Military


Penetrator Patents

Many U.S. Patents have been granted that describe penetrating projectiles and methods for manufacturing them.

A. Wernz and W Katzmaier, U.S. Pat. No. 5,794,320 (1998) describe a method for manufacturing a core bullet comprising the steps of: (1) machining the core shank and nose-end, (2) formfitting (swaging) a jacket blank to the core shank, and (3) final machining. Wernz and Katzmaier's method uses swaging to lock the jacket around the solid core. Their method leaves a hole in the jacket at the tip of the nose end. This "hollow-point" design will result in radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

G. Parsons et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,698,814 (1997) describe a penetrator comprising a long, hollow, monolithic cylindrical outer shell constructed of high strength steel and having a pointed nose. The cylinder contains an insensitive explosive that is separated into multiple segments by shock-attenuating materials so that one segment may detonate without destroying adjacent segments. The penetrating capability of this projectile is limited because Parson's design does not include a dense, heavy material insert of any type, which results in lower kinetic energy for the same diameter of the outer case.

A. Morrison, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,649,488 (1997) describes a non-explosive target directed reentry projectile comprising a hollow casing of heat shielding material, a kinetic energy core enclosed within the hollow casing, and an empty space between said casing and said core. Morrison's projectile will not penetrate deeply into hardened targets because: it does not have a monolithic case, the heavy metal core is not in contact with the case, and it does not carry any payload. Also, it is not designed to be gun launched at high velocity.

H. Carter, U.S. Pat. No. 5,621,186 (1997) describes a bullet comprising an outer jacket of copper alloy and an inner core made of lead. Carter's invention includes a hole in the tip of the nose end to encourage radial expansion of the jacket into multiple, flowered "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

M. Schilling, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,515,786 (1996) describes a projectile for attacking hard targets, which includes the use of a shaped explosive charge. This projectile uses shaped explosive charges to burn through thick steel plates. However, penetrators using shaped charges can not penetrate deeply (e.g. greater than 10 feet) in hardened concrete targets because their total kinetic energy is too low, for the same outer diameter.

R. Boual, U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,079 (1995) describes an armor-piercing fragmentation projectile comprising a copper ballistic shroud, a steel case, a steel penetrator, and a heavy metal ballast located behind the steel penetrator. Since Boual's projectile uses an outer case made up of two, joined interlocking pieces, his projectile will not penetrate as deeply as a penetrator made with a (stronger) one-piece, monolithic case. Also, Boual's projectile can not carry a payload.

L. Reed, U.S. Pat. No. 5,404,815 (1995) describes a design and method for fabricating a bullet, comprising the steps of: (1) advancing a swaging tool into the jacket to compress the jacket walls, (2) inserting a weighted material into the jacket, and (3) bending the jacket to form the shouldered lip. This invention, and method for making the bullet, describes an outer case with a hole at its tip. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the case into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. Also, this invention, and method for making the bullet, does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention, and method for making the bullet, does not include any type of payload.

J. White, U.S. Pat. No. 5,394,597 (1995) describes a method for making high velocity projectiles comprising the steps of: (1) forming a thin metal sheet into a cylindrical configuration; (2) inserting the formed metal cylinder into a metal jacket, and (3) compressing the formed metal cylinder in the metal jacket. This method for making the projectile produces an outer case with a hole at its tip. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the case into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. Also, this method does not produce a projectile having the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the method for making the projectile does not include any type of payload. This method results in a projectile design that can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because the dense core is made of soft lead, rather than a high strength W--Ni--Fe alloy.

A. Corzine and G. Eberhart, U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,552 (1994) describe a hunting bullet with a reinforced core comprising a unitary metal body having an ogival nose portion with an empty hollow point, and a dense core filling a cavity within said body, the dense core being of higher density and lower tensile strength than said body. Corzine and Eberhart's invention has a hole in the tip of its nose end to encourage radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

R. Anderson, U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,501 (1994) describes a frangible armor piercing incendiary projectile comprising a hard heavy metal penetrator rod core surrounded by a two-part outer case. Since Anderson's projectile uses an outer case made up of two, joined interlocking pieces, his projectile will not penetrate as deeply as a penetrator made with a (stronger) one-piece, monolithic case.

R. Boual, U.S. Pat. No. 5,291,833 (1994) describes an armor-piercing fragmentation subcaliber projectile having a body made of a dense material, a head adjacent a front part of the body, and a transmission element for transmitting axial thrust interposed between the body and the head, for causing multiple fragmentation by exerting a radial force on the body. Upon contact of the projectile with the target, the body moves forward relative to the conical core transmission element, thereby producing large radial forces on the body that fractures and fragments it. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Likewise, the radial forces on the body fracture it upon impact, reducing the ability to deeply penetrate because the case has disintegrated. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case, as in the present invention. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

E. Steiner, U.S. Pat. No. 5,162,607 (1992) describes a long rod, sub-caliber kinetic energy penetrator comprising a one piece elongated solid hard metal body having a plurality of axially spaced circumferential reinforcing bands mechanically interlocked with said body. The reinforcing bands stiffen the penetrator during impact with a target at oblique angles. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the nose end is made of a brittle heavy metal alloy, rather than high-strength steel, as in the present invention. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectile requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier.

U. Winter, U.S. Pat. No. 5,160,805 (1992) describes a projectile for a hand-held firearm comprising a dense core surrounded by a metal jacket which has a large hole in the nose end through which the core projects. Winter's invention describes an outer jacket (e.g. case) that has a hole in the tip of the nose end to encourage radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile impacts the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

A. Corzine and G. Eberhart, U.S. Pat. No. 5,127,332 (1992) describe a hunting bullet with reduced environmental lead exposure comprising a unitary metal body with an empty hollow point in the tip of the nose, and a dense metal core. Corzine and Eberhart's invention describes an outer jacket that has a hole in the tip of the nose end to encourage radial expansion of the jacket into "petal" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

R. Hemphill and D. Wert, U.S. Pat. No. 5,087,415 (1992) describe a high strength, high fracture toughness structural steel alloy that is age-hardenable. No penetrators, or munitions of any type, are described in their patent.

J. Nicolas and R. Saulnier, U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,869 (1991) describe a method for direct shaping of penetrating projectiles of high-density tungsten alloy comprising the steps of: (1) preparing a mass of W, Ni, Fe and Cu powders, (2) compacting the powders into a rough shaped blank, (3) sintering the blank to reach 17 g/cm.sup.3, and (4) work-hardening the blank by a rotary hammering operation. This method results in a projectile design that can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because it produces a penetrator consisting only of a brittle heavy-metal alloy, rather than a high-strength steel monolithic case that substantially surrounds a heavy-material ballast.

J. Denis, U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,139 (1991) describes a projectile intended to be fired by a fire-arm comprising a hard metal penetrator core, a soft heavy metal (e.g. lead) inertia block behind said core, and a ductile metal jacket over both the core and heavy metal inertia block. The performance of Denis' invention is limited by that fact that it does not carry any type of payload. Also, deep penetration may not be achieved because the lead inertia block is a much weaker material compared to the family of tungsten alloys. Finally, flight instabilities may occur since the lead inertia block in Denis' invention is located towards the rear of the projectile, rather than towards the front.

L. Ekbom, U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,138 (1991) describes an armor-piercing projectile with a spiculating core comprising an elongated arrow style projectile with a core surrounded by a body, where the hardness of the core is greater than twice the hardness of the body. In Ekbom's invention the outer case is made out of a heavy metal alloy, such as tungsten or uranium alloy. The brittle behavior of these alloys will prevent this projectile from achieving deep penetration in hardened targets, when compared to cases made of high-strength and high-toughness steel alloys. Also, the performance of Ekbom's invention is limited by that fact that it does not carry any type of payload.

R. Diel, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,063,855 (1991) describes a spear-like projectile arrangement comprising a sub-caliber heavy metal spear-like core surrounded by a segmented, discardable sabot that separates from the core after exiting the gun's nozzle. This projectile will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because the nose end is made of a brittle heavy metal alloy, rather than high-strength steel. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectile requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier, an extra piece of equipment.

S. Bilsbury, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,166 (1991) describes a low cost penetrator projectile comprising a hard metal penetrator core, a soft heavy metal slug (e.g. lead) body behind said core, and a metal jacket over both the core and heavy metal slug. The performance of Bilsbury's invention is limited by that fact that it does not carry any type of payload. Also, deep penetration may not be achieved because the lead slug is a much weaker material compared to the family of tungsten alloys, and because the high-strength penetrating core only partially surrounds the lead slug. Finally, flight instabilities may occur since the lead slug is not located towards the front of the projectile.

H. Carter, U.S. Pat. No. 4,879,953 (1989) describes a bullet comprising an outer jacket of copper alloy and an inner core made of lead. Carter's invention describes an outer jacket that has a hole in the tip of the nose end to encourage radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets.

P. Sommet, U.S. Pat. No. 4,878,434 (1989) describes a penetrating projectile with a hard core and ductile guide comprising a pointed core made of a hard or high density metal surrounded by a ductile metal guide around the rear portion of the core, with a caliber less than 40 mm. Sommet's projectile will not penetrate deeply because it contains no dense ballast. It also does not carry any type of payload.

H. Garrett, U.S. Pat. No. 4,841,867 (1987) describes a sub-caliber projectile comprising a solid metal core, a ballistic shroud piece, the core being surrounded by a discarding sabot that separates from the core after exiting the gun's nozzle. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

H. Carter, U.S. Pat. No. 4,793,037 (1988) describes a method of making a bullet comprising the steps of: (1) machining the outer jacket from a rod of copper-based material, (2) placing lead in the jacket, (3) melting the lead to promote bonding, and to anneal the jacket, (4) drawing the outside diameter of the jacket, and (5) forming the cylindrical portion into the desired ogive design while increasing the diameter of the base portion. This method for making the bullet produces an outer case with a hole at its tip. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the case into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. Also, this method does not produce a projectile having the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the method for making the projectile does not include any type of payload. This method results in a projectile design that can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because the dense core is made of soft lead, rather than a high strength W--Ni--Fi alloy.

H. Katzmann, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,753,172 (1988) describe a kinetic energy sabot projectile comprising a metal jacket and tip that contain an inert powdered filler material with a density greater than 10 g/cm.sup.3. This projectile design can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because the dense core is made of a soft, powdered filler material, rather than a high strength W--Ni--Fe alloy. The powdered filler core does not provide additional structural support to the case. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

J. Bocker, U.S. Pat. No. 4,703,696 (1987) describes a penetrator for a subcaliber impact projectile comprising a metal casing, a core of substantially higher density than the casing, said core being subdivided longitudinally into a multiplicity of elongate core parts, a boundary layer material interposed between said parts for impeding crack propagation within the core parts, and a ballistic shroud. In Bocker's invention the dense core parts are not bonded to the outer metal case because they are separated from the case by the boundary layer material. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core parts are loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectle requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier, which is an extra piece of equipment.

R. Romer, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,671,181 (1987) describe an anti-tank shell comprising a dense, heavy metal core partially surrounded by a steel case. This invention describes an outer case that does not surround the tip of the nose end. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the case into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, this projectile requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier, which is an extra piece of equipment.

Wallow and B. Bisping, U.S. Pat. No. 4,671,180 (1987) describe an armor-piercing inertial projectile comprised of three metallic bodies coaxially mounted one behind the other, surrounding a plurality of armor-piercing partial cores. This projectile will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

B. McDermott, U.S. Pat. No. 4,648,324 (1987) describes projectile comprising an elongated thick walled, multi-part case having a main body with a cavity and a nose with a bore that extends into the cavity. A heavy penetrating rod extends through the cavity into the bore, through which it is propelled by explosives in the cavity when the nose is detonated at impact. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case.

H. Luther, U.S. Pat. No. 4,643,099 (1987) describes an armored-piercing projectile comprising a heavy metal core, a hollow ballistic shroud, and a segmented sabot that separates from the core after exiting the gun's nozzle. This projectile will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because the nose end is made of a brittle heavy metal alloy, rather than high-strength steel, as in the present invention. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectile requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier.

R. Habbe, U.S. Pat. No. 4,619,203 (1986) describes an armor piercing small caliber projectile comprising a jacket, a case-hardened steel nose portion, and a lead core portion. This projectile design can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because the dense core is made of soft lead, rather than a high strength W--Ni--Fe alloy. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

P. Montier, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,616,569 (1986) describes an armor penetrating projectile comprising an outer case surrounding a inner core made of a stronger and more elastic material. The inner core is formed with a plurality of axially spaced thickened regions having cylindrical outer surfaces engaging the inner bore of the case. Since the hard core is not substantially surrounded by, and bonded to, the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case. This will reduce the performance of Montier's design. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

D. Davis and J. Robbins, U.S. Pat. No. 4,517,898 (1985) describe a highly accurate projectile for use with small arms comprising a completely solid core surrounded partially by a metal jacket, wherein the center of pressure is located substantially forward of the center of gravity. The outer metal jacket does not cover the rear end of the solid core. This projectile design can not achieve deep penetration into hardened targets because the dense core is made of soft lead, rather than a high strength W--Ni--Fe alloy. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Additionally, the projectile will not penetrate deeply because Davis' design uses a flat, blunt tip, rather than a pointed tip on the nose end.

B. Burns and W Donovan, U.S. Pat. No. 4,469,027 (1984) describe an armor piercing ammunition comprising a heavy metal core and a segmented sabot with both right-handed and left-handed threads that separates from the core after exiting the gun's nozzle. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the nose end is made of a brittle heavy metal alloy, rather than high-strength steel, as in the present invention. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectile requires the use of a discarding sabot carrier.

D. Hoffmann and O. Gunther, U.S. Pat. No. 4,444,118 (1984) describe an armor-piercing projectile comprising a ballistic shroud, an outer metallic hollow shell body, and a core made of a hard or heavy metal. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case.

L. Yuhash and C. Lanizzani, U.S. Pat. No. 4,301,737 (1981) describe multi-purpose kinetic energy projectile comprising a monolithic penetrator core surrounded by a plurality of flat blades disposed radially about said core, adapted to disperse radially outwardly by centrifugal force as said projectile exits from a gun. The blades act as an anti-personnel round, while the penetrator core is for piercing armor. The penetrating capability of this projectile is greatly reduced because much of the mass (and kinetic energy) is lost impact with the target because the plurality of flat blades are ejected radially, rather than travelling through the target. Also, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

J. Gilman, U.S. Pat. No. 4,256,039 (1981) describes an armor-piercing projectile comprising an axial core, a continuous strip of metallic glass wound about said core, and bonding means for joining the adjacent laminated surfaces. Gilman's invention describes an outer case with a hole at its tip. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. Also, Gilman's projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because their invention does not include any type of payload.

H. Mohaupt, U.S. Pat. No. 4,123,975 (1978) describes a penetrating projectile system for fracturing rock comprising a hard, dense core; a body sleeve made of a ductile material, and a nose cap made from a light weight, ductile material. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case.

D. Davis, U.S. Pat. No. 4,108,073 (1978) describes an armor piercing projectile with a long, thin penetrator core element having a tapered forward portion, surrounded by a monocoque jacket substantially surrounding said core, with a rigid inert filler material disposed between said core and said jacket for supporting said core. Davis' invention describes an outer jacket that does not cover the tip of the core. This "hollow-point" design results in radial expansion of the jacket into "petals" as the projectile travels through the target. Such "flowering" of the case upon impact severely limits the depth of penetration into hardened targets. Also, Davis' projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

W. Heincker, U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,678 (1978) describes a penetrator having a forward penetrator section, an aft follow-through section, and a mid frangible section which breaks on impact. The forward section fractures the target and the aft section follows through with the payload. This invention is designed to break into two main parts after impact. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because it does not use a dense, heavy metal ballast insert to increase the total kinetic energy (for the same diameter). Also, this projectile will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because it is designed to break into two parts after impact, rather than being constrained by a high-strength, monolithic steel case.

I. Barr, U.S. Pat. No. 4,015,528 (1977) describes a high density armor piercing projectile comprising a high density penetrator core with a tapered front end and a multi-part outer case in partial contact with the core. This projectile will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since the hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case, as in the present invention. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.

B. Pierre and C. Sabin, U.S. Pat. No. 3,948,184 (1976) describe a sub-caliber projectile shell where the shell includes a core wedged rearwardly in a shoe and is attached by a glue joint to a destructible plastic skirt fixed to the shoe. During acceleration imparted to the shell upon firing, the glue joint ruptures and liberates the core piece from the shell. Pierre and Sabin's projectile will not penetrate as deeply into a hardened target because their core piece separates from the shell during firing, rather than staying intimately bonded. Also, Pierre and Sabin's projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because their invention does not include any type of payload.

C. Riparbelli, U.S. Pat. No. 3,935,817 (1976) describes a penetrating spear comprising an elongated solid rod made of a hard metal having a length many times its diameter, with guiding fins. This projectile will not penetrate deeply because the nose end is made of a brittle heavy metal alloy, rather than high-strength steel, as in the present invention. In addition, the projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload. Also, this projectile requires the use of a rocket engine to accelerate it. It can not be gun launched at high velocities, as in the present invention.

H. Hillenbrand, U.S. Pat. No. 3,795,196 (1974) describes a projectile with a loose hard core and a multi-part, jointed case. Hillenbrand's invention will not penetrate as deeply as the present invention because the multi-part jointed case is not as strong as a single-piece, monolithic case. Also, since Hillenbrand's hard core is loose and not bonded to the case, then the core can not provide additional structural support to the case. Also, Hillenbrand's projectile does not have the ability to either explosively damage the target after penetration, or take data from an instrumentation package during (or after) penetration because the invention does not include any type of payload.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list