PDA

View Full Version : Calling BS. on the "Box o' Truth" guys, they don't do homework on their stuff



okie shooter
05-21-2007, 02:58 PM
Ok after getting hit by the "box o truth" quotes on another list, and after explaining why you dont expect mags to be bullet proof vests, but they might still save a life, I did more reading on that site, and found this test.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot34.htm on bullet proof wall board, and the fact it stoped a 22 cal bullet but didnt stop anything above level II protection.

But the thing the box o truth guys dont tell you, or even bother to research is what level that one peice of wall board gives you

go to this page, and they explain if you want greater than level I protection you need to do what, hmmm use more laminates of the stuff.

http://www.usbulletproofing.com/USBPProductarmor.htm

def of levels of protection

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

Better source on ballistic testing and protection levels,

http://www.insulgard.com/shapes/insulgard/protection.htm

Thus with some money and the willingness to make stuff look bad or good, I can do testing to make it look either way.(box o truth shot at one layer of the stuff, it passed level I and failed anything stronger, hmmm what one layer is designed to do, wonder why, but they called bs on the idea of bullet proof wall board, without looking further into it or even doing a little investigation, which I did and took me just a few minutes on line)

Thus folks take these guys to be the experts, and they dont even think about testing or doing more research on the subjects.(we get what we pay them for on this sort of testing, nothing, if paid they would do more home work, they work with donations of stuff to test for the most part)

The same stuff happens on myth busters, the one I like to think about is trying to break the rear axle out of a cop car like in american grefetti, the problem is they tried it on a six link rear suspension off a ninties police car, not a simple leaf spring set up on a fifties police car, the steels alone are far better in modern cars, plus the actual engineering design is totaly different. Thus it does take some homework to realize you are comparing apples to grapefruits. Thus like they said in the sixties, with a slight twist, "question test results authority" just because some one does it and quantifies it, it still may not be vaild.

Remember consumer reports, has had two black eyes from testing on cars, where they had to be sued before retracting disparishing statments, on roll over, because in one test, the operator had to turn the stearing wheel ninty degrees instantally on the highway, then release it to create the condition they flunked the car on, and with the geos almost the same thing was true, not things you have happen every day, or within you life time.

P.S. Take what they write with a grain of salt, they retest the dammaged products with no regard, look at the bullet proof glass test, they keep shooting it and finaly get penetration with a 12 ga steel slug, but hitting a spot already delaminated(I am not sure if bullet proof glass can stand up to 12 ga steel slugs though, the heaviest thing listed to test against is suplmental shotgun, lead slugs). If the test was proper, each projectile would be against a virgin plate, not against one already having been hit with more and more shots.

WildBillCody
05-21-2007, 03:25 PM
As much as I like the show, Mythbusters always gets stuff wrong, like the Arcamedes death ray, I saw a video on another show back in the '60's they set a boat on fire using only the reflective sun light off of 100 or so bronze shields that they polished up, on thing that they didn't try on mythbusters was giving 100 guys a reflector and letting them aim it, also I like how the most heat they could get on the boat was 250 or 350 degrees, yeah, it might not be enough to set the boat on fire, but I wouldn't want to be on the boat right then, also think about the mentality of people back then, they thought hell I'm getting hot, I feel like I'm on fire, they must have sort of secret weapon. Then the one they did on Carlos Hathcock pretty much saying that he was lying, about shooting the guy through the scope, but they were using a big variable scope, with like five lenses and stuff inside, not just a PU scope. You can twist experiments to give you any result.

k98k792
05-21-2007, 03:25 PM
They ( BoxoTruth) seem to say twice,that more layers would be more effective.

Also Myth Busters tried the scope thing again with the proper scope and a AP rnd did go throught the scope.

tanstaafl4y
05-21-2007, 03:27 PM
You mean not everything you read in the intar-webs it true. Oh noes. I guess that means I'll be stuck with a small peins and a bad mortgage forever.

/I always took box-of-truth with a grain of salt, but i like looking at the pictures of them shooting stuff.

Optimus Prime
05-21-2007, 03:30 PM
They do mention on their site numorous times that they are by no means experts, and that none of their things are to be taken as proof of anything. They're just a couple retired guys with time to kill and guns to play with. I just remembered that they had shot some mags just to see what they would do.

okie shooter
05-21-2007, 03:31 PM
They ( BoxoTruth) seem to say twice,that more layers would be more effective.
Ya but no where do they figure out that what they have is Level I protection, the max is 38 sp or 22 rf, not 9mm, 44mag, 7.62x25, or 5.56x45 rated.

Would anyone expect level I vests to protect against anything else but that? I have a friend whos husband was shot in the line of duty when the level one vests were first out, it aint much protection but would have saved his life most likely. Thus contrary to what they said
2. It's not really bullet-proof, but more of a "bullet irritant"., it was "bullet proof" against what it was rated for, Level I threats not level II or III which is what they tossed at it.

They do mention on their site numorous times that they are by no means experts, and that none of their things are to be taken as proof of anything. They're just a couple retired guys with time to kill and guns to play with. I just remembered that they had shot some mags just to see what they would do.
The problem Optimus Prime, is that there are folks that would say its all bs but for these guys, because they don't follow rules and such when testing products, and they can read the results on the internet easly, not read reports of testing and such, just GOB testing. No matter how many disclaimers they post, there are those who will take their stuff as the truth.

I guess if I were trying to gain a rep even on the web as being something of an "expert" by testing stuff, documenting it, and posting back on the web, I might do a little research before deeming something not "Bulletproof" when pushing it beyond its intended purpose.

okie shooter
05-21-2007, 03:49 PM
Sorry on the rant, its the fact I am a engineer, know a little about materials and such and have done some reading on some subjects like this, I get to deal with blast over pressures and if two inches of steel plating will protect a operator, incase of accidental discharge. How may days does your CO ask you " what happens if the machine eats(and crushes and mangles and tries to chew up) a 105 mm howitzer round" and you have to give him a anwser?(and beleive me that was a fun question to the room I was in last week)

Ok off rant now

SteelCore
05-21-2007, 03:50 PM
or lab tested...just some guys (in both cases/sites) doing what they think is a reasonable facsimile of certain things.

I have exceptions to the show and the website to the way things are done, and nake neighter show as anthing more than entertainment. ppl wil believe what they believe, tho.

"You mean not everything you read in the intar-webs it true. Oh noes."
-->teh troof!

tanstaafl4y
05-21-2007, 03:52 PM
incase of accidental discharge. How may days does your CO ask you " what happens if the machine eats a 105 mm howitzer round" and you have to give him a anwser?

Ok off rant now

None but I was there when one popped center battery with the guns emplaced in a star formation. BDU's do not stop shrapnel.

okie shooter
05-21-2007, 04:02 PM
Tanstaafly4y, we have these things on the outside of our explosive buildings, little dugout concrete bunkers, useally near the end of an excape slide but some just running room from the building. I often wondered what would happen if you ducked into one of them instead of just keep running, would it do you any good or just give them a place to find your body in one piece(but your guts turned into the white mass due to overpressure, I have been told to leave a building, but stay within the blast wall, due to too many transiants in the operation, just will be dead inside the blast wall, but outside of the building when the scrape me up :icon_biggrin: ).

Luckly there hasn't been a explosive accident here in over thirty years, I hope it stays that way too. Just some of my jobs have stuff that makes artilery projectiles look very very small.