In the latest news of the school shooting in Uvalde, there’s mention of the police having access to handheld “ballistic shields”. The “ballistic” in the name suggests these aren’t plain old riot shields and can stop at least some bullets. But in the current case, they were up against a guy with an AR-15, which fires with quite a bit more muzzle velocity than a handgun. Would these ballistic shields have stopped rounds from an AR-15?
A manufacturers guide. No idea what the police were actually equipped with.
In the U.S., body armor and shields are rated using what are called NIJ standards (National Institute of Justice). This standard has different levels of protection:
Level 1 - Obsolete
Level 2 - Handgun Rounds
Level 3 - Rifles
Level 4 - Armor Penetrating Rifles
There is also a Level 2A and a Level 3A which are reduced versions of 2 and 3 respectively.
Poking around on google it looks like most police shields are rated at Level 3A, though Level 3 and 4 are also available.
A Level 3A will stop all handgun rounds but is not guaranteed to stop a typical 5.56 NATO round from an AR-15. You need Level 3 to stop most 5.56 rounds, and you would need Level 4 to stop armor piercing 5.56 rounds.
If the Uvalde police were using Level 3A shields then they would not have provided full protection against the rounds from an AR-15.
Also keep in mind that “stopping” isn’t a binary yes-no. It’s possible for a protective device to deflect a bullet enough to turn a hit into a miss, or decrease the energy of a bullet enough to turn a lethal hit into a survivable injury.
YouTube isn’t good for much other than finding old government training videos, movie ‘reviews’ longer than the actual movie, and pets acting tragically cute, but you can find a video of someone shooting nearly anything:
That shield is clearly a NIJ Level 3a, and it won’t stop the relatively low powered 7.62x39mm round which is roughly comparable to a .30-30 Winchester. (The 5.56x45mm NATO has about 15% less kinetic energy at the muzzle but much higher sectional density, so the shooter is correct that if a 7.62x39mm will penetrate easily the 5.56x45mm will as well.) the .7.62x39mm clearly penetrates with enough momentum to do lethal damage, and in fact the deformation and instability the bullet experiences after passing through the shield probably makes it more lethal.
There are stronger shields rated up to NIJ Level 4 but probably not available to the responding officers, and they are so heavy and unwieldy that they have to be mounted on a dolly like this one:
This is obviously not something that even a typical special tactics officer would just carry in the trunk of their car.
In general, the news has been full of talking head ‘experts’ about the equipment officers on scene had or should have had, the tactics they should have employed, et cetera, virtually none of which is informed by actual fact. The predictable infighting between competing agencies isn’t really helping to get a clear story to the public, either. Certainly, as much as law enforcement promotes itself as “heroes” and “sheep dogs”, the general expectation is that officers should rush in heedless of their own safety to stop the shooter regardless of their level of protection, competence, coordination between officers from different agencies, et cetera. The reality is that a poorly managed crisis and lack of clear leadership creates doubt and delay, and having the Uvalde School District “Chief of Police” (since when has that been a thing?) take charge of the tactical response to an active shooter situation didn’t help anything, notwithstanding that the first responders should have made every effort to confront and stop the shooter long before any crisis management operations were stood up.
I think the real lesson from this is that school resource officers or police forces run by a school district (again, when did this become a thing?), and even special tactics teams arriving on scene with carbines, body armor, and ballistic shields are a totally inadequate and reactionary solutions to dealing with school mass shootings.
Stranger
Cool!
(I’m dating myself here.)
Finally a use for all those overhead projector carts just gathering dust!
I’m curious how a bullet proof vest stops bullets but these shields do not?
One would think they could skip just putting a heavy mass in the way and instead use things like layers of kevlar smushed between some steel or carbon fiber or something.
Heck, we see demos of bullet-proof glass completely stopping AK-47 rounds (and the glass is not unusually thick (read: heavy)). One would think this is doable.
“Bullets” are not one thing. Even “bullets from a particular gun” are not one thing, because the same gun can use many different kinds of bullets. A vest will usually stop lightweight bullets. A shield will stop heavier bullets, and more often. That demo with the bulletproof Mercedes is almost certainly using the lightest rounds available for an AK47, because that’s what’s best for an ad for a bulletproof car. Would I feel safer in that car than a normal car, in a warzone? Sure, because my enemies might be using lightweight bullets, and even if not, partial protection is better than no protection. Would I feel completely safe in that car? Of course not.
Well, the OP asked about the AR-15. ISTM that the AK-47 is more powerful (see below although I admit I am no gun expert…far from it).
If there are no limits then sure, we can find something that will poke a hole in anything (ship mounted rail gun comes to mind).
Even hardcore AR fans will admit that the AK’s 7.62×39 round is more powerful than the AR-15’s 5.56/.223. No debate here, the bigger round just packs more punch. However, there might be a simple way to compensate for that difference in firepower—by loading your AR with hollow point rounds. Nonetheless, we’ve got to hand this one to the AK-47. SOURCE
There are all types of measurement involved:
And way down the rabbit hole:
Plus a dozen other references and youtube videos.
Also in the picture is - What round was the shooter using?
The older 5.56mmx45 [in US Army parlance - the M193] has much less penetration than the current 5.56mmx45 M855 [fired from M16A2 and later, M4s, SAWs]. It’s considered a semi-armor piercing (SAP) round. The M855 has a hardened steel tip at the head of the slug encased by the jacket. Penetration was the reason for the update to the M855. Reading the NATO STANAGs and testing reports, the later round was effective against the improved Soviet helmets and body armor out to 400m.
What round is fired from a AR-15? Depends. Receivers barrels and other components can be interchanged to enable both 5.56mm rounds to be fired. The older M193 round has a different center of gravity from the later M855. The barrel twist for the military weapons are different - optimized for each cartridge - the M16A2 and later, M4 and SAW have a tighter twist to the rifling.
Can we say an AR-15 and an AK-47 are in the same ballpark when it comes to assessing the ability of a ballistic shield to stop a round? Or, are the various ammo possibilities wildly different and a ballistic shield simply cannot manage to stop all of them (or any of them)? (really asking)
It has been a “thing” for a long time, except that the purpose of a school “police force” has never been primarily to prevent mass shooting or homeless junkies from stealing computers, but to oppress and control the student population. Not something to discuss as a Factual Question—just keep in mind the Greek law (agreed after the anti-Junta riots in the '70s but recently overturned by a right-wing government) barring police from entering university campuses, and of course American campi in the '60s during the war when you had to close the windows to teach your class due to the tear gas wafting in, among other examples.
Given this historical background, it is not surprising that if you are a school administrator and you need security, you hire private security. But for obvious reasons the purview of school security does not include a constantly training SWAT team with access to heavy weapons and Level IV ballistic shields, by no means. Even if it is competent, a school resource office will not have anything like that available. They would be trained and know what to do and whom to call, though because shootings have also been a thing for a while (Charles Whitman, Montreal Polytechnique massacre, Columbine…)
If you look at the tips of the bullets, some of them are colored black or green indicating they are armor-piercing as compared to normal ammo. E.g., the M855A1 fires a 62-grain projectile and has a 19-grain steel cone at the tip. The shield has to be designed with this in mind, also the possibility of using heavier AK-47 (or even bigger) type rounds.
I believe most police vests are rated Level 3A. They aren’t guaranteed to stop an AR-15 round. Level 3 and Level 4 police vests do exist. It is my understanding that level 4 is usually only used by SWAT officers.
I believe they often use layers of ceramic and kevlar, but yes, this sort of thing is done. The advantage of ceramic is that it is much lighter than steel. The disadvantage of ceramic over steel is that ceramics shatter when hit, so they are good for one shot but not so good for follow-up shots if subsequent shots hit in the same general area.
The glass is unusually thick. It’s also composed of alternating layers that are designed to capture and spread out the forces from the bullet.
They are roughly in the same ballpark, but the AK-47 is definitely a bigger and heavier round. A typical 5.56 NATO round for an AR-15 is around 4 grains in weight and has about 1600 to 1700 joules of energy. The typical 7.62x39 round used by the AK-47 is an 8 to 10 grain bullet and has around 2100 joules of energy.
The energy in the round is often a fair comparison to use between rounds, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. A round with a smaller cross-section but a faster velocity might have the same energy as a larger but slower round, but the smaller round will penetrate better.
You mean 4 grams??? (weight equivalent)
Yeah, sorry. Brain fart.
The 7.62x39mm Soviet round has about 2.0 kJ of muzzle (kinetic) energy but is a much larger diameter round; the 5.56x45mm NATO has around 1.7-1.8 kJ of muzzle energy but is a much smaller diameter round so it has a higher sectional density (that is, the mass of the bullet averaged over the frontal aspect of the bullet), and thus it tends to penetrate more effectively (at least, at short ranges) through an initial barrier, although its more marginal stability also causes it to tumble once it does pass through a barrier which is what causes such horrific wounds. Note that the more modern AK-74 series of Soviet rifles was chambered in the 5.45x39mm round (essentially just the 7.62x39mm necked down to a .215 caliber bullet, making it similar to but slightly less powerful than the 5.56x45mm NATO round). Very few of these are imported to the United States so it isn’t common but also produces the same amor penetration and wounding characteristics.
As noted, ‘soft’ textile body armor is only adequate for handgun and relatively low power softnose rifle rounds. Steel core bullets (most military surplus rifle ammunition) will punch right through them, and a high power rifle round or shotgun slug will do enough blunt force trauma that it could kill the wearer even if it doesn’t penetrate the vest. The protection provided by soft body armor is overstated in any case; it only protects the chest and upper abdomen but not the lower abdomen and hip area (unless you have a longer, assaulter-style armor) and does nothing for the head and extremities. I’ve personally been shot in soft body armor with a relatively low powered round (.380 ACP) and it still left a substantial bruise and subdural scarring. It is far from the impenetrable shield you see presented on television.
Except these aren’t private security; they are fully certified public police forces run by the school district. It is hard to imagine that they are paid well, attract the best candidates, and do adequate ongoing training and maintenance comparable to what a ‘real’ law enforcement agency would do. The point still remains that putting police in schools has been ineffectual in deterring mass shootings, and maintaining its own police force is an extraordinary administrative cost for schools which struggle to pay teachers and low level staff a working wage.
Stranger
This goes waaay back and I cannot find the video now but I remember seeing a video of a TV reporter testing a bulletproof vest. The reporter with the vest on was shot by a very small pistol from close range. While the vest worked, the reporter started swearing profusely and jumping around in pain from the shot.
Clearly the vest may save your life and is worthwhile but it still can hurt a lot if you are shot (to the point of being debilitating).
The other reason to prefer a shield instead of, or in addition to, a vest is that any sort of protection only works for what it covers. No matter how good a vest you’re wearing, it won’t help if you’re shot in the face. But you can put your entire body behind a shield.