Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 50, Issue 8, pp 1245–1251 | Cite as

Perforation of 7075-T651 Aluminum Armor Plates with 7.62 mm APM2 Bullets

  • M. J. Forrestal
  • T. BørvikEmail author
  • T. L. Warren


We conducted an experimental and analytical study to better understand the mechanisms and dominant parameters for 7.62 mm APM2 bullets that perforate 7075-T651 aluminum armor plates. The 7.62-mm-diameter, 10.7 g, APM2 bullet consists of a brass jacket, lead filler, and a 5.25 g, ogive-nose, hard steel core. The brass and lead were stripped from the APM2 bullets by the targets, so we conducted ballistic experiments with both the APM2 bullets and only the hard steel cores. These projectiles were fired from a rifle to striking velocities between 600 and 1,100 m/s. Targets were 20 and 40-mm-thick, where the 40-mm-thick targets were made up of layered 20-mm-thick plates in contact with each other. The measured ballistic-limit velocities for the APM2 bullets were 1% and 8% smaller than that for the hard steel cores for the 20 and 40-mm-thick targets, respectively. Thus, the brass jacket and lead filler had a relatively small effect on the perforation process. Predictions from a cylindrical cavity-expansion model for the hard steel core projectiles are shown to be in good agreement with measured ballistic-limit and residual velocity data. The results of this study complement our previous paper with 5083-H116 aluminum target plates in that the ultimate tensile strength of 7075-T651 is about 1.8 times greater than that of 5083-H116. We also present a scaling law that shows a square root relationship between ballistic-limit velocity and plate thickness and material strength.


Aluminum armor plates 7.62 mm APM2 bullets Experimental study Perforation equations Validation 



The financial support of this work from the Structural Impact Laboratory (SIMLab), Centre for Research-based Innovation (CRI) at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Børvik T, Forrestal MJ, Warren TL (2009) Perforation of 5083-H116 aluminum armor plates with ogive-nose rods and 7.62 mm APM2 bullets. Exp Mech. doi: 10.1007/s 11340-009-9262-5 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forrestal MJ, Luk VK, Rosenberg Z, Brar NS (1992) Penetration of 7075-T651 aluminum targets with ogival-nose rods. Int J Solids Struct 29:1729–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gooch WA, Burkins MS, Squillacioti RJ (2007) Ballistic testing of commercial aluminum alloys and alternative processing techniques to increase the availability of aluminum armor. Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Spain: 981–988Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lambert JP, Jonas GH (1976) Towards standardization in terminal ballistic testing: velocity representation. Ballistic Research Laboratories, Report BRL-R-1852, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zukas JA (1990) High velocity impact dynamics. Wiley, New York, pp 424–427Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Structural Engineering, Structural Impact Laboratory (SIMLab), Centre for Research-based Innovation (CRI)Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Research and Development DepartmentNorwegian Defence Estates AgencyOsloNorway
  4. 4.AlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations