Why Sonny - back in MY day we didn't have these fancy-schmancy ballistic laboratories ! We just had to make do with what we had !

doing it old school

WOW!!
That is true love.

WOW, I wonder what caliber that rifle was. Also, how trusting is that woman? I wonder if she was his wife?

__________________
Miss My Buddy crsides!!

I noticed the shooter wasn't wearing safety glasses-

That without the slightest doubt is the dumbest thing I have ever seen anybody do with a firearm! I'm surprised that bullet and glass spatter didn't cut her fingers curled around the front of the glass.

OSHA approved test protocol?

Woman loves her man. Will do anything he asks. Harmony.

Out
West

Dumbest thing I ever saw. From the clothing, etc the film was appartently made back in the 1950's or prior. Old school stupid?

Charlie

__________________
SWCA # 2294

Ah the good old days. Before the Lawyers and Insurance companies stopped good clean fun like that.

When he was interviewed later on, he said he did not know she was holding the glass.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Looks Depression era to me, probably a promotion for protection from Bonnie and Clyde.

Ye gad's! The thread title reminded me of a story my Dad told me when he was in the Army Air Corps in WW II. He was stationed in Africa at the air base in Accra at the time. They where disscusing the bullet proof glass used for the tail gunner of either a B-17 or 24, (the base was mainly an air transport base but had a few bombers through now and again) and if it was any good or not. They set up a section of it at about a hundred yards or so and let it have a fifty cal round. Well he said it went right on through the glass and they could see puffs of dust now and again as the bullet sailed out of sight across the dessert. One of the fellows was heard to say, well so much for that! My Dad replyed with, glad I just work on em!

__________________
Stay safe people!

I wonder how much she was getting paid. Whatever it was, it was not enough to get me to do such work. I might get shot at during work but it is not intentional and those doing the shooting best not take time to aim because I shoot back.

Well, I guess stupidity isn't so new.

Andy

some look at this and say "this is the dumbest thing I've seen since the Popsicle was marketed to Eskimos"
I see a window to a piece of history.
today, bullet proof materials need only a vid clip of being shot in a laboratory since it is now proven and accepted that "bullet proof" is an attainable property.
back then when "bullet proof" was new, the market must have laughed and said "Prove it" ....
you call this stupid?!?!?
without this brave act, funding for improvements leading up to current technologies found on the modern battle field and police stations would never have come to be.
such things in that era are a result of a high number of "prove it's". Thats exactly what they did.
its not much different than the brothers Wright at Kittyhawk nor the tradition of Lockheeds test pilots flying each maiden flight of a new aircraft with the chief engineers wallet and car keys.

Whoa, venom, what are you telling us? That the ONLY way to prove to potential buyers that bullet-proof glass had been invented was to have a woman hold a chunk in front of her face and have someone shoot it? Please explain yourself further.

Andy

sure ... times have changed.
today you can find and have faith in a great many bullet proof products due to the advancement of technology.
in its infant stage, no one believed it was possible so in order to market it you had to not only prove it worked but also display absolute faith in it.
the same was done with early bullet proof vests.
today such stunts in the armor field are unnecessary and armors worth can be proven to the public with a simple lab test since its well past the "prove it" stage

If today, you announced that you have developed a deportation device ready for public sale, you'd soon learn that it would be in the "prove it" stage.
you would then have to step into your contraption, get disintegrated, broadcast to a receiver and come out the other side alive and well or your not making your investment capitol back.
later on in the history, probably after your dead and gone, someone will call you stupid for trying that stunt without all the added safety devices and refinements in place that would surely have evolved into the technology.

Dont call them stupid. That stunt, and others like it were necessary and the efforts have contributed to both soldiers and law enforcement officers coming home to their families, who otherwise would not have

Bravo! Thanks for clearing this up for us!

And this is not an ancient concept that has 'gone by the way' by any means. Although there are many here who weren't born yet, 1971 isn't exactly ancient history for a lot of us; Richard Davis started a little company that produced the "Second Chance" bullet proof vest and called attention to it's safety and efficiency by shooting himself at point bank range (see video) so Venomballistics is one of the few so far to "get" the point of my tongue-in-cheek set-up of this thread.

Sure, the old 'glass' video is dated, startling, and somewhat amusing now, but seeing is believing when something new is introduced that defies conventional wisdom about just what is possible.

WRONG! You put your wife into the contraption...

__________________
In dog years I'm dead.

I have a mother in law for that

I wonder if the lady asked them to "prove it" before she held it.

the prove it phenomena goes WAY back.
it has to.
Consider all the fruits and vegetables we have to eat today.
I have no doubt that some of them have been selected through ancient games of is that edible.
"unga .. Kronk writhe in dirt ... invent pencil to cross that off list"

Some technologies are immune to the prove it stage due to being enshrouded in mystery though ...
like the modern electric guitar.
Les Paul was electrocuted in the course of its development. Given the fact that vac tubes where the ordeal of the day, that automatically puts the voltage over 170 with 350 being fairly average for operation. That had to leave a mark.
the only reason it didnt suffer a "prove it" stage is because electronics are not widely understood like a bullet impacting a target is.
we'd have a lot less blues, and rock music today if they understood that the guitarist becomes part of a 275 - 450 volt circuit the second he plugs into an amp.

There is a photo in McGivern's Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting of him firing a .357 at some safety glass with a state trooper standing behind it. When it came turn for the trooper to fire, McGivern passed on standing behind the glass himself.

Some parts of his shooting exhibition involved shooting objects held in people's hands or with spectators standing extremely close by the target.

Different times; different perspectives.