Um - that is what everyone uses for indoor back stops and steel plate shooting. The bullet basically fragments into nothing. Shooting plates at closer ranges occasionally you get a fragment pop back, but its going way slow and if you have glasses on, it won’t hurt you. Worst I have seen is a small nick that drew blood.
Kevlar won’t stop rifle velocities. A stack of old phone books wouldn’t be too bad.
If he is using aluminum or lead or copper plated lead, I it should do the following. I would avoid steel core bullets.
I was thinking of these relatively low velocity projectiles made of hard materials, where surely there is a danger of ricochet? AR500 targets are designed to destroy a bullet by pulverisation but there is a risk of ricochet.
Out of curiosity I read the Wikipedia article which mentions this (also, referring to some replies to my post above, I notice that they correctly use pulverisation not vaporisation - evidence that the builder of this thing hasn’t read it.)
For short range testing of guns producing low velocity projectiles I’ve always understood that absorbtion is the correct approach, though obviously this would not work for modern high-energy rifles. For experiments using nonstandard projectiles and guns, it is important to get the projectile into a region from which it is difficult to escape as the results can’t easily be predicted (one of the researchers at ERDE had a demonstration in which he fired a straw through a housebrick, just to make this point.)
With respect, you are still not understanding me.
I’m looking at this from the point of view of a researcher; you’re looking at it from the point of view of a target shooter.
You are working with a (fairly) reliable and predictable system, so provided you use a well characterised ammunition in a well characterised projectile weapon, you can assert that a particular type of target will deal safely with shot.
But this is neither. Someone is messing around with large amounts of electrical energy. To get to a well characterised device, a lot of work will be needed. If he starts from where he is, he will need increasing energy levels. He isn’t going to go from 3kJ to 30kJ kust like that (I hope). The LHC is a case in point.
There’s also the question of reliability. I don’t think a homebrew like this will ever be that predictable. There will be misfires.
Therefore, no matter what energy levels he works with, he will need an absorbtion type target to be safe. Anybody wanting to replicate what he is doing needs to take that into account.
holy smokes listen to that pneumatic system in the video, sounds like it could power a projectile with several times the force of the rail system!
now that i think of it, a pneumatic nail gun could shoot a similar sized metal projectile just as deep into that melon and if you covered in it pvc pipes and made a little digital display, you could easily have your own fake rail gun. just remember to use a torch to add plasma damage to your projectiles before your videos. this would be so so so easy to fake…lol.
a working rail gun even one with such low force is a pretty cool feat and something to build off of, I think it is neat, and can see how the technology will continue to progress.
this would be so so so easy to fake…lol.