Heavy Clothes and Penetration?

W

Willie D

New member
The thread on Makarov penetration got me wondering how much, if any difference shooting through clothes would make.




Box Of Truth did a feature on the myth of the .30 carbine being stopped by frozen jackets which pretty much debunked that story to my mind. Is there anything to the idea of regular outerwear having an effect on common self defense ammo? Would particular rounds be more affected than others?


I was shooting .22 subsonic HPs at a phone book the other day and they were all going clean through and lodging about an inch into pressure treated 2x4s (about the same as rounds that didn't go throught the phone book) which made me wonder how much clothes would hinder more substantial calibers.
 
Depending on the material, clothing can clog a hollowpoint cavity and cause it to not expand properly. The thing that some people don't realize is that while the round wont expand as much (or at all) it will penetrate considerably more than if it had opened up.

Also it could be speculated that a tough woven jacket material could have a similar effect on bullets that kevlar has, sort of "catching" the bullet. This would only happen in an extreme case, such as a wide slow bullet (of soft construction like a pure lead bullet or very wide cavity hollowpoint) impacting a target wearing a very thick woven material jacket, and even then, it would be a long shot.
 
FMJ rounds would penetrate a bit less because of the added resistance of going through the additional layers of cloth. That would probably be a non-issue as FMJ (non-expanding) rounds from the more commonly recommended self-defense rounds will typically penetrate 2 feet or more in simulated tissue.

Hollowpoint rounds will likely penetrate more because the clothing tends to plug the hollowpoint preventing expansion and increasing penetration. The lack of expansion more than compensates for the added resistance of going through the additional layers of cloth.

Expanding rounds that are designed to handle heavy clothing and still expand properly will probably penetrate a little less in a heavily clothed target than they would if the target were lightly clothed.
 
Except for extremely rare cases, the idea that heavy clothing could stop bullets (even a .22) is mostly a myth. This is why so many of us here in the U.S. are large-caliber whores. It's amazing what we dumb Americans come to believe ....

As to the truth of it, the others on this thread have already shared it with us. Heavy clothing can indeed clog a hollowpoint and prevent it from expanding very much, but clothing cannot stop bullets, period.
 
A friend of mine was shot five times by a gangbanger with an old Raven Arms .25acp. Two of the rounds did not fully penetrate his leather jacket. He got to the kid and broke his arm in taking the "gun" away from him.
 
I always get a grin on my face when I hear or see this argument. It is simply a waste of otherwise good rhetoric.

Ask any Viet Nam vet about his "flak" jacket, . . . that thing that was darn near as heavy as a mother in law, . . . smelled like a cross between a latrine and an arm pit, . . . and technically was supposed to stop "flak" or shrapnel from purple hearting the wearer.

Though mine never got tested, . . . I did hear that they were pretty good for grenade shrapnel, and some mortar shrapnel, . . .

But they would not stop a 9mm (Chicom) or a .45.

If they won't do it, . . . how in the world does a guy think a simple winter coat is going to stop 240 grains of copper jacketed lead coming at him at 850 feet per second???? Sheesh!!!!!!!

May God bless,
Dwight
 
So a military issue Flack Jacket that is over an inch thick will not stop a 9mm or 45 cal handgun bullet. But the thin T-shirt thick vests worn by law enforcement officers under their uniform shirts routinely stop such rounds. Sounds like BS to me.
 
It's true... the flak jackets worn up until the 80's and 90's were not rated for projectiles at all. They were meant only to stop fairly low velocity grenade or artillery shrapnel.
 
The WWII German officer 'great coat' was considered the standard for projectile effectiveness. The FBI wrapped many sheep in them then shot. Many rounds would not penetrate, it was one tough coat.
 
I always question the so called flack vest on even on low velocity grenade or artillery shrapnel.

We shot thru back of one (no one in it ) draped over empty rocket box with a 25 auto. :eek: How slow did the shrapnel have to be. :rolleyes:
 
I always question the so called flack vest on even on low velocity grenade or artillery shrapnel.

We shot thru back of one (no one in it ) draped over empty rocket box with a 25 auto. How slow did the shrapnel have to be.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the vests of the day weren't something like the escape hatch on a submarine. Makes some folks feel better. "See Ma, if something goes wrong I can get out using the escape hatch."

Makes the folks at home feel better thinking their sons and husbands are wearing the best protection. When in reality the users know when your time is up, it's up. Just like the submariners knew the likelihood of the escape hatch saving their bacon was slim to none.

Back on topic, I believe the worst thing thick clothing can do is plug a HP and make it act like a FMJ. Big deal. Same rules apply, just shoot until the threat stops.
 
The whole '.30 carbine is stopped by clothing' thing fascinates me

The jackets in question were to my knowledge Soviet WWII vintage surplus used by the north Koreans. You'd think there would be some stories of pistol caliber rounds being stopped by it in WWII, but I've never had a one

The explanation for the perception of this being true that I think is probably the case was that the .30 carbine didn't produce the dramatic results an M2 ball round would, and it seemed as if it wasn't effective to the shooter. To the eyes behind the M1 carbine's sight, this would mean that the round must have been stopped by something. I've also read that the NK's weren't exactly sober; I can hardly comment on the truth of that, it's just what I've read on the subject

I have no doubt that .25 and up have been stopped by "light clothing". But let's be honest- who among us would volunteer to try the theory out by wearing a thick woolen overcoat over a quilted sweater, and then be the target of a Ruger 10-22 rifleman? I sure wouldn't. .30 carbine being stopped by a war surplus coat, 9mm not going through a winter jacket, a .25 not stopping the target...hardly guarantees no effect from the bullet in my opinion
 
It is, I suppose, possible that some Chi Com or North Korean got all wet and sweaty in his thick padded jacket and had the thing froze up thereby having a greater effect on slowing or stopping a carbine slug. IF that was the case, and keeping in mind what the winter temps can be on the Korean Peninsula, it could also be there was some loss of velocity from temps. IF that was also the case and the frozen commie was shot at some distance (losing further velocity), is gets into the plausible zone. Add some equipment across the chest and it gets better.

I think for the most part it is a mixture of hopped up little skinny communists in big puffy clothes not getting hit solidly by quite naturally jumpy and excited troops, and then not falling down right off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top