"Bullet resistant" window film
August 26 2008 - 05:53 AM
August 26 2008 - 06:11 AM
August 26 2008 - 08:15 AM
August 26 2008 - 11:23 AM
August 26 2008 - 11:45 AM
August 26 2008 - 02:00 PM
August 26 2008 - 02:45 PM
August 26 2008 - 05:39 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!!
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!!! 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.
Edited by Customtinting, August 26 2008 - 05:52 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users