I saw this in a Guns America article. It’s a different take on a substitute for ballistics gelatin. Curious what those who know think of the idea.
https://intruderinabox.com/
I saw this in a Guns America article. It’s a different take on a substitute for ballistics gelatin. Curious what those who know think of the idea.
https://intruderinabox.com/
"The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so."
― Ennius
Somebody figured out a way to monetize Paul Harrell's ridiculousness? Brilliant.
This—
—is quite a self-endorsement. I'm sure that it is completely legitimate though.“Being a shooter and hunter for over 30 years, I’ve always been interested in terminal ballistics. With my experience as a biomechanist, I knew there had to be a better way to test ammunition than using homogeneous materials like ballistics gelatin. Our team developed a platform that would allow shooters to test their specific load on an anatomically correct target that gets enough shots in to draw a valid conclusion about how effective their ammo is.” —Dave Giurintano, CEO of Unbound Ballistic Solutions
I am left wondering though...
Where are the oranges and the pork ribs?
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
It seems that the manufacturer ruled out calling it ''Rip-off in a box'' because it might've been too obvious.Originally Posted by JB2000
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
This is one of the videos:
It’s interesting that there are 9 channels that are separated which is nice.
It’s good that it at least had reasonable outcomes (like 9mm FMJ pass through, but stops JHP).
Not scientific and doesn’t tell you more than “buy quality self defense ammo.”
Sounds like a more PC version of “dick in a box”
So it’s the more expensive form of the “back in the day” baby-internet schtick of shooting wet phone books?
Based on how many worship clear jell this will sell well
The Youtube will be full of "scientists" using and debating and arguing the merits very soon.
"This is wild" was a bit over used
"Do not stand here" is a good idea for the types that will use this
Am I the only person who read the thread title and thought it was one of these?
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Reply With Quote
