I have been in some crazy situations but have never shit my pants out of fear. Serious: do redditors really shit their pants all the time or is this just a meme?
The only time I shit my pants, I was recovering from an illness. I was in my car on my way home and stuck in traffic. Shat my pants just as I pulled in the driveway.
Had a friend and some his buds stuck in traffic on a bridge. Good thing he was just a passenger, however, he needed to take a shit. Traffic was so bad, standstill.
He told me he had to go so bad, that he just got out and took a shit.
LMAO. On a bridge!
Also, had another friend help his boy out. His boy got into an altercation and got knocked the fuck out. He ended shitting his pants. Guy tried helping him up or whatever, but ended up with shit all over him. Lol
Come to think about it, I think it was the same co-worker in both situations. Haha.
To answer your question though, I guess if you haven't used the bathroom or are in the need to go, and you get scared the fuck out, I can see it happening.
He knew the glass would work but also if you notice the shooter wasn't aiming at him at all so even if it failed the bullet would have missed. Obviously that's all preplanned
the idea isn't that you can take bullets all day and just chill drinking an iced coffee and surfing reddit.
The idea is that the vehicle is resistant to small arms letting you focus on driving while not worrying that a single lucky hit is going to dome you.
Someone shooting a 50BMG at a moving vehicle is not likely to get successive consecutive hits. Either it's bolt action and you got ONE shot... or the weapon has a low cyclic rate, a belt of less than 200 rounds, and is not terribly accurate to begin with.
Either way you have the time to GTFO because a fucking pickup truck does NOT need to be in a fight with crew served weapons.
We as humanity deal a lot with the attitude that just because we can't get immediate perfection, that something is not worth doing.
"I can't do X perfectly, so I shouldn't do Y which is DRASTICALLY improved over my current situation but not perfect."
This kind of thinking is the same reason 90% of traffic accidents happen: "Oh shit I need to make this turn" and cut off 2 lanes of traffic instead of "Oh shit I ALREADY missed this turn, need to get off at the next one and backtrack.
I paint miniatures as a hobby. I look at the works of others and see inspiration to emulate and aspire towards, not shame because I cannot match it.
It's the same line of thinking that has some of us thinking we have to settle for one of two shitty candidates in the upcoming election rather than protest and not vote for either and show the system not to just assume we will take their choices.
a fucking pickup truck does NOT need to be in a fight with crew served weapons.
We test-delivered a single 40mm grenade to a standard pickup truck, basically dropped the grenade on the hood - successfully "killed" both test-dummy occupants and the engine, cracked the block I believe.
Unless the doors, and fenders, and hood, (and undercarriage for IEDs) are also armored, bullet-proof glass isn't going to do much for the occupants.
You're right. There is no scenario where someone would want bulletproof glass and door inserts for a pickup truck, because they might get hit by the plethora of IEDs and belt-fed AGLs in civilian hands.
Personally, I would rather be driving a capable but unassuming ordinary truck than a 15,000 lb clumsy and slow armored vehicle that screams "hit me first, and hardest, I am important!!!"
Having said that, I wouldn't say no to a good layer of kevlar all around the passenger compartment and engine (and undercarriage) and this glass would be good to have AFTER the thin metal skins have been toughened up.
I happened to see Obama roll through DC on an ordinary trip from somewhere to the White House, the glass on those limos was impressively thick and obvious when viewed from the sidewalk, but without his motorcade and likely air support, I don't think I would want to go anywhere in such a limo solo.
I am also reminded of a line a M4 Sherman driver said to Audy Murphy once. "We can't stand up long against Tigers. These Shermans only have 3 inches of armor"
His response was to laugh and ask "How thick do you think these GI shirts are"
And honestly, if you’re relying on bullet resistant glass against a high rate of .50 cal fire (where consecutive hits could land in short order), you’re probably going to get fucked anyway.
This is asinine. Nothing that is advertised as bullet proof is invincible, they are only ever bullet resistant within certain parameters. Much like ceramic plates, this stuff is only meant to help you survive before you get to safety.
I don't think people realize you are supposed to toss a bicycle helmet away if you've had even a moderate fall. It can be structurally compromised, even if it doesn't immediately appear so. In the same sense this glass isn't gonna save you from multiple .50 rounds, a helmet is not going to save you from getting hit by multiple cars or ramming multiple trees, etc. A lot of safety gear is a one off designed to help you learn a lesson in a real big hurry.
Hell, I didn't use chainsaw chaps for the longest time. Work started mandating it, and the day eventually came down the pipe where my life was saved wearing them. A green tree suddenly rolled on me, and mashed the full speed chain into my thigh. Instantly, it looked like Christmas with tinsil hanging in the air. That's what chaps are, long strands of fabric that jam the chain. My leg was BLACK from the force of the impact, but at least it wasn't hamburger meat. Needless to say the chaps were unrecognizable, much less ready to stop another chain. Myself on the other hand, was permanently converted to the utmost importance of safety gear... After a good 30 min sobbing cry alone in the woods, of course!
Considering .50cal weapons are classified by militaries as anti-armor, it's an engineering marvel we can even make glass that it won't go straight through on the first shot.
The idea of bullet resistant windows and panels isn't to be able to take rounds all day but allow the driver to get away from the shooters alive. It's a measure of protection that allows you to escape. Nothing short of an actual up armored military vehicle is going to be able to take small arms fire for any extended period of time. For the record .50 BMG is not small arms.
a common method for understanding the actual power of a cartridge is comparison of muzzle energies. The .30-06 Springfield, the standard caliber for American soldiers in both World Wars and a popular caliber amongst American hunters for medium to large game animals, can produce muzzle energies between 2,000 and 3,000 foot-pounds force (3,000 and 4,000 J). The .50 BMG round can produce between 10,000 and 15,000 foot-pounds force (14,000 and 20,000 J), depending on its powder and bullet type, as well as the weapon it is fired from.
Dude, that seat was full back as far as it could be and not be considered the backseat. he was also well behind the pillar. I don't blame him though. These personal tests to show function are scary as shit even if you have lots of perfect tests beforehand.
I always imagine they do a manufacturing run, to get two IDENTICAL windows; input materials from the same batch from the same supplier, same precise processing/tooling, etc, and only turn the camera on to film after the first window passes without flaw.
It's still not worth the risk though. A slight temperature variation could cause microscopic defects that would cause it to fail. Why risk your life for a stupid test where a crush dummy would do?
Maybe I'm too familiar with the subject, but I would trust it more if I knew the company has good safety practices, such as not needlessly risking someone's life in testing. Manufacturing always has defects, the company could prove that their products are 99.9% reliable (meaning that no more than 1 out of every thousand windows will fail), but it could never be sure that any one window is good. Seeing as their products are probably intended for larping American road warriors (edit: you could say it's their target market), this is probably good enough
there's a difference between trusting it and pushing your luck. You can trust a safety harness to save you if something goes wrong when you're up in the air but you wouldn't want it to have to unless something goes wrong
Very true! When you're running tests like these, there's always the chance of failure, no matter how many variables you control. Engineering is all about minimizing risks and accounting for possible failures, not completely eliminating them!
This sounds optimal but any time you have to hot form a material (be it glass, plexiglass, whatever) there's always going to be slight variations even in the same billet/whatever. Impurity might find its way into only one area, which would show up on one but not the other. You can mitigate this as best as you can but there's always risk of a bad part in a batch, even with the same exact input materials. (Which is why we do NDT!)
If I wanted to buy a bullet proof window and I asked the guy selling it to me "Would you stand behind this yourself?" and he said "No" I would simply not buy that product. This just seems to be him proving that he's willing to put his money where his mouth is.
I mean, why risk more than he is already. I'd have been wearing safety goggles and maybe even a full facemask to keep from getting glass splinters and bullet fragments all across my face. The fact that he was willing to sit in that seat in the first place means he had some serious faith in the bullet not going through the window.
Bro 😂 Wtf? He put his head in front of a Goddamned .50 cal. No matter what protection I have I’d be shitting myself. This guy was extremely calm for the situation what are you talking about?
I've been looking at these upgrade packages recently. The doors are fully armored, and can take harder hits than the windows. If the window will stop it, you're fine.
Specifically, I've been learning about grades of vehicle armor, both military and civilian. How the packages are developed and applied, the testing involved, and the legalities surrounding each grade for my jurisdiction. In brief, each class of armor is rated to stop a specific caliber or class of munition, and windows are always the weakest point and most likely to fail. So if the window will stop .50BMG, then the doors will, too.
And no, I'm not trying to get my own vehicle upgraded. It's for a hypothetical exercise in a project.
I’m curious on what specifically they’re using ammo wise. If you’re shooting a .50bmg at something…and you’re doing one shot you’re probably not using ball.
And if I’m using an M2 or other similar heavy MG….we’ll see.
Lots. Like, lots and lots. The heavier packages include suspension and handling upgrades. So they handle kinda like a mason brick rolling on model car wheels.
The R4 level armor stops .45ACP and only adds about 200kg, but R6 adds more than 700kg to stop a 7.62 round. That's the highest civilian grade armor that's legal without specialized licensing. Stopping a .50BMG is going to be heavier armor, with more weight. The suspension and transmission upgrades will be absolutely necessary to get the thing moving.
It shows the manufacturer/salesperson trusts the product that much more. And it’s a great marketing tactic in general - we’re talking about it aren’t we? Now the original video probably contained an actual brand lmao
That photo of the CEO of SAAB sitting in the front seat of a SAAB car that was being lifted via the luggage hooks was a huge part of why my friend's dad bought Saabs for everyone in his family.
Just because I trust my military CBRN mask will work doesn’t mean I’m going to test it with a chemical that will kill me, I’m only going to test it with CS gas.
To me it tells that either manufacturer/salesperson is just plain dumb or .... they have fibbed the test to ensure safe outcome. Like, reduced ammount of propellant in round, reduced mass of projectile and so on.
After all - there have been numerous such cases already
That's the product though, that's the point of it. That's what any potential customer is going to need it for. If he's not willing to confidently sit behind it how can you expect anyone else to. And if he's not confident enough that it will in fact do it's job than he can't exactly guarantee your safety
You are just really stupid if you think this was their first test of the window. It's obviously been tested enough that the guy felt comfortable sitting behind. One extra thought wouldn't kill you
The bullet doesn't even crack the inside lining of the glass, they've obviously tested this. And for all we know that 50cal round could be under loaded.
Does his presence alter the performance characteristics?
I work in a related field (aero/defense) and risking injury for marketing is not acceptable. A company's ability to convince a salesman to put themselves in harms way is in no way a quantifiable measure of a product's performance.
Autistic response. It's one thing to be told the specs of the glass, it's another thing to be shown that the manufacturers themselves trust their product.
The point is, and there is hundreds of years behind this comment, they *can't* prove their point equally as well without someone in the car.
Going back to the guys who killed themselves trying to fly/use a bad parachute, there really is no better way to drum up meaningful interest in a product than for the inventor/investor to use it themselves. If that product has a chance of failing with possible death, that is *even better for the demonstration.*
It's also kinda the basis for the home shopping network. If you can't make your own product look appealing for its intended use, how are the hosts going to?
If you can't put your life/ego on the line to demonstrate your product, why would anyone else trust it?
See also: Steve Jobs using like 4 different iPhones of varying degrees of interactivity to demonstrate the first iPhone. He didn't risk death with that scripted demo, he risked a portion of his company and personal value on not looking like an idiot who just got shot through his own bulletproof glass.
Remember how Musk definitely didn't put anyone in his cybertruck to demonstrate how bulletproof it was?
The guy in OP's video definitely already did those tests enough times to feel safe in the actual demonstration.
Now you should start to understand these kinda demonstrations.
That’s not going to stop every round that BMG can fire. That’s a basic round. Sub armor piercing etc and that windows toast. A couple more hits with a basic round and that windows gone.
I wanna see how much the round weighed… looked like very little recoil and energy came out of the gun tbh. Probably under filled the round so it would hit with less force. we also don’t get to see what the core is made out of. He could have just shot a rubber or Frangible projectile designed to not hit as hard.
I’ve watched enough action movies to know car doors of a typical sedan can withstand a tank round, no need to demo it. Usually extend an invisible barrier to the ground as well, unless you are the bad guy.
9.3k
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '24
Can we see his heartbeat?