Author Topic: BULLET PROOFING HOUSE, BOL (Read 5822 times)

TANK · « **on:** January 05, 2012, 10:55:15 AM »

I haven't seen any post on this subject. As everyone should be aware the walls of your house is not bullet proof, and unless you have provided for your BOL those walls are not bullet proof.

If you are attacked in your home, you need to bullet proof the walls, as you are probably going to be shooting through the window which will leave the space between the bottom of the window and floor open for bullet pass through. I think if a person will place firewood under the window up to the bottom of the window that just might protect that area. Or sandbags, but firewood would be a littlemore discrete. For a bug out location a sandfilled revetment around the cabin or whatever your BOL is. A sandfilled revetment would be a wall about 2 ft thick the outsides of the revetment would be 3/4 in plywood bolted together and then the space between the plywood would be filled with sand. the revetment would be about 4 ft tall to allow you to shoot over.The plywood would sit on top of concrete blocks to keep the wood from decaying. The revetment would be about 4 to 6 ft. from the house so the occupants would have room to move and to allow more speed from the bullet to decrease.
In the BOL a swinging shutter on the inside made of some sort of heavy wood or steel that could be swung shut and open. with an awning on the outside to be lifted and shut over all of the windows. This would be protection for the BOL while you are away to protect from window breakage. and access from unauthorized people.

The revetment worked it Viet Nam from shrapnel and firearms. I don't know why it wouldn't work now.

Tank

Shaunypoo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:24:05 AM »

Not quite as robust but can be done short term, I saw a show on the Discovery channel a few years ago about SHTF stuff and they suggested digging dirt from under your windows and filling trashbags with the dirt to make improvised sandbags. Sounded interesting, but like I said, only for real short term. You could always make bear pits under the windows, too.

endurance · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:27:18 AM »

I've never seen a home worth living in as being someplace you could defend in a real firefight. One molotov cocktail and you'll be making a hasty exit anyway, whether the house is built of sandbags and concrete or wood and vinyl siding. Concrete furnature is incredibly uncomfortable.

Truik · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2012, 01:29:30 PM »

I could see the benefit of making a space, compartment or room relatively bullet proof (nothing is completely bullet proof), something like a safe room. But then its like having a tornado shelter...its only beneficial if you make it to it in time.

Making an entire house bulletproof would be a truly monumental effort. Even then, someone could just wait for you to come outside to check the mail or go to work.

Archer · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2012, 03:00:40 PM »

a concrete monolithic dome would be mostly bullet proof. putting protective film on the windows or bars would make it more resistant to Molotov cocktails.

monolithic domes:
http://www.monolithic.com/

window film:
http://www.shattergard.com/home.html

ag2 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2012, 04:33:16 PM »

I think Endurance makes a good point. Steel roof and brick home (upper and lower levels) is really the most I would bother with if I were building new. This makes it fire resistant and small arms resistant. You could add a film to the windows to prevent the molotov cocktails being thrown in the windows.

But really, I would focus in fire resistance over bullet proofing a home. I'm just looking at the likelyhood of both scenarios.

notsofast · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2012, 06:54:40 PM »

Yeah, building new would be the most cost effective and even then it'll cost a good bit. The GF and I have discussed it, only in passing and never too seriously. Concrete filled cinder block walls. 1/2 inch plexiglass windows. I don't know about armor glass or the like, but regular window tint also prevent shattering but, mostly, can't be used with plexiglass. Some times you can pick up old "panic doors" (the metal doors, usually on the back of fast food places.) For cheap or free if you find a place doing a remod. I've thrown away a few when I use to do construction.

bdhutier · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2012, 10:30:02 PM »

Back in the Army, we were taught it took about 18" of packed dirt to stop a 7.62x51/7.62x54R tier round. Just FYI.

Greysen · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2012, 10:38:40 PM »

Cobb and compressed earth block seems to be the way to go if you're building something new. Downsides of course being that it's pretty labor intensive and rather unconventional in the states. You could also either tile or timbrel vault (fascinating old technology) the roof and make it fireproof in the process. I recall reading in south Africa they build additional small walls around the places in order to protect against rpg fire. It would keep the place from getting demolished although you're still vulnerable to getting driven out via fire, chemical means (bleach + ammonia,) etc.

Older construction would take a lot more modification, some of the above suggestions are pretty good. I think really though you just need something tough enough to prevent you from getting bush wacked by small groups of thieves until you can defend yourselves. Anything group size over that and you're going to have to bail out in most environments unless you have a small army to keep your land holdings. If you do and are out the middle of nowhere, great.

A more realistic option though is probably just some minor to moderate reinforcements + militia. Maybe the town gets walled into an extent. There is a million and one different ways to take the scenerio and most of them work against the cost and time effectiveness of overly defensive buildings.

Rorschach · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:55:53 PM »

There was a thread about this topic(http://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=30504), although the Molotov cocktails(issue of fire resistance) does bring the discussion a new dimension. Those in the military that have been involved in constructing a buidling in a war zone are likely to have some more solid ideas about what really does and does not work.

inbox485 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2012, 12:55:30 AM »

Quote from: bdhutier on January 05, 2012, 10:30:02 PM

Back in the Army, we were taught it took about 18" of packed dirt to stop a 7.62x51/7.62x54R tier round. Just FYI.

I can't remember the show (something on discovery) but they were testing penetration of sand bags with everything from 5.56 to .50 BMG, and the most anything penetrated was about 5" and the sand was more durable to concentrated fire than concrete by a long shot.

ncjeeper · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2012, 02:28:06 PM »

Quote from: endurance on January 05, 2012, 11:27:18 AM

Concrete furnature is incredibly uncomfortable.

So you saying I shouldnt be buying that medevil castle for my BOL.

Perfesser · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2012, 03:33:28 PM »

FYI
I was shooting my .308 and a 150gr FMJ will pass through a 10" diameter oak log and then through one side of a cinder block, stopping in the center cavity.
If you built your house just right you could save the lead.

LdMorgan · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2012, 04:32:12 PM »

Here is an idea I'd like to run past y'all in the hopes that someone will give it a test.

Take a piece of 1/4" steel, about 36" square, and fold it in a 90-degree zig-zag pattern, with the bends about six inches apart.

Take it down to a very deserted range, stand it up and secure it in place.

Set a large cardboard box up around it and dump a few .30-06 rounds into it from a
safe position.

See where the bullets go, and what damage, if any, the steel takes. I guess the bottom-line question is will a military-grade round penetrate a quarter-inch of steel if it impacts at a 45-degree angle?

If it works well, the deflectors might be made in anything from 8' lengths & whole sheets of steel to 3' square "shingles", and used to bulletproof the outside of a conventional wall very effectively.

Just mount it with the bends horizontal and cover it up with a layer of furring strips & cheap vinyl siding.

It would probably not be a bad thing if incoming bullets went through the siding, bounced 90-degrees twice, exited the siding, and then went back to re-acquaint themselves with their original owners.

Greasing the outside of the armor might be a good idea, too. Have to test that to be sure.

The steel could also offer some significant fire-resistance if it wasn't covered with a flammable grease.

Oldhomestead · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2012, 04:42:01 PM »

Interesting mental exercise, but personally I never considered it to be a viable option to bulletproof a residence. It just seems to be a less likely scenario than so many other things for which I need to prep. If I do find myself pinned down in my house in the middle of a full-fledged firefight I probably didn't plan correctly or should have bugged out long before. Thinking of withstanding a siege at the house gives me flashes of Ruby Ridge and Waco and neither of those worked out well. I guess it would depend on what scenario you have in mind as to how important this would be to incorporate.

That being said, I could see trying to use earth shelter or rammed earth building techniques into a new construction for either a residence or a BOL. Either of those would provide significant ballistic protection although my primary reason would be insulation and taking advantage of earth mass to moderate the heating/cooling needs.

Expanding on the sand-filled revetment, you might look at tall (30”) raised beds placed at strategic locations. The Master Gardeners build them for seniors all the time so they don't have to bend over. They would have multiple functions, look inconspicuous and three feet of dirt lined on both sides with landscape timbers, logs or filled cinder blocks would stop pretty much anything being fired at you.

JerseyVince · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:04:32 PM »

Here's a Youtube video with a pretty good test of a bullet resistant door made from angle iron plate steel and plywood. he test 9mm .45 and 5.56mm on it. fairly simple construction for most people who can't afford USAF Blast Doors or a Titan II Silo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtF877QLkNg&feature=related

ChrisFox · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2012, 10:24:39 PM »

It should be great for bullets but there's a great photo in Earthbag Building: The Tools, Tricks and Techniques by Kaki Hunter and Doni Kiffmeyer about what an earthbag structure can do against a drunk driver. It's a great book and reminded me of this photo.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Perfesser · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:08:24 PM »

I think it's a waste of time trying to fortify a house in the first place but just for the mental exercise.... multi layers should be more effective per pound of weight.
Steel skin maybe 1/16", then 1/4" plywood, another steel layer, another plywood, another steel, another wood.
That would be 1/4" of steel and 1" of plywood.
I'm pretty sure that would be a better bullet stopper than a single 1/4" plate of steel and a single 1" layer of wood and would be the same weight.

Truik · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2012, 03:47:25 AM »

Quote from: LdMorgan on January 06, 2012, 04:32:12 PM

It would probably not be a bad thing if incoming bullets went through the siding, bounced 90-degrees twice, exited the siding, and then went back to re-acquaint themselves with their original owners.

This assumes a bullet remains intact and deflects perfectly, twice, from a shooter who is shooting perpendicular to the wall or, once, at a forty-five degree angle to the wall. Anything else would break up or go astray into your neighborhood or surrounding environment.

SmartLikeTruck · « **Reply #19 on:** January 07, 2012, 07:47:33 AM »

How about ringing an existing structure with raised garden beds and get multiple benefits from the project?

Food in zone 1, small arms cover, bollards against vehicular penetration

Cool Blue · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2012, 11:17:10 AM »

If building new, Insulated Concrete Forms, supposedly make the structure bulletproof. The structure itself is also fireproof but everything inside our outside will still burn. In fact, due to the high insulative properties of ICFs, inside fires will actually burn hotter.

ICFs are also earthquake and hurricane resistant.

TANK · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2012, 12:50:13 PM »

I guess the scanario I invision,
You are at your BOL ( cabin) and a group of low lives show up looting and killing anyone they can find. They start giving you incoming small arms fire. You and your family are in the BOL (cabin) you and your family starts to return fire, what would be the preattack ways of making you and your family safe.

Do you make a safe room, escaping to that, and allowing the looters have what they want, or do you fortify the cabin to withstand the incoming small arms fire.

I'm thinking I would want to fortify the cabin and protect my family and stores I have put away for coming bad times.

Along with the fortification I am thinking about some sort of booby traps (ie) barbed wire tangle foot,small dead falls, maybe some brush they would have to climb over maybe an outer fence peremter, and an inner fence peremter but these would be installed after a SHTF and we have relocated to the BOL. The booby traps would slow down advanceing low lives.
Thanks
Tank

soupbone · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2012, 05:18:48 PM »

Fortifying a structure is a lot more complicated than it first seems. For new construction, to protect against small arms fire about doubles the cost, iirc. For a higher level of protection, the cost escalates geometrically. For existing structures, adding protection may not be possible due to floor loading issues and the ability to anchor the "armor".

As far as booby traps go - you don't want to do that. The probability is that civilization won't collapse and you will never face the scenario you envision. What you will do is hurt the neighbor's dog, or kids, or the fire department responding to an emergency at your place. The liability far outweighs any benefit that might occur through having them in place.

Regarding window film, the purpose of the film is to keep the glass from shattering and turning into deadly shrapnel. it is not bullet proof, and will still allow the window to get broken by rocks, bricks and Molotov Cocktails. It will burn, so if the Molotov breaks, it will still let the fire in the house via the broken window.

For what it is worth, Air Force Handbook 10-222 V.14, Guide to Fighting Positions, Obstacles, and Revetments, and Air Force Handbook 10-222 V.3, Guide to Civil Engineer Force Protection list the following minimum thicknesses to protect against a 7.62 round fired at 100 meters:

solid brick walls: 18"
concrete - not reinforced: 12"
concrete - reinforced: 6"
stone masonry: 12"
timber: 36"
lumber: 24"

loose dry clay between boards: 36" - 72" if the material is wet
dry soil: 24" - 48" if the material is wet
clay filled sand bags: 40" - 60" if the material gets wet.........

....And then the bad guys show up with a Barrett .50 cal.........

Realistically, could the effort and treasure spent on bulletproofing your house be better spent on other preps? Do your own serious research, don't just rely on what you read on the web or what Joe who was in the Army thinks - consult the Field Manuals and Handbooks, talk to Civil Engineers and Architects, and see where their information leads you.

If you allow yourself to get into the situation you envision, you are so totally screwed. I see that Ruby Ridge and Waco have been mentioned, but all you really have to do is to look at your local news. Any time someone traps themselves in a house, they loose. Think "man-with-a-gun" or a hostage situation - the SWAT Team shows up and...........

soupbone

TANK · « **Reply #23 on:** January 07, 2012, 08:42:35 PM »

Don't worry guys, I'm not going to do any of this stuff. As you know after the SHTF is over we are going to have to pay the piper for what ever we do. Although I did cause some thought on the subject. That is always good to stir up some thought process.

Truik · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2012, 08:56:11 PM »

Quote from: TANK on January 07, 2012, 08:42:35 PM

Don't worry guys, I'm not going to do any of this stuff. As you know after the SHTF is over we are going to have to pay the piper for what ever we do. Although I did cause some thought on the subject. That is always good to stir up some thought process.

Indeed! Quite a good bit of information shared on this topic.

I'm curious as to exactly what defines the difference between reinforced concrete and regular concrete. I mean, I know it probably involves rebar or something but at what intervals and such for a wall.

soupbone · « **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2012, 09:59:58 PM »

Quote from: Truik on January 07, 2012, 08:56:11 PM

I'm curious as to exactly what defines the difference between reinforced concrete and regular concrete. I mean, I know it probably involves rebar or something but at what intervals and such for a wall.

Reinforced concrete does have either rebar or a wire mesh running through it. The exact size of the reinforcement depends on the thickness of the concrete and the structure's use. A runway capable of operating "heavies" is much thicker and has much heavier reinforcing than a three story exterior wall, for example.

Regular concrete is what you might find in a sidewalk or a wall that is not supporting a lot of weight. Cement or concrete is poured into a form or mold, and left to harden. It is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as reinforced concrete.

I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips, but the information is available in civil engineering handbooks and texts.

soup

ChrisFox · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2012, 10:13:24 PM »

Normal concrete holds up very well to compressed forces but it breaks fairly easily to tension. Add reinforcement and no more crumbling.

Cool Blue · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2012, 06:41:02 PM »

Any comments on using brick for interior walls? Would they stop small arms?

SmartLikeTruck · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2012, 06:51:33 PM »

These guys have done ballistics testing on damn near everything!
Link below goes to a test of regular bricks behind simulated regular house walls
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot2.htm

soupbone · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2012, 07:22:28 PM »

Blue,

^^^As long as they're thick enough. But then, that leads to at least two other problems: Ricochet and Spalling. If a gun is fired in or into a house, the last thing you want is a bullet bouncing around in a room and possibly hitting someone not in the direct line of fire. Spalling occurs when a bullet hits a wall and knocks a chunk of material off on the opposite side. That chunk has a lot of energy and can be deadly.

These videos will give you some idea of the power of the 5.56 mm round:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6gHCNMSbqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLyuZIq11fs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxn8TS9cb3o&feature=related

Think about that when you think about cover and concealment.

soupbone

News:

Author Topic: BULLET PROOFING HOUSE, BOL (Read 5822 times)