<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Pinnacle Faces Contract Ban</title> <atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/</link> <description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:12:53 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Trigger &#60;&#62;</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-62663</link> <dc:creator>Trigger &#60;&#62;</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:15:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-62663</guid> <description>&quot;&quot;&quot;&#039;&#039; Yes i think they need to investigate </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“””” Yes i think they need to investigate</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Trigger &#60;&#62;</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163543</link> <dc:creator>Trigger &#60;&#62;</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:15:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163543</guid> <description>&quot;&quot;&quot;&#039;&#039; Yes i think they need to investigate </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“””” Yes i think they need to investigate</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Trigger &#60;&#62;</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-164739</link> <dc:creator>Trigger &#60;&#62;</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:15:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-164739</guid> <description>&quot;&quot;&quot;&#039;&#039; Yes i think they need to investigate </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“””” Yes i think they need to investigate</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Al</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163542</link> <dc:creator>Al</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:03:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163542</guid> <description>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. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patriot,<br
/> 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.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: patriot</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163541</link> <dc:creator>patriot</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:32:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163541</guid> <description>Al:
Sometime ago I looked at your &quot;rifletile&quot; 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? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al:<br
/> Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.<br
/> 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:<br
/> 4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the<br
/> ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested<br
/> panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X– Large ESAPI. The weakest point<br
/> of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For<br
/> FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is<br
/> defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second<br
/> impact will be between 0.75 — 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will<br
/> be between 5.0 — 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the<br
/> second impact.<br
/> Forgive me for being frank Al, but who does not know what they are talking about, you or the Army?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: patriot</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163540</link> <dc:creator>patriot</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:31:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163540</guid> <description>Al:
Sometime ago I looked at your &quot;rifletile&quot; 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. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al:<br
/> Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.<br
/> 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:<br
/> 4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the<br
/> ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested<br
/> panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X– Large ESAPI. The weakest point<br
/> of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For<br
/> FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is<br
/> defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second<br
/> impact will be between 0.75 — 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will<br
/> be between 5.0 — 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the<br
/> second impact.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dragon Slayer</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163539</link> <dc:creator>Dragon Slayer</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:41:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163539</guid> <description>It appears that Sftt wouldn&#039;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. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br
/> If SFTT writers believe so strongly in Dragon Skin,<br
/> I say put it on and I will bring the guns and bullets for testing. That is real put up or shut up time.<br
/> I have $1000 dollars says they will not show up for that test.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Al</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163538</link> <dc:creator>Al</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:07:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163538</guid> <description>Further,
I bet Pinnacle won&#039;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&#039;s throats as they are in proving the Army is corrupt. They should just be happy proving it&#039;s the best choice for the military. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Further,<br
/> 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.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Al</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163537</link> <dc:creator>Al</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:04:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163537</guid> <description>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&#039;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&#039;t you, if weak spots had been identified in testing?
Not the Same Vest, and NOT official First Article Testing. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Patriot,<br
/> That test you are talking about was on two vest, not 30 that is required by FAT.<br
/> 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?<br
/> Not the Same Vest, and NOT official First Article Testing.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dave</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-163536</link> <dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:15:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3590#comment-163536</guid> <description>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&#039;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. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 12/25 queries in 0.012 seconds using apc

Served from: unknown.dal.cologlobal.com @ 2010-03-20 06:54:32 -->