>> ^Jinx:

Lets just agree that Tank/APC train could fire one hell of a broadside.


You're absolutely right of course, but let me put it to you another way.

There are, let's say, 99 Bradleys on that train. You pit all of them against say a half-dozen M1A2 Abrams Tanks and the tanks would destroy or disable every one of those Bradleys without having one single hole put through them. Well, this is if it were possible to carry enough ammunition.

The 25mm Bushmaster gun that the Bradleys carry is a good weapon against troops and lightly armoured vehicles, but those rounds would simply bounce harmlessly off the tank. Likewise the armour of a Bradley is fine against most small arms fire but would likely be destroyed by a single RPG, or perhaps even an armour-piercing .50 BMG round.

>> ^smooman:

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system
i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.



Yep, there's something to be said for probability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7HDRhViHQ

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system

i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.


what? i have no idea where you would be using this glass, but i can guarantee you that an AK47 is likely the most powerful HANDHELD firearm you're going to be facing next to an RPG launcher or something. everyone from detroit gangbangers to iraqi insurgents to rebels in the congo have AK47s. the next step up for most of those guys is likely a .50 cal mounted machine gun, and at that point you're boned regardless of your GLASS, because that shit can go through relatively thick STEEL.

AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'FPSRussia, 50cal, BMG, Ma Deuce, APC' to 'FPSRussia, 50cal, 50 caliber, BMG, Ma Deuce, APC' - edited by calvados

What the fuck is the point of taking a recoilless rifle and subcal'ing it to .50 BMG? Why not just use the rifle instead?

>> ^Encumberance:

The fact that it is all legal gets me.

I think a combination of rarity, expense, and just plain impracticality is why these things are legal.
Besides, while it may be legal to own one, mounting something like that 50 BMG on your car is probably not legal. These weapons might be big and scary but not suitable for common criminal activities like robbing banks and knocking over convenience stores, subtly is not a common feature of these weapons.
On another note, I wonder how full those gas cans were? Less would be better I imagine since fumes go up easier than the liquid.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by saber2x.

*promote ....BMG...raising the standard!

Wow. That little girl was great. Great find, bmg.

Thanks for the promote bmg!

In reply to this comment by bleedmegood:
*promote

Thank you bmg for post this. As a psychotherapist, schizophrenia is a very tough condition to treat. No amount of therapy without proper medication can make a dent in the symptoms. It's one of the few mental health diagnoses where medication (anti-psychotics) really does help.

In the hypothetical of this video, this person is very fortunate because s/he has a loving relative/friend who understands him/her and is helping him/her get by. Having that person there makes a huge difference. Isolation+schizophrenia=danger.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Outside nudist colonies- body modesty is a prevalent trait for most adolescents - you can blame corrupting society - but it exists.>> ^Bidouleroux:

Being conscious of what? Only peer pressure from the non-naked outside world (which equates nudity with sex) makes teenagers insecure around naked people. Children of nudists generally don't grow up to be "conscious" of their and others' nakedness. When you've seen and have been seen by thousands of naked bodies, nakedness becomes a non-issue.
Also, Freud is pants.>> ^dag:
Why is everybody sexualizing this? Nudity around your kids is not a harmful thing. What most of the books say is when kids start being body conscious, that's when mom and dad need to put clothes on around the house. And I think I liked your first title better, BMG.

Being conscious of what? Only peer pressure from the non-naked outside world (which equates nudity with sex) makes teenagers insecure around naked people. Children of nudists generally don't grow up to be "conscious" of their and others' nakedness. When you've seen and have been seen by thousands of naked bodies, nakedness becomes a non-issue.

Also, Freud is pants.>> ^dag:

Why is everybody sexualizing this? Nudity around your kids is not a harmful thing. What most of the books say is when kids start being body conscious, that's when mom and dad need to put clothes on around the house. And I think I liked your first title better, BMG.