Comments on: Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing

By: Txzen

Txzen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:14:13 +0000

I think you are right, I have called Pinacle and talked a little bit of civilian model weight and coverage and they have many different levels of protection front back to wrap around. And of course we always compare the wrap around full torso to the interceptor with front back plates and maybe side plates depending who we talk to, and don’t forgot interceptor has shoulder guards and all kinds of stuff that to bulk up with.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:43:15 +0000

Txzen: If it’s an encumberance issue, I suppose Pinnacle could redesign the vests to reduce coverage around the shoulders. However it correspondingly reduces protection to the shoulders. It sounds like a design issue moreso than the failure of the concept of flexible armor.

By: Atomic Walrus

Atomic Walrus — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:29:13 +0000

Reliance on anecdotes isn’t acceptable as a measure of success. Seriously, you’re not going to know how effective Pinnacle is in the field until a lot of people wearing it are shot. That’s the ultimate test of body armor, and if the Army’s test results are accurate, there’s a good chance that a lot of that armor will have degraded and lost effectiveness.

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:47:34 +0000

Let’s face it, the Army hates change. They did the same tricks when the US was supposed to replace the M1911 .45 firearm with the 9mm. Basically, they failed every 9mm, just because they did not want to switch.

Congress had to pull ammunition funding on them to force them to switch. Hopefully, the Army is not up to it’s old tricks and can get our guys what will protect them the best.

By: Txzen

Txzen — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:29:15 +0000

I just spoke with an Air Force MP and shooting instructor, and he said that the more coverage that flexible armor he has tried on meant more difficulty bringing his gun to shoulder. Interceptor and Plates are just thick in the squardes on the front back and sides but these Scalar types that wrap the whole torso are a whole different animal, from what I understand bulky in all those areas they have that much more coverage in.

By: Tom Billings

Tom Billings — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:48:47 +0000

Uhhhhh, ...Christian? ....In your last paragraph, you had the sentence, "Maybe at the end of this saga the Pentagon can adopt one standard testing protocol for all military body armor and the notional threats to it so there’ll be a bit more confidence in the results and less objectivity." This is a nit, I know, but you really meant to end it with "less subjectivity", right?

By: Rick W

Rick W — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:25:38 +0000

There were two things that struck me about the whole armor argument.

1) The 7.62*54mmR that ‘doomed’ dragonskin is a round that cannot be fired from an AK-47. (It is shot from sniper rifles and some medium MGs.)

2) The variant they used against dragonskin were not just any 7.62*54mmR, but special issue armor piercing rounds that would also go through the interceptor vest plates.

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:54:15 +0000

I found Dragonskin survivor testimonials on the Pinnacle website, it is only 4 letters, but interesting none the less. http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/dragon-skin-survivor... I agree with you Charles, it is the news from the field that really counts. I mean are these vests falling apart in the heat, or are they really as good as advertised? And, if they are as good as advertised, we need to get these into our troops hands, all our troops, not just the "special" ones...

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:23:08 +0000

That does sound awesome. But it’s a single anecdotal case. As a scientist I shudder at the thought of single data points.

Pinnacle needs to go on the offensive. They need to publicly disclose user responses from everyone who has bought and used one overseas. It’s hard to ask people to make judgements on effectiveness otherwise.

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:24:00 +0000

Charles, Here is an interesting testimonial from an older post on military.com: "... After the contact, when I removed my tactical vest, I saw that I had taken hits in the back of my vest. They were 7.62x39mm (AK-47) and they were inches apart. I was hit in the back (and we checked, if I was wearing any other body armor, I would not be writing this to you), as it were both low hits (below the typical 10"x12" plate coverage). In terms of bruising, nothing whatsoever. I did not even KNOW that I was hit twice until I took off my tactical vest (this was after about 2 hours after the contact) and saw the damage. It was only then that we took a close look at my body armor that we realized I was hit twice by an AK-47. I had another ricochet hit around the top end of my back that may have caused serious injury to my lower neck... " http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927_2,0... Ptsfp