Talk:Bulletproof glass

Opening heading

Added techical detail on one-way bulletproof glass and other names of Lexan, somebody may want to include pictures or more text --Opqdonut 15:16, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Cyrolon, Lexan and Tuffak are all different materials arn't they? I have listed them as alternative products during a grammar tidy up of the introduction section. Canderra 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article as Bullet-resistant glass?

I propose that this article should be moved to the Bullet-resistant glass page (which currently redirects to this page) and then this bulletproof glass page setup to redirect to that article. Currently it is configured the opposite way around.

Although this may seem a little pedantic, as the article states, bullet-resistant glass is the correct name and it seems to me to be logically incorrect to have the bullet-resistant glass page redirecting to a bulletproof glass page which straight away states that bullet-resistant glass is actually the correct term. Any thoughts? Canderra 15:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a much more serious problem with the article. Polycarbonate is NOT a good bullet-stopper. Glass IS. The principal use of polycarbonate is to serve as a spall-shield. And the proper term for these windows bullet-resistant transparency, not bullet-resistant glass.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.33.122 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 March 2006.

Shouldn't ballistic glass (not yet created) redirect here (or there) as well? heqs 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should use the most commonly used name, which may not be the official one. As such, I don't think the recent bold move to "bullet resistant glass" is acceptable.

"Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name..." (Hohum ^@) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...so you choose to continue to promote the incorrect use. When did the wikipedia become a democracy? I propose that the first line of the article is changed to make it clear that "bullet-resistant glass is also called bullet-proof glass" so that folk can readily learn the correct term.--Qfissler (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

70-75mm thick?

Is this material really 70-75mm thick? That's about three inches. I think it's off by a factor of ten. User:Keno 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this material is 70-75mm thick, and thicker (more than a 100mm) for requirements greater than the published standards.68.82.168.240 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we make car's body with this bulletproof glass ?so that is does not break while accident? will it be effective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.136.68 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to bullet-proof glass as the common name. The title the world names something is what matters; the perceived accuracy of the words in the name when viewed as a description is irrelevant.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet-resistant glass → Transparent armor — Relisted. to see if there is any opposition to the current consensus to move this to bullet-proof glass. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) It has recently become the common name. Of the reliable sources there are 208 hits for bullet-resident glass [1] and 380 for transparent armor and armour [2] [3]. Marcus Qwertyus 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I'd like a page move to be based on more than just a google search of pdf files. PC78 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the "common name" is bullet-proof glass, but that's not very accurate. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree w/ 76.66.200.95, bullet-proof glass is the common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to bullet proof glass (or bullet-proof glass if we must have the hyphen). Yes it's inaccurate, just as nickel silver contains no silver, French toast is neither French nor toast, and crocodile tears are neither tears nor ever shed by crocodiles. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:UCN; move to bullet-proof glass per the same guideline. And just to pile on, silverfish, tiger's eye, Chinese chequers, firefly, English horn, &c. — AjaxSmack 00:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A google book search gives ~1,000 hits for "bullet resistant glass", about 8,000 for "bullet proof glass", and about 1,000 for "transparent armor". (Hohum ^@) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support move to "Bullet proof glass". (Hohum ^@) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to some variation of "bullet-proof glass" rather than the proposed term. I am aware that it isn't either, really, but that's what people call it. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet-proof glass → Bulletproof glass – Common name. Consistent with bulletproofing. [4]. Marcus Qwertyus 15:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. Your google book search drops us on page 50 of the search. Did you mean to compare and contrast a search of "bulletproof glass" (~45,000) versus "bullet-proof glass" (~30,000) ? Also, isn't the difference just ENGVAR? (Hohum ^@) 20:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started on the last page because Google's own estimates of search results are wildly inaccurate. The only way to get the actual number is to flip through the search results. As for ENGVAR, the page is currently in American English and bulletproof looks more natural to me as an American. Marcus Qwertyus 21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I see. "bullet-proof glass" gets to page 51 for me, so it's pretty much a draw. Since the page is already American English, I'd support the change. (Hohum ^@) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping through the search results to get to the last page is by no means an accurate way to count search results. For example, replace the search term in your URL with "book" and it ends up on page 41. The search results for "man" end at 34. Jafeluv (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. "Book" appears to be special case - all the of the results have "book" in the title, with none found for their contents - I expect it is flagged as too common a word to search on. On the other hand searching for "book burning" finds many relevant books by their contents. (Hohum ^@) 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it's an incorrect assumption to say that you find the accurate number of search results by skipping to the last page. Jafeluv (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In terms of WP:AT the hyphen adds nothing, so just leave it out. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Andrew – the hyphen doesn't add anything. Jenks24 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NIJ threat levels in "construction" section

I'm not aware of NIJ threat levels over IV existing. I think these are all UL standards for stationary armor. I've put dubious - discuss tags on them for the time being. 3AlarmLampscooter (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bulletproof glass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110830190639/http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com:80/2011/05/ceramic-transparent-armor-may-replace-bullet-proof-glass/ to http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/05/ceramic-transparent-armor-may-replace-bullet-proof-glass/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bulletproof glass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing picture

"The picture on the right shows how the bullet is embedded between the glass and the polycarbonate."

Where is this picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.206.153 (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub to Start

Article was moved from Stub to Start status because it has a significant amount of information and multiple references. In addition, the main article has not had a Stub tag for some time. Araesmojo (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency for value (0.25 kilogram per square meter)

Section "Air chamber glass" says:

"The weight reduction over traditional glass-clad polycarbonate is 35%, weighing 0.25 kilogram per square meter for ... ": The percentage of 35% should result in more zehn 250 gramms per square meter. 46.114.6.63 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]