Security film and protective glass are often promoted as the first line of defense against forced entry and active shooter attacks. But not all materials offer the level of protection their marketing suggests. When schools and public buildings install untested or under-tested security film, they may unknowingly leave students and staff exposed. Sadly, some also do so knowingly, as some schools are willing to turn a blind eye for the sake of budgets.
Armoured One, founded in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, continues to highlight the dangers of relying on unreliable products that cannot deliver under real-world conditions.
When Marketing Language Replaces Meaningful Data
Security films are frequently described using vague phrases that are often unsupported by meaningful test data. Worse, some manufacturers imply their products are bullet-resistant without undergoing ballistic testing at all. Multi-stacked layers of standard film or thicker glass do not equate to shooter resistance, yet these products are sold to schools and businesses as if they do.
Quarter-inch tempered glass, still widely used in commercial settings that include education facilities, offers no protection from bullets or forced entry, as shown in Sandy Hook school shooting. Due to the tempering of the glass, which causes it to shatter into small pieces, it requires a very strong solution to harden these locations, one that has been specifically tested on these applications.
Armoured One LLC warns that without engineered composites or proper lamination, this glass fails within seconds under attack, regardless of the amount of film applied to its surface.
False Confidence and Real Consequences
One of the most dangerous outcomes of using under-tested materials is the false sense of security they create. Administrators may believe they’ve taken the necessary steps to protect their buildings, only to later discover that their systems collapse under stress.
Security film that lacks performance testing may hold together after a single strike but rapidly deteriorates with repeated blows or shots. During an attack, this illusion of protection may delay emergency response decisions and lead to serious consequences.
In events like Sandy Hook, where the response time was under three minutes, there was still not enough time to prevent mass loss of life. According to founder Tom Czyz, that’s precisely why materials must be capable of delaying attackers, not just for seconds, but long enough for law enforcement to act.
Misunderstanding the Role of Film
As one Armoured One specialist explained with a simple analogy: most 8–15 MIL safety films may hold together for a little while during an attack if they aren’t shot, similar to how a T-shirt is difficult to tear when intact. But once there’s even a small hole, it rips apart easily. These films behave the same way—once compromised by a bullet, they fail.
That’s why proper testing is critical. Armoured One’s 23 MIL film has been both shot and attacked—and held together. In contrast, many 8–15 MIL films are marketed with safety or security claims but have never been tested under shooter attack conditions as they are designed more for anti-burglary applications. The T-shirt analogy illustrates exactly why that kind of testing matters.
Real Testing, Real Protection
Security isn’t achieved through suggestion. It requires testing under conditions that reflect actual threats. This means evaluating products using full-system tests against forced-entry and shooter attack standards, not just individual film samples under ideal conditions.
Armoured One supports this level of verification and has built its product development around scenarios involving firearms and a measurable ram system, as called for in the ASTM F3561 to simulate an active shooter attack. Their team, comprising SWAT operators, homicide detectives, and school security experts, understands that every second counts during an attack.
Armoured One LLC continues to push for transparency and accuracy in the security materials market. They advocate for tested, proven systems that stand up to modern threats, because safety measures that haven’t been tested are only safe in theory. When lives are at risk, the difference between “seems secure” and “proven to hold” could not be more significant.