5 ms·

Edit: Apparently I should have looked for more videos on youtube. The ones others have provided make me believe. Still think they should have rented a real high

Edit: Apparently I should have looked for more videos on youtube. The ones others have provided make me believe. Still think they should have rented a real high speed camera though. ----- Mad props if he actually did this, but a bit skeptical here. I see no evidence there was an actual live round in there. It could well have been a blank. On the other video further down the page they remove the magazine and show the round, and there is visible damage to the clothes they shoot. I see no visible damage, and he didn't bother to recover the round as in other video either. If I were pulling this stunt I would certainly have a high speed camera to show it in action. Other thing I noticed is there is a muzzle flash on the full speed and then when they slow it down there is not? Could be an odd artifact, but could also be added?

krupan 8y ago
Slower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A A hole does appear in the outer jacket
21 8y ago
> Mad props if he actually did this, but a bit skeptical here Skeptical of what? Bulletproof vests do stop bullets, there is no crazy claim here. There are many special forces training videos on YouTube where they do get shot in the bullet proof vest with live ammo. See 0:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2dOioMoBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2dOioMoBE
- Bedon292 8y ago
  At the time I was skeptical that he actually shot himself. Not that bulletproof vests stop bullets in general. That is obviously true. The additional videos others provided have shown more evidence which was not visible in the video in the article.
krupan 8y ago
From the youtube comments: Two different cameras at two different frame rates, both at 180* shutter angle. The main camera was at 24fps and the "high speed" was only 120fps. You've got a very long exposure with the slower camera, less chance to miss the muzzle flash and it's bled over one big frame. The muzzle flash was simply between frames on the high speed. You can find the same thing happening on videos all over, including our other testing videos on ballistic clay and gelatin Raw straight out of the camera in 4K with no cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bShWhdzEZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bShWhdzEZ8 The damage: https://youtu.be/f_Y8rXMb1qs https://youtu.be/f_Y8rXMb1qs Brighter and slower slow-mo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A Show less
- Bedon292 8y ago
  I briefly skimmed some of the comments before posting, but did not see that one. That makes perfect sense, thanks.
jackhack 8y ago
My experience with body armor is based on equipment from the 1990s so take this for what it's worth. While the bullet may not penetrate the cloth, it often results in broken ribs and a great amount of bruising underneath. Damage to liver, spleen, lungs and heart is also possible due to the shock of impact -- that energy has to go somewhere. So even if it doesn't penetrate, you might still die. Very large handgun rounds may deform the inner surface of the vest into a cupped shape. Rifle rounds travel at much, much higher velocity and carry so much energy that they usually punch right through. That's why a plate carrier is needed to protect the heart from rifle rounds. it's basically the same trauma as being hit in the ribs with a sledge hammer or a baseball bat, swung at full speed. You'll likely survive, but you'll almost certainly likely be injured to one degree or another. In short, it won't be pleasant.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Rifle rounds pack a whole lot more power than 9mm, the flip side is that 9mm is very common. One of the original inventors of the second chance vests shot himself with a .357 point blank in front of an audience and walked away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwBLL7Z3OvU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwBLL7Z3OvU
- Bedon292 8y ago
  Yeah, I can imagine there would be a lot of possible damage based upon the blunt force trauma. I guess they picked a spot that was least likely to do lasting internal damage?
dpark 8y ago
> Mad props if he actually did this, but a bit skeptical here. I understand neither the "mad props" nor the skepticism. Why is it hard to believe that the CEO of a company that makes body armor would trust their body armor to perform to its specifications? > I see no evidence there was an actual live round in there. It could well have been a blank. On the other video further down the page they remove the magazine and show the round, and there is visible damage to the clothes they shoot. I see no visible damage, and he didn't bother to recover the round as in other video either. If I were pulling this stunt I would certainly have a high speed camera to show it in action. They show the recovered round and the giant bruise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Y8rXMb1qs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Y8rXMb1qs And there is clearly visible damage recorded on the slo-mo video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A I agree that they should have rented a high-speed camera for this ridiculousness, though. > Other thing I noticed is there is a muzzle flash on the full speed and then when they slow it down there is not? Could be an odd artifact, but could also be added? It's two different cameras. One of them captured the muzzle flash. One didn't. It's possible that they added it to one but not the other but that seems less likely than one just not capturing it. I don't know why you propose blanks but then assume the muzzle flash is fake, as if blanks don't create a muzzle flash.
- Bedon292 8y ago
  I did not look for additional videos, my comment was based on just the video in the article. That slow-mo video shows more than the one in the article, and makes me a believer. I also was just asking about the flash not appearing in one video. Not attempting to say a blank would have no flash. Two different cameras makes perfect sense, but they didn't actually say what was happening in the video. I thought they had just slowed down

krupan 8y ago

Slower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A A hole does appear in the outer jacket

21 8y ago

> Mad props if he actually did this, but a bit skeptical here Skeptical of what? Bulletproof vests do stop bullets, there is no crazy claim here. There are many special forces training videos on YouTube where they do get shot in the bullet proof vest with live ammo. See 0:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2dOioMoBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2dOioMoBE

Bedon292 8y ago
At the time I was skeptical that he actually shot himself. Not that bulletproof vests stop bullets in general. That is obviously true. The additional videos others provided have shown more evidence which was not visible in the video in the article.

krupan 8y ago

From the youtube comments: Two different cameras at two different frame rates, both at 180* shutter angle. The main camera was at 24fps and the "high speed" was only 120fps. You've got a very long exposure with the slower camera, less chance to miss the muzzle flash and it's bled over one big frame. The muzzle flash was simply between frames on the high speed. You can find the same thing happening on videos all over, including our other testing videos on ballistic clay and gelatin Raw straight out of the camera in 4K with no cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bShWhdzEZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bShWhdzEZ8 The damage: https://youtu.be/f_Y8rXMb1qs https://youtu.be/f_Y8rXMb1qs Brighter and slower slow-mo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A Show less

Bedon292 8y ago
I briefly skimmed some of the comments before posting, but did not see that one. That makes perfect sense, thanks.

jackhack 8y ago

My experience with body armor is based on equipment from the 1990s so take this for what it's worth. While the bullet may not penetrate the cloth, it often results in broken ribs and a great amount of bruising underneath. Damage to liver, spleen, lungs and heart is also possible due to the shock of impact -- that energy has to go somewhere. So even if it doesn't penetrate, you might still die. Very large handgun rounds may deform the inner surface of the vest into a cupped shape. Rifle rounds travel at much, much higher velocity and carry so much energy that they usually punch right through. That's why a plate carrier is needed to protect the heart from rifle rounds. it's basically the same trauma as being hit in the ribs with a sledge hammer or a baseball bat, swung at full speed. You'll likely survive, but you'll almost certainly likely be injured to one degree or another. In short, it won't be pleasant.

vorpalhex 8y ago
Rifle rounds pack a whole lot more power than 9mm, the flip side is that 9mm is very common. One of the original inventors of the second chance vests shot himself with a .357 point blank in front of an audience and walked away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwBLL7Z3OvU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwBLL7Z3OvU
Bedon292 8y ago
Yeah, I can imagine there would be a lot of possible damage based upon the blunt force trauma. I guess they picked a spot that was least likely to do lasting internal damage?

dpark 8y ago

> Mad props if he actually did this, but a bit skeptical here. I understand neither the "mad props" nor the skepticism. Why is it hard to believe that the CEO of a company that makes body armor would trust their body armor to perform to its specifications? > I see no evidence there was an actual live round in there. It could well have been a blank. On the other video further down the page they remove the magazine and show the round, and there is visible damage to the clothes they shoot. I see no visible damage, and he didn't bother to recover the round as in other video either. If I were pulling this stunt I would certainly have a high speed camera to show it in action. They show the recovered round and the giant bruise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Y8rXMb1qs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Y8rXMb1qs And there is clearly visible damage recorded on the slo-mo video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpWJuSvd7A I agree that they should have rented a high-speed camera for this ridiculousness, though. > Other thing I noticed is there is a muzzle flash on the full speed and then when they slow it down there is not? Could be an odd artifact, but could also be added? It's two different cameras. One of them captured the muzzle flash. One didn't. It's possible that they added it to one but not the other but that seems less likely than one just not capturing it. I don't know why you propose blanks but then assume the muzzle flash is fake, as if blanks don't create a muzzle flash.

Bedon292 8y ago
I did not look for additional videos, my comment was based on just the video in the article. That slow-mo video shows more than the one in the article, and makes me a believer. I also was just asking about the flash not appearing in one video. Not attempting to say a blank would have no flash. Two different cameras makes perfect sense, but they didn't actually say what was happening in the video. I thought they had just slowed down