It looks as if the Air Force has successfully debarred Dragon Skin-maker Pinnacle Armor from participation in government contracts with the service.
During congressional hearings on the issue in early June, Air Force director of the office of special investigations, Douglas Thomas, revealed the service was investigating Pinnacle for falsely marking its SOV 2000 vests as being NIJ certified Level III armor. Without getting into the minute details, Pinnacle owner Murray Neal has basically said he obtained a verbal certification from NIJ pending the official written one.
Its unclear whether the Air Force investigation will result in any criminal charges, but suffice it to say the General Services Administration has included Pinnacle on its list of Excluded Parties that may do business with the Air Force, at least temporarily.
– Christian
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Lucky that companies like Boeing and Lockheed never get caught doing anything questionable, or the Air Force wouldn’t be able to buy any planes…!
It’s always easier to go after the little guy. The bottom line is that this company started messing around with the big boys. You can’t do that if you are not 100% honest and above any questionable activity.
whatever happened to that liquid nano armor stuff on the google video…?
This is a joke. Dragon Skin SOV-2000 is in a different universe when it comes to level III body armor. Absolutely superior. These “investigators” need to seriously find something better to do.
Verbal certification? Absolutly superior? Dragon Skin failed to meet NIJ requirements 7 times. The only version that passed were 10′*12′ panels in late 2006. I doubt that NIJ gave any verbal certification before when DS failed every official ballisitc test. Also SOV2000 failed to stop the Level IV rounds it was dsigned to stop.
Why is this pointless discussion still going on when Phillip Coyle one of Dragon Skins main pushers clearly admitted to congress that
Dave,
SOV-2000 is for level III rounds. a 10×12 panel is the standard for testing. They wouldnt waste an entire full torso wrap for testing.
@ SlimJim
philip coyle doesn’t weork for pinnacle, he doesnt know much about dragon skin. perhaps it would be a good idea to bank on the fact that the creator of interceptor clearly admitted his vests weren’t up to par with Dragon Skin.
you were owned
trax,
Pinnacle claims that SOV 2000 stops several types of level 4 rounds. During Air Force tests it didn’t. Pinnacles says so, too. (Their excuse was defect ceramic) It was sold as an level 3+ vest.
According to Mr. Morgan (NIJ) several different Dragon Skin versions didn’t pass NIJ testing, so I doubt again that there was any verbal certification before late 2006.
Dragon Skin also failed testing by USMC, Air Force and Army.
I also don’t understand your point about the creator of interceptor. Interceptor is normal hard plate vest. There is no single creator.
HMMM, I thought Boeing was caught stealing Lockheed secrets and then using them to win a very large contract which they were forced to sit out on after things came to light. They were only forced to sit out the one contract, but now a smaller company is forced onto the blacklist for an undetermined amount of time. Seems to me the AF is talking out both sides of their mouth.
Those who are following the dragon skin story, please take a moment view a copy of Col. Jim Magee’s written testimony avaliable at SFTT.org Many questions posed by both the Army and the HASC are answered in his testimony. (note that PPI does not provide the Army with the OTV but does provide the Marines with the MTV.)
again, take a look at SFTT.org, apparently ARL, in Maryland tested two DS vests on about 3 weeks ago. These tests followed FAT protocol for a “high temp” test. The shot numbers and placement for these vests actually exceeded ESAPI specification. It is probably also noteworthy to mention that everyone round was defeated, and yes they is use the 7.62 x63mm AP2 rounds. The Army is going to have a lot of explaining to do. See the following link for more specifics on this story:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=33
pardon my grammar on the last post! It seems I can’t type properly…….
I wonder why SFFT is pimping Dragon Skin the whole time…
I don’t know why SFTT is so strongly behind Dragon Skin. They call themselves a watchdog group, not sure if they have some agenda to push, it seems as if they have been very objective about the facts they report on, although they have made it clear how they feel about generals who sit behind desks all day. Other people to consider are Jim Magee and Nevin Rupert, it seems as if they are body very confident in the capability of Dragon Skin.
In any case, something doesn’t seem right, I am very suspucious of a few individuals in the Army.
What makes me suspicious is that even without all those failed tests by Army, Marines, Air Force and NIJ Dragon Skin has a lot of drawbacks that speak against a rapid fielding. (for example weight, bulk, costs, limited modularity…) I also wouldn’t call SFFT objective because they are blaming nearly everyone being part of acquisition mafia without any proof. So again I wonder why one third of their page is about defective body armor with limited use without having any proof of a conspiracy or the capabilities of Dragon Skin.
Hey Patriot,
That test you are talking about was on two vest, not 30 that is required by FAT.
Also do you really think those are exactly the same construction as the vests the Army put holes in last year. Don’t believe that for a second, the adhesive we know for a fact has been changed, and the tile probably has been modified a bit. There has been plenty of time to do that, and wouldn’t you, if weak spots had been identified in testing?
Not the Same Vest, and NOT official First Article Testing.
Further,
I bet Pinnacle won’t admit this to the Army or anyone that these vests that just stopped some rounds to be of different construction. They are just as bent on ramming DS down everyone’s throats as they are in proving the Army is corrupt. They should just be happy proving it’s the best choice for the military.
It appears that Sftt wouldn’t know the truth if weree right in front of them. They obviously have another agenda and Dragon Skin is just one of their battering rams.
If SFTT writers believe so strongly in Dragon Skin,
I say put it on and I will bring the guns and bullets for testing. That is real put up or shut up time.
I have $1000 dollars says they will not show up for that test.
Al:
Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.
I see that you basically describe how the weakest spot of DS are the spots in between the scales where a bullet could slip under. I have heard of plenty of oblique shots and never heard of a penetration. I see your point, but also what you describe as the weak link in DS is different from what the army describes as the weak link:
4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the
ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested
panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X- Large ESAPI. The weakest point
of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For
FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is
defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second
impact will be between 0.75 – 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will
be between 5.0 – 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the
second impact.
Al:
Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.
I see that you basically describe how the weakest spot of DS are the spots in between the scales where a bullet could slip under. I have heard of plenty of oblique shots and never heard of a penetration. I see your point, but also what you describe as the weak link in DS is different from what the army describes as the weak link:
4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the
ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested
panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X- Large ESAPI. The weakest point
of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For
FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is
defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second
impact will be between 0.75 – 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will
be between 5.0 – 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the
second impact.
Forgive me for being frank Al, but who does not know what they are talking about, you or the Army?
Patriot,
If you look at my page again you will see it in DS Vs. IBA page. The x spot is the weakest point. I am not discussing an angle where the bullet could slip through the gap. I am discussing the correct way to get a TRUE 0 degree obliquity shot in the area where there is a single thikness (no overlaps) in the thinnest area. The Army and I talking about the same thing with exception to one key point, changing the Clay Box angle with respect to the test barrel so that it is corrected as DS tiles DO NOT sit flat.
“”"” Yes i think they need to investigate
“”"” Yes i think they need to investigate
“”"” Yes i think they need to investigate