the 30 grain range at max velocity it would probably do the job, but that's a BIG no-no.
 
If you loaded a hardened steel or tungsten flechette in a sabot and worked up some sort of +P+ .22 mag load with it... maybe.

L&H, if you have a few spare vests laying around, why don't you let me make you an offer to take one off your hands before you destory them in wacky experiments. I have been having a heck of a time finding one at a decent price.
 
It is irresponsible to discuss what rounds will or will not penetrate a vest. It should not be allowed here and the moderators should put an end to it. Any future posts should not be allowed either.

I'm sure our law enforcement friends would appreciated it.
 
It is irresponsible to discuss what rounds will or will not penetrate a vest.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with that. There are unsubstantiated claims of what will penetrate even the highest (non-plated) levels of body armor. IMO, if information dispelling these unaccuracies go unchallenged or discounted, they will become "fact". (e.g., Black Talons, PTFE coatings, etc.)
 
Armor penteration

In the gun/armor race, the gun always wins. Armor may take a temporary lead, but in the end, the gun always wins. This is true with tanks, and why we don't build fortresses anymore. I would imagine that it applies to a certain extent with body armor.

Will round "x" defeat armor? Well, yes and no, depending on exactly what kind of armor you are talking about. A "rated" vest? 1/2" armor plate? the turret of an M1 tank? Just depends on exactly what you are talking about.

I recall an incident in the late 60s or early 70s, where a State patrol spent quite a bit of money on "bulletproof" vests. They would stop .38, .357, 9mm, .45, etc. Turns out that they would not stop a .22. State agency much embarrassed.

Vest technology has improved alot since then, but the idea of a "bulletproof" vest is a pipedream. There is ALWAYS something out there that will penetrate it. You can make them proof against some things, but not everything.

I disagree with those who say the subject should not be discussed at all. I think that it should not be discussed in specifics, such as "Acme vest stock#1234 penetrated by caliber xxx, barrel length xxx, bullet xxx" etc. But general discussion should be tolerated. Free speech vs public safety, where to draw the line? My opinion is the press already drew the line (and promptly jumped over it) with their (innaccurate) tirades against "cop killer bullets". This is old news, but the major result was to raise general awareness of the police wearing vests.

These same people, in the age of terrorism, go to great lengths to show everyone just where on the Golden Gate bridge to place explosives! Compared to efforts like this, I think a general discussion about vests and penetration should not be proscribed.

After all, a bullet proof vest can also be penetrated by an icepick wielded by an enthusiastic middle schooler. Or any rifle legal for deer hunting, and some that aren't. This is not news, nor is it unknown to anyone even remotly interested in the subject.
 
Chances are good that both rounds will penetrate soft armor. According to one of the Secret Service agents whose job was to help design the armor for presidential vehicles .22 are hard to stop (in soft Kevlar). Especially if they are high velocity. The three most important factors are: bullet shape, bullet composition and velocity. Kevlar does not do the best job on pointed objects bullets or otherwise because they tend to push the fibers apart. We used to shoot threat level II vests with all kinds of rounds and anything out of a sub-gun or rifle/carbine (even pistol caliber) would penetrate either completely or far enough for the vest to be ineffective.
 
Penetrate armor?? Don't know. I do know that my indoor range doesn't allow the .17 HMR. It does something to the angle plate that isn't wanted.

Dean
 
.17 HMR is capable of a bit more than they're being given credit for here. I occasionally do round penetration tests, and they're one hot little round. The .17 HMR will zip right through the 20 layer test packet that stops my .40SW cold in 3 layers. I would be very worried about current-use vests stopping the .17 HMR with what I've seen it penetrate.

Front--showing .17 HMR hits.
kevlar001.jpg


Back--showing .17 HRM pass-throughs
kevlar002.jpg


.40 SW hit--bullet 'dropped' back in the hole for visual purposes.
kevlar003.jpg


Bulge being pushed back out to show how little actual penetration into the kevlar the .40 SW achieved---only the top three layers were penetrated, then a little stress immediatly below those.
kevlar007.jpg


Just FYI, these small test packs will absorb a full magazine + of .40 SW without penetration, meaning lots of close proximity hits and/or stacking hits. But the .17 HMR goes right through, and comes apart within 3" of the backing medium (which in this case was just a box of top-coat drywall mud--you can see it splattered all over the back of the packet where the .17 went through). I'll redo this with geletin backing later for better penetration accuracy.
 
Last edited:
That's a 17 grain Federal V-Shok hollowpoint from a NEF 20" barrel. As to the damage beyond the kevlar, I'll have to do some further testing for that---perminent cavity, temporary cavity, fragmentation disbursal, penetration depth, etc. That will come later, and I'll post it when I have it. Out of a snubby, you could likely expect pretty similar results. You'll get a noticible drop in MV, as one would expect, but it's still going to rank above 2000 fps I'd venture to guess. Don't have a snubby in .17 HMR, so can't test it. I should add that the range was 100 yds---muzzle to kevlar on the .17 HMR, not point-blank by any means. The .40SW, however, WAS point-blank (less than 3 yds).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top