iPhone 4S vs. 50 Cal Armor Piercing Incendiary Rounds [Video]

POST

MAIL

Posted October 18, 2011 at 8:17pm by Shalom Levytam

RatedRR has posted a video which shows the iPhone 4S being shot at with 50 cal armor piercing incendiary rounds.

Take a look below...

[via Gizmodo]

Get the iClarified Daily Newsletter

Apple news, rumors, tutorials, price drop alerts, in your inbox every evening, free.

Unsubscribe at any time.

Add Comment

Would you like to be notified when someone replies or adds a new comment?

Yes (All Threads)

Yes (This Thread Only)

Notifications

Would you like to be notified when we post a new Apple news article or tutorial?

Yes

Comments (13)

Comments are closed for this article.

krissss - October 20, 2011 at 1:45pm

@DacksMac: as a community, people should take care of each other. Social security should be for everyone, not just there rich and the famous. but that is another discussion, isn't it. Have a nice day :)

Matt - October 19, 2011 at 4:57pm

Er.... why?

Boywonda - October 18, 2011 at 9:30pm

What's the point of these video's like seriously?

Bill Gates - October 19, 2011 at 3:20am

It has a very important point that i think everyone here is failing to see. The point is very simple. If you had an iphone 4S in your pocket and were shot in that pocket with an armor piercing round then you'd be dead lol.

gamerscul9870 - April 26, 2014 at 8:33pm

Not as dead as the glass shattered life after messing up windows with vistas brother, the 8.

Nobo1 - October 18, 2011 at 9:02pm

I wonder what Android fans think about this video!

iubuntu - October 19, 2011 at 1:24am

So then sell the device you're writing your trolling comment on, to feed starving children. In fact sell everything that isn't food or water.

Bill Gates - October 19, 2011 at 3:10am

Who cares what other people do with their money. Is it your money....No! So with that logic people should spend every dime that they would spend having fun on feeding the hungry instead?

yiyopr - October 19, 2011 at 4:24am

Ahh the "if you don't spend every cent on the hungry you're being a hypocrite" argument... A fool's argument if you ask me... I'm not saying people can't buy nice things. Nice things are great. I'm saying people shouldn't buy nice things just to destroy them. Why does it matter, you may ask? It matters a great deal, you don't get any use out of a destroyed product. Therein lies the difference between buying nice things to enjoy their use and buying them with the sole purpose of enjoying them. The things we buy are justified because we get some use out of them. Lets have an example which would directly affect you, in which it is immoral to buy something for the purpose of destroying it. Say an infectious life-threatening disease spread through our nation, and we all found ourselves infected. Now there is a cure, though the demand has far exceeded the supply and a significant portion of the american population can't get it. The pharmaceutical companies have taken advantage of this and charge a hefty price for the antidote. Now say a rich guy comes in and buys 5 antidotes, and then proceeds to run them over with his car, for the fun of it. You do not have the cure, and you learn that someone is wasting money to buy, and consequently destroy, something that you desperately need but cannot afford. How exactly would you feel? I'd imagine you'd feel terrible. You'd be angry. How is it that someone who has money gets to misuse it in such a horrendous matter??? Now lets change the story a bit, the rich guys buys 5 antidotes, and then gives them to his family, his closest friends perhaps. How would you feel? You shouldn't feel angry at all. Sure, he's buying, and using, resources that are depleting and are of vital importance to others (including yourself), but he's not wasting them. Do you understand now? You may think 'Hey, the money won't go to the poor guys anyway, so why does it matter how I spend it?'. I matters a great deal. Wasting money on a product you have no intention of consuming is despicable. You are spitting in the face of others. To @DacksMac, no one is saying you don't have a right to own a weapon. But shooting a $650 phone is like running over expensive, and scarce, medication. It is a reproachable action.

yiyopr - October 19, 2011 at 4:27am

I meant *destroying them. not enjoying them. Should have spell checked :/

iubuntu - October 19, 2011 at 4:48am

Im quite sure You won't die if someone shoots their iPhone. Also, have you ever left something on your plate at dinner? So the starving children should hate you For wasting scarce resources?

yiyopr - October 19, 2011 at 5:48am

Not very good counterarguments... First, sure you don't die if someone shoots an iphone. But, people die because they don't have money to buy food and fresh water, or medicine... That phone cost you $200-$650 (depending on contract expiration date). You misunderstand the medicine example... To be honest this was a terrible example by my part. I introduced a supply constraint, which was unnecessary, and I made it so that the product that can save lives is also the product that is misused. The idea was that you looked at the cost of the medicine, not the medicine myself. So I'll re-iterate. The issue with the medicine example is that the cost of medicine is too high for most to purchase. Most americans can't afford the obscene cost of the medicine, lets say $20,000, and as a result, many will die. At the same time some rich singer/actor wastes $150,000 by flushing them down the toilet. Would you really be ok with that? I don't think so. You might not admit it now, but you would be way beyond pissed. Here this guy comes in and wastes such a necessary resource for most dying sick americans, something that is essential for people's survival. The issue is not the medicine, its the cost of the medicine. Now if the actor would have bought something a bit more substantial, like a house or car, you shouldn't be angry. After all, at least he's using what he paid for. Sure its a lavish item, but the item will get used. No one dies from shooting iphones, but people die from lack of money every day. Lack of food traces back to lack of money, because if they had money they would have food. Spending money is justified when the resulting item gets used, and only when this happens. Throwing money away, be it down the toilet or by shooting a phone, cannot be justified. There you go with extremes... The fact is I ate most of my food. Sure I left some on the plate, but eating more wouldn't make me any healthier and I really did consume the product. What could I have done otherwise? Hunger isn't an exact science, I can't plug in the amount of hunger I have in an equation and output the amount of food I need. Therefore leaving some food over is justified, first because the food as a whole did get substantial use (it filled up my stomach), and two because I did not buy the left over food to waste it, I bought it simply because there is no way of knowing the exact amount of food I need and I can only estimate... The food argument fails.

Matt - October 19, 2011 at 5:02pm

So soldiers died so that he could shoot an iPhone? Oh yer! it all makes sense when you put it that way.....

Recent. Read the latest Apple News.

RECENT

Blackmagic Announces Spatial Audio Microphone With Apple Technology and iPhone Support

Apple Invites Adds Guest Polls and Floating Emoji Effects

Google Brings Gemini Live to Apple CarPlay

iPhone 18 Pro Max Tops CNET Battery Test of 32 Smartphones

OLED iPad mini vs. M4 iPad Air: Better Display or Bigger Screen?

More News

Tutorials. Help is here.

TUTORIALS