Comments on: Army Called to Capitol Hill Carpet

By: Allan D. Bain

Allan D. Bain — Thu, 31 May 2007 05:20:35 +0000

Desmond I have a horse in the race from a component sales side, not actually a body armor manufacturer any more, but I agree with you, the kind of testing you propose is indeed what is needed for all participants, but I can also say don’t hold your breath. The military has a good point, why do we have to use armor we haven’t tested personally, thats kind of like telling the airforce that we have no say in the planes we fly. the pilots have a lot to say about planes in development and so must the people using system in the Army.

By: William

William — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:40:59 +0000

Yea, I saw it! Amateaur Hour all over again, did you see the guy who got a bullet fragment in his leg? Do not try this at home, these guys are seriously lacking in the brains department. Anytime you shoot bullets at hard surfaces, e.g. armor, you can get hit by bullet fragments or even richocets. Not real smart there boys. This is also why everyone in reality land tests in controlled conditions, lets’ see, a “lab” comes to mind, yea that’s it, a “lab”. Maybe the Pinnacle boys might consider using a test facility with proper isolation of the armor being tested from the personnel, you know, just one of those minor common sense things there. I did see that they are using a chronograph now, maybe they are starting to listen some but I doubt it.

By: patriot

patriot — Mon, 28 May 2007 15:42:46 +0000

Check out Pinnacle’s level 5 body armor!

this is no joke, check it out

By: Allan Bain

Allan Bain — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:00:59 +0000

Dear Txzen,
Thats the problem you can’t do a side by side test with flat planular armor vs flexible scalar armor with the same testing protocol. This is the reason why the NIJ adapted a whole new protocol for flexible scalar armor vs testing hard plates. It is the opinion of many that it doesn’t go far enough to address known weak spots of scalar armor.
Pinnacle knows this and thats why they don’t want the armor tested on a curved surface with the test barrell set up to achieve a true 90 degree attack on the weakest points in any tests they conducts or allows. I think NBC went along with this restriction not really thinking the matter through or talking to real experts. However you can bet the Army does this, interesting that this is where all the failures occur.
It’s easy to get a 90 degree shot on modeslty curved uniform thick planular armor.
Side by side in this instance means you test the plates like a plate, and the scalar armor like scalar armor should be tested against the same rounds and velocities.

By: Brodie

Brodie — Wed, 23 May 2007 07:27:34 +0000

From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the Dragon Armor (DA) works with most rounds. According to the military it failed when a 7.62x54R AP round was used against it. Everytime DA has passed the test against a 7.62 round, it has been usually 7.62x45 or smaller. This may be where the real problem lies.
I think that no matter what the Army does, whether they retest and determine that DA is the way to go or whether the retest and determine that it won’t work, we have another political problem.
If new armor was issued starting now, do you really think they’d be doing a mass switch out of the interceptor for DA? Could they really afford to?
Due to the design, I’m not surprised that the level of trauma is lower with DA. What I’m wondering is, after I’ve absorbed 3 shots and I get back to base, how do I verify that all my plates are still good? How do I replace a plate if its broken? With Interceptor, I switch out the plate and I’m good to go. With DA I’m either running around with a hole in my protection or I’m drawing a new set of armor.

By: Brodie

Brodie — Wed, 23 May 2007 07:25:15 +0000

By: txzen

txzen — Wed, 23 May 2007 03:12:54 +0000

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdfAfter From those x rays it doesn’t appear like the penetrations were at only unoverlapping disc areas or just on the edge of non overlapping discs. The only issue I still see is that the penetrations look just like the non-penetrations on the x ray, a shattered disc I guess. Really couldn’t tell the difference with out the red circle.

By: BT

BT — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:59:16 +0000

Whether or not Dragon Skin is BS, I don’t know. I do know the troops have good armor, but not the best money can buy, based on current B4C plates and configurations.
I am assuming troops now carry Level 3A E-OTV, plus front and back 10x12 ESAPI Level 4 ballistic plates, left and right torso Level 3 SAPI plates, and maybe some Level 3A shoulder/groin protection.
The highest level or protection with the most body coverage with the best technology will cost a lot of money and extra weight. Here is what I found: For sale right now.
Special Operations Multi Hit Ballistic Plate Level 4(6 Hit API) (Restricted Item) Set of Two
Armored Warrior Torso Side Plate Level 4-Medium Set of Two (Restricted Item)
AW Ballistic Shoulder Bicep Armor Level 3 (Set of 2)
Armored Warrior Lower Back Armor Level 3 (Triple) (Restricted Item)
AW Ballistic Drop Leg Platform with Rifle Plate (Set of 2) Level 3(Restricted Item)
Armored Warrior LimbSaver

By: txzen

txzen — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:05:18 +0000

Now I think the issue that people aren't really grasping here is that the army doesn't do a side by side test. I actually think and wonder what Mr. Bain William and the Sgt. think about how dragon skin would do in a shooting test if it was just fired upon in the similar area that the interceptor body armor is fired upon. Like the 10x12 center of mass and the 6x8 center of the profile of the armor. The video the army showed it appears like the bullet went through when fired at a very high part like at the upper chest I don't think the interceptor armor would have stopped a shot in that relative placement as the chest plate does not extend that high. This is where the public and the army perceptions differ. The public wants the side by side test and the army does a test with new parameters because the armor is a different type. I wonder if like in the ACR trial the army isn't trying to get a "better" piece but a dramatically better piece of equiptment in that the army said it would only replace the m16 if a competitor was 100 percent better in testing. I don't know if that is the case but if the protective area of the IBA was drawn onto the dragon skin and only that area fired upon I wonder wich vest would do better.

By: Allan Bain

Allan Bain — Tue, 22 May 2007 19:54:17 +0000

Dear Camp,
Your hybrid idea (or compromise as you put it) was proposed last year in the RFI for the military. It still may be considered in the near future. Part of the problem is that it is really difficult to get around the DS patents, and therefore for so few pieces it places the hybrid system into a pain in the butt category to manufacturer. Pinnacle and our company would be in the best position to do this though.
Another company may be joining the arena , but they have maninly focused on semi flexible and very light rifle resistant armor. They also have been going the route of Level 3+ first.