I'm with Micro. I don't want pics. I hope that was just a joke.
This puts me in mind of all I read from people who build "cast iron" rockets. You know the posts. "My rocket came down ballistic from 3000 feet onto solid concrete and didn't take a scratch. Man, is that puppy built, or what? I love to build 'em tough!
"
My thought each time is that that's fine for the rocket, but what about everything
under the rocket? Granted, anything directly under a rocket making a streamlined return to Earth is going to be at some degree of risk, but something built like (and as heavy as) a kevlar reinforced brick is going to do corresponding damage if its owner rolls snake eyes and it lands on someone's house, car,
. . . or head.
We need to be looking to advance the science and art of strong-but-light rockets that handle the stresses of launch, ejection, and landing but crush safely if they hit something solid. Tough fins that handle a K motor's thrust but pop off in a prang would fit. The nose and tube could absorb the damage, leaving the motor mount, fins, chute, shock cord and mount, centering rings, motor retention, and perhaps payload intact.
I like the exploration being made into alternative adhesives and into correct amendments to epoxy. Fillet design is advancing too. It's not all heavy monolithic epoxy any more. People are reinforcing with balsa or basswood strips at the fin roots and a lot more, rather than just pouring the epoxy can over the rocket and calling it good.
Lighter rockets can fly on smaller motors too, and if they are still strong, they can handle the larger motors too. These are good things.
Finesse and good engineering can take us to a new plateau. Meet ya' at the top!