Profiteering from crisis

[Hawkmoon]

Or, perhaps, just dumb.

http://www.newser.com/story/251234/fla-school-offers-120-bulletproof-backpack-insert.html

Guy sells school backpacks featuring a fiber (made, perhaps not coincidentally, by his company) that can stop [some] handgun bullets. This is supposed to be a pro-active safety measure, providing parents with "peace of mind."

Except --

No thicker than a binder, the insert is meant to stop bullets from smaller pistols and revolvers (though not more powerful weapons) and offer "peace of mind," says Cejas.

This purportedly came about as a response to Sandy Hook -- but the Sandy Hook shooter used an AR-15, and the 5.56x45 round from an AR-15 would go right through this thing. Any "peace of mind" offered by this is a false sense of security. If the guy is selling them at cost, then he's just misguided. If he's making money from it, he's a charlatan and a disgraceful opportunist.

[230RN]

I thought the story was "intriguing," but I wouldn't call the marketer a charlatan or "disgraceful opportunist."

Opportunist, perhaps, but just taking advantage of a new market opening with the recent tragic events.  Does the tragic nature of those recent events make his marketing efforts "disgraceful?"

Charlatan?  I don't know.  My feeling is that anyhing which slows down a bullet is advantageous in minimalizing damage to the body, even if it "penetrates," or "goes right through" a protective device.

If it exits the protective device with a remaining velocity of 10 fps, that's good, even though it "went right through," right?

In that sense, a small frying pan would be better than nothing in terms of protection, and an attempt to sell small frying pans for kids' backpacks would not necessarily make the seller a "charlatan."

But that would depend on the advertising for the small frying pan.  "Extra, if minimal, protection" is different from calling it "bulletproof."

The term "peace of mind" is a relative term, and I suppose "additional peace of mind" might be better.  Frankly, if I had school age kids, failing suiting them up like a battlefield soldier, a frying pan could in fact give me "additional peace of mind."

Terry, 230RN

Note the term "small frying pan" is not meant to be taken too literally.

[HeroHog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv5aFdAAggA

Frying Pan vs Real Shotgun Slugs

[230RN]

  I knowed you would do that.  I just knowed it.

Cast iron too brittle.  "Wrong frying pan" mentioned by the narrator.  Concomitant shrapnel dangerous.

...

Note the term "small frying pan" is not meant to be taken too literally.

Besides, deliberately ruining a perfectly good cast iron frying pan is borderlinely unforgiveable.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

I knowed you would do that.  I just knowed it.

Cast iron too brittle.  "Wrong frying pan" mentioned by the narrator.  Concomitant shrapnel dangerous.

Besides, deliberately ruining a perfectly good cast iron frying pan is borderlinely unforgiveable.

Terry

Maybe it was a Wal-Mart Chinese frying pan. I certainly hope it wasn't a Griswold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeKFzJIbT1k

[230RN]

Hm.  Collectible cookware.  Who'd a thunk it?

Apart from the shrapnel, I wonder how much the velocity was decreased after penetrating what, 3/16" of cast iron?

[MechAg94]

I figure the guy is just selling options.  People want to feel they have options if something happens.  Even if they can't have a gun, they at least have something that helps.

[Hawkmoon]

I figure the guy is just selling options.  People want to feel they have options if something happens.  Even if they can't have a gun, they at least have something that helps.

And that would be fine ... if it helps. Which apparently this would not, since it's only resistant to some, smaller handgun rounds.

[230RN]

And that would be fine ... if it helps. Which apparently this would not, since it's only resistant to some, smaller handgun rounds.

But the "frying pan analogy" was meant to point out that any slowdown of any projectile before it hits the skin is a good thing.  The guy is simply selling something which is lightweight (not a frying pan) and at least designed to slow down bullets.  No, it probably won't stop a rifle bullet, but it will, definitely, no "probably" about it, slow it down.

[Hawkmoon]

But the "frying pan analogy" was meant to point out that any slowdown of any projectile before it hits the skin is a good thing.  The guy is simply selling something which is lightweight (not a frying pan) and at least designed to slow down bullets.  No, it probably won't stop a rifle bullet, but it will, definitely, no "probably" about it, slow it down.

I need more than that before I consider an expensive widget an "option." Both the 55-grain and the 62-grain 5.56x45 NATO round have a muzzle velocity of more than 3,000 feet-per-second. At close range (as might be expected in a school shooting), the velocity on target is going to be around 3,000 f.p.s. Just how much do you think this stuff will take off that 3,000 f.p.s.? I very much doubt it's enough to make any appreciable difference to the shootee.

[230RN]

"...any slowdown of any projectile before it hits the skin is a good thing."

Whether the price meets someone's personal specifications as to how much slowing needs to be done at any given price point is another issue. My opinion was and is that he is not necessarily a charlatan just because the product might not actually stop --full stop --a .223 or a .50 or a .357.

[Nick1911]

But the "frying pan analogy" was meant to point out that any slowdown of any projectile before it hits the skin is a good thing. 

Is that actually proven?  Any energy you're removing from the projectile before penetration is being transferred to the body as blunt force trauma.

Scenario 1: Rifle bullet zips through body.  Loses some velocity, leaves a hole.

Scenario 2: Rifle bullet hits thin armor.  Some energy is transferred from bullet into the armor, which deflects into the body resulting in trauma.  Bullet then zips through body.  Loses some velocity, leaves a hole.

[230RN]

If the device does some good that's better than no good.

[Hawkmoon]

Put it this way.  A protective device (book, frying pan, "man with no name" armor plate) which slows a .223 bullet down to 2000 f/s before hitting skin is better than no protective device at all.  But it would be better if it slowed it down to 0 f/s even if it knocks the targeted person down and breaks a couple of ribs.

I have to disagree. A 9mm FMJ out of a handgun has a muzzle velocity of around 1100 to 1300 (for +P) feet-per-second. Unless it hits a large bone, a 9mm will go through a human being and still have enough energy to injure anyone beyond who is unfortunate enough to be in its way. Slowing a .223 bullet from 3,000 to 2,000 feet-per-second (which I doubt this stuff will do) is still going to leave the bullet with considerably more than enough velocity and energy to shoot all the way through a young person's torso. I can't think of any way that "better" is a good way of describing that.

[230RN]

We're arguing over two different viewpoints.

I say any slowdown is beneficial in terms of ultimate injury/tissue destruction.

You seem to be saying or at least implying that if the armor doesn't absolutely stop the projectile, it's worthless as armor.

I don't think that difference is amenable to resolution.

This, completely apart from the question of what price point constitutes chicanery.  If the device is free, that's obviously not chicanery.  If it's US$ 1000, I would agree that it probably is.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

I just don't see any appreciable difference between a projectile shooting all the way through you at 2,000 fps rather than at 3,000 fps.

It's not free. $120 is less than $1,000, but it's a lot more than "free."

[Nick1911]

If the device does some good that's better than no good.

I'm curious why you believe my point is invalid?

Blunt force trauma from the armor, plus a through hole is worse then just a through hole, no?

[KD5NRH]

I say any slowdown is beneficial in terms of ultimate injury/tissue destruction.

I may not be an MD, but I know really really dead is actually just as dead as really really really dead.  Plus, slowing the bullet is likely to expand it as well, meaning both the entry and exit wounds will be bigger: more hole for important stuff to leak out of and a larger overall wound channel.

[Hawkmoon]

I may not be an MD, but I know really really dead is actually just as dead as really really really dead. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

[KD5NRH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

We're not talking mostly dead here; we're talking voting-Democrat-multiple-times levels of dead.

[230RN]

I'm curious why you believe my point is invalid?

Blunt force trauma from the armor, plus a through hole is worse then just a through hole, no?

Because the blunt force trauma of which you speak is a conversion of the energy which would have gone into penetration.  In fact, that's the purpose of all personal armor, to convert all of the projectile's energy into forces spread out over many square inches instead of over a .223 inch circle.

Within the specified parameters of a given type of armor, that's what happens most of the time. If the armor "fails" from a projectile with greater energy, it means a certain amount of energy must have been dissipated in the armor, resulting in less wounding energy once it gets into the body.

And that's what I've been trying to say all along.

As far as a 3000 f/s projectile getting through a protective layer at 2000 f/s, I agree that's probably going to be deadly.  But the fact remains that the chances of survival from a 2000 f/s wound is ever so slightly better than with a 3000 f/s wound.

But similarly, if an 800 f/s bullet gets slowed to 400 f/s by the "armor," that's better than getting hit with the bullet at its original velocity. Even if the armor isn't rated for an 800 f/s projectile.

Now there are other variables, such as bullet design, etc, but the basic axiom remains:  The more you can slow down the projectile before it gets to the skin, the better, and that axiom remains true regardless of other variables.

So maybe the guy's shields would not stop a .357, but if it slows it down to .38 SPL target wadcutter velocity before it gets to the skin, so much the better.  That's all I'm saying.

As I said, it's the difference between holding a book up to your COM versus opening your shirt and exposing your hairy chest to the shooter.  It may get through the book, but it isn't going to cause as much damage to you.

I've made my points as best I can to illustrate that the guy should not be considered a charlatan just on the basis of what you think his device should actually stop --full stop -- versus slowing any bullet down thereby minimizing a kid's injuries.

Terry

(Edited for spelling)

[KD5NRH]

So maybe the guy's shields would not stop a .357, but if it slows it down to .38 SPL target wadcutter velocity before it gets to the skin, so much the better.  That's all I'm saying.

Except that now it's expanded and (using Gold Dot results from Tactical Life's tests) now entering the flesh as a .610" projectile instead of a .355" projectile.  .38 wadcutters are still pretty deadly, hand I'd expect one that's now making an entry wound the size of a 20ga slug to be even worse.

Using a couple of randomly Googled results for .223 soft points, they're all over .400" after expansion, so if you've only slowed the rifle bullet to 2000fps, I don't see much improvement at all.

[Hawkmoon]

Within the specified parameters of a given type of armor, that's what happens most of the time. If the armor "fails" from a projectile with greater energy, it means a certain amount of energy must have been dissipated in the armor, resulting in less wounding energy once it gets into the body.

And that's what I've been trying to say all along.

As far as a 3000 f/s projectile getting through a protective layer at 2000 f/s, I agree that's probably going to be deadly.  But the fact remains that the chances of survival from a 2000 f/s wound is ever so slightly better than with a 3000 f/s wound.

But similarly, if an 800 f/s bullet gets slowed to 400 f/s by the "armor," that's better than getting hit with the bullet at its original velocity. Even if the armor isn't rated for an 800 f/s projectile.

I consider him a possible charlatan because he is selling this stuff as providing parents with "peace of mind" against the possibility of their child being shot. I seriously doubt they understand that IF a vest is capable of completely stopping a bullet short of entering the body, it's likely going to result in some very serious bruising at best, and more likely a few broken ribs. And that's from a handgun round. If the shooter uses a rifle (such as a 5.56x45, as was used at Sandy Hook and as was used in the recent Texas church shooting, it's virtually guaranteed that the bullet will punch right through this fiber pad, and probably still have enough energy left to shoot all the way through a child's torso. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that should offer any parent "peace of mind."

I understand what you're saying -- I just disagree with it completely. I don't see a reduction in bullet velocity as making any significant difference in a real-world shooting. Possibly with lower-powered handgun rounds, certainly not with rifle rounds.

And I'm not saying his product "should" stop anything. That's not the point. It stops what it stops. My problem is that he is promoting it to provide peace of mind, and I think that's a false claim. Or, rather, that if parents feel peace of mind because their child is using this stuff, the peace of mind is an illusion, because if their kid gets shot there is still going to be significant physical trauma and I think they are being led to believe that this magic stuff will prevent that.

[MechAg94]

Except that now it's expanded and (using Gold Dot results from Tactical Life's tests) now entering the flesh as a .610" projectile instead of a .355" projectile.  .38 wadcutters are still pretty deadly, hand I'd expect one that's now making an entry wound the size of a 20ga slug to be even worse.

Using a couple of randomly Googled results for .223 soft points, they're all over .400" after expansion, so if you've only slowed the rifle bullet to 2000fps, I don't see much improvement at all.

Except you don't know it will expand.  You don't know what bullet will be used.  It could be hollow point that is slowed down enough that it doesn't expand.  A shotgun slug is big, but it is the weight of the slug driving through that makes it more deadly.  

I seem to recall a bunch of discussion and debate about the military 5.56 ammo and the minimum velocity needed for it to fragment or yaw in the body and cause more damage.  I think it was mentioned that below a certain velocity, it just zips through the body creating a .22 hole.  I don't if this stuff would slow that bullet down enough, but might be worth looking at if it was not hugely expensive.  The article says it is $120.  Is that too much?  Maybe.

There is also nothing that says a bullet will hit the material at a perpendicular angle.   I agree that "peace of mind" is foolish.  Even if the stuff was bullet proof, it would not cover the entire body. 

[KD5NRH]

Except you don't know it will expand.  You don't know what bullet will be used.

A hollowpoint is best case.  Round nose would be slowed even less.

It could be hollow point that is slowed down enough that it doesn't expand.

Not sure how that would work; you're talking about smacking it on the nose in precisely the way that makes them expand.