This thread relates to a question I have about the effect
of a high explosive on ammunition (bullets).

To make the question more clear I would like to paint a theoretical picture:

Supposing there were a one pound block of TNT which
was detonated in very close proximity to a bag of say
1000 rounds of .223 ammunition and supposing these
1000 rounds of ammunition were not stacked in the
bag in any special order, but the natural way they would
if they were simply dumped into the bag.

Questions in such a situation:

1. Would the bullets be propelled in the normal direction as
if they were ordinary metallic fragments?

2. Would the bullet primers fire and propel the bullets in
whatever direction the bullets happen to be pointing, like
a cartidge would fire "normally" without barrel confinement?

3. Would the compounds in the bullets, namely nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine,
high order detonate and produce predictable bullet trajectories, but with
a greater velocity?

4. Would the bullets high order detonate but with unpredictable trajectories
considering the influence of the TNT's shockwave and it's force of direction?

Just some questions relating to "self-energetic fragmentation"!

This thread relates to a question I have about the effect
of a high explosive on ammunition (bullets).

To make the question more clear I would like to paint a theoretical picture:

Supposing there were a one pound block of TNT which
was detonated in very close proximity to a bag of say
1000 rounds of .223 ammunition and supposing these
1000 rounds of ammunition were not stacked in the
bag in any special order, but the natural way they would
if they were simply dumped into the bag.

Questions in such a situation:

1. Would the bullets be propelled in the normal direction as
if they were ordinary metallic fragments?

2. Would the bullet primers fire and propel the bullets in
whatever direction the bullets happen to be pointing, like
a cartidge would fire "normally" without barrel confinement?

3. Would the compounds in the bullets, namely nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine,
high order detonate and produce predictable bullet trajectories, but with
a greater velocity?

4. Would the bullets high order detonate but with unpredictable trajectories
considering the influence of the TNT's shockwave and it's force of direction?

Just some questions relating to "self-energetic fragmentation"!

This thread relates to a question I have about the effect
of a high explosive on ammunition (bullets).

To make the question more clear I would like to paint a theoretical picture:

Supposing there were a one pound block of TNT which
was detonated in very close proximity to a bag of say
1000 rounds of .223 ammunition and supposing these
1000 rounds of ammunition were not stacked in the
bag in any special order, but the natural way they would
if they were simply dumped into the bag.

Questions in such a situation:

1. Would the bullets be propelled in the normal direction as
if they were ordinary metallic fragments?

2. Would the bullet primers fire and propel the bullets in
whatever direction the bullets happen to be pointing, like
a cartidge would fire "normally" without barrel confinement?

3. Would the compounds in the bullets, namely nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine,
high order detonate and produce predictable bullet trajectories, but with
a greater velocity?

4. Would the bullets high order detonate but with unpredictable trajectories
considering the influence of the TNT's shockwave and it's force of direction?

Just some questions relating to "self-energetic fragmentation"!

I would hypothesize that:
1. They Would go off.
2. It wouldnt be any order of magnitude higher of a detonation

Basically I think that they would go off due to the shockwave. As you said it is Very close we can assume this part. How they would go off depends. I personally believe that if they are facing away from the explosive with the primer end closer then it would go off better then any of the other directions, due to the wave being better transferred. Now, though, they will not perform as good as if you had shot them off in a barrel, because there is nothing to stop it from flying backwards, so you will lose some of the momentum.

EDIT: depending on how fast the blast is, and how fast the wave is propogated, maybe it would be of sufficient force to propel the bullets a little faster.

My personal opinion, and your mileage may vary.

I would hypothesize that:
1. They Would go off.
2. It wouldnt be any order of magnitude higher of a detonation

Basically I think that they would go off due to the shockwave. As you said it is Very close we can assume this part. How they would go off depends. I personally believe that if they are facing away from the explosive with the primer end closer then it would go off better then any of the other directions, due to the wave being better transferred. Now, though, they will not perform as good as if you had shot them off in a barrel, because there is nothing to stop it from flying backwards, so you will lose some of the momentum.

EDIT: depending on how fast the blast is, and how fast the wave is propogated, maybe it would be of sufficient force to propel the bullets a little faster.

My personal opinion, and your mileage may vary.

I would hypothesize that:
1. They Would go off.
2. It wouldnt be any order of magnitude higher of a detonation

Basically I think that they would go off due to the shockwave. As you said it is Very close we can assume this part. How they would go off depends. I personally believe that if they are facing away from the explosive with the primer end closer then it would go off better then any of the other directions, due to the wave being better transferred. Now, though, they will not perform as good as if you had shot them off in a barrel, because there is nothing to stop it from flying backwards, so you will lose some of the momentum.

EDIT: depending on how fast the blast is, and how fast the wave is propogated, maybe it would be of sufficient force to propel the bullets a little faster.

My personal opinion, and your mileage may vary.

It's actually hard to say. (Modern) military stuff is very immune to bulk explosion, etc. as well as sympathetic detonation. Anything hit hard enough on the primer end would go off, as long as the differential was big enough between the primer and the rest of the case. Things slammed sideways tend not to go bang - I've seen photos of rounds that are destroyed by being hit from the side by large explosions, even explosive head rounds, and they haven't gone off, just split the case as if it had been hit with a sledgehammer.

Even properly packaged primers refuse to explode in bulk. You have to do something silly like sticking them all in a glass jar together.

It's actually hard to say. (Modern) military stuff is very immune to bulk explosion, etc. as well as sympathetic detonation. Anything hit hard enough on the primer end would go off, as long as the differential was big enough between the primer and the rest of the case. Things slammed sideways tend not to go bang - I've seen photos of rounds that are destroyed by being hit from the side by large explosions, even explosive head rounds, and they haven't gone off, just split the case as if it had been hit with a sledgehammer.

Even properly packaged primers refuse to explode in bulk. You have to do something silly like sticking them all in a glass jar together.

It's actually hard to say. (Modern) military stuff is very immune to bulk explosion, etc. as well as sympathetic detonation. Anything hit hard enough on the primer end would go off, as long as the differential was big enough between the primer and the rest of the case. Things slammed sideways tend not to go bang - I've seen photos of rounds that are destroyed by being hit from the side by large explosions, even explosive head rounds, and they haven't gone off, just split the case as if it had been hit with a sledgehammer.

Even properly packaged primers refuse to explode in bulk. You have to do something silly like sticking them all in a glass jar together.

the shockvave would first tear the bullets and cartridges apart, such a powerful blast would turn the ammo into powder ! ! !. There wouldn't be any explosion/detonation of nitrocellose because it would be simply thrown in every direction instead of initiation. If the nitrocellose would be pressed in the cartridges, it may explode. The whole thing would make a BIG shrapnel bomb, the brass, lead and iron parts would fly with big velocities in many different directions, but their speed would be much smaller than fired from a gun. Bullets speed up in barrel when hot gases decomprese. :D

the shockvave would first tear the bullets and cartridges apart, such a powerful blast would turn the ammo into powder ! ! !. There wouldn't be any explosion/detonation of nitrocellose because it would be simply thrown in every direction instead of initiation. If the nitrocellose would be pressed in the cartridges, it may explode. The whole thing would make a BIG shrapnel bomb, the brass, lead and iron parts would fly with big velocities in many different directions, but their speed would be much smaller than fired from a gun. Bullets speed up in barrel when hot gases decomprese. :D

the shockvave would first tear the bullets and cartridges apart, such a powerful blast would turn the ammo into powder ! ! !. There wouldn't be any explosion/detonation of nitrocellose because it would be simply thrown in every direction instead of initiation. If the nitrocellose would be pressed in the cartridges, it may explode. The whole thing would make a BIG shrapnel bomb, the brass, lead and iron parts would fly with big velocities in many different directions, but their speed would be much smaller than fired from a gun. Bullets speed up in barrel when hot gases decomprese. :D

If the bullet primers were in close contact with the explosives, i'd say the bullets would go off for sure. However, i'm not sure if the propellant within the shells would actually detonate unless under extreme circumstances.

Assuming the NC contained withing the shells DID detonate, I wonder if the detonation would propagate throughout the container of shells causing the rest to detonate in a chain reaction. Could be interesting...

Imagine a 20 lb propane tank filled with bullets (i.e. small metal NC containing capsules:)) sealed with say a 1 lb TNT booster inside. I'd predict that the shells would detonate in a situation like that.

I'd bet the bullets would get teared to peices though, as the shock wave of the explosives behind the bullet would be faster than the speed at which the bullet would be travelling away from its origin.

If the bullet primers were in close contact with the explosives, i'd say the bullets would go off for sure. However, i'm not sure if the propellant within the shells would actually detonate unless under extreme circumstances.

Assuming the NC contained withing the shells DID detonate, I wonder if the detonation would propagate throughout the container of shells causing the rest to detonate in a chain reaction. Could be interesting...

Imagine a 20 lb propane tank filled with bullets (i.e. small metal NC containing capsules:)) sealed with say a 1 lb TNT booster inside. I'd predict that the shells would detonate in a situation like that.

I'd bet the bullets would get teared to peices though, as the shock wave of the explosives behind the bullet would be faster than the speed at which the bullet would be travelling away from its origin.

If the bullet primers were in close contact with the explosives, i'd say the bullets would go off for sure. However, i'm not sure if the propellant within the shells would actually detonate unless under extreme circumstances.

Assuming the NC contained withing the shells DID detonate, I wonder if the detonation would propagate throughout the container of shells causing the rest to detonate in a chain reaction. Could be interesting...

Imagine a 20 lb propane tank filled with bullets (i.e. small metal NC containing capsules:)) sealed with say a 1 lb TNT booster inside. I'd predict that the shells would detonate in a situation like that.

I'd bet the bullets would get teared to peices though, as the shock wave of the explosives behind the bullet would be faster than the speed at which the bullet would be travelling away from its origin.

Smokeless powder does not detonate in cartridge diameters, no matter how big the booster. The critical dimeter is always much larger than the caliber of the gun, big cannons have very large powder grains.

After WW2 they used up the multi tons of left-over SP for blasting. It did NOT detonate in steel pipes of 30mm ID, even with a big TNT booster. But it detonated successfully in boreholes of 80mm dimeter.

Smokeless powder does not detonate in cartridge diameters, no matter how big the booster. The critical dimeter is always much larger than the caliber of the gun, big cannons have very large powder grains.

After WW2 they used up the multi tons of left-over SP for blasting. It did NOT detonate in steel pipes of 30mm ID, even with a big TNT booster. But it detonated successfully in boreholes of 80mm dimeter.

Smokeless powder does not detonate in cartridge diameters, no matter how big the booster. The critical dimeter is always much larger than the caliber of the gun, big cannons have very large powder grains.

After WW2 they used up the multi tons of left-over SP for blasting. It did NOT detonate in steel pipes of 30mm ID, even with a big TNT booster. But it detonated successfully in boreholes of 80mm dimeter.

Hi picric (2,4,6-TNP),
the effect of an HE on ammunitions depends by very much factors,
firstly they are:
- VOD of the explosive
- type of munitions
- contact between them (not that clear...I would say if they are in a box, a steel container or they're at an open place)
How previously talked, military munitions are made properly for not damage and/or go off easily.
If you want experiment what you've talking about, please know which bullets and hard fragments can fly very much more away than the shockwave of explosion and cause damage. Please be prudent!

Regards, zambozan

Hi picric (2,4,6-TNP),
the effect of an HE on ammunitions depends by very much factors,
firstly they are:
- VOD of the explosive
- type of munitions
- contact between them (not that clear...I would say if they are in a box, a steel container or they're at an open place)
How previously talked, military munitions are made properly for not damage and/or go off easily.
If you want experiment what you've talking about, please know which bullets and hard fragments can fly very much more away than the shockwave of explosion and cause damage. Please be prudent!

Regards, zambozan

Hi picric (2,4,6-TNP),
the effect of an HE on ammunitions depends by very much factors,
firstly they are:
- VOD of the explosive
- type of munitions
- contact between them (not that clear...I would say if they are in a box, a steel container or they're at an open place)
How previously talked, military munitions are made properly for not damage and/or go off easily.
If you want experiment what you've talking about, please know which bullets and hard fragments can fly very much more away than the shockwave of explosion and cause damage. Please be prudent!

Regards, zambozan

Yes im sure SBSP's (predominantly lower N content NC with stabalizers) critical diameter is less than that of the diameter of ammunition, but im not sure if that really matters, seeing as how the ammunition would be in a large pile contained within a strong tank.

For example, IIRC NG has a critical diameter of 3.9mm at RT. Now, if you had a large number of 2mm diameter tubes containing NG in a pile, or beter yet a container, im sure sympathetic detonation wouldn't be difficult to achieve.

But anyways im just theorizing. I'm not sure about any of this.

What was the size of the booster used in the 80mm borehole tests?

Yes im sure SBSP's (predominantly lower N content NC with stabalizers) critical diameter is less than that of the diameter of ammunition, but im not sure if that really matters, seeing as how the ammunition would be in a large pile contained within a strong tank.

For example, IIRC NG has a critical diameter of 3.9mm at RT. Now, if you had a large number of 2mm diameter tubes containing NG in a pile, or beter yet a container, im sure sympathetic detonation wouldn't be difficult to achieve.

But anyways im just theorizing. I'm not sure about any of this.

What was the size of the booster used in the 80mm borehole tests?

Yes im sure SBSP's (predominantly lower N content NC with stabalizers) critical diameter is less than that of the diameter of ammunition, but im not sure if that really matters, seeing as how the ammunition would be in a large pile contained within a strong tank.

For example, IIRC NG has a critical diameter of 3.9mm at RT. Now, if you had a large number of 2mm diameter tubes containing NG in a pile, or beter yet a container, im sure sympathetic detonation wouldn't be difficult to achieve.

But anyways im just theorizing. I'm not sure about any of this.

What was the size of the booster used in the 80mm borehole tests?

Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful!

I don't mean to go off topic, but how would you say Lead (Pb)
compares to steel as fragmentation material? What I mean is
say you had a one pound block of TNT and on one side of the block
was embedded 10mm steel balls and on the other 10mm Lead balls?

Which would perform better as fragmentation, the Lead or the steel and why?

It seems that the military mostly uses only steel balls in fragmentation munitions,
but not Lead. Is this because of price, toxicity, or actual performance?

Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful!

I don't mean to go off topic, but how would you say Lead (Pb)
compares to steel as fragmentation material? What I mean is
say you had a one pound block of TNT and on one side of the block
was embedded 10mm steel balls and on the other 10mm Lead balls?

Which would perform better as fragmentation, the Lead or the steel and why?

It seems that the military mostly uses only steel balls in fragmentation munitions,
but not Lead. Is this because of price, toxicity, or actual performance?

Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful!

I don't mean to go off topic, but how would you say Lead (Pb)
compares to steel as fragmentation material? What I mean is
say you had a one pound block of TNT and on one side of the block
was embedded 10mm steel balls and on the other 10mm Lead balls?

Which would perform better as fragmentation, the Lead or the steel and why?

It seems that the military mostly uses only steel balls in fragmentation munitions,
but not Lead. Is this because of price, toxicity, or actual performance?

Toxicity of course! They would not want the enemy to get lead poisoning, would they? :p

As the military never cares much about spending tax money, I bet it is performance. Lead will probably deform too much, either from the initial shock or when it hits a target. Thus it is easier to stop / needs less armour to defeat.

IIRC they used lead nitrators for NG batches for this very reason. Lead does not form shrapnel but is thrown around coiled and dented in case of an explosion. Since they have better process control now, they have long moved on to stainless nitrators, mostly continuous ones where there is no large batch present anyway.

Toxicity of course! They would not want the enemy to get lead poisoning, would they? :p

As the military never cares much about spending tax money, I bet it is performance. Lead will probably deform too much, either from the initial shock or when it hits a target. Thus it is easier to stop / needs less armour to defeat.

IIRC they used lead nitrators for NG batches for this very reason. Lead does not form shrapnel but is thrown around coiled and dented in case of an explosion. Since they have better process control now, they have long moved on to stainless nitrators, mostly continuous ones where there is no large batch present anyway.

Toxicity of course! They would not want the enemy to get lead poisoning, would they? :p

As the military never cares much about spending tax money, I bet it is performance. Lead will probably deform too much, either from the initial shock or when it hits a target. Thus it is easier to stop / needs less armour to defeat.

IIRC they used lead nitrators for NG batches for this very reason. Lead does not form shrapnel but is thrown around coiled and dented in case of an explosion. Since they have better process control now, they have long moved on to stainless nitrators, mostly continuous ones where there is no large batch present anyway.

Steel is used because it is very hard, and forms sharp edges that cut. This helps it get through Kevlar and other body armour, as well as being an armour piercing projectile because it won't extrude when it hits a hard target. Also, it is cheaper and lighter, and the increased bursting strength gives higher performane for a given weight of explosive.

Steel is used because it is very hard, and forms sharp edges that cut. This helps it get through Kevlar and other body armour, as well as being an armour piercing projectile because it won't extrude when it hits a hard target. Also, it is cheaper and lighter, and the increased bursting strength gives higher performane for a given weight of explosive.

Steel is used because it is very hard, and forms sharp edges that cut. This helps it get through Kevlar and other body armour, as well as being an armour piercing projectile because it won't extrude when it hits a hard target. Also, it is cheaper and lighter, and the increased bursting strength gives higher performane for a given weight of explosive.

Then why don't they use steel to make bullets? Wouldn't it
penetrate body armor better than copper coated Lead?

Then why don't they use steel to make bullets? Wouldn't it
penetrate body armor better than copper coated Lead?

Then why don't they use steel to make bullets? Wouldn't it
penetrate body armor better than copper coated Lead?

Today as an experimental:

A .223 round was placed in a film canister and 35 grams of Picric acid was
pressed around and under the bullet and a lead nitrate/azo-clathrate/ Picric acid
based detonater. The bullet stuck out of the canister a little through a punched out hole (was just a little too tall). Anyway it was detonated between some
large boulders in such a way that the cannister was wedged between these
rocks so that the primer faced a rock face and two sides of the canister were facing rock faces as well, the bullet itself was facing an open direction in which
a 1" thick piece of plyboard had been placed 3 feet away to be a witness.

The bullet penetrated the plyboard upon detonation, I was very suprised based
on the replies in this thread. The bullet was never found!

It seemes That the bullet did high order detonate, but to be sure I will try
a more side ways configuration in the next experiment!

Today as an experimental:

A .223 round was placed in a film canister and 35 grams of Picric acid was
pressed around and under the bullet and a lead nitrate/azo-clathrate/ Picric acid
based detonater. The bullet stuck out of the canister a little through a punched out hole (was just a little too tall). Anyway it was detonated between some
large boulders in such a way that the cannister was wedged between these
rocks so that the primer faced a rock face and two sides of the canister were facing rock faces as well, the bullet itself was facing an open direction in which
a 1" thick piece of plyboard had been placed 3 feet away to be a witness.

The bullet penetrated the plyboard upon detonation, I was very suprised based
on the replies in this thread. The bullet was never found!

It seemes That the bullet did high order detonate, but to be sure I will try
a more side ways configuration in the next experiment!

Today as an experimental:

A .223 round was placed in a film canister and 35 grams of Picric acid was
pressed around and under the bullet and a lead nitrate/azo-clathrate/ Picric acid
based detonater. The bullet stuck out of the canister a little through a punched out hole (was just a little too tall). Anyway it was detonated between some
large boulders in such a way that the cannister was wedged between these
rocks so that the primer faced a rock face and two sides of the canister were facing rock faces as well, the bullet itself was facing an open direction in which
a 1" thick piece of plyboard had been placed 3 feet away to be a witness.

The bullet penetrated the plyboard upon detonation, I was very suprised based
on the replies in this thread. The bullet was never found!

It seemes That the bullet did high order detonate, but to be sure I will try
a more side ways configuration in the next experiment!

Back from the experiment. This time all the picric acid was placed on just one side of the bullet. The plyboard was placed in line with the bullet. Upon detonation
the bullet didn't fly at the plyboard, but rather was found about 2 1/2" in the ground below the detonation point which now makes alot of sense to me!

There was no high order detonation. In the first experiment the primer must have
fired before the bullet could be destroyed or all the explosive force pushed of the rocks and propelled the bullet forward.

My conclusion:

Most likely bullets don't high order detonate from a HE, but they might low order detonate in the right configuration!

Back from the experiment. This time all the picric acid was placed on just one side of the bullet. The plyboard was placed in line with the bullet. Upon detonation
the bullet didn't fly at the plyboard, but rather was found about 2 1/2" in the ground below the detonation point which now makes alot of sense to me!

There was no high order detonation. In the first experiment the primer must have
fired before the bullet could be destroyed or all the explosive force pushed of the rocks and propelled the bullet forward.

My conclusion:

Most likely bullets don't high order detonate from a HE, but they might low order detonate in the right configuration!

Back from the experiment. This time all the picric acid was placed on just one side of the bullet. The plyboard was placed in line with the bullet. Upon detonation
the bullet didn't fly at the plyboard, but rather was found about 2 1/2" in the ground below the detonation point which now makes alot of sense to me!

There was no high order detonation. In the first experiment the primer must have
fired before the bullet could be destroyed or all the explosive force pushed of the rocks and propelled the bullet forward.

My conclusion:

Most likely bullets don't high order detonate from a HE, but they might low order detonate in the right configuration!

They do use steel to make bullets! The newest round from H&K fires steel plated with copper, to defeat 2mm of titanium plate and layers of Kevlar at range.

The older .223 NATO round is steel tipped, as is RG "sniper" in 7.62 NATO. Russian ammo tends to be steel jacketed.

The problem is that steel is lighter than lead, and harder to work with, and destroys range backstops!

Your conclusion about the ammo is about right. If you read the milspec for what these things have to take without doing anything, it is incredible!

They do use steel to make bullets! The newest round from H&K fires steel plated with copper, to defeat 2mm of titanium plate and layers of Kevlar at range.

The older .223 NATO round is steel tipped, as is RG "sniper" in 7.62 NATO. Russian ammo tends to be steel jacketed.

The problem is that steel is lighter than lead, and harder to work with, and destroys range backstops!

Your conclusion about the ammo is about right. If you read the milspec for what these things have to take without doing anything, it is incredible!

They do use steel to make bullets! The newest round from H&K fires steel plated with copper, to defeat 2mm of titanium plate and layers of Kevlar at range.

The older .223 NATO round is steel tipped, as is RG "sniper" in 7.62 NATO. Russian ammo tends to be steel jacketed.

The problem is that steel is lighter than lead, and harder to work with, and destroys range backstops!

Your conclusion about the ammo is about right. If you read the milspec for what these things have to take without doing anything, it is incredible!

My reply on the matter would be that the bullets would be totally turned into dust by the brisance of the HE (maybe not with a one pound block) and if the HE would be placed somewhat further away the bullets would just simply be secondary shrapnel.

I destroyed thousands of cartridges this way by placing them in a normal ammo box, placing one or two AT-mines on each side, and dugged this in. Effect is total evaporation of the ammunition inside.

In case of grenades or other HE filled ammunition the effect would be sympathic detonation or the ammunition would be blown aside depending on the distance.

My reply on the matter would be that the bullets would be totally turned into dust by the brisance of the HE (maybe not with a one pound block) and if the HE would be placed somewhat further away the bullets would just simply be secondary shrapnel.

I destroyed thousands of cartridges this way by placing them in a normal ammo box, placing one or two AT-mines on each side, and dugged this in. Effect is total evaporation of the ammunition inside.

In case of grenades or other HE filled ammunition the effect would be sympathic detonation or the ammunition would be blown aside depending on the distance.

My reply on the matter would be that the bullets would be totally turned into dust by the brisance of the HE (maybe not with a one pound block) and if the HE would be placed somewhat further away the bullets would just simply be secondary shrapnel.

I destroyed thousands of cartridges this way by placing them in a normal ammo box, placing one or two AT-mines on each side, and dugged this in. Effect is total evaporation of the ammunition inside.

In case of grenades or other HE filled ammunition the effect would be sympathic detonation or the ammunition would be blown aside depending on the distance.

Ammunition is destroyed by PROPERLY placed HE.

(HE is detonated, LE is broken open - ignited - deflagrated - gone)

Ammunition is ignited/scattered by improperly placed HE.

(rain of components over the countryside)

It's one of the basic properties/lessons of Explosive Ordnance Disposal.

PS: The FN 5.7x28 SS192 round will also penetrate CRISAT & 40+ layers
of kevlar. Shot from the FN5.7 and PS90/P90.

From (unfortunately) first hand experience, small arms ammo is torn appart as oktogen mentioned above. A layer or two out from the explosive, some may go off, much like a round thrown into a fire. Most of the rest will become shrapnel That brass is tough, and protects the propellant.

Colloided NC is not very likely to detonate under almost any shock, it deflagrates. Double based powder, used mostly in pistol ammo, will go high or low order, depending on how strongly it was shocked. Again, the brass protects the propellant to a large extent.

I watched EOD prep and blow dud 80 mm mortar shells in AZ. They used a block of C-4 with three rounds in direct content. The steel protects the Comp B3 even better than the brass protects propellant. The detonation of one mortar round will expend a lot of energy creating and propelling shrapnel, so a round next to it may not always go off.

Three mortar rounds weren't duds, but empty shells used for practice. The C-4 only collapsed and folded these in half, their steel did not tear or fragment. I have one other of these, and two 60 mm shells, for book ends. Heavy, even if empty.

Amunition is generally destroyed by HE in a relatively safe maner, just ask EOD. I got some great footage of them detonating literally tons of ammunition and explosives in great heaping piles just to get rid of all the crap laying around Iraq after the invasion. If the charges are placed right, it turns most of the ammunition etc. into small fragments. Placed wrong, it just scattered the stuff from hell to high water. Any propellant left over just burns off.

As for lead vs. steel, steel balls are used in claymore mines to comply with NATO directives. Lead balls cause "undue physical trauma" because of deformation, where steel makes a nice clean hole. That's why you never see exposed lead in military bullets.

It's a little off topic, but that's why the U.S. went around that by using small calliber high velocity rounds that deform and fragment regardless of composing material, at least at close range. .22 caliber at supersonic speed does do more damage to flesh than .30 caliber at subsonic speed.

For many years I have routinely disposed of old shotgun shells by using them as targets. I have never had one detonate, regardless of what it was shot with. Some of them have ignited and burned, but that's it. Most just shatter and fly apart.


...but that's why the U.S. went around that by using small calliber high velocity rounds that deform and fragment regardless of composing material, at least at close range. .22 caliber at supersonic speed does do more damage to flesh than .30 caliber at subsonic speed. A large part of why the .223 was adopted is because it causes great damage, but does NOT kill as well as the .30.

The idea was that a dead man can be left, but a badly wounded man needs at least 2 men to get him to a support structure, i.e. MASH. In reality, we haven't fought against anyone lately who does this. They just abandon their wounded to us, who take care of them as well as our own wounded.

Part of why I'm a .45 and .308 guy. I don't want them getting better . :D

A large part of why the .223 was adopted is because it causes great damage, but does NOT kill as well as the .30.

off topic, but, damage IS what kills. The difference being; 223 kills better, but takes a long time to kill through bleed out. I also am a .308/.45 man because a fast knock down is better, IMO, than a man who's dead but doesn't know it yet! it's almost scary what a man can do after being hit by an m-16, but before he finally dies. Hell, even medium sized dogs jump around for a while before kickin over to the other side!;)

What works for the military doesn't always work for a civilian.

You don't care if the guy breaking into your house becomes a triage casualty an hour after he's stabbed you to death, you want him dead before he can stab you at all!

Pea shooters like a 5.56 just don't do the job unless you hit 'em in the head or heart, and even in the heart they can have a few seconds of life left to kill you in.

Some weapons that are designed for fragmentation effects use not only steel, but tungsten, inconel, and other hard metals. I am not aware of lead being used as a designed fragmentation component.

In the same sense though, HEAT (Monroe effect) weapons actually use a copper cone to penetrate armor. My point is that penetration is not only a function of materials selection, but shaped charge effects and velocity also play a major role.