How much protection does a sandbag give

Today i wondered how good does a typical sandbag hold vs bullets? Does anyone have any average rha's numbers about a typical sandbag? I tried searching over google but all that came up was about flooding.

any info would be welcome.

tomcat maybe an experiment would be in order....

take a filled sandbag and place it in front of a paper
target and see what various calibers would penetrate.
Perhaps then go 2 deep or 3 deep.
Wet sand would have much higher stopping
power then dry sand.
Make a shooting party out of it... invite some
friends over and just have fun.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Patriot36]

Great question, Tom... as soon as I read it I went to one of my favorite sites and found this:

www.theboxotruth.com...

The Box o' Truth is a project wherein the penetration of various rounds through various mediums is tested; the link I gave you shows the results of several handguns and rifles fired through a series of sand barriers.

For the purposes of this experiment the sand was encased in drywall, which doesn't affect the penetration of any round very much. This was apparently done so that the width of the sand-barriers could be more accurately measured.

Evidently sand does a great job of stopping even high-caliber rifle rounds... honestly I was surprised at a few of these results, but I'm glad to have learned this... thanks for asking the question!

Sand is an great barrier vs bullets because bullets are made for shock impact, not penetration. The pictures in that website show very well the effects. Try the same test with a bow and arrow and you get suprising results. Have some fun and test it yourself. its always fun to go shooting.

Thank you for that link parallelogram, I have actually been working on my own shooting range.

Its very surprising that even a 308 wouldn't penetrate through the first sand barrier, I suppose a higher caliber pistol round would push through. Maybe a 44mag or 357mag, I wonder if the rifle rounds they used had hollow cores, if so that would explain the fragmenting on impact.

Pistol rounds would have even less penetration. It has nothing to do with whether the round was a hollowpoint/core or whatever. The bullet's velocity and sectional density work against them when they strike certain mediums.

This is a common misconception. The pistol rounds actually penetrate slightly deeper than rifle rounds in 'semi-solid' mediums such as sand.

The rifle rounds are travelling at high velocity. Velocity is the primary factor in bullet fragmentation. Therefore the rifle rounds fragment quickly and the smaller pieces fail to penetrate far due to their low mass.

The pistol rounds do not travel as fast, and are less likely to fragment. Therefore they hold their mass and momentum for longer, which allows them to penetrate further.

Pistol rounds (9mm NATO & .45ACP) recovered from sand


Rifle (7.62mm NATO) recovered from sand


[edit on 20-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf
This is a common misconception. The pistol rounds actually penetrate slightly deeper than rifle rounds in 'semi-solid' mediums such as sand.

The rifle rounds are travelling at high velocity. Velocity is the primary factor in bullet fragmentation. Therefore the rifle rounds fragment quickly and the smaller pieces fail to penetrate far due to their low mass.

The pistol rounds do not travel as fast, and are less likely to fragment. Therefore they hold their mass and momentum for longer, which allows them to penetrate further.

Pistol rounds (9mm NATO & .45ACP) recovered from sand


Rifle (7.62mm NATO) recovered from sand


[edit on 20-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

Point taken, but it still has a lot to do with the sectional density of the bullet as well, be it rifle or pistol, as certain rifle rounds will penetrate significantly better than others, just as some pistol rounds will do the same.

Try non expanding rounds, either FMJ or TMJ. Commomly refered to as BALL ammo.

You will get much more penitration.

I wonder how well a standard russian 7.62x39 steel core ball would perform in that test? it has a hard and solid structure and it's somewhat slower than the 7.62 Nato round...

Originally posted by ultralo1
Try non expanding rounds, either FMJ or TMJ. Commomly refered to as BALL ammo.

You will get much more penitration.

Same thing happens with ball ammo. It doesn't matter about bullet type, it's the velocity that causes the fragmentation. Give it a try on a sandbag some time. Anyone who is used to working the butts in a gallery range with sand backstop will be familiar with all the little bits of squashed metal all over the place. Christ knows I spent enough time sweeping them up as a recruit!

Ball rounds are designed to penetrate solid material and/or tissue. When they hit a semi-solid material such as sand, they fragment very quickly. The copper jacket is quickly stripped from the lead core and is dispersed throughout the medium. Indeed this is one of the desired effects when shooting at people, as the little pieces of jacket cause secondary wounds. The lead core is very soft, and it squashes and breaks up within a couple of inches. The little piece of squashed metal in the picture above is actually the lead core of a 7.62mm round.

We had the same problem back in ulster when we practiced shooting through car doors. The copper jacket was being stripped from the round as it passed through the metal. The lead core was all that was left, which was fairly crap when it came down to target penetration.

As for 7.62 short, it is still travelling fast enough to fragment. However, having minimal experience with firing this round I can't say with any sort of authority. Perhaps someone like Orangetom would like to give it a go and share the results - I know he's a big SKS fan.

[edit on 20-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Same thing happens with ball ammo. It doesn't matter about bullet type, it's the velocity that causes the fragmentation.

Thank you for the info.
I have not shot any sand bags. The ball ammo that I have shot has been into paper and wood. And of course the the penitration is great.

On another note, would a slow moving ball round stay intact. ie 45ACP moving at less than 900fps.

Thanks again

Hmm, this suggests that a supercavitating round - the underwater rounds fire by the Russian APS weapon, or 'supercavitating superpenetrator' bullets - www.grosswildjagd.de... - might be able to shoot right through sandbags.

Originally posted by ultralo1
On another note, would a slow moving ball round stay intact. ie 45ACP moving at less than 900fps.

The pictures above show a 9mm and a .45 round retrieved from sand. To quote Box-Of-Truth-Guy, they could almost be reloaded and fired again. They hold together really well. However, they do still only penetrate about 6" of sand.

just like on the mythbuster episode where they see how far underwater you have to be to not get hit by bullets. They tried hollow point handgun ammo,357 magnum,.308,shotgun,even the barrett. The higher velocity rounds performed worse because they shatter when striking the surface of the water. The slower rounds actually performed well.

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
just like on the mythbuster episode where they see how far underwater you have to be to not get hit by bullets. They tried hollow point handgun ammo,357 magnum,.308,shotgun,even the barrett. The higher velocity rounds performed worse because they shatter when striking the surface of the water. The slower rounds actually performed well.

Yea i seen that episode.. the barret 50 caliber actually performed the worst, it fragmented completely just under the surface of the water.
In the beginning of the test they were using a plexiglass tank instead of the swimming pool. They tried a 12 gauge shotgun in the tank and it destroyed the tank, blasting one side of the plexiglass out lol..

The 7.62 Russian short (ball round) is a good penetrater of an 18" diameter log, it punches through 1/2" boiler plate.

The military ball round has a small hollow tip, covered by the jacket. This hollow area aids deformation and fragmentation when impacted on solid object. Sand doesn't appear until it is impacted with great force.

The handgun round versus the rifle round is the question of Would you rather be hit by a Mack truck or a Ferrari? You would be equally dead, but for slightly different reasons.

Gentlemen,

I am making this post somewhat in haste as I must soon ready for shoving off to work and another 12 hour shift.

I have been keeping this thread in mind for some time since reading Paddy Inf's suggestion of trying this out with my SKS rifle. My problem has been getting the time.

I did take time to stop by the local surplus store on my way to work and purchased five empty sandbags. It was some time till I was able to filll them and prestage my equipment for a day to the range.

These are the results along with photos taken this afternoon. Distance to the sandbags from the bench was 100 yards.

My first try was with a single sandbag and one my 30.06 Springfield bolt action rifles. Ammunition was a reload consisting of a 173 grain Full Metal Jacket loaded to about 2600 feet per second at the muzzle. 52 grains of IMR4350 powder and a large rifle winchester primer. What I found when I checked the bag was that the bullet entered making a very small almost unseen hole and of course a definite hole on the exit side. As Paddy clearly indicated the copper jacket sheared off and the core went somewhere. I was not able to retrieve this core. Here is the photo of the recovered jacket

i135.photobucket.com...

and here is the sandbag..

i135.photobucket.com...

This gives me an indication of the potency of the 7.62x54mm round also as I am able to look at the ballistic tables on this round in FMJ ammo. 2500 to 2600 feet per second is no problem with this round and 150 to 170 grain bullets.

What surprised me was what happened with the SKS rifle. This was not actually a even comparison as I did not have Full metal Jacket ammunition available. What I had was the 122 grain jacketed hollow point ammunition by Wolf.
I dug several slugs out of the sandbag before leaving and recovering my targets...cleaning up to leave. These hit more in the center of the bag verses just a glancing blow. Here is the photo.

i135.photobucket.com...

ONe can see the effect the sand has on distorting and breaking up the bullet shape. It looks similar to the appearence of lava rock in lead and and copper.
I am considering trying this again when I have another sandbag and some full metal jacket ammo in 7.62x39mm.

I want to make note to the readers that this in no way makes the SKS rifle impotent. I believe this is a good rifle for what moneys were paid. I also know that bullet type can make a difference. For example I also intend to load some 150 grain soft point ammunition in this caliber as I already load this for my Springfield bolt actions and my M1 Garand.

But this test more shows the potency of the sandbag for its stopping power.

One of the range members explained to me that I should have turned one of the bags lengthwise to get an idea of the actual penetrating potential rather than sideways. Most of the time a sandbag will be used some 90 degrees to bullet flight but I will keep this in mind for the next go around.

Also I brought along my AR 15 in .223 but did not even shoot this rifle. Perhapsed next time.

And finally for my shooting friend ...the Finnish lobo of the north...I have been meaning for some time to post this photo of Olde Dixie. This is my Springfield 1903 rifle modified with a heavy barrel. She is a shooter if one can hold her steady. I have a new trigger for her but havent had time to get it properly installed. For now the factory military trigger will have to do.
She is a fine gal and needs to be held solidly and securely for best results.

Enjoy.

i135.photobucket.com...

to all who posted on this thread my thanks and,
Keep them in the X ring,

Orangetom




[edit on 25-7-2007 by orangetom1999]