Well not really LEGO, but you get the point:
A portable alternative that won’t degrade as badly as sandbags or concrete under sustained fire. For cost effectiveness I still don’t think you can beat showing up with some bags or cardboard with wire over it (HESCO) and filling it up with the same stuff you’re walking on. If this is safer though, doesn’t cost a mint, and they have a way to easily get it to a FOB then why not?
It’s called the 3-Dimensional Interlocking Protection System, and is made by Ballistics Research. Lots of info available in the powerpoint download (fail, I know) on their site.
Comments
15 responses to “Bulletproof LEGO”
Can’t we just go back to bales of cotton? Shit stops full on .75 caliber bullets, is rather light (’tis cotton after all) and helped Andrew Jackson slaughter 21,000 British whilst only sustaining 21 casualties.
Can’t argue with the results.
______________________________
On another note, the only way I can can see this stuff being useful is if Al Qaeda decides to start charging our military bases banzai style with M82a1s. And what if they decide to bring grenades?
Cotton can be quite heavy, ever moved a PURE cotton double mattress? Heavy as fuck.
Is it heavier per cubic foot than sand or rubber is? Probably not.
–
And exactly how heavy is a “fuck” anyway?
Is it more than a “shit-ton” or an “ass-load?”
How would one even measure a “fuck?” Is it equal to the average force in pounds of a penile thrust, or the average weight of a miserable, terrible person?
These are things I need to know! If your going to enter into a debate with someone else you HAVE to define your ambiguous terms!
Of course it’s not, which is why it would be a poor choice for fortification; seems to me that dense materials provide better cover that those that are less dense (incidentally, a bale of cotton is about 30 pounds per cubic foot, while dry, unpacked sand is roughly 100). That and the fact that the sand to fill HESCO blocks is free for the taking, while a bale of raw cotton is worth about a dollar per pound (not including transportation). And a bale is only about five and a half feet long, twenty inches tall, and a little under three feet wide – it would take an awful lot of them to make a wall of decent size. And while precipitation would make the sand more dense and a better bullet stop, moisture tends to make cotton bales rot. And if they’re bone dry? Then they’re extremely flammable.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me; you can have ‘em. I was pretty happy with the sand-filled HESCO blocks when I was over there though, and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to trade those for bales of cotton, even if cost and shipping logistics weren’t a factor.
did I mention that cotton used to stop bullets is QUITE dense, it’s heavily compressed. Also, keep in mind that they were dealing with slower moving balls that dissipated most all their energy on impact.
You guys are just jealous that I came up with the idea first. So you’re trying to disprove me with “science” and “facts” ’cause I made everyone look like fools.
Well, no one is preventing you from using some “science,” “facts,” and “reasoning” in your posts!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cotton-T-shirts-Could-Become-Bullet-Proof-137689.shtml
Bam, found this after 30 seconds of light Googling.
Congratulations, I recall reading the same or a similar article some time back… you should have read it first though. Because – it’s not the cotton that’s going to make a shirt bullet resistant, it’s what is impregnated into the pores of the cotton fibers. In any event, this article has no bearing on the original comment about using cotton bales instead of the alternatives that are in use now and are, like this rubber product, being developed.
Curses, Josh, once again you have bested me in what I can only describe as a supreme battle of the minds.
You have defeated me as a result of superior fact-finding skills, knowledge on the subject, and basic common sense. And for that, I must concede this victory to you.
HOWEVER, do not delude yourself into thinking our eternal conflict is over. Far from it my friend. There will come a time, of which I am preparing for, when my knowledge of the issue will supersede your laughable “facts” and “reasoning”.
So take little comfort in my defeat, Josh, for it will be short-lived. Like all great powers you will fall, and then I will become supreme internet master debater!
Ah, truly our rivalry is a timeless one, a conflict that draws parallels to the great rhetorical battles of history: those of John Adams v. Thomas Jefferson, Sherlock Holmes v. Professor Moriarty, Ronald Reagan v. Mikhail Gorbachev, and Edward-shippers v. Jacob-shippers.
Next time, Josh. Next time.
Has this ever been used in recent history? I’m aware that it was used during the Battle of New Orleans, but we’re not talking about the nearly permanent fortifications that are used overseas now; I’m sure moisture wasn’t a problem during the short time they were being used. I also recall hearing about them being used as a defense on ships – but of course there wasn’t much alternative back then either. There wasn’t an option of using HESCO barriers or concrete walls, both because of technological limitations and the need to quickly make a fortification.
I can’t imagine that 200 years ago they were packing cotton bales to a higher density than the industry standard today though, and certainly not 4 times the density to make them as dense as sand! I can imagine that they could be quite effective against a big, slow-moving round ball, but I’m sure cotton would have a problem with more modern ammunition, and any explosive round from an RPG or a tracer round that’s burning is probably just going to start it on fire.
Your trolling makes my day.
Ok its all impressive but .50 on single shot not auto? I wanted to see it take a serious beating.. it is good stuff though.
12 inches of hard rubber will stop lots of things, sure as shit isn’t going to be cheap
What about explosives? The best thing about sand barriers is when you lose some sand just find a shovel.