Security glazing gets talked about a lot—especially in the context of schools, public buildings, and high‑traffic entrances—but the details are often confusing. Films, buzzwords, and overlapping test standards can make it hard to know what you’re really specifying or installing.
This MCo Insights post focuses on forced‑entry and active‑shooter style threats, and how to think about laminated glass and framing systems in the context of ASTM F3561, the industry‑preferred test method for this type of risk.
The goal isn’t to turn you into test engineers. It’s to give you enough clarity to make better spec, design, and bid decisions.
What We Mean by “Security Glazing” Here
“Security glazing” can mean many different things depending on the project:
- Fire‑rated
- Blast‑resistant
- Hurricane / impact
- Ballistic / bullet‑resistant
For this discussion, we’re talking specifically about physical security in everyday building types:
- Forced entry
- Smash‑and‑grab
- Active‑shooter style scenarios
ASTM F3561 focuses on how a glass and framing system behaves when it has been pre‑weakened by gunfire and then attacked to force entry.
It’s important to be clear on one point:
ASTM F3561 is not a “bulletproof” standard.
It’s about delaying or preventing entry after shots are fired, not about stopping bullets.
The Problem: Confusing Specs & Mixed Messages
Out in the field, we regularly see security language that mixes standards or leans on products that were never really designed for serious forced‑entry resistance.
Common issues include:
- Specs that reference multiple standards together—HPW 5aa‑1, UL 972, EN 356, ASTM F1233, UL 752, etc.—without a clear understanding of what each one actually tests.
- Films or basic safety glass being marketed or interpreted as “security glazing,” even though they were not developed for sustained forced‑entry or active‑shooter scenarios.
- Owners assuming “security glass” means a certain level of performance, while the installed system is only aligned with older or less demanding tests.
The result is mis‑aligned expectations:
- The drawings say “security,”
- But the delivered glass + frame doesn’t behave the way the owner thinks it will in a real event.
ASTM F3561 in Plain Language
ASTM F3561 is formally the:
Standard Test Method for Forced‑Entry Resistance of Fenestration Systems After Simulated Active Shooter Attack.
In practice, it’s a two‑phase test:
- Ballistic pre‑weakening phase
- The glass is shot multiple times to simulate an active shooter initiating the event.
- This creates cracks, holes, and weakened areas you might expect to see in the field.
- Forced‑entry attack phase
- After the shots, a mechanical impactor repeatedly strikes the glass and framing.
- The goal is to see whether an opening large enough for passage can be created within a set number of blows.
So the key questions are:
- How long does the system delay entry after being shot?
- Does it maintain a barrier long enough for law enforcement or lockdown procedures?
Again, ASTM F3561 is about entry resistance after gunfire, not bullet stopping power.
Security Levels: Low, Medium, High – A Practical Way to Think
To keep this usable for design and estimating, many teams group ASTM F3561 security levels into three practical bands:
- Low (roughly Levels 1–2)
- Typical use: retail, mixed‑use, light commercial, and office entrances where some deterrence and delay are needed but risk is moderate.
- Medium (Levels 3–5)
- Typical use: higher‑priority public buildings such as education, healthcare, and civic facilities, where forced entry is a more serious concern.
- High (Levels 6–8)
- Typical use: government, critical infrastructure, or high‑security facilities where extended delay or a very high level of performance is required.
The idea is to give you a scalable toolkit:
You’re not over‑designing every door like a courthouse,
but you’re also not treating a high‑risk entrance like a standard storefront.
Laminated Glass Portfolios Aligned to F3561 Levels
Laminated security glass options are typically built from combinations of:
- PVB interlayers
- Ionoplast interlayers like SentryGlas®
- Specialized security interlayers such as Saflex™ VS/HP or similar technologies
By adjusting:
- Interlayer type, and
- Total interlayer thickness (including multiple plies),
manufacturers can align laminated glass make‑ups with Low, Medium, or High F3561 performance levels.
Typical patterns you may see:
- Thinner PVB or ionoplast laminates aligned with Low and some Medium levels
- Thicker or multi‑layer ionoplast / security interlayers used to achieve higher levels when paired with the right framing system
The main takeaway:
You do not have to invent glass make‑ups from scratch. There are tested laminated configurations that map to realistic threat levels—you just need clarity on which combinations are appropriate.
For specific glass make‑ups and level mapping, talk with your Martineau & Co representative, who can walk you through current options and guide you to the right laminated configuration for your project.
Glass Alone Is Not Enough: The System Matters
Just like hurricane impact or blast work, glass performance alone does not give you a complete rating.
ASTM F3561 is a system test, which means:
- The result depends on the glass + frame + anchorage working together.
- A high‑performing laminated glass, installed in an un‑tested or insufficiently robust frame, will not deliver the intended security level.
Practically, that means:
- Laminated glass configurations can be capable of achieving certain levels,
- But you still need an appropriate tested frame system—entrance, storefront, or curtain wall—to complete the package.
The value for project teams is:
- Your glass partner can help define which laminated make‑ups align to which levels, and
- You can then coordinate with metal suppliers who are testing or have tested those assemblies.
How to Decide: Matching Security Level to Project Need
To keep this practical, it helps to avoid jumping straight to product names and instead ask:
- What are we protecting?
- Students and staff?
- The public in a civic building?
- Critical infrastructure or higher‑risk occupants?
- Where are the highest‑risk access points?
- Main entrances
- Vestibules
- Certain ground‑floor windows or sidelites
- How long do we need to delay entry?
- Enough time for lockdown procedures
- Enough time for law enforcement response in your jurisdiction
From there, a more focused conversation emerges:
- Which entrances or zones deserve a Medium or High security level?
- Where is Low level performance sufficient as a deterrent and delay?
- How do we balance risk, budget, and aesthetics for this specific owner and building type?
In many projects, not every opening needs the same level. A targeted approach—upgrading a handful of key locations—often delivers better value than trying to harden everything equally.
K‑12 and Other Budget‑Sensitive Projects
On K‑12 and other budget‑sensitive work, security is only one of several pressures:
- Daylight and visibility
- Energy performance
- Aesthetics and student experience
- Very tight capital budgets and community scrutiny
Because of this, there are structured pricing and program approaches designed to make credible, test‑aligned security glazing more accessible for schools and other public projects—without automatically pushing the package out of budget range.
Program specifics (pricing thresholds, square‑footage minimums, freight rules, and lead‑time targets) can change over time and by territory.
For up‑to‑date details on how these programs work for your projects,
talk directly with your Martineau & Co representative.
We can walk you through:
- How security‑aligned laminated glass fits into real K‑12 budgets,
- Where it makes the most sense to prioritize higher performance, and
- How to communicate value and trade‑offs to districts and communities.
How Martineau & Co Helps You Use This Well
Our role is to help you translate security language in specs into clear glass and system choices.
If you send us a spec that mentions HPW 5aa‑1, UL 972, ASTM F1233, UL 752, or ASTM F3561, we can:
- Clarify what threat and performance level that language really implies
- Recommend a laminated glass make‑up aligned with that level
- Flag where you’ll need a tested framing system from a metal supplier
- Highlight budget and lead‑time implications early so there are fewer surprises in bid
That way, architects, consultants, owners, and glaziers are making informed decisions instead of chasing product names or marketing claims.
Making It Real: Apply This to Your Projects
If you’re working on a project where forced‑entry or active‑shooter risk is on the table—or where new security language has started appearing in the spec—it’s worth a focused review.
If you share:
- The relevant spec section, and
- A basic elevation or door/window schedule,
we can come back with:
- A proposed security level (Low / Medium / High),
- A compatible laminated glass make‑up, and
- Notes on likely system options and cost implications.
That’s what MCo Insights is for: taking security glazing out of the realm of buzzwords and into practical decision tools for your education, healthcare, civic, commercial, and institutional work across the Northeast.