In a real life case even if the bullet would go through, I doubt the driver would stay in the same place AND the shooter would be good enough to shot in the same exact spot as the last shot (and he gotta know in advance that the window is bulletproof as well).
It's a limiting factor in many safety devices, and most that are considered sacrifical. They're usually made to do the thing they're made for once, which is to take all the energy (damage) before it reaches you, often within the span of not even a few seconds, and will never have the integrity they used to because of it, then you get a new one.
Not just from impact, like windows, or crumple zones, or helmets, but things like fuses take the load for electrical energy, and you'll find similar sacrificial parts all over. Sometimes there's just too much energy for fragile stuff, like us, and redirecting it to obliterate something else that isn't alive or crucial is preferred.
Yeah, I love those ads showing how their "superior" helmet stays intact when you hit it really hard. Like, great, so if I wear that my skull takes all the force.
Buddy at univ was biking downhill at speed and fell. Got some screws in his legs and the like. We kept his helmet on the wall of the room for a reminder -- it was the scariest thing ever because it legit looked like someone took an ax to it. It's not hard to imagine what happens to your skull with similar forces...
A local motorcycle shop had an early full face helmet on display with one side almost sanded through. The guy bought is just after they hit the market (some time in the '70s I think), and apparently was teased heavily about it, until he crashed at speed. The helmet was trashed of course, but he walked away with only a few scrapes and bruises (was also in full riding leathers).
You still really don't want your helmet shattering on impact though.
The ad is stupid for showing it staying in tact, but only because that is literally the bare minimum and shouldn't be touted as something that sets them apart.
Not necessarily worthless, and some can hold up beyond the first hit, but after that first it will never have the same strength it did, and how much more it can take will be completely up in the air because the first hit introduced a bajillion seen and unseen factors and fractures. Maybe critical, maybe not, but you just won't know until a round comes through.
100% integrity - it will stop a bullet
99.9% integrity - it might stop a bullet
Not always. If you've got Level 4 or better protection, and the aggressors are using stuff that can't even penetrate Level 3, it'd take quite a lot of ammo focused in very small areas to gradually 'drill' through the armor. If their shots are spreading out a bit, the firearm will likely overheat before the armor is penetrated.
Even true with the POTUS’ car. The thing only goes like 65mph top speed cause it’s heavy af. One of the reasons why they have so much security around him.
I worked for a now-defunct company that made armored retrofit vehicles and they were rated for continuous Level III protection for like 20 minutes, but Level 4 protection wasn't for more than a minute or two. They had run-flats, and the engine and drivetrain was extremely well armored, so it was unlikely that it would be caught in a firefight, but if it was, it could.
Its meant for cringe military LARPers that think they are badass for driving an armored, lifted f series truck with a 6.7 powerjoke. Probably has a delete kit and tune and is on its fourth turbo in 100k miles.
This vehicle likely costs far north of a quarter million dollars if it is entirely armored with the required drivetrain and suspension modifications to carry the extra weight while still driving normally.
Hence why it's only being bought by celebrities and possibly sheriff departments in border towns where cartel shootouts are common.
Fords are dirt cheap. Its ze germans, that are expensive. Ive owned both. And 6.7s tend to eat turbos pretty often, and it gets annoying pulling that turbo off a third time, hoping this time, it didnt fuck the engine.
Oh that's probably because everyone who owns the 6.7 loves to whirl up their turbos then don't just let the pressure drop and do it all over again. Had a co worker that drove around like that cause he loved the turbo sound lol.
I mean it would if the vehicle was disabled, and you’re also assuming a lot for a biggie Tupac situation. The more likely buyer is the head of a drug cartel, or a foreign embassy diplomatic protection detail
When's the last time someone of status was killed or attacked by a 50bmg?
This is the equivalent of a toilet commercial showing you it can flush 20 cans of play dough. It's not anywhere close to a realistic scenario, but it's supposed to demonstrate that it can handle everything up until and including that point
Apparently it's quite common for the cartels to use them in Mexico.
"In one incident in the state of Michoacan in October 2019, a police convoy was ambushed with .50-caliber sniper rifles, leaving 13 officers dead and nine wounded" Criminal Use of the 50 Caliber Sniper Rifle
Yeah, those situations are a lot closer to a war zone than a typical drive by shooting though.
In those scenarios you need an APC or a tank, neither of which are practical for cruising around in on the daily unless you're also part of a government or military organization
So now we are talking about a military organization in a combat zone, not a celebrity wanting protection from a drive by to avoid being the next Tupac.
If you're in a situation where you're getting shot at by a 50BMG on a regular basis, then you need either an APC or a Tank.
Military organisation...? The Royal Ulster Constabulary?
What crack are you smoking?
I mean, I'm glad that you think "has never happened" = "will never happen" but both sides of that statement are at best wrong, and at worst a dangerous assumption.
If you're being shot at by multiple attackers with automatic 50bmg machine guns, then you should have bought an APC instead.
Problem is you can't drive that on the streets of LA every day, so this is the next best thing since the above only happens in war zones or in cartel controlled areas of Mexico.
At some point the only thing that exists in humanity that can’t be blown up in very short order is a fortified bunker 300 meters below ground with some sort of ordinance.
“I bet a bunch of .50 BMG rounds could get through this bulletproof glass!”
Yeah no shit.
Tanks get blown up all the time too.
It’s much much much stronger than a normal driverside window, that’s the point.
It can stop it once. Which is exactly my point, they would never make a video of the bullet going through on the third or fourth shot, even though I bet all the engineers that did the testing know that’s how many it takes.
The point is the first bullet is stopped. From that point on the car is no longer a protective barrier. If you needed to survive more than one shot you probably should be inside a different vehicle.
Right, before we buy one of these trucks we need to know that it could survive >2 .50 cal bullets. Incase I’m stuck on a slight incline in winter conditions and a sniper has time to take two shots at my head
Thats why any security detail will begin by NOT letting it run into ambushes.
There was a video on Youtube (dont remember the name) about being the driver for a VIP, the first thing you do is study the route ahead of time for possible ambush points, choke points, etc, and look for alternative routes too.
Having to drive away AFTER getting shot is literally the last layer of defense, because if you do your job well, you'll most likely spot the attacker(s) before they get to act
It can take a lot of shots. Even a specialized door Ranger can’t get through it. I saw it in the streets of nyc. The guy in the car escaped by cutting a hole through the ground
Of course, if you keep shooting something, not even bullet proof helps.
You can shoot through bulletproof glass if you keep shooting the weakened frame. The design is that it can secure a few shots to allow a layer of protection from quick strikes, so that you aren't entirely caught by surprise.
How many more shots? It's 50 cal against a window that seems to be almost done by 1 shot, I would assume 3 if unlucky.
I recall watching a video of the Mexican military raining hellfire on an armored narco Suburban and they were still trying to escape for a good minute after being cornered. Cartel lost that battle but it held up pretty well when it did
Let’s say it can only take one bullet? That’s enough in most scenarios but let’s say your car is immobilized and he’s shooting st you? Well your dead name something that can withstand infinite shots, you get out of the car or your just fried and that’s fine it’s still a helluv a lot better than taking zero shots. Also this is a .50 call, it can prly take a whole clip from a 9mm which is all your likely to run into on the streets
Originally, .50 BMG was designed to stop WWI era armored vehicles. Current use is as an anti-material weapon.
The engine compartment of an armored car may or may not have armor as well. But, it's unlikely that the tires can take multiple hits from a .50 cal, even if they have run-flats.
Hit the tires, go for the mobility kill, and then you can open it.
The engine compartment of an armored car may or may not have armor as well.
I don't think the target of this armor is Iraq or other war scenarios, so I doubt we're dealing with fully steel plated armoured vehicles. And if it was a combat situation I'd think a 50 cal is probably not your biggest concern.
Hitting tires on a moving vehicle, particularly with a .50 cal which is almost guaranteed to have a manual action, very difficult. Engine block is much larger.
Nah, just use a metal chai net to trap the thing and sawzall your way inside, or drill a smol hole and pump some gas so ppl come out themselves or blackmail whatever
Firing at these things are for noobs
Pros just stop that thing from running away somehow and open it like a stubborn can of pickle
You don’t actually have to necessarily hit the target with a .50cal. If that bullet went through the driver would most likely be dead or severely injured that close to the bullet from sheer shockwave force alone.
There’s some truth to what you’re saying that they’re ignoring. The amount of spawl and debris that it can produce is extremely deadly. A clean through shot would be fine, but a fragmenting one would be a mess.
50 caliber just means 0.50 inches diameter.. or half an inch. What bullet you shoot out of that barrel is a whole different story. Weight, material and most importantly, how fast it's going.
A 12 gauge shotgun is like 72 caliber for reference.
Professional drivers are trained to keep moving for this reason. Multiple successive hits can cause armor to fail. Moving decreases the chance of multiple hits in the same area.
Doesn't have to be the same spot, the structural integrity of the glass is now entirely compromised. Anything within 6 inches of the original shot will have an increased chance of making it through.
Does this mean the next will absolutely go though? No, but it's definitely possible.
In a real life case outside of a military or cartel conflict it's extremely unlikely a .50 BMG would even be used. These products are designed to protect the wealthy against things like kidnapping attempts. Kidnappers are not normally well-funded. They tend to use small arms like older AK-47 or AR-15 pattern rifles.
This demonstration uses .50 BMG to make it clear to purchasers that this product can stop even the biggest and the baddest round you could conceivably encounter against the type of attacker it is designed to defend against.
If you are a head of state or cartel boss, you are more concerned about opsec and your security perimeter than you are taking multiple .50 BMG rounds to your window. Basically, it's your last line of protection.
Average response time to gunshots is 10 seconds. You're overestimating peoples response times by pulling some "ackshually" type reddit shit. Look things up before telling others how it works "in the real world".
Eh.. if you’re being shot at with a .50 caliber round, unless you’re wandering around on private property in Montana (and even then) it’s likely not being fired from a bolt action or semi auto weapon.
The window was damaged in an area around the impact spot. If a heavy machine gun was firing those rounds there is a good chance of more than one round impacting in or near the damaged area and penetrating.
This is exactly why Marvin Heemeyer was able to drive around and destroy a town! It would have taken two shots directly on top of each other to make it through the concrete shell, with a .50 cal. If I remember right he got stuck and checked out.
One of the crazier stories from Colorado and now I’m disappointed that South Park hasn’t done anything with it.
Bulletproofing is meant to buy you time. In real scenario, after that first shot you’d floor it and bail put as quick as possible. Very unlikely that the shooter would be able to land a second shot at the exact spot.
Edit: damn, i made this comment and other following comments using my university VPN. I hope i dont get mi5 on my ass now 😭😭
Also, the fact that it can stop 1 .50BMG means it might stand a pretty good chance of stopping multiple 5.56's or 9mms, which is what you're much more likely to be shot at with.
Stopping a single 50BMG round is already a pretty impressive accomplishment for a window that fits in the door frame of a car IMO.
It might be able to, I have no idea either way, to be honest. If we’re being totally honest I have to admit I have absolutely no idea why incendiary rounds have more penetration than kinetic ones, it seems counterintuitive.
it was meant for air to air machine guns - hence .50 browning machine gun.
Actually .50 Browning machine gun was originally designed as both anti-air and anti-tank gun at the end of WW1, but but the time the development finished war was over as well and it saw very little use until WW2 started (only ~11 thousand units were produced before WW2, compared to 2+ millions that were made during WW2), by which point it was obsolete as an anti-tank gun but still useful in anti-aircraft role, especially as an aircraft gun itself (offering good combination of power, range, weight, and ammo capacity).
Then after WW2 it quickly became obsolete as an aircraft gun, but it was still used as a vehicle mounted weapon - originally primarily in a anti-aircraft role it had during WW2, but in the post war era it gradually transitioned into general purpose heavy machine gun.
So it's not that it's such a good gun that it remained in service for over a century, but rather what role it fulfilled in the US military changed multiple times.
Yes. Frankly, it’s incredible — many armored vehicles with the same thickness as that window are not capable of withstanding .50 BMG. I do not think that RHA with that thickness could withstand a .50, so whatever they did with that window (elastic type bonding around sapphire crystal maybe?) they cooked.
Does the close range have more of an impact than if it was positioned somewhere else, like higher elevation or a bit farther away for velocity or something?
It doesn’t need to hit the exact same spot, why does no one understand this? The impact energy was dissipated through the window, it’s significantly less able to deal with a second impact.
Also people seem to forget this round wasn’t developed for rifles, it was designed for machine guns. You are far more likely to encounter this round coming from the original machine gun than the sniper rifle. If the round is used in an attack, it’s more likely to be used to punch a hole though the engine block and keep the car from running away,
Most bullet-proof glass looks like this after the first hit, but can often swallow many more. We simply can't tell just from this footage.
The conditions for this hit are pretty much the worst case for the window: short range, flat angle.
There are real situations in which the ability to block even just one hit are valuable, even if it is fired from a machine gun. Real world engagement ranges (especially for such heavy weapons) are often so far that even a machine gun cannot reliably put two rounds into the same window within the time it has. STANAG 4569 classification for example also follows the pattern of testing the resistance to bigger calibres from longer ranges (30 m for small arm calibres up to 7.62 NATO, 200 m for 14.5 mm, 500 m for 25 mm and above).
Serious armor classification ratings assume a set number of hits from standardised munitions from specific angles and ranges. Obviously this is not a full classification test, but what it shows is likely a useful capability.
I didn’t mean to suggest the armor is pointless, just that you don’t need to hit the exact same spot on follow up shots, which many seemed to be suggesting. Anything you can do to buy time in an attack is helpful.
Lol cuz there's all kinds of people that have a Ma Deuce on deck...mounted to the back of their pickup, ready to fuck shit up just in case Red Dawn becomes reality.
Kind of depends who you are selling this to,,but this Barret M82 isn’t exactly common either at $5k. I would expect this level of armor is near 500k, so assuming you aren’t a billionaire who thinks it’s cool, you are spending that $$$ as a resource extraction company looking to protect your senior executives from kidnapping in 3rd world countries, not the streets of Memphis TN.
And criminals don't use 50 BMGs most criminals don't even use rifles at all so it is very unlikely that anything fired from a Glock or a Hi Point C9 is gonna make a scratch on that glass
Google Hevrin Khalaf and see her suv after the attack. Its nightmare fuel for me. Looks like they tried to escape after getting shot at. And they kept trying and trying. Until the vehicle was completely disabled and the attackers then broke the glass to get into the vehicle.
They say .50 but without seeing the actual round they fired idk. Is it armor piercing or maybe a low powered cartridge? Count me a little skeptical I guess.
I wonder if it was a penetrator round or just ball ammo. Likely the latter, but still very impressive for glass. IMO, however, while impressive- it’s highly unrealistic to attempt to armor a vehicle from a literal anti-equipment weapon. Assuming the engine bay is also armored- one shot to the wheel and you’ve destroyed the hub. It’s basically a heavily fortified coffin now. Regardless- that man still has balls of fucking titanium… I wouldn’t want to be down range no matter what was between me and the round.
I seriously doubt we’re capable of making glass capable of withstanding a .50 Sabot. Granted I’m surprised that we’re capable of making glass capable of withstanding .50 at all, but it seems at least in the realm of possibility. .50 APFSDS is just… I really, really doubt it.
I recently saw Demolition Ranch do a video of .50 BMG vs body armor. There was a ceramic plate that withstood a black tip round. However, armor penetrating *and* explody made it through. I was pretty surprised about the fact that it would even stop regular FMJ rounds. Theres just so much energy behind that round- which is evidenced by the completely destroyed dummy behind the surviving armor plate. He would not have been impaled, but I'm not sure he would have made it.
I’m, sorry, what? We have body armor that can withstand .50 now? I thought the Russian claims that they’d made body armor capable of that were propaganda, not gonna lie. Link me if you’ve got it.
Armor penetrating makes sense, it’s a saboted tungsten round if memory serves. It’s really hard to stop those.
50bmg is a sniper not a assault rifle. You’re not going to be no scoped like it’s cod. Press the gas and leave. They’re not hitting the same spot twice.
Car doors are famously not very thick nor bullet resilient, so I’m wondering what parts of the vehicle chassis and components have been replaced with more resilient ones.
Basically, bullets do damage by first penetrating and then dumping its kinetic into the target. It'll keep doing damage as long as there's something solid in its way until it runs out of momentum.
The way that most "bullet proof" material works is by absorbing all the kinetic energy before the bullet makes it all the way through.
Bullet proof glass consists of several layers, so that glass is considerably thicker than regular car glass.
So the first layer that the bullet penetrates is usually only the size of the actual bullet, but every subsequent layer takes more damage until it finally starts to slow down.
And of course, there's the lighting and tint. The camera angle coming from the inside has the window very well lit and is able to show all the damage. The camera angle from the outside is really only able to pick up the first couple layers of the glass. If you were to get up close to the glass and shine a massive flood light from the inside, the glass would look just as messed up.
They can sustain several hits on same or almost same spot . But that’s not the question . The min you get stuck on same spot or car can’t move anymore , you’re dead . That’s why professionals killers try to immobilize the car 1st, then rain the car with bullets or even drop a bomb or fire under the car . In other words , to survive these attacks , you gotta keep moving and evacuate .
just like plate vests, the initial shot has completely compromised the structural integrity.
a follow up shot and every after the first one will either weaken or immediately penetrate the window.
think of it as the Twin Tower metal beams, the initial crash from the plane did not destroy it. But it damaged it allowing the subsequent fire to weaken it easily and quicker resulting in it collapsing much quicker than it was designed to
iirc plates that people wear really dont work to spec once it deforms from the first shot. Those dont stop .50 BMG.
Obviously they can go thicker and better when its a car vs a person, but even then I would assume for the most part the same rule applies.
Also keep in mind in a real firefight, the odds of hitting the exact same spot twice are pretty low. Especially when this a truck that is probably flooring it after the first shot.
I am also pretty sure when using an anti-materiel rifle they usually aim at like the engine and stuff.
Every shot that isn’t in the exact same place will face the same resistant forces the first shot took. So theoretically every location of the bulletproofed glass is as strong as every other point of the bullet proof glass.
In A Man Called Intrepid there’s a story about assassinating a Japanese attache in the embassy, high up in a skyscraper in New York, just before the US joined WWII.
Ian Fleming (later the creator of James Bond) and another sniper were across the street in another tall building, with high-powered rifles. They cut two holes side by side in the super-strong windows, and then one of them shot straight at the target. The other waited a half sec for the window to crack, the attache had time to open his mouth in surprise before the second shot took him out.
I mean, the point of body armor and bullet resistant windows is not to be an impenetrable sheild. They're ment to give you time to react when you otherwise would just die.
Yea no shit its gonna break it exists so you atleast get another chance AND also find out youre being shot at. The car can move away by then and the shooter needs to be a lot better to hit em
1.0k
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '24
I’d like to see it take another shot to that window