Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

"Bullet resistant" window film


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 MidSouthFG

MidSouthFG

    New Member

  •  <10
  • 3
  • Exp: 6



  26 August 2008 - 06:53 AM

[b]What does anyone out there know about ACE Security Laminates and their claim that their 300-series, 14-mil window film qualifies as bullet resistant (small arms - .38 spl, .357 mag, 9mm FMJ) on 1/2" thick glass? :rollin
  • 0

#2 Customtinting

Customtinting

    Member

  •  2,000+
  • 2,648
  • State of Mass Confusion
  • Exp: 17 years



  26 August 2008 - 07:11 AM

There are a multitude of variables when it comes to so called 'bullet resistant' film applications. Thickness of the glass, type, adhesive, film....etc.... Ace claims that a 14 mil applied to 1/2" glass will work. This may be possible, but I would love to see the owner of the company, who makes these claims, stand on the other side of the glass when I shoot at it. Many manufacturers have touted this before. Some claimed if both sides were fillmed, it would absorb a bullet. Look on the internet for testing information. Many videos exist out there.
  • 0

#3 darkdan

darkdan

    Member

  •  5,000+
  • 5,550
  • Owatonna, MN
  • Exp: Since 03



  26 August 2008 - 07:24 AM

Let's not forget:

http://www.tintdude....showtopic=43114

Edited by darkdan, 26 August 2008 - 07:29 AM.

  • 0

#4 MidSouthFG

MidSouthFG

    New Member

  •  <10
  • 3
  • Exp: 6



  26 August 2008 - 08:26 AM

Let's not forget:

http://www.tintdude....showtopic=43114



Thanks for that info - Makes more sense that the BR-film does!
  • 0

#5 Tintskillz

Tintskillz

    Member

  •  600+
  • 680
  • Southern California
  • Exp: 13 years



  26 August 2008 - 09:15 AM

I have seen an Ace demonstration first hand and when they did the demo there is a 14 mil layer on the inside and a 7 mil layer on the outside of the glass. They used a .38, 9mm, shotgun, and also an automatic weapon (can't remember which one). It did stop the first round of the .38, 9mm, and the shotgun but the second round penetrated very easily. The automatic penetrated very easily also. I asked about the 7 mil layer and they said it was only there to stop glass from flying, essentially saying that it was worthless. Their reasoning behind it was that as long as it caught the first bullet you would have time to get away from the scene. Whatever, they were trying to deceive people anyway by saying the outer layer didn't do anything.
  • 0

#6 LEO'n'DARTZ

LEO'n'DARTZ

    Member

  •  20,000+
  • 20,677



  26 August 2008 - 12:23 PM

BULLET RESISTANCE is very serious matter. And SOMETIMES in sme cases window film can help. But it is top of idiotism to declare that. We did tests. And there was some good results. I also have video. BUT I NEVER RECCOMEND IT LIKE SERIOUS HELP. ACE - they are dead, so no comments about.
  • 0

#7 Customtinting

Customtinting

    Member

  •  2,000+
  • 2,648
  • State of Mass Confusion
  • Exp: 17 years



  26 August 2008 - 12:45 PM

The outside, 7 mil layer , is what I have seen before. I was told it neede to be there for different reasons. Fist, it gave a surface on the outside to spread the energy out and keep the surface intact, which made ot stronger. Then, the inside layer, 14 mil or thicker, would 'catch' the projectile. Having both sides done strengthened the glass so it wouldnt fall apart, and gave it the surface tesile strength to allow reductio of the energy in the bullet without haveing full structural breakdown of the glass. This only works once or twice, then all bets are off!!!!
  • 0

#8 tint whisperer

tint whisperer

    Member

  •  6,000+
  • 6,762
  • Alberta, Canada
  • Exp: 24



  26 August 2008 - 03:00 PM

We did an independent ballistic test up here with the RCMP - 3 different film thicknesses, 3 types of guns, 3 distances. All failed.
  • 0

#9 tint phantom

tint phantom

    tintphantom

  •  400+
  • 461
  • Lakeland, Fla.
  • Exp: over 35 yrs.



  26 August 2008 - 03:45 PM

bullet resistant differant then bullet proof. :thumb a 306 will penatrate both.
  • 0

#10 Customtinting

Customtinting

    Member

  •  2,000+
  • 2,648
  • State of Mass Confusion
  • Exp: 17 years



  26 August 2008 - 06:39 PM

We did an independent ballistic test up here with the RCMP - 3 different film thicknesses, 3 types of guns, 3 distances. All failed.


First off, you SUCK!!

I have made more than a hundred ballistic tests, with all kind of glass, with all kind of thickness (of glass AND film), shot from different agles AND with different bullets!!

Result:

A 14mil film on a 1/2" will stop an ordinary 9mm bullet fired from a short distance, shot up front, I.e. directly at 90 deg angle. It has not to be ACE to do that, any film of that thickness with such a bullet with such a thick glass will do that, personally I will stand behind that glass!!

A 7mil film in front won't change the result, nor does a 14 or 15mil, nor does if you use laminated glass, tempered glass or normal glass! PERIOD

Believe it or NOT.....


Well, no matter your opinion on who sucks, I would love to have you come here and try that test while standing behind it. Just please sign the full liability release before hand!!! :thumb If you did those tests, lets see the video on it, it would be very interesting. If I may ask, which testing facility and what group helped and witnessed these tests?? Tint Whisperer had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police witness his tests, as he stated.

And, if the mechanical engineering I remember serves me right, a layer of film on the front side of the glass WILL skew the test. By distributing energy accross the front surface, and stretching (even minimally)as the projectile passes through, it reduces the velocity and energy from it enough to make the claim of only needing 14 mil on the rear invalidate the test. Any difference in the structure of the test glass changes the outcome. If the surface it hit by a bullet without film on it, the surface will break away, thereby weakening more than if it had a film on it, which would hold it in place, creating a stronger front surface. The tests done by ACE, all on video, made the claim that the film was there to protect the person firing the test shot, but why would they need that when they were behind a protective barrier already??? Bullet resistant film claims are very dangerous for our industry. This following the southern US states, such as Florida, investigating the advertising of 'HURRICANE PROOF FILMS' after Katrina. These same type of business people will have no problem claiming 'BULLET PROOF" films in the future. Making claims of any bullet resistancy can only perpetuate this and cause more issues in our industry. :gasp

Edited by Customtinting, 26 August 2008 - 06:52 PM.

  • 0

#11 LEO'n'DARTZ

LEO'n'DARTZ

    Member

  •  20,000+
  • 20,677



  26 August 2008 - 10:25 PM

We did an independent ballistic test up here with the RCMP - 3 different film thicknesses, 3 types of guns, 3 distances. All failed.


First off, you SUCK!!

I have made more than a hundred ballistic tests, with all kind of glass, with all kind of thickness (of glass AND film), shot from different agles AND with different bullets!!

Result:

A 14mil film on a 1/2" will stop an ordinary 9mm bullet fired from a short distance, shot up front, I.e. directly at 90 deg angle. It has not to be ACE to do that, any film of that thickness with such a bullet with such a thick glass will do that, personally I will stand behind that glass!!

A 7mil film in front won't change the result, nor does a 14 or 15mil, nor does if you use laminated glass, tempered glass or normal glass! PERIOD

Believe it or NOT.....


I believe....We did it...But - afraid reccomend :thumb
  • 0

#12 Customtinting

Customtinting

    Member

  •  2,000+
  • 2,648
  • State of Mass Confusion
  • Exp: 17 years



  27 August 2008 - 07:24 AM

Well, no matter your opinion on who sucks, I would love to have you come here and try that test while standing behind it. Just please sign the full liability release before hand!!! If you did those tests, lets see the video on it, it would be very interesting. If I may ask, which testing facility and what group helped and witnessed these tests?? Tint Whisperer had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police witness his tests, as he stated.


Man, I don't have to prove anything to anybody, much less to you!! I have done more ballistic tests with security film than probaly anybody else in this world, I don't need to record it on video, nor do I have to have an official protocol (which I'm not saying I don't have)!! I'm not selling ACE nor any particular brand of film, all I'm saying is that any kind of thick security film will stop a NORMAL 9mm bullet, PERIOD!! Ohh, BTW, I don't need 3 weeks let alone 3 months of curing to make a test, 2-3 days, you shoot and I stay behind that glass, 1/2" glass, your choice of 12-15mil film, my choice of 9mm bullet!!

As a matter of fact, I'm a mechanical engineer!! Whatever you say sounds beautifull.... Have you shot ONCE (in your live) at a 1/2" glass film first??


Sorry, my friend, but proof is proof and words are just that. I've seen Leos tests. And as he says, still would'nt recommend it. As I stated before, as fragile this area of our industry is, making claims can lead the uneducated consumer down the wrong path. Should someone miss the information that it MUST be mounted on 1/2" glass and have film installed on 1/4" double pane could have catastropic consequences. And, there have been test done that have failed, along with those that have passed. The liability that could be incurred in this area becomes too great when human lives are involved. IMHO
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users