Dor more information, visit www.angel7industries.com
Tags: Angel 7 Optical Systems
We reserve the right to refuse advertising to anyone
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Soldier Systems Daily is in no way affiliated with the US Government.
Copyright © Soldier Systems Daily 2008-2021. All Rights Reserved.
I’m sorry but using screenshots from Call of Duty to advertise your product instantly devalues your product, even if said product was featured in game.
Nothing worse than adolescent males pretending they are service members whilst telling you how they will rape your mother, even though your destroying them on the scoreboard.
Going to disagree. I like the image. Not so much the potentially misleading quotes on the protection though.
Yeah, I’ve seen the original image from the game and it didn’t have the logo on there. This is just another photo shopped image
I think V0 means that it stops 0% of threats at that specified velocity. V50 is 50% of threats, and V100 is 100%. So the fact that a company is advertising their V0 capability means I would never trust a single product they manufactured.
I think you’re an idiot. v0 means zero penetration of armor.
If you don’t know what you are talking about, don’t talk. You put out info that is absolutely incorrect.
“V0 over 1000 feet per second and a V50 of almost 950 feet per second”
So…they stop 100% of projectiles (with unknown weight) if they travel at 1000 fps or more…but if they’re slower at 950 fps they only protect you from 50%? Hmm…
The V0 and V50 are specific projectile weight standards used in fragmentation tests.
Nope – V0 and V50 represent theoretical probabilities of penetration at a given velocity. So V0 means 0% penetration probability at 1000fps and v50 means 50% penetration probability at 950 fps – seemingly at odds..
V0 and V50 can be connected to whatever projectile weight. It depends on what you’re testing for. It can be a 124 gr 9 mm bullet, a steel BB or whatever.
V50 is the velocity where a specific projectile hits the tested material and 50% of the projectiles are stopped and do not penetrate.
V0 is the velocity where the same specific projeticle hits the tested material and 100% of the projectiles are stopped and do not penetrate.
In other words, it would be strange if the V0 was higher than the V50.
This website has some good info on the subject:
http://turtleskinblog.com/ballistic-iiia-body-armor/ballistic-armor-testing/v50-v0/
My mistake, the first time I saw V50 was in relation to the nato standard fragment weights, so I assumed the weights were part of a standard of a sort. Turns out that the V0 is almost entirely calculated and there are multiple methods of calculation, no kind of agreed upon standard.
Is the flag facing the wrong way?
No.
I dont like to come in on peoples ads and critique but when peoples safety is on the line and your making big claims you open yourself up to it.
With that being said, it would be great to see these claims backed up with high speed footage, small lot testing, serialization, and backwards tracability. Until then its big claim advertising and potentially misleading at that.
I thought the velocities were wonky when they first posted the other day.
Guys,
Here is some information to help educate on V0 and V50 testing–the why, the how, and the what.
http://www.ventureballistics.com/performance-standardstesting-v50—v0.html
Hope this helps.
By the way, we would have gladly sent you the data had you asked. Might of helped you before you posted the hateraid
Hey Max, you are entitled to your opinion however when you start challenging data and, based on your comments, have not clue what your talking about. Look up NIJ ballistic testing and THEN try giving the CORRECT description of what V0 and V50 is. Google works just fine.
A7 – data is only as good as it is collected. The information that is being advertised is confusing. It is possible that is what the data “says” but what logistic regression formula did you use to determine that value? No me here – just curious.
Sorry for being an idiot, I don’t deal with ballistics all day. Unlike that other guy, I can figure out that V0 is 0 penetration, and V50 is the velocity at which 50% penetrate. So to the layman (i.e. me) it would seem that the V50 should be faster than the V0. If not, maybe some explanation is in order, unless your target market all “gets it.” Are the projectiles different weights? How many shots did it take to arrive at V0? These kind of things might help dummies like me understand.
Monanalo,
V0 is the fastest, in fps, velocity the specified projectile went and did not penetrate. Only takes one shot to get V0 and 6 shots to get V50 which is the average of the three highest np velocities and the three lowest p shots averaged together. So the V50 would be lower than the V0. We gave you both. Our lenses are not just made of plastic, but a composite matrix of several proprietary materials. This is why our velocities are so high. Hope this explanation helps you to better understand.
So…. the definition of a V0 you just posted here is in direct contradiction with the article you posted for everyone to bone-up on their ballistic standards knowledge:
“Ballistic testing V50 and V0[edit]Measuring the ballistic performance of armor is based on determining the kinetic energy of a bullet at impact (Ek = ½ mv2). Because the energy of a bullet is a key factor in its penetrating capacity, velocity is used as the primary independent variable in ballistic testing. For most users the key measurement is the velocity at which no bullets will penetrate the armor. Measuring this zero penetration velocity (v0) must take into account variability in armor performance and test variability. Ballistic testing has a number of sources of variability: the armor, test backing materials, bullet, casing, powder, primer and the gun barrel, to name a few.
Variability reduces the predictive power of a determination of V0. If for example, the v0 of an armor design is measured to be 1,600 ft/s (490 m/s) with a 9 mm FMJ bullet based on 30 shots, the test is only an estimate of the real v0 of this armor. The problem is variability. If the v0 is tested again with a second group of 30 shots on the same vest design, the result will not be identical.”
That’s what I’m saying!
You guys are right – A7 is unfamiliar with ballistics.
That doesn’t seem right. If V0 is the fastest value at which no penetration is expected, but your V50 is an average if three slow Nps and three fast Ps, how can your V0 be higher than your V50? That means you had three penetrations lower than 950 fps and three stops higher than 950 fps, so each of those slow ps should reduce your V0 to at least that velocity.
The YouTube video looks interesting but I don’t see a price list on their site. I would be interested to know what a set of these(the Ghost Shield™ MP Series, Mirrored Photochromic lenses) would be.
Sorry, I meant three fast NPs and three slow Ps.
Hey Fred,
Great copy and past job but let’s get it straight from the horse’s mouth (NIJ) with a copy and paste.
https://books.google.com/books?
id=OYlBJsmPd_cC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=ballistic+
testing+nij+v0+and+v50&source=bl&ots=oyDnfordtO&sig
=G3kVw1Yb6MOhdIhWGHHLguSmmhk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dX2IVeezMcKKsAXahYnYAQ&
ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ballistic%20testing%20nij%20v0%20and%20v50&f=false
V0 is what we stated and V50 is also. Lastly, you do realize that we are taking about eye protection don’t you? so you, uhm, kind of made our point for us. I.E., anytime you can even mention eyewear and actual body armor in the same sentence is kinda the point.
@A7 Stop digging!
I can’t help but feel at this point that you are being intentionally obtuse. Since you keep mentioning NIJ armor standards, to which standard are you testing? Specifically, what projectile weight? Or are you using ANSI Z87.1 or Mil-prf-31013 projectiles? I still have trouble understanding how something has a 50/50 statistical chance of penetrating at “almost” 950 fps, but 0 statistical probability of penetrating at 1000 fps.
You don’t understand how testing works.
I am very familiar with how testing works – and these results ARE possible. Unfortunately it means that these are extreme values and likely do not represent the same distribution that would normally occur with say, 400 shots.
I would suggest that A7 do more extensive testing to have more statistical confidence and power in their statement.
I’ll try and not go too far down the rabbit hole here but I feel like at least trying to put something together. So…
V50 velocities can be kind of hard for user’s to wrap their head around. It’s typically used throughout industry and government circles to characterize the ballistic effectiveness and ultimately the “mass efficiency” of an armor matrix design. Most companies make this out to be a black art, usually because it’s rather tedious to explain to the lay person. Most users don’t care other than it works. So, how this relates to the lay person is this = You want the highest ballistic protection for the lowest areal weight. Obviously. Efficiency is king in some circles, although it’s usually far from cost effective from a economic perspective. It’s important that one understands the concept of armor areal density as well, because without this it’s impossible to calculate the mass efficiency of the matrix, although that’s probably for another post..
So determining a V50 doesn’t necessarily have to be 6 shots, a better v50 would be 56 shots. It’s all statistics. Think Bell curve. Averages. You have to consider all the many factors that go into this stuff. When you test armor it can be somewhat difficult to control the exact velocity of the impacting projectiles. Good test house gunners can really dial the impacting velocities in and get excellent (i.e. accurate) results. However it’s not usually that exact. One may have 24 data points from a sample. Let’s keep it simple and say your firing a 17gr FSP (fragment simulating projectile) @ 2psf (areal density) at a zero degree obliquity (relation of projectile flight direction to the strike face of the armor). Your armor matrix design has a predicted V50 velocity of 2200fps. Your looking for a 3×3 v50 velocity. Your test house gunner is rockstar and fires 6 times and gets 3 complete penetrations and 3 partial penetrations (this would be unusual but for simplicity). Your test data may look something like this:
Sample 1. Shot#
Shot# 1-2340 CP
Shot# 2-2110 PP
Shot# 3-2167 PP
Shot# 4-2300 CP
Shot# 5-2258 CP
Shot# 6-2265 PP
1×1
HP-2265
LC-2258
1×1 v50 =2261
2×2
HP-2265
HP-2167
LC-2258
LC-2300
HP Average-2216
LC average-2279
2×2 v50 =2247
3×3
HP-2265
HP-2167
HP-2110
LC-2258
LC-2300
LC-2340
HP Average-2180
LC average-2299
3×3 v50 =2239
So you can see how your no. of v50 points (1×1,2×2,etc) can drive your v50 results. It’s important to see the relation. For simplicity I’m leaving out the Range of Results (ROR), Range of Mixed Results (RMR), etc. The closer you can get your velocities together the better.. You would do this for “X” number of armor samples as well. The higher the number of tested samples the better characterization of ballistic performance of the armor design.
Now for V0. So does this given armor sample have a V0 higher than its v50? Absolutely. Is it good to rely on JUST this number to characterize the performance of this given armor matrix? As you can see from the “test” results, the answer is no.
This number could be the upper limit of the test article performance range. You see both numbers can be useful and important within a given context. From a users standpoint I would want to know this number as well. Most real world fragments share little in common with their, precision machined FSP or RCC counterparts. In the context of “real world” fragments of similar size unlikely have the same symmetry or will have a greater striking surface area, and will unlikely strike at 0 degree obliquity, making them much easier to defeat.
If I’m way off here (to the those that know more about this than me) feel free to correct any errors. I’m trying to put this into perspective for the lay person to grasp. It can be confusing from the outside looking in.
A7 I believe the confusion may be coming from the lack of fragment weights vs your velocities referenced.
Thank you for taking the time to actually explain this in its long form.
Yes, Thank you for explaining this in long form. We tested in accordance with MIL-STD 662F .15Cal FSP as required.
Hope this, along with your explanation, helps clear up the confusion.
C’mon guys haven’t you watched Dune?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzman_effect
Seriously, what bothers me greatly is the fact that A7 tested both V50 and V0 and still published a V0 higher than the V50. Why did A7 test a V0 with only one shot? How did they know to try the V0 at 1000fps? People experienced in the eyepro industry know that to arrive at true V0 numbers, hundreds if not thousand + lenses need to be tested. It’s not uncommon for failure rates to be less than 2-3% for velocities of interest. You need to work up to a V0 and V50 and in doing so you would have realized the real V0 is under 1000fps. Try approaching Natick with a one shot V0 and a 6 shot V50 and see what happens.
Additionally, if you know you have a V50 of 950fps, you also know that if you were to shoot the same number of lenses for a V0 test at 1000fps you’d get close to a 50% failure rate. But certainly not 0% failure with sufficient data points. Even a V50 based on 6 shots is statistically weak, as this_guy has stated. Particularly, when you take into account penetration of the witness foil on the head form. There’s the probability of the frag penetrating the lens, then there is the probability of the frag and/or a piece of the lens penetrating the witness foil. A7’s data is insufficient and misleading to say the least.
Also, ballistics isn’t the entire picture with eyepro. There’s performance attributes such chemical resistance, anti-fog, and a variety of abrasion resistance tests, to name a few. Performing well in these areas invariably relies on functional coatings which can greatly effect (negatively in almost every case) the ballistic properties of a lens. I know A7 claims they do not require coatings, but before I would buy into those claims I’d want to see anti-fog, chemical resistance, and a abrasion results with a variety of methods (i.e. MCEPS, EN168, Taber, steel wool, etc…)
I applaud A7 for trying something new, but please give us good data and the entire picture so we are not mislead.
Mountain Sailor,
Your understanding or lack thereof is not a prerequisite for another’s accomplishment. Bottom line is we have the data to support what we claim. If the company you work for can’t do this then either improve your products or get over it. Yeah, we know exactly who you are.
I have seen the test data and am awaiting certificates from the lab.
I don’t mind guys asking how it was possible to get results but what is most unappreciated are comments by those who don’t understand ballistic testing questioning results. It’s like a guy looking at an airplane and claiming that there’s no way it can fly because he doesn’t understand the basic science behind it.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that. SSD, thank you for providing a forum for industry news and for allowing crazy detours like this, and for your patience. A7, thank you for finally just providing the test standard you used. Also, what?!? You know who I am? I don’t think so, cause if you did, you’d know that I don’t work for a “company,” and my interest in this market is purely recreational.
SSD, I did not mean to crap up your space with this. I truly didn’t understand and the jargon was counter-intuitive.
Ok, fair enough. Are you starting to understand?
I think I’m starting to, but further inquiry and exploration will be conducted on my own. Thanks again, especially to this_guy.