> 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

> 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.