Projectile Impact Plots

Transcription

Applied Research Laboratory
INSTITUTE FOR NON-LETHAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES
REPORT:
An Attribute Based Evaluation II
(ABE-2) of Less-Lethal Impact
Munitions
DATE
29 January 2007
POINTS OF CONTACT
LTC Edward L. Hughes (USA-Ret)
Dr. John M. Kenny (CDR, USN-Ret)
Commander Charles “Sid” Heal
Mr. Peter A. Kaufman
REPORT:
An Attribute Based Evaluation (ABE) of Less-Lethal Impact Munitions
Contents
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
5
Impact Munitions and Launchers
9
Measured Attributes
11
Descriptive Attributes
11
Performance Attributes
13
Test Methodology
15
Facilities and Instrumentation
15
Test Design Considerations
16
Evaluation Results (Findings, Observations & Conclusions)
Shotgun Munitions (12 gauge)
19
19
Riot Gun Munitions (37mm)
TBP1
Grenade Launcher Munitions (40mm)
TBP
Specialty Munitions
TBP
Appendices:
A – Participants and Points of Contact
A-1
B – Manufacturers and Points of Contact
B-1
C – Descriptive Data Tables
C-1
Riot Gun & Grenade Launcher Munitions (37/40mm)
C-1
TBP
1
To be published. This report is intended to summarize the results of a series of tests. Upon completion of each
series, this report will be updated and reposted.
Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies
The Pennsylvania State University
1
REPORT:
Specialty Munitions
TBP
D – Performance Data Tables (Collected & Computed)
D-1
TBP
Specialty Munitions
TBP
E – Projectile Impact Plots
E-1
2
D-1
E-1
TBP
Specialty Munitions
TBP
REPORT:
Executive Summary
This report, co-authored by the Pennsylvania State University’s (Penn State) Institute for Non-Lethal
Defense Technologies (INLDT) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD), contains an evaluation
of off-the-shelf less-lethal munitions, and provides law enforcement officials with a comparative basis for
selecting munitions best suited for their requirements. The evaluation was conducted at the Pennsylvania
State University’s main campus in State College and the National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit
(NFTTU) in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Various manufacturers donated the less-lethal munitions.
Twenty-nine types of 12 gauge shotgun impact munitions were fired at a range of 25 feet. Eighteen were
single projectile munitions. Ten were multiple projectile munitions. One did not produce useable data. The
munitions were assessed for precision, accuracy and impact force. Our objective was to provide easily
accessible and readily understandable reference information useful to law enforcement and the military.
Neither the INLDT nor the LASD endorse any specific product tested in this study or mentioned in our
report. This report does not indicate measures of effectiveness, make assumptions about minimum and
maximum ranges, identify potential injury, or make any recommendations as to which brand is more suited
for a given purpose or operational setting.
OUR OBSERVATIONS
Data on 25 different attributes were collected or computed for each of the munitions. Although it is not the
intention of this report to endorse any munitions or manufacturers, some general observations are provided:
Weight. Projectile weights varied from just under 100 grains (6.48 grams) to over 600 grains (38.88 grams).
This weight did not include the weight of the powder, casing or wadding material. The majority of projectile
weights clustered around these two values. There did not appear to be a correlation between weight and
projectile accuracy.
Precision. A precise munition is one that has very little scatter. The baton-type munitions, particularly those
with fin stabilization, provided the most precision (with one exception). Not surprisingly, pelleted
munitions, designed for used as area weapons, had a large range of dispersions. Of the eighteen single
projectile munitions:
•
Seventeen (94%) had a level of precision of 9 inches or less (94%), which equates to shot group
size. This is the radius of the generally accepted target area for a subject (18 inch target area).
•
Thirteen (13) had a level of precision of 4 inches or less (72%).
•
Six (6) had a level of precision of less than 2 inches (33%).
Accuracy. An accurate munition is one that impacts near the point of aim. Accuracy cannot be achieved
without some level of precision. In this case, of the 17 munitions with sufficient precision to hit an 18 inch
wide target (9 inch radius) at 25 feet, 14 had an accuracy of less than two inches and 11 had an accuracy of
one inch or less.
3
REPORT:
Muzzle Velocity. The muzzle velocity was measured and compared to several other attributes. Higher
velocity munitions provided higher accuracy. Muzzle velocity was measured in feet per second (fps).
Muzzle Velocity Variation (MVV). MVV is the standard deviation in muzzle velocity of a number of rounds
expressed as a percentage of the average mean muzzle velocity (SD/MVAVG), and is a function of weapon
strength and ammunition efficiency. Weapon strength is influenced by wear of the gun barrel, weapon
manufacturing tolerances and reaction/response to recoil. In this case, the same weapon was used for testing
all munitions and was fixed in a long rifle rest. Therefore the MVV provides a relative comparison of the
ammunition efficiency of each of the munitions. This relative value is an indicator of manufacturer
tolerances in the propellant efficiency (consistency of powder) and projectile efficiency (consistency of
weight and manufacturing tolerances for the projectile). Munitions with lower variations in muzzle velocity
would have correspondingly better accuracy. Our data showed such a relationship. Of the twenty-five
munitions yielding reliable data:
•
Twenty-four (96%) had a MVV below 15% of the average muzzle velocity;
•
Seventeen (68%) had a MVV at 10% or below of the average muzzle velocity; and
•
Only two (8%) had a MVV below 5% of the average muzzle velocity.
Relative Force. The relative force (ponds-force or lbs-f) imparted to the target plate was measured, but these
measurements must be used with caution. We made no attempt to correlate the measurements with impacts
on the human body nor did we attempt to correlate the measurements to injury probabilities. However, the
measurements do provide a relative ranking of the impacts of the various munitions. As one would expect,
pelleted munitions achieve a relatively low impact force and the baton and sock rounds achieve the highest
relative force.
CONCLUSION
As with our previous study, and with the assistance of the National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit
(NFTTU), this project was completed with some hard work, imagination and a very little funding. Penn
State’s Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department continue
to recognized the need to conduct regular or recurring evaluations of less-lethal impact munitions. We’ve
made this report and data available to anyone interested via the INLDT web site, and hope that the law
enforcement community is able to put the data and our observations to good use.
4
REPORT:
Introduction
BACKGROUND
For several decades, a class of munitions commonly called “impact munitions” has dominated the lesslethal field in law enforcement. Beginning in 1995, these munitions became the predominant non-lethal
munitions for military peacekeeping applications. These munitions comprise a variety of projectiles
ranging from lead-filled pads to plastic fin-stabilized projectiles to rubber pellets and others. Regardless of
the projectile configuration of these munitions, almost all of them work by striking a target with sufficient
force to cause compliance through the application of pain. Over time, scores of lives have been saved
because these munitions offer an alternative option in those situations that have previously required deadly
force.
As a variety of these less-lethal munitions became available, it became more difficult for the users to make
intelligent and informed selection decisions. Critical factors such as ballistic stability, energy transfer, price,
range and accuracy varied among the many munitions. Additionally, munitions were dissimilar and
standards for one type were not necessarily applicable to another. Some devices, in fact, defied comparison.
The Penn States Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies is also a leader in the less-lethal and nonlethal weapon community. The Institute conducts a broad range of research, testing and education activities.
The INLDT has examined basic technologies such as blunt impact systems as well as more advanced
technologies such as laser and acoustic systems. The INLDT’s outreach activities span military and law
enforcement audiences in classroom and distance education formats.
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has been long recognized as a leader in the identification,
development and integration of less-lethal alternatives in attempts to find alternatives to deadly force for
safely controlling non-compliant and often violent individuals,. They have enjoyed tremendous success and
gained worldwide recognition for resourceful and imaginative less-lethal projects and have provided
guidance and assistance to the U.S. military, as well as other law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States and abroad.
Working together since 1997, the LASD and INLDT decided to address this problem in a preliminary way
in order to provide a starting point. Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) provided some
funding, manufacturers donated the munitions, and both Penn State and LASD donated people, time and
equipment. The result was the Attribute-Based Evaluation (ABE) Report published in 2001 and available at
http://www.nldt.org/publications.php.
SIGNIFICANCE
This second iteration of the Attribute-Based Evaluation (ABE) was conducted to provide law enforcement
and the military with an unbiased objective comparison of available less-lethal munitions. The objective of
this study was to provide easily accessible and readily understandable reference information useful to law
enforcement and the military. The evaluation was conducted over several weeks at the Pennsylvania State
University main campus in State College and the National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit in Altoona,
Pennsylvania. More than 30 less-lethal munition types were donated by various manufacturers and fired at a
ballistic impact measurement device from a bench mounted launcher. The munitions were assessed for
precision, accuracy and impact force.
5
REPORT:
TEAM MEMBERS
The evaluation team was comprised of researchers and test engineers at Penn State and supported by
individuals within law enforcement, government and industry. Point of contact can be found in Appendix A.
The four contributing authors of this report are:
LTC Edward L. Hughes. Lieutenant Colonel Hughes has been with Penn State’s Applied Research
Laboratory since his military retirement in 2002. He develops proposals, and manages a number of nonlethal technology research, testing and education projects. His military experience includes both command
and staff assignments, culminating at the U.S. Army War College. Colonel Hughes is the principal
investigator and test director for this project.
Dr. John M. Kenny. Dr. Kenny is a senior research engineer at Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory.
As the principal investigator for the Human Effects Advisory Panel (HEAP), he has expertise in the area of
the human effects of less lethal, extended range impact weapons. He was a fellow at the Brookings Institute
and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Kenny is a retired U.S. Navy Commander who commanded two
ships. He was a primary investigator and contributing author of the first ABE published in 2001.
Mr. Peter Kaufmann. Peter Kaufman is a research engineer at the Applied Research Laboratory of the
Pennsylvania State University. He has over ten years experience with a variety of computer system
platforms and software; strain gage installation and instrumentation; design, setup and running experimental
tests; and safe handling of reactive metals and explosives. Mr. Kaufman has measured handgun recoil using
accelerometers, tested bullet penetration levels and performed tests to characterize the developmental ring
airfoil projectile (RAP).
Commander Charles “Sid” Heal. Commander Heal is a 32-year veteran with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department. He is presently in charge of the Department’s technology Exploration Program and is
an internationally recognized less-lethal weapon expert. Commander Heal deployed to Bosnia as part of the
United Nations International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program. As a Chief Warrant
Officer in the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve, he participated in military missions to Somalia and Iraq. He was
a primary investigator and contributing author of the first ABE published in 2001.
CONTRIBUTING ORGANIZATIONS
The evaluation was supported by a number of organizations from law enforcement, government, academia
and industry, and illustrates the mutual desire for cooperation.
The Pennsylvania State University’s Applied Research Laboratory (ARL). Penn State’s ARL, directed by
Dr. Edward G. Liszka, provided funding, manpower and equipment.
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The LASD provided manpower and secured the cooperation of
manufacturers for the study, test design support and report development and editing.
The National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU). The NFTTU of the Department of Homeland
Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) provided the test venue, instrumentation
and manpower.
6
REPORT:
Manufacturers. The manufacturers, developers, and vendors donated all munitions used in this study. Were
it not for their generosity, this study would not have been possible. The estimated value of the donated
shotgun ammunition was approximately $1,500. A complete identification list of the manufacturers can be
found in Appendix B.
LIMITATIONS
Scope. This study provides data on a number of less-lethal munitions that: (1) are launched; (2) have an
effect beyond the muzzle; (3) are intended to be less-lethal and (4) rely on an impact for effect. There are a
number of other commercially available less-lethal options such as riot control agents, non-lethal grenades,
olfactory agents, and conducted energy devices (CEDs) that were not tested. Moreover, because this study
relied on the voluntary participation of manufacturers, users and decision-makers should be aware that there
are other less-lethal options beyond those discussed in this report.
Data. The attributes presented in this report should be used with caution. For most munitions, the accuracy,
precision and force data were obtained using only nine rounds of each munition type – for some munitions,
even fewer. These are very small sample sizes. The force data represents the total force imparted to the
force transducers on the impact plate. These forces were then normalized on a relative scale from one to ten
(1-10). No attempt was made to translate that force data to that which would be imparted to the human
body. Nor was any attempt made to relate the amount of force to a probability of injury.
The first ABE used a range of 21 feet to test the less lethal munitions. This distance was selected as the
short range distance and is generally considered to be the distance at which an adversary, armed with an
edged-weapon or club, can close before an officer can defensively respond. This range of 21 feet has
particular significance in the selection of less-lethal options because a law enforcement officer approaching
an adversary at a distance of less than 21 feet or closer accepts the risk of being killed if the less-lethal
option is not immediately effective.
Our approach to this second ABE was different. We were not attempting to simulate operational ranges or
assess ease of use by a qualified shooter. Rather, the distance was dictated by the equipment used to
measure accuracy, precision, and impact force. Human error, which impacted the results from the first ABE,
was eliminated. For this ABE, a range of 25 feet was chosen, which was maximum range at which all of the
munitions tested would consistently pass through the velocity gates, and there was no danger of damaging
our equipment. As we have stated in other sections of this report, we do not indicate measures of
effectiveness, make assumptions about minimum and maximum ranges, or identify potential injury.
NOTICE OF NON-ENDORSEMENT
Neither the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department nor Penn State’s Applied Research Lab endorse any
specific product that was tested during the course of this study or is mentioned in this report. The AttributeBased Evaluation (ABE) is not intended to indicate measures of effectiveness, make assumptions about
minimum and maximum ranges, identify potential injury, or make any recommendations as to which brand
is more suited for a given purpose or operational setting. Nevertheless, this study is intended to provide
critical data in a usable and understandable format to allow law enforcement and military personnel to
reasonably compare like information and make an informed decision on the suitability of a particular
munition for a given purpose. The attributes are not listed in any order of priority. The user must make
those decisions about priority.
7
REPORT:
8
REPORT:
Impact Munitions and Launchers
IMPACT MUNITIONS
Impact munitions comprise the bulk of law enforcement less-lethal options. In order to qualify for the study,
a munition was required to meet three standards. First, it must use some type of launcher (i.e., 12-gauge
shotgun). Munitions such as flashbangs, stingballs and the like could be launched but are more commonly
deployed as hand-thrown devices and thus were not addressed in this study. Second, while some munitions
are effective at the muzzle, they were also required to be effective beyond the muzzle to meet the criteria for
this study. Third, an impact was required for the munition to be effective.
While these munitions take on a variety of forms, their single distinguishing feature is that they are all
projectiles of some sort. They are launched from a variety of devices including grenade and tear gas
launchers, shotguns or attachable launchers to military weapons.
PROJECTILE CONFIGURATION - MUNITION TYPES
Airfoil. An airfoil is a projectile designed and launched in such a manner as to provide stability, direction
and lift while in flight. Developed by Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
Ring Airfoil Grenade (RAG) and Ring Airfoil Projectile (RAP) were cylindrically shaped airfoils that
provided lift after launching. This allowed for diminished effects of trajectory degradation common to other
types of projectiles. The Ring Airfoil Projectile (RAP) has been further developed under contract by the
National Institute of Justice for law enforcement. This is still the only known airfoil projectile. Although
this projectile has been evaluated by ARL for the NIJ, no RAP rounds were tested in this series of tests.
Baton (foam, plastic, rubber, styrofoam or wooden). A baton is a projectile constructed of short, thick
material and relies on extended range impact for effectiveness. These munitions come in two distinct styles.
The first employs a single projectile designed to maximize ballistic stability and are either rubber,
Styrofoam or plastic and are direct fired only. The second style uses multiple cylinder-shaped projectiles.
Pellets (single, multiple large, and multiple small). These munitions employ one or more spherical
projectiles that rely solely on extended-range impact for effectiveness. They are categorized as either single
or multiple spherical projectiles. The single projectile variety varies in size from about .68 caliber to well
over 1 inch in diameter. The multiple projectile variety employs multiple small shot-like pellets similar to
the lethal buckshot counterpart. Depending upon the brand and model, pellets vary in diameter from about
0.25 inch to over 0.5 inch. These projectiles are most commonly manufactured from rubber or PVC of
varying degrees of hardness and come in a variety of sizes and hardness.
Pads (square, rectangular or round). Projectiles that employ a pouch containing a heavier material are
known as pad projectiles. These projectiles are among the oldest and most well known of the less-lethal
impact munitions. The pouches are commonly made of ballistic nylon or similar high-strength, resilient
material with silica, lead, or steel shot sewn inside. The pads may be round, rectangular, or square and are
folded longitudinally inside a shell casing. After launching the pads are intended to open in flight and strike
an adversary with one of the large flat sides. Some projectiles of this variety are saturated with a colored
dust or chemical agent to aid in identifying an adversary.
9
REPORT:
Sock Rounds. These projectiles commonly employ an open-ended, single fabric container filled with lead
shot that is tied, sewed or crimped to seal the shot in one end. The remainder of the material is either left
loose or cut into individual tails that trail and stabilize the projectile while in flight. Because most of these
munitions employ a single fabric container that resembles a stocking or sock, they are often referred to as
“sock rounds.”
Encapsulated. Any projectile that encloses a liquid, powder or other material with a membrane, protective
coating or shell, and disperses the agent upon impact is known as an encapsulated projectile. They are
distinguished from some older and more conventional chemical agent munitions in that they are capable of
striking a person without causing serious injury. Some encapsulated rounds are intended to cause pain, but
are designed to release excess energy by bursting which prevents penetration into the body. Others are a
hybrid, in that they are both an impact munition and a chemical delivery device. Encapsulated rounds are
usually fired directly at an adversary. However, those that employ a chemical agent may be just as effective
when striking a hard object in close proximity to an adversary. The distinguishing feature for all
encapsulated projectiles is the frangible nature of the projectile itself.
PROJECTILE CONFIGURATION - MUNITION ENHANCEMENTS
Fin-stabilization. Fin-stabilized projectiles employ rigid or semi-rigid vanes or fins to stabilize the
projectile in flight. Fin stabilization is most commonly found on baton type munitions where the rear of the
projectile has two or more rigid vanes or fins designed to keep the projectile straight and true in flight. The
characteristic rigid or semi-rigid fins at the rear of the projectile easily identify these munitions. The fins
may extend from the front portion of the projectile or be separated with a space between the front of the
projectile and the rear stabilizing fins.
Drag-stabilization. Some projectiles employ flexible tail ribbons (single or multiple) to provide stability
while in flight. They are most commonly baton and pad type munitions. Flexible tails improve ballistic
stability and prevent the tumbling and sailing effect. One version employs a conventional pad round with a
thin fabric tail sewn on one side. The most distinguishing feature of these type rounds is their distinctive
tails. These vary in length from about one inch to several inches.
10
REPORT:
The Measured Attributes
Data on 25 different attributes were collected or computed for each munition. These attributes are listed
below as well as attribute definitions, the relevance of the attribute and the data collection method used. The
results of the data collection effort are contained in the Findings section and a complete list of the attributes
is found in Appendices C and D. Each munition type has been assigned an identification lot number.
DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTES
Appendix C lists all of the descriptive data sorted by manufacturer and model.
Lot Number. The lot designation was assigned by the investigation team only for purposes of organizing
data collection efforts and indexing data.
Manufacturer. This attribute is the name of the manufacturer or developer. This data was collected to
enable the user to contact the manufacturer and obtain further information regarding a specific munition
and/or for purchase. The information was gathered from catalogs, web sites, brochures, or other
advertisements.
Munition Model/Nomenclature. This attribute lists the model name and number or nomenclature provided
by the manufacturer or developer to precisely identify a specific munition. As users of extended-range
impact munitions know, some of these munitions are often designated by alphanumeric code and/or share
common names with other brands. Each munition was precisely identified with the specific name and/or
number used for ordering. Whenever possible, this information was obtained directly from the manufacturer
or developer. Other methods included invoice, packing slip, catalogs, specification sheets, web site,
brochures, or advertisements.
Launcher. This attribute lists the launcher used for each munition (in this case, 12 gauge shotgun).
Launchers for less-lethal impact munitions come in a variety of sizes, shapes and caliber. As was noted
earlier, many were originally designed and intended for use as lethal munition launchers. Because the
launcher can often be the most expensive component of a less-lethal system, the purchase of munitions that
can be launched from devices already in an arsenal can be a major factor in selecting munitions. This
information was obtained directly from specification sheets and brochures provided by the manufacturers
and developers.
Cartridge size. This attribute contains the length of a cartridge. In the case of the tested 12 gauge rounds,
most are 2.5 inches in length. Some 37/40mm munitions come in 4-, 4.8-, 5-, and 8-inch lengths. The
length may require or prohibit the use of a particular brand/model of launcher. Because the launcher can be
the most expensive component of a less-lethal system, the purchase of munitions that can be launched from
devices already in an arsenal can be a major factor in selecting munitions. This information was obtained
directly from specification sheets and brochures provided by the manufacturers and developers.
Type and Configuration. These attributes describe the physical make-up and shape of the projectile. In
those munitions that used pellets, large pellets were defined as those that had a diameter of 0.5 inch or
greater, and small pellets had diameters less than 0.5 inch . Less-lethal impact munitions come in a variety
of types and configurations, each attempting to provide some specific advantage. Users can use the
11
REPORT:
configuration for a specific munition to determine the suitability of a particular munition for a given
purpose. As an example, some munitions discriminate between individual targets (they are designed to
strike a single individual at a given range) and others are area munitions (designed to impact more than one
person in close proximity at a given range). This information was obtained directly from specification
sheets and brochures provided by the manufacturers and developers.
Material. This attribute describes the primary material that is used to construct the projectile. Projectiles for
less-lethal impact munitions come in a variety of materials, such as rubber, lead, steel, silica, and plastic.
Precise environmental and human effect data is seldom available for these munitions and, as a result, the
composition of a projectile can become a factor for selection. It should be noted that only the predominant
material was identified. Many munitions are composites, such as encapsulated and pad munitions. This
information was obtained directly from specification sheets and brochures provided by the manufacturers
and developers.
Number of projectiles. This attribute provides the number of projectiles contained in each less-lethal impact
round. The number of projectiles in a single round often determines whether a munition is intended for use
against a single target or as an area munition. This attribute provides strong clues for such decisions as the
appropriateness of a munition for an intended purpose, how it should be employed, the likelihood of
collateral damage, and so forth. This information was obtained directly from specification sheets and
brochures provided by the manufacturers and developers.
Field identification. This attribute lists the method(s) by which a munition is distinguished from other
munitions and specific identification attributes for each muniton (casing color, text color and the ability to
visually identify the projectile within the casing). This information is important because many of these
munitions are launched from existing launching devices sometimes during periods of reduced visibility and
they look identical to their lethal counterpart. Furthermore, different configurations for less-lethal
munitions, especially those made by the same company, are usually distinguished from each other using
only the model numbers or information labels on the sides of the canisters. In field applications, this can
become troublesome, especially in low-light conditions or when labels are obscured or obliterated from
handling. Some manufacturers have attempted to assist in identifying particular munitions by using color,
shape, tactile identification (bumps, raised letters, etc.) and other methods. This information was obtained
directly from specification sheets and brochures provided by the manufacturers and developers and/or by
personal observation.
Market Availability. This attribute distinguishes between munitions commercially available and those
under development. Munitions are constantly being improved and new munitions are developed. Whether a
munition is currently available or will be available in the near future will have an impact on a user’s
decision, not only on what to purchase but the quantity. For example, a user might purchase a small number
of munitions as a near-term solution, with the intention of buying a larger number when an improved
version becomes available. This information was obtained directly from the manufacturer, developer or
published price lists and brochures. For purposes of this study, munitions not expected to be commercially
available within 24 months were not considered.
12
REPORT:
Market Retail Price. This attribute lists the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price for a single projectile.
Volume discounts were not considered. The prices listed were accurate at the time of the data collection
effort (December 2006). However, the user should check with the manufacturer for the current price. The
price of a shotgun-launched extended-range impact munition can exceed the price of its lethal counterpart
by as much as ten times. Furthermore, for every munition purchased for field use, four or five are purchased
for training and qualification purposes. Consequently, the price of a particular munition can become a
critical factor in the decision of which munition should be purchased and can be the deciding factor between
two similar munitions. The prices were obtained from the manufacturers, developers, catalogs, websites and
brochures for the purchase of a single projectile.
Special features. This attribute identifies any special features for a particular munition. As less-lethal
munitions continue to be improved, some manufacturers and developers have provided additional features
to enhance the use of a particular munition. For instance, some munitions contain dye-markers or coloreddust for “tagging” suspects for later arrest or are “liquid-filled” so that chemical agents can be employed,
and so forth. This information was obtained directly from specification sheets and brochures provided by
the manufacturers and developers.
Weight. This attribute measured the weight of the projectile(s), powder and assembled munition to the
nearest tenth of a grain (1 grain = 64.79891 milligrams; 1 ounce = 437.5 grains). Each munition was
separated from its canister, wadding, and other components and weighed using a digital grain scale. If a
munition employed more than one projectile, all projectiles were weighed simultaneously to gather total
projectile weight
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
Appendix D lists all of the performance data sorted by manufacturer and model.
Accuracy. An accurate munition is one that impacts near the point of aim. Inaccurate munitions can be
attributed to random errors (e.g., changes in wind speed and direction). It is one of two measurements that
are indicators of how well a given munition can reliably strike an aim point at a given range. The ability to
strike a target with any less-lethal projectile is a critical factor for selecting and employing a particular
munition. Five to nine rounds of each type of munition were fired at the target plate at range of 25 feet.
Accuracy was computed as the distance of the mean point of impact (MPI) of a number of rounds to the
point of aim (POA). In Appendix E (Projectile Impact Plots), the red dot indicates the POA. The MPI is
represented with an “X.”
Precision. The companion attribute to accuracy is precision. This is the degree of dispersion or scatter of a
number of munitions when aimed at the same point. A precise munition one that has very little scatter. A
lack of precision can be attributed to inherent (systemic) errors (e.g., improper site alignment). The concept
behind this approach is that the smaller the amount of dispersion the higher degree of confidence in being
able to hit where aimed. It is important to note that accuracy is dependent upon precision – it is not
possible to reliably achieve accuracy without precision. Higher precision reduces the likelihood of
unintended consequences. Precision was measured as the diameter of a circle encompassing all impacts
(shot group size).
13
REPORT:
Muzzle Velocity. This is the velocity of the munition as it leaves the muzzle of the weapon. This attribute is
particularly important to the user in case of accidental discharge at point blank range. Velocity at a
minimum distance can be used to calculate where the level of injury becomes unacceptable to a human.
Variations in muzzle velocity have a direct impact on all of the other measured attributes. Ideally, there
would be little to no variation in the muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity was measured using one of two
ballistic light screens (Oehler System 83). Muzzle velocity variations (MVV) were calculated as the ratio of
the standard deviation of the muzzle velocities of successive rounds to the average mean muzzle velocity
and expressed as a percentage.
Velocity at Range. Ideally, this is acquired by a distinct automated data acquisition system or subsystem.
For these tests, instrumentation limitations prevented the acquisition of more velocity data than that at the
muzzle. Nevertheless, this velocity was computed considering the actual projectile weight and using
standard atmospheric ballistics. Differences in projectile diameter and the ballistic and drag coefficients
between projectiles, however, were not considered for this study. Achieved velocity at range may be
significantly less for some munitions based on experienced drag.
Kinetic Energy at Impact. This was computed by multiplying one half of the mass by the velocity squared
at impact (KEimpact=½mv2impact).
Relative Force. Evaluating force data has many challenges, not the least of which is accounting for the
many ways energy is distributed as the projectile impacts the target plate. Additionally, collecting force as a
function of time and impact surface is extremely difficult to measure and correlation to any human effect is
still elusive. No attempt was made to translate collected force data to that which would be imparted to the
human body. Nor was any attempt made to relate the amount of force to a probability of injury. The force
data collected represents the total force imparted to force transducers on the impact plate. These forces were
then normalized on a relative scale from one to ten (1-10) to present a relative sense of the force imparted
by these projectiles.
14
REPORT:
Test Methodology
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
The physical testing of the munitions were conducted at the test firing range of the National Firearms and
Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU) in Altoona, Pennsylvania and at Penn State’s University Park Campus.
These high quality ranges included ballistic screens and high speed photography supplemented with the
ARL Impact Measurement System (AIMS). See Figure 1 (Test Range and Instrumentation).
Figure 1 – Test Range and Instrumentation
Long Rifle Rest. This is a precision, passive device that holds, fires, and recoils as nearly like the human
hand as possible (Figure 2). It eliminates the human inconsistencies that ordinarily make weapon testing
unreliable. It allows for repeatability in the positioning of the weapon/launcher and therefore the isolation of
weapon/projectile precision and accuracy measurements.
Figure 2 – Shotgun in Long Rifle Rest
15
REPORT:
Laser Sight. This is a simple laser pointing device that virtually extends the barrel
in a line to the target (Figure 3). It is fixed to the launcher Weaver rail or inside the
bore of the weapon and is used to confirm the alignment of the launcher after each
firing series.
Figure 3 – Site-Lite's
SL-100 Laser
Boresighter and
Aimshot Cal .223
Laser Boresight.
Ballistic Chronograph & Ballistic Screens. The chronograph is an instrument that
records time with great accuracy. The ballistic chronograph is a device that can
use a number of technologies (Doppler radar, lasers, sound) to index the time at
various points in their ballistic trajectories of small arms and large caliber
projectiles (velocity measurement). The specific system we used is the Oehler
System 83 which uses two Model 57 Infrared Photoelectric Screens located near
the muzzle (Figure 4). The screens are used to detect projectile passage through a
reference plane. They use an infrared light source mounted at the top of the screen
and a series of photodetectors mounted in the base. The system displays
instrumental velocity between the two primary screens. A third screen can be
located at the midpoint between the other two. The proof channel displays the
difference in velocity measured between first and middle screens referenced to the
velocity measured between first and last screens.2
High Speed Cameras. These highly light sensitive, high speed digital video
cameras are used in many research and development disciplines including military
test range and ballistic applications (Figure 5). They allow for slow-motion
analysis of fast-occurring events. In this instance, we were able to isolate the
response of the munitions upon encountering the impact panel.
ARL Impact Measuring System (AIMS). This device, designed and fabricated at
Penn State ARL, is essentially a ballistic plate instrumented with force indicating
load cells to capture peak force for each projectile. Data was collected and
recorded with a high speed data acquisition board.
TEST DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Test Data Reduction. With respect to the AIMS, the firing test data was captured
electronically via a National Instruments PCI-4472 model card with 8
simultaneously sampled analog input channels. The device specifications
included: 24-bit resolution; 110 dB dynamic range; 102.4 kS/s maximum sampling
rate; 45 kHz alias-free bandwidth; +/-10 V range; IEPE conditioning software
configurable. Data from load cells and accelerometers in the form of voltages
were converted into appropriate engineering units using the transducer calibrations.
Test Data Controls. The data, collected as voltages, weres converted into
engineering units as per transducer type. The data went into a table, where the
type of transducer and its physical location on the plate were referenced. The data
could then be examined to determine whether it was representative of the physical
2
Figure 4 – Model 57
Infrared Photoelectric
Screen
Figure 5 – Phantom
Version 7 Camera
http://www.oehler-research.com/ism83.html, downloaded 26 April 2005.
16
REPORT:
projectile impact. If so, then the total force could be determined by the equations
that represent the system. If the data appeared anomalous, then that data set was
eliminated from consideration.
Table 1 – Control of Variables
VARIABLES
HOW CONTROLLED
- Launcher Position and Orientation
- Ransom Rest
- Ambient Temperature
- Test Range Environmental Controls
- Wind Velocity
- Humidity
- Muzzle Alignment
- Laser Sight
Data Collection. Software used to support the testing and analysis included National Instruments Labview,
Mathworks, Matlab 7.0, MS Office 2003 and MS Excel 2002. The tests were performed using the normal
input that was developed in the laboratory, and with the spreadsheet that was developed concurrently. The
computer and data acquisition systems were safely positioned behind the firing line. The data collection
procedures were straightforward. Prior to the commencement of the test all of the munitions were
inventoried and segregated. Each munition was assigned an identification lot number and all of the
descriptive attributes were recorded on an MS Excel spreadsheet. Each munitions was weighed, then
disassembled and the components weighed.
The test results are discussed in the following section and the data can be found in the appendices.
17
REPORT:
18
REPORT:
Evaluation Results –Shotgun Munitions
In this section of the report, selected attributes are discussed and presented in graphic form. For most
munitions, our sample size was nine (n=9). A tenth munition was used to determine the component
weights.
FINDINGS
Weight. Projectile weights varied from just under 100 grains (6.48 grams) to over 600 grains (38.88 grams).
This did not include the weight of the powder, casing or wadding material. The majority of projectile
weights clustered around these two values. There did not appear to be a correlation between weight and
projectile accuracy (Figure 6).
Figure 6 – Accuracy vs Projectile Weight
Precision. There are several interesting ways to
examine the precision and accuracy data. The first might
be to examine all of the precision data broken down by
the configuration of the projectile as a variable. The
purpose of such an examination would be to look for
configuration types that are consistently precise (small
shot group). This is shown in Figure 7. Not surprisingly,
it can be seen that there is a large range of dispersions
for the pelleted munitions, which are meant to be area
weapons. The baton-type munitions, particularly those
with fin stabilization, appear to provide the most
precision (with one exception). These projectile
configurations are available from several manufacturers.
In this case then, the deciding criteria for the user might
be ease of identification in the field or cost.
Figure 7 – Precision vs Munition Configuration
19
REPORT:
The selection of 18 inches as the width of an “average” male torso was arrived at by examining target sizes
during the original ABD Study in 2001. Conversations with two target manufacturers revealed that the size
of the silhouette targets used by military and police is based upon figures at least 40-50 years old. The 18
inches distance is an “average” man across the front or back between the armpits. It excludes the arms
because shots, even lethal shots, on appendages are not very effective. The “B-21” target is used by the
LASD and is only 16.5 inches across. The “B-27” target, used in the mid-west and east coast, measures
about 20.5 inches.
Twenty-nine shotgun impact munitions were fired at a range of 25 feet. Nineteen (19) of those were single
projectile munitions (only 18 of which produced good data). The remaining ten munitions were multiple
projectile munitions, thus accuracy and dispersion data were based on the lead projectile through the light
screen system. Of the eighteen single projectile munitions yielding data:
•
•
•
Accuracy. An accurate munition is one that impacts near the point of aim. Accuracy cannot be achieved
without some level of precision. In this case, of the 17 munitions with sufficient precision to hit an 18 inch
wide target (9 inch radius) at 25 feet, 14 had an accuracy of less than two inches (Figure 8 – left of the red
dotted line) and 11 had an accuracy of one inch or less (within boundary of green dotted line). Furthermore,
there does not appear to be a strong correlation between any particular variable and accuracy.
9
Figure 8 – Accuracy vs Precision
20
REPORT:
Muzzle Velocity. The muzzle velocity (velocity of the munition as it leaves the muzzle of the weapon) of
each munition wasmeasured and compared to several other attributes. While the sample size is very small,
there appears to be some relationship between muzzle velocity and a munition’s achieve accuracy. As can
be seen in Figure 9 and its trend line (red), higher velocity munitions seem to provide relatively better
accuracy. Other attributes can similarly be compared to muzzle velocity.
Figure 9 - Accuracy vs Muzzle Velocity
Muzzle Velocity Variation (MVV). For purposes of this study, MVV is defined as the standard deviation in
muzzle velocity of a number of rounds expressed as a percentage of the average mean muzzle velocity
(SD/MVAVG). Muzzle velocity variation (MVV) is a function of weapon strength and ammunition
efficiency. Weapon strength is influenced by wear of the gun barrel, weapon manufacturing tolerances and
reaction/response to recoil. In this case, the same weapon was used for testing all munitions and was fixed
in a long rifle rest. The measured MVV for this experiment, therefore provides a relative comparison of the
ammunition efficiency of each of the munitions. This relative value is an indicator of manufacturer
tolerances in the propellant efficiency (consistency of powder) and projectile efficiency (consistency of
weight and manufacturing tolerances for the projectile). Once again, ideally there would be little to no
variation in the muzzle velocity. Intuitively, one might expect that munitions with lower variations in
muzzle velocity would have correspondingly better accuracy. Figure 10 shows that with some exceptions,
there appears to be such a relationship. Of the twenty-five munitions yielding reliable data:
•
Twenty-four (96%) had a MVV below 15% of the average muzzle velocity;
•
Seventeen (68%) had a MVV at 10% or below of the average muzzle velocity; and
•
Only two (8%) had a MVV below 5% of the average muzzle velocity.
21
REPORT:
Y VARIATION
Figure 10 – Accuracy vs Muzzle Velocity Variation
Relative Force. The relative force imparted to the target plate was measured for the munitions at a range of
25 feet. These measurements must be used with caution. There has been no attempt to correlate the
measurements with impacts on the human body nor has there been an attempt to correlate the measurements
to injury probabilities. However, the measurements do provide a relative ranking of the impacts of the
various munitions. As one would expect, pelleted munitions achieve a relatively low impact force and the
baton and sock rounds achieve the highest relative force. This is likely a function of weight, powder and
ballistic stability for those munitions (Figure 11).
Figure 11 – Munition Type and Relative Force
22
REPORT:
Retail Price. The prices were obtained from the manufacturers, developers, catalogs, websites and
brochures for the purchase of a single projectile. Prices ranged from a low of $3.00 to a high of $7.35 per
round. Although many manufacturers offer volume discounts, they were not considered for this study.
An important consideration in the purchase of any type of ammunition is cost, and the smart user is
interested in receiving the most “bang for his buck”. As was discussed earlier, the price of a shotgunlaunched less-lethal munitions can exceed the price of its lethal counterpart by as much as ten times.
Furthermore, for every munition purchased for field use, four or five are purchased for training and
qualification purposes. Consequently, the price of a particular munition can become one critical factor in the
decision of which munition should be purchased and can be the deciding factor between two similar
munitions. To make those types of decisions it is important to arrive at the desired conclusion through
proper comparison of the data. In the case of retail price, it may be important to compare prices after you
have selected the ammunition type and launcher. As can be seen in Figure 12, there appears to be no
correlation between the cost of some of these muntions and their achieved accuracy.
Figure 12 – Munition, Price and Accuracy
23
REPORT:
OBSERVATIONS
Notice of non-endorsement. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Institute for Non-Lethal
Defense Technologies, through Penn State’s Applied Research Lab, do not endorse any specific product
that was tested during the course of this study or is mentioned in this report. The Attribute-Based Evaluation
(ABE) is not intended to indicate measures of effectiveness, make assumptions about minimum and
maximum ranges, identify potential injury, or make any recommendations as to which brand is more suited
for a given purpose. Nevertheless, this study is intended to provide essential data in a usable and
understandable format to allow law enforcement and military personnel to reasonably compare like
information and make an informed decision on the suitability of a particular munition for a given purpose.
Although it would be inappropriate to endorse some munitions or manufacturers, it would be equally
inappropriate if we did not pass on some of our observations about these munitions. Bear in mind that in
most cases, only nine rounds of each type of munitions were fired. These observations, therefore, are
reflective of less-lethal shotgun munitions taken as a whole and not about any particular munition type.
Precision. We were struck by the disparity of the precision of these munitions. As can be seen from the
data, some configurations were significantly more precise than others. Of the eighteen single projectile
munitions yielding data:
•
•
•
Reliability. There may be very few things more embarrassing and, more importantly, dangerous to a law
enforcement officer than a misfire. We observed no misfires, which is in stark contrast to our previous
study of 2001 where we observed several misfires where the firing pin had actually struck the primer.
Some of the munitions containing large amounts of wadding material left significant amounts of charred
material in the bore. However, there were no fouled bores where the projectile remained lodged in the
barrel after firing – another extremely dangerous situation. Once again, this is in contrast to the study in
2001 where a number of munitions produced fouled bores. In a calm test environment, the occurrences of
fouled bores can be readily observed. In a tactical environment, detection of a projectile that remains lodged
in the barrel may be more difficult to detect, which presents an extremely dangerous situation. The barrel
must be cleared before another round is fired.
We observed some large variations in the relative force imparted for a single type of munition. Some
munitions were very consistent in that their maximum force applied was only marginally higher (1.1 times)
the minimum force applied. Some munitions experienced ratios much higher (maximum force was 2 to 3
times higher than minimum force).
HOW TO USE THE DATA
This data can be used by law enforcement to supplement data they have gathered for making decisions on
purchase of munitions based on particular needs, priorities and constraints within their specific jurisdictions.
Data within the spreadsheets can be sorted by any important attribute (or multiple attributes). As an
24
REPORT:
example, if the ability to visually identify the munition was the most important aspect, the data could be
sorted to identify all of those with visual identification attributes. If price were the next most important
aspect, then that group could be further organized by price. Those that fell within the appropriate price
threshold could then be sorted by accuracy, muzzle velocity variation or precision. This is merely meant to
illustrate a method to use the data to arrive at informed decisions regarding less-lethal impact munitions. It
is our intent to continue to grow the body of data on a variety of these munitions.
CONCLUSION
ARL Penn State’s Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
recognized the need to conduct a follow-on evaluation of less-lethal impact munitions. As with the previous
study, and with the assistance of the National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU), some hard
work, imagination and a very little funding completed this report. This report and data are available to
anyone interested via the INLDT web site. This report is a snapshot. The attribute data will change as the
manufacturers continue to improve these munitions. However, the data and observations found within
report should provide value to the law enforcement and military communities.3
3
Data tables in spreadsheet format accompany this document and are available at http://www.nldt.org/.
25
REPORT:
Appendix A – Participants and Points of Contact
PENN STATE
THE LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
JOHN M. KENNY
P.O. Box 30
State College, PA 16802-0030
Phone: (814) 863-9401
Fax:
(814) 865-9830
Email: [email protected]
CHARLES “SID” HEAL
Office of the Undersheriff
4700 Ramona Blvd
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2169
Phone: (323) 526-5466
Fax:
(323) 415-3840
EDWARD L. HUGHES
P.O. Box 30
Phone: (814) 863-1133
Fax:
(814) 865-9830
PETER A. KAUFMAN
P.O. Box 30
Phone: (814) 863-1151
Fax:
(814) 863-7842
DAVID DEVILBISS
P.O. Box 30
Phone: (814) 863-7775
Fax:
(814) 865-3287
THE NATIONAL FIREARMS AND TACTICAL
TRAINING UNIT
TIMOTHY RIFFEL
Armory Operations
320 E. Chestnut Ave
Altoona, PA 16601
Phone: (814) 946-9981 (Ext 141)
Fax:
(814) 946-9995
STEPHEN SALLA
Test Range
320 E. Chestnut Ave
Altoona, PA 16601
Phone: (814) 946-9981 (Ext 169)
Fax:
(814) 946-9995
JEFFREY CAMPBELL
Test Range
320 E. Chestnut Ave
Altoona, PA 16601
Phone: (814) 946-9981 (Ext 169)
Fax:
(814) 946-9995
A-1
REPORT:
Appendix B – Manufacturers and Points of Contact
ALS TECHNOLOGIES
DAN ALVIREZ
P.O. Box 525
1103 Central Avenue
Bull Shoals, Arkansas 72619
Phone: (870) 445-8746
Fax:
(870) 445-6191
CQB SUPPLY
234 Morrell Road
Suite 360
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919-5876
Phone: (615) 467-4402
COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS
BOBBIE BUCHOLZ
388 Kinsman Road
Jamestown, Pennsylvania 16134
Phone: (724) 932-2177
Fax:
(724) 932-2166
LIGHTFIELD LESS-LETHAL REASEARCH
NEIL KEEGSTRA
P.O. Box 162
Adelphia, New Jersey 01170
Phone: (732) 780-2437
Fax:
(732) 780-2437
MK BALLISTICS
MICHAEL KEITH
2707 Santa Ana Valley Road
P.O. Box 1097
Hollister, California 95023
Phone: (831) 636-1504
Fax:
(831) 636-8657
Toll Free: (800) 345-1504
B-1
REPORT:
Appendix C – Descriptive Data Table (by Manufacturer and Model)
C-1
REPORT:
Appendix C – Descriptive Data Table (by Manufacturer and Model)
continued
C-2
REPORT:
Appendix D – Performance Data Tables
Table D-1 (Performance Data Summary)
D-1
REPORT:
Table D-2 (Muzzle Velocity and Variation Data)
D-2
REPORT:
Table D-3 (Impact Location Data)
D-3
REPORT:
Table D-3 (Impact Location Data – continued)
D-4
REPORT:
Appendix E – Projectile Impact Plots
E-1
E-2
PROJECTILE IMPACT PLOT
10
2581 SUPER SOCK BEAN
BAG
Combined Tactical Systems
(CTS)
• Point of Aim (POA)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
1232 ENERGY-PRO IMPACT
PROJECTILES
CBQ Supply
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E-3
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT B
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E- 4
10
1220 WASP IMPACT
PROJECTILES
CBQ Supply
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT C
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
ALS 1200 HYDRO-KINETIC
IMPACT BAG
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E-5
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT D
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E- 6
10
9
ALS 1201H-40 POWER
PUNCH BEAN BAG HIGH 40
GRAM
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT E
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
ALS 1202-LE RUBBER FIN
ROCKET STABILIZED
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E-7
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT F
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E-8
10
ALS 1202-HV RUBBER FIN
ROCKET STABILIZED
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT G
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
ALS 1212 PEN-PREVENT
TAIL STABILIZED
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E -9
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT H
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 10
10
4900 RB-1-FS FIN
STABILIZED
MK Ballistic Systems
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
4023 AERO SOCK
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 11
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT K
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 12
10
4025 AERO DRAG
STABILIZED TRAINING
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
4024 QT-4 AERO SOCK
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 13
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT M
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 14
10
4026 QT-4 AERO SOCK
LEAD FREE
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT N
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
(CTS)
2552 STING BALLS (18)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 15
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 16
10
(CTS)
2553 STING BALL HV (18)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT P
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
(CTS)
2555 STING BALL (3)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 17
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT Q
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 18
10
ALS 1203 TRI-DENT (3
BALL)
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT R
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
ALS 1204 HORNET'S NEST
(20 BALL)
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 19
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT S
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 20
10
4810 RB-12 LOW VELOCITY
RUBBER BUCKSHOT
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
4830 RB-24 RUBBER
BUCKSHOY HV
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E -21
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT U
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 22
10
4700 RB-2 RUBBER BATON
(2) HV
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT V
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
4710 RB-2-LV (2)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E -23
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT W
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 24
10
4800 RB-12 RUBBER HV
BUCKSHOT (12)
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT X
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
ALS 1216-INERT OC
RUBBER FIN STAB ROCKET
ALS Technologies
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E -25
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT Y
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 26
10
(CTS)
2588 LAPD SUPER SOCK
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT Z
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4
10
LSSL-12 SUPER STAR
Lightfield LLR Corporation
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 27
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT AA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 28
9
8
7
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
LOT BB
REPORT:
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-5
NO DATA
4
-6
-7
-8
-10 -9
`
THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECTILE (PHYSICAL PROFILE
AND WEIGHT) PREVENTED DATA ACQUISITION AT THE
IMPACT PLATE AND THROUGH THE BALLISTIC LIGHT
SCREENS.
5
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
LSLR-12 STAR LITE
10
6
10
LMRS-12 MID RANGE
RUBBER SLUG
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
E - 29
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT CC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
E - 30
10
LERS-12 EXTENDED RANGE
RUBBER SLUG
• Impact Location
• Mean Point of
Impact (MPI)
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
`
-1
-2
-3
-4
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10 -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
GRID SCALE : 1 INCH
LOT DD
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPORT:
-5
4

Projectile Impact Plots

Transcription

Similar documents

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and

The Chinese QLZ87 Automatic Grenade Launcher Less

RADWAY GREEN ON SHOW TO VIPs

105MM M1130

Egils.Milbergs Testimony 12-6-2010

Sexy Shoeis - SHOEI Premium Helmets

Trebuchet and Projectile Dynamics

page31 - 週刊NY生活デジタル版

CHEYTAC ® INTERVENTION™ CHEYTAC LONG

Urban COPper® Law Enforcement and Military Specialty Ammunition