Bulletproof glass demonstration

A woman holds a small rectangle of bullet-proof glass in front of her face while a man (her husband?) stands off in the distance and fires a rifle at the glass. (via Richard Wiseman)

[#1 posted by sworm, September 15, 2009 1:51 PM]

I couldn't watch this without tattooing misogyny on my fake breasts.

[#2 posted by Thad E Ginataom, September 15, 2009 1:52 PM]

that's ridiculous. What if he misses, and hits her body below the glass? Or blows off a finger or three?

[#3 posted by billster, September 15, 2009 1:56 PM]

Marge: "Homer, I don't think women will appreciate being shot in the face with a shotgun".

Homer: "Women'll like what I tell 'em to like".

[#4 posted by David Guerrero, September 15, 2009 1:58 PM]

Natural selection in action

[#5 posted by Antinous / Moderator, September 15, 2009 1:59 PM]

She's no Judy Davis.

[#6 posted by Takuan, September 15, 2009 2:03 PM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJTIedZVIVQ&feature=PlayList&p=8BCE518696343DD5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12

[#7 posted by desiredusername, September 15, 2009 2:04 PM]

I got the Judy Davis reference, did you?

[#8 posted by apoxia, September 15, 2009 2:06 PM]

Oh, for the good old days, when a man could expect his wife to be shot at for a demonstration.

If only we could live in the idealised past where society was a much safer and more moral place.

[#9 posted by Charlie Stross, September 15, 2009 2:15 PM]

"William Burroughs, I presume?"

[#10 posted by tikka308, September 15, 2009 2:18 PM]

I am dubious because while the glass will absorb much of the energy, there will still be lateral shrapnel which would decimate her hands. I've spent years shooting at reactive and stationary steel; the sideways (perpendicular) shrapnel is impressive.

[#11 posted by Alan, September 15, 2009 2:23 PM]

That's just crazy on all sorts of levels.

[#12 posted by Takuan, September 15, 2009 2:23 PM]

soft lead .22 slugs, amorphous crystalline structure glass. Hard mush into soft mush equals relative mush.

[#13 posted by IronyElemental, September 15, 2009 2:34 PM]

And this is why, to this day, American soldiers wear suits of plate glass armor into battle.

[#14 posted by wilberfan, September 15, 2009 2:42 PM]

And what do we make of the camera(man?) who took the her POV shots?!

[#15 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 2:50 PM]

@Wilberfan - depending a whats left, he might make a nice hat stand...

[#16 posted by tp1024, September 15, 2009 2:51 PM]

I wonder who of the three would get arrested these days. The cameraman, the wife or the husband?

[#17 posted by dculberson, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM]

It's time for our William Tell impersonation.

[#18 posted by Pseudothink, September 15, 2009 2:54 PM]

You know you're in a one-sided relationship when...

[#19 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 3:07 PM]

why did no one tell William Burroughs' wife about this stuff?

[#20 posted by HatOfEdshu, September 15, 2009 3:12 PM]

It's so dumb, that it must be Ohio.

[#21 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 3:14 PM]

Bulletproof glass is really not glass, but tough polycarbonate plastic. Although in 1 inch thickness it is considered bulletproof to military-grade bullets, in thinner sheets it is still, obviously, very strong.

In this movie link, "Polycarbonate vs Acrylic Plastic", the guns come out again as polycarbonate is compared to acrylic for windscreens as one of them is blown to smithereens in various tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsls5ZPCUnE

Also related, I torture test a polycarbonate box with a hammer in my latest Tesla CD Turbine movie: (forward to 1:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xabkw_KiLGg

[#22 posted by elfspice, September 15, 2009 3:18 PM]

how come nobody mentioned william tell?

[#23 posted by Takuan, September 15, 2009 3:21 PM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DkiVH7p5t4

[#24 posted by pAULbOWEN, September 15, 2009 3:24 PM]

Use of bullet proof glass has been illegal in the USA since 1852 because it impinges on the right, enshrined in the 2nd amendment, of all free born citizens to shoot one another in the face.

[#25 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 4:53 PM]

"#21 POSTED BY ANONYMOUS, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 3:14 PM Bulletproof glass is really not glass, but tough polycarbonate plastic"

False. While thick plastic is used as transparent armor. Standard bullet resistant glass is made up of layers of glass and plastic.

[#26 posted by nealpolitan, September 15, 2009 5:57 PM]

I have bullet proof glass where I work. Comically, it has a sign taped to it listing all the things you shouldn't use to clean it.

Also, it is a window mounted over a half wall consisting of just 1/2 inch sheetrock (it used to be a door) - ie, we are more likely to get shot in the crotch through the wall beneath the glass than we are in the face through the window, unless some idiot has cleaned it with petroleum products or abrasives. Then we're dead either way.

[#27 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 6:07 PM]

Many people think this video shows a man successfully testing a sheet of bulletproof glass. In reality he is testing special bullets designed to go through bulletproof glass. This was one of the failed tests.

[#28 posted by Takuan, September 15, 2009 6:15 PM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TLWZsL4-3c

[#29 posted by Kleinzeit, September 15, 2009 7:28 PM]

Anonymous (#21) wrote:

In this movie link, "Polycarbonate vs Acrylic plastic"

That blockbuster must only have played screens in the major centres.

[#30 posted by Anonymous, September 15, 2009 8:46 PM]

I like how some of the above commentators assume the woman was coerced into this demonstration, and act as if this is sexist. Its just as likely that she volunteered to take part in the demonstration of her own free will.

In fact, its probably more sexist to assume that she was coerced simply because of the apparant age of the footage. Even a hundred years ago, there were women who were quite happy to involve themselves in dangerous endeavors without any influence from the men around them. To think that a woman who wanted no part in such an act would be incapable of extricating herself from such a situation is laughable.

~D. Walker

[#31 posted by akaaudio, September 15, 2009 9:28 PM]

anon
He had a loaded gun!!!!! He was also an excellent shot. Given the choice i would hold the glass too!

[#32 posted by elk, September 15, 2009 10:09 PM]

New for TV this fall, it's America's craziest family at it again: The Cheney's!

[#33 posted by qwasson, September 16, 2009 12:37 AM]

I'm not claiming to be a firearms expert, but wouldn't the bullet hitting the glass cause it to tonk the wife in the head? I'd expect there's a fair amount of energy involved, and he's got a pretty flimsy grip on that piece of glass...

Also the lack of recoil on the gun and the absence of smoke make me think something might be amiss.

[#34 posted by benher, September 16, 2009 1:06 AM]

Why all the hubbub? It's no more dangerous than a circus magician throwing knives at him wife while she spins around on a giant novelty wheel.

[#35 posted by bolamig, September 16, 2009 1:22 AM]

Was the shooter Darren Brown? It seemed off to me in several ways. The first shot knocks the glass back pretty hard, would have smacked her in the face if it didn't hit off to the side. But a subsequent shot hardly moves the glass, and it jumps more vertically than horizontally. Then there is the matter of lack of recoil on the gun. Is it just good luck that the bullet holes are scattered horizontally by a greater distance than the vertical dimension of the glass? And there's something I can't quite put my finger on about how she just doesn't seem to be holding the glass strongly or squarely enough for the level of danger that exists. The shrapnel finger issues have already been mentioned.

[#36 posted by pepsiman, September 16, 2009 5:03 AM]

Thaaaaats suuuuuch aaaa baaaaaaad ideaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

[#37 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 7:24 AM]

they just don't make wifeys like they used to!

[#38 posted by Stjohn, September 16, 2009 8:01 AM]

Gard would always remember what the cop said to him that night.
"Shot your wife, huh? Good fucking deal."

Probably misquoted, but how else was I supposed to work a Tommyknockers reference into an internet post with any degree of relevance whatsoever?

[#39 posted by MadMolecule, September 16, 2009 8:04 AM]

Qwasson: That was my thought as well. Even if the glass didn't break, and the shooter didn't miss, the glass was still absorbing a whole lot of energy on impact; I'm surprised she wasn't at least knocked over.

[#40 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 8:12 AM]

That's hot.

[#41 posted by Keneke, September 16, 2009 8:14 AM]

> To think that a woman who wanted no part in such an act would be incapable of extricating herself from such a situation is laughable.

It's not that they wouldn't have been able to remove themselves, it's that the culture molded them into submissive, behaving servants, unable to express their displeasure in the first place. A woman in that time who didn't want to do it would be more likely to force down her fears over the greater fear of displeasing her husband, or men in general.

[#42 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 8:53 AM]

you people have seen too many movies. There is not that enough energy in a bullet to knock someone over. People fall over because they lose their balance and fall, not due to the impact....
The reason it carves a hole in your flesh is because the force is supplied over a small area. Throw a block 2 ft in the air and let it land on your palm. Repeat with a knife of similar mass. The net force is the same... but the pressure will determine traumua

[#43 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 9:53 AM]

Qwasson and Madmolecule. A bullet only knocks people down in the movies. Small bullets don't have enough momentum and big ones tend to go right on through. And if it's a .22 like some are speculating, it wouldn't knock much of anything over larger than a squirrel. The kickback is really very small. Oh, and they don't call it smokeless gunpowder because it's tobacco free.

If you need further convincing, the number of idiots willing to try this far outnumbers the ones able to fake it. Occam's razor implies they must be idiots.

[#44 posted by 2k, September 16, 2009 11:35 AM]

Honey?
Yes?
You know that glass I bought the other day?
Yes?
I have an idea.

[#45 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM]

With a wife like that it was definitely a win-win situation

[#46 posted by Antinous / Moderator, September 16, 2009 1:38 PM]

To the contrary, if that were my husband, I would have used regular glass instead of bullet-proof.

[#47 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 2:57 PM]

How many wives did he go thru before he got it right?!

[#48 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 3:06 PM]

Any force must have an equal opposing force. Simplify it a little and you can say that the bullet hits its target with the same force that the butt of the rifle hits the shooter.

[#49 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 3:54 PM]

"Any force must have an equal opposing force. Simplify it a little and you can say that the bullet hits its target with the same force that the butt of the rifle hits the shooter."

Sounds a little too simple. I'll tell you what, I'll hold the gun, you can catch the bullet, and we'll see who has the easier time.

[#50 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 5:27 PM]

'Resistant' not 'proof'

[#51 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 5:52 PM]

Dang he's crazy. I wouldn't have held it over my face like that because if the glass broke it would kill her by going through her head...Maybe over the thigh or something. I can't believe she actually let him do that either.

[#52 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 6:23 PM]

and this years darwin award goes to....

[#53 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 6:26 PM]

Aaaaah, I could envisage hours and hours of fun with the ex-wife here......

[#54 posted by Anonymous, September 16, 2009 10:40 PM]

*sigh* A little too simple? I'd say you're overly 'simple' for not understanding this very basic concept.

As several people said above, a bullet doesn't have any more force going forward than the gun recoils with backwards. This is basic physics and it's how the world has always worked.

The reason bullets are effective is that the force is concentrated in a small and very *fast-moving* object, and humans are soft, squishy meatbags. This is why people who are shot just collapse instead of flying backwards like in the movies.

[#55 posted by redesigned, September 16, 2009 10:48 PM]

which anniversary is bullet proof glass again?

http://www.chiff.com/entertain/gifts-anniversary.htm

[#56 posted by Anonymous, September 17, 2009 7:15 AM]

I tried getting my wife to do this with Saran Wrap last week, but she wasn't going for it.

[#57 posted by sealross, September 17, 2009 7:29 AM]

I tried getting my wife to do this last week with Saran Wrap but she wouldn't go for it.

[#58 posted by Anonymous, September 17, 2009 8:06 AM]

Dick Cheny's first wife.