oy vey
Posted on 04/23/2013 3:47:37 PM PDT by njslim
Ever wonder why the people taking cell phone videos of gunfights aren't themselves hit by bullets? Turns out, there's no good explanation other than dumb luck, because according to the laws of physics, they should be totally screwed.
They see thru tarpaulins.
Aside from the observation that police miss their intended targets 80% of time, this article is pretty stupid. He implores you to stay inside your house, but then goes on to say that your house walls offer you little protection. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Some cover is better than no cover depending on the type of cover, angle of impact of projectile, and discounting any weird shrapnel effects that could result. Really, this article has no reason to be in “Popular Science”. I was hoping for some detailed information about ballistics and its penetration capabilities through various types of building materials or something like that. Instead, he makes a bunch of contradictory assertions why you should do one thing, but doing that one thing really won’t result in a better outcome for you.
If you want to some useful information, you can view these USMC penetration tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ
Prepare... practice... engage if necessary. Nope... I don’t see “quivering on the floor inside a modern American dwelling” in this manual. ;-)
LLS
I say the safest place to be when a bunch of LEO stormtroopers decide to unload is a medium sized boat.
High capacity cop-killer clips go right through brick.
FWIW the Canadians have done some interesting tests on exactly this topic:
http://www.claybrick.ca/pdf/cmri_bulletproof_project.pdf
I refer you to the youtube link I posted earlier in thread.
In short, for the .556 bullet (AR), it will penetrate most brick wall head on, but won’t penetrate most from a 45 degree angle.
However, the AK 7.62X39 will go through most brick from any angle.
It could. Depends on caliber, distance, and number of rounds. But go out and whack a brick with a ball peen hammer (safety glasses, please) and see what happens.
The current Military round used to replace M193 is M855 .556 NATO 62gr SS109. This round has better penetration when compared to M193. I believe NATO adopted this round in 1977. M193 is used by "some" LE and "some" foreign military units.
The last place that I want to be when a firefight is raging is behind a layer of brick, vapor barrier, insulation, sheetrock and paint. Now sand filled walls or armored plate in the walls... you should be good to go.
LLS
LOL
My understanding is that anything that reduces the energy of the bullet will reduce its harmful effects when it hits flesh or bone. Window glass isn't one of those things, unless it's inch-thick window glass.
When my oldest son moved back to Utah from Oakland, he complained about it being too quiet ... apparently it was hard for him to get to sleep without the all night screaming crack heads, sirens, and gunfire.
I had a very similar experience about 20 years ago at the Oakland Airport Motel 6.
Only Motel 6 I’ve ever seen with 12’ chain link fence with razor wire around the property and armed guards on the gatehouse.
Very odd experience.
Got something against Popular Scuence, do ya?
No they don't.
All they can "see" is the surface temperature of the tarp itself, which can of course be affected by what's behind it.
But depending on the ambient temperature around the boat, you might not be able to see any indication at all someone is inside.
Or a Toyota Takoma!
Did I read correctly today that during the gun battle on Friday night that the Boston Islamist muzzies had only one “real” gun and a pellet gun between them? And Boston’s finest still allowed one to get away?
Maybe the New York law of limited capacity mags also applies in MA?/S
Why do we not here about the guns used?
The boat in Watertown was covered with shrink wrap white plastic, not a normal poly tarp. Based on the FLIR images released from the police helicopter it looks like the plastic film was pretty much transparent at the IR wavelengths being sensed by the FLIR device. Image quality of structures within the boat looks much better than would be possible from re-radiated energy from an opaque surface.
You are correct of course for a cover which is opaque at the sensing wavelength.
oy vey
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.