very light armor?


PDA






Wapato
April 29, 2012, 04:29 PM
Because most people seem to agree the best firearm for a fight is the one you actually have with you, manufacturers are cranking out the pocket pistols, and members here are advising people to get them.

I'm wondering about the body armor side of that. Sure, level IIIA is great and all that. But realistically I doubt there are many of us here that aren't LEOs that actually wear any type of armor at all. I'm given to understand level IIIA is heavy, bulky, restrictive, costly, and would be very uncomfortable in the heat. Level II is only a little better.

Given that, would it make any sense to consider level IIA or level I (does anybody even make that anymore out of modern polymers?)

Could a modern level 1 or IIA be the sort of thing you just slide on instead of your usual undershirt or dress shirt so that you'd actually wear it?

Related to the efficacy of that, does anybody know much about how bulletproof vests fail? Or put a different way, if a gun is just a bit too much for the vest, does the bullet limp through with a much lower velocity and maybe fail to create a fatal injury, or as you increase velocity on a bullet does the vest suddenly go from "stops completely" to "fails miserably">

Also, would a vest be somewhat practical as a measure against other hazards? I recall reading somewhere that half the "saves" for some police department in a study were from things other than attacks by a weapon, and were instead credited for saves related to various falls, explosions, being impacted by a car, being in an accident in a car, having something fall on them, etc. Though I don't think it went into great detail.

If you enjoyed reading about "very light armor?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
19-3Ben
April 29, 2012, 04:36 PM
Or put a different way, if a gun is just a bit too much for the vest, does the bullet limp through with a much lower velocity and maybe fail to create a fatal injury, or as you increase velocity on a bullet does the vest suddenly go from "stops completely" to "fails miserably">

I'd be very interested to hear the answer to this one. I've been curious about it myself.

Giterboosted
April 29, 2012, 04:39 PM
In for the answer on that too

Shoobee
April 29, 2012, 04:47 PM
I can only think of 4 reasons to wear a "vest."

1 - LEO

2 - military

3 - bank robber

4 - paranoid

cambeul41
April 29, 2012, 05:03 PM
4 - paranoid

Some people think we all are! :D

DammitBoy
April 29, 2012, 05:04 PM
Let's slightly change your post to reflect what other like-minded people say all the time...

I can only think of 4 reasons to wear a "gun."

1 - LEO

2 - military

3 - bank robber

4 - paranoid

It's bad enough when those outside the firearm community throw stones at us, worse when we throw stones at each other.

essayons21
April 29, 2012, 05:22 PM
regarding the first part of your question, there are a few companies that make bullet-resistant clothing

http://www.miguelcaballero.com/cms/front_content.php

As to the second part, Kevlar certainly will slow down rounds that defeat it, and reduce their impact on the other side.

JERRY
April 29, 2012, 05:31 PM
first, there isnt any soft body armor which one can wear that isnt hot and restrictive.

second, level IIA is the lightest ive heard of and though it is not rated for a .357 magnum it will stop a .357 magnum, the back face deformation will be brutal, but better than a slug in your chest.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
April 29, 2012, 05:51 PM
second, level IIA is the lightest ive heard of and though it is not rated for a .357 magnum it will stop a .357 magnum, the back face deformation will be brutal, but better than a slug in your chest.

Yes and Kind of no to that. While the bullet itself MAY be stopped, the blunt force trauma from the impact can cause severe damage itself. If impact is around the liver, kidneys, or spleen, the impact trauma can actually be very deadly.

Shoobee
April 29, 2012, 05:59 PM
Actually I love my 45ACP and I think everyone should own one, or at least a 9mm if they cannot handle the 45ACP. Robbery and rape would then go down, we would need fewer police, and everyone would become more responsible citizens.

A vest is a totally different story.

If ever there was anyplace where I thought I had to wear a vest, I just would not go there.

Situations for wearing a "vest":

1 - you are a LEO and you know you have an unpopular job

2 - you are FBI or DEA and you are going on a dangerous raid

3 - you are getting ready to rob a bank and you don't want someone taking a lucky shot at you

4 - you are military in a combat zone

5 - paranoia in the civilian world.

Lost Sheep
April 29, 2012, 06:07 PM
Actually I love my 45ACP and I think everyone should own one, or at least a 9mm if they cannot handle the 45ACP. Robbery and rape would then go down, we would need fewer police, and everyone would become more responsible citizens.

A vest is a totally different story.

If ever there was anyplace where I thought I had to wear a vest, I just would not go there.

Situations for wearing a "vest":

1 - you are a LEO and you know you have an unpopular job

2 - you are FBI or DEA and you are going on a dangerous raid

3 - you are getting ready to rob a bank and you don't want someone taking a lucky shot at you

4 - you are military in a combat zone

5 - paranoia in the civilian world.
If I feel compelled to investigate a break-in type sound in my house, I would not feel the least bit paranoid about

1 taking a gun

2 putting on shoes

3 putting on a vest

but I would feel it a waste of time to put on socks or pants.

What does that make me?

Lost Sheep

JERRY
April 29, 2012, 06:10 PM
Yes and Kind of no to that. While the bullet itself MAY be stopped, the blunt force trauma from the impact can cause severe damage itself. If impact is around the liver, kidneys, or spleen, the impact trauma can actually be very deadly.
thats what i said.........

Shoobee
April 29, 2012, 06:17 PM
shoes and vest would be a big waste of time.

pants and gun is plenty.

youre living in the wrong neighborhood if you also need a vest.

Lost Sheep
April 29, 2012, 06:19 PM
Yes and Kind of no to that. While the bullet itself MAY be stopped, the blunt force trauma from the impact can cause severe damage itself. If impact is around the liver, kidneys, or spleen, the impact trauma can actually be very deadly.
I am getting off-topic here, but your post prompts me to ask,

Which is more survivable? A penetrating bullet wound (assume powerful, heavy, but not expanding) or that same impact as blunt force trauma?

OK, back on topic:

There are more bulletproofing options than just the vest or the (pretty expensive) clothing mentioned by essayons21.

Bullet-resistant clipboards or briefcases come to mind immediately. Cutting down the bulky vest to a smaller size, to just protect the vitals rather than the full chest is an option.

Knowing that every concession to comfort or economy gives up some safety, you have to balance your particular needs. We protect ourselves thermally by "layering" our insulation. Is there a way to "layer" body armor? Just brainstorming here, so if that last sentence is crazy, let me know.

Lost Sheep

Manson
April 29, 2012, 06:22 PM
Well protected and half nekid.

Rail Driver
April 29, 2012, 06:23 PM
shoes and vest would be a big waste of time.

pants and gun is plenty.

youre living in the wrong neighborhood if you also need a vest.
You mean if I live in a nice neighborhood and someone breaks into my house, they will never, ever shoot at me, especially when I confront them with a gun in my hand letting them know the cops are on the way? Do you really think that living in a nice neighborhood is going to do anything to prevent a BG intent on harming you and/or your family from shooting? Sorry pal, but that's delusion talking. I've been kicking myself for selling my vest for the past 2 years.

JohnBiltz
April 29, 2012, 06:32 PM
While I would not wear a vest daily, there are circumstances where having a vest would be a good idea. Riots would be a big one. If I heard a noise putting on a vest is not going to happen, hearing my front door go, if I had the time I'd put one on. If I had one I'd put it in my last stand/strong point and that is what it would be for.

Sam1911
April 29, 2012, 06:35 PM
I can only think of 4 reasons to wear a "gun."DB makes a fine point. Toting about with you a firearm, a bullet resistant vest, or both is somewhere between paranoid and very wise. Hopefully you'd have no need of either in the course of a long, peaceful life. Tragically, you may need both someday. Even worse, when your crisis comes neither may be "enough." Each of us has to make our own decisions about how prepared we choose to be.

(As seen in other, current threads, some folks feel the need to have a rifle nearby at all times. I'd say a light, unobtrusive, bullet resistant vest is a more reasonable choice for facing "likely" civilian-world threats than a rifle.)

youre living in the wrong neighborhood if you also need a vest.
We've had this discussion before. Not everyone has the benefit of living in a "good" neighborhood. (If you need a GUN, you must be living in the wrong neighborhood, no?)

Not everyone who might keep a vest next to their home defense gun is a paranoid nut. (If you have need for a tool with which to SHOOT someone, might you also not avail yourself of a tool to keep you from being SHOT? Seems the two could go hand-in-hand.)

zoom6zoom
April 29, 2012, 06:35 PM
With some of the idiots handling guns at the range, that's a place I'd like to be wearing one!

GCBurner
April 29, 2012, 06:42 PM
I've noticed the Range Safety Officers in charge of the New Shooters Squad at our local IDPA matches tend to wear vests fairly often. It's not unknown for them to get muzzle swept by a newbie in the excitement of the moment.

AethelstanAegen
April 29, 2012, 06:43 PM
Well protected and half nekid.
Haha. Oh man, that was good.

Let's try to just answer Wapato's question instead of telling him what level of protection is "reasonable" in our opinion. I don't plan to wear body armor to the grocery store, but I don't think that entitles me to tell everyone else they can't/shouldn't/etc. I can understand the reasoning for Lost Sheep deciding to put on shoes and a vest while investigating a sound in his home (if there wasn't the possibility of a criminal willing to fight him in the home, he wouldn't need a gun either or any real need to check it out at all)...that said I won't be buying a vest for anytime I investigate a sounds because I can't afford one and think the odds I'll need one are slim. That doesn't mean that Lost Sheep doesn't need one or shouldn't use his...it just means we're different people with different situations and circumstances and so power to him.

So let's not bicker about who or when someone might need the stuff and just try to answer Wapato's question and leave the judgmental comments to ourselves.

Wapato, I think the real question is simply that anything you could wear which would be comfortable, would do very little to really up your odds. So I think it generally loses out in the benefits are way outnumbered by the disadvantages (ie slight protection vs high cost, uncomfortable, etc). So yeah, it might be better than nothing but you'd probably find you wouldn't be able to find something that would work well for you everyday.

Robert
April 29, 2012, 06:49 PM
I had to wear a vest everyday for work at one point in time. I'll pass thanks.

Manson
April 29, 2012, 06:53 PM
I agree. We seem to have gotten into motivation rather than availability and effectiveness.

armoredman
April 29, 2012, 06:56 PM
I would be happy to throw on a vest before investigating noises in my home. My son has his own IIIA vest he has trained to throw on and roll under the bed if things "go south". Since we live some scant miles from the drug smuggling corridor the feds ceded to the cartels, I don't think this paranoid. ShooFly fails to understand there are states that allow the use of a vest for civilians, and sometimes people who might have to go places that are 'questionable", or wish to have some level of protection in the night, might want one they can wear/throw on. He also fails to understand there are some civilian jobs that might require one - I wore a concealable vest for years in armored trucking.
I see he also feels 9mm is for those who can't "handle" 45ACP. :) Just how many dead horses DO you own?
Goodbye, ShooFly, your trolling is done for me.
To the OP, with the high quality of today's' concealable vest, go with a IIIA. Safariland is a great name to trust, as is Point Blank or Second Chance. There are some used armor sites, but I don't like used armor that much. Try to buy new if you can - it will cost you as much as a good quality sidearm.

SquareBeer
April 29, 2012, 08:16 PM
Vests are wise in certain situations! Paranoid is for those that do not understand and thank goodness I understand. We've looked at a few sites but can't really tell what is good and what is not.

stumpers
April 29, 2012, 08:24 PM
To answer the OP...

I was issued concealable IIIA body armor (in addition to the tactical outer/visible stuff) by my last unit in the Army. I think it was BALCS cut, but in a low-vis Eagle Industries carrier. I've also worn IIA. I would rather have IIIA given the negligible (to me) difference in weight, thickness, etc.

I'm no longer in the Army and I don't normally dress in a style in civilian life that would allow for discreet wear of any armor, but even with IIIA, that could be fixed with dark button-down shirts of an appropriate cut and average length.

Also, if you have an Army/Navy/surplus store near you, check out the Point Blank IBA inserts (IIIA)...by themselves they are actually fairly pliable, although somewhat thicker than some IIA armor I have seen.

Lastly, I was given a IIA vest that was manufactured in 1998...in 2011 my buddy and I took out the panels and laid them on the berm at the range, packed tight against the sand, and shot them with 9mm, .45 ACP and 12 ga. OO buck from a few feet away. There were no punctures in the vest from any of the rounds, including OO buck on top of pistol rounds and other multiple hits. The deformation was insane, however, and a good reason to wear plates with soft armor. The 00 buck would have broken every bone underneath the hit area...point being, the IIA performed at least at a IIIA level.

blarby
April 29, 2012, 08:36 PM
Sheep brings both his rifle, and his gun to the fight.

Very wise indeed.

You might scare the poor bastard away in shame of inferiority and save yourself a firefight :)

Jenrick
April 29, 2012, 08:51 PM
To address the OP: Any newly manufactured body armor will using the NIJ .06 standard, which basically mandates the vest panels be water proof. This means new armor is stiff and very unbreathable compared to panels produced 5-6 years ago. However all vest manufactures will tell you that they only warrant a vest for 5 years. Ballistic testing however shows that even 15-20 year old vests appear to work just fine still.

I know of no manufacture that produces a level I or level IIa vest any more. Level II is the lightest most manufactures produce as actual protective vests. However the difference in bulk, flexibility, etc. between a level II and level IIIa vest produced under the NIJ .06 standard is minimal. However a level II vest produced under the old standard is MUCH more flexible, lighter, etc. then a comparable IIIa vest.

A round that penetrates the vest looses velocity as it penetrates the ballistic material. How much is certainly not a constant however. A round that the material is not rated for might barely clear the panel on one round, and zip right through the next. In general though non-armor piercing pistol rounds will be stopped by the ballistic material, and if they do penetrate they wont have much velocity left (shallow penetration). Rifle rounds will zip right through with very little velocity loss.

A vest basically spreads any impact over the entire panel, rather then having it focused on one spot. They work very well in car crashes, fist fights, and even edged weapon attacks.

If I was going to look at a vest for non-LE work, I would look for an older (5-6 year old) level II vest. It will be low profile, comfortable (for a vest), and fairly light. Yes you are going to be out of the manufactures date of service, but there is basically no evidence that a vest constructed out of the appropriate materials (NO ZYLON!) is still not capable of functioning as needed.

For further info I'd check out: http://bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml They are good company, and I've had good luck with them in the past.

-Jenrick

Shoobee
April 29, 2012, 08:52 PM
The only good reason I have heard so far supra for having your own civilian vest is if you live in a neighborhood prone to rioting. I do not.

Or if you work on a rifle range.

Reality check time.

ApacheCoTodd
April 29, 2012, 09:21 PM
I can only think of 4 reasons to wear a "vest."

1 - LEO

2 - military

3 - bank robber

4 - paranoid
Well.... Then you're not thinkin' hard, pard!

What about #5 - Bear Attack!!!:evil:

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
April 29, 2012, 10:13 PM
Well.... Then you're not thinkin' hard, pard!

What about #5 - Bear Attack!!!

Oh Gawd!!! Flack long johns, for the REAL frontier outdoorsman!!! :D

Nushif
April 29, 2012, 10:24 PM
I think the issue is more a matter of money.

For the money you'd shell out in order to well, bulletproof your entire wardrobe with armor you will actually wear regularly you could buy more security measures in your house, car or job than the armor alone would work.

You'd need seven formal outfits, let's just assume. Seven suits.
Seven everyday outfits, for when you're not feeling the suit.
Some athletic attire.
And some random clothing for you know, the odd occasion.

I don't know the prices on this kind of thing but considering everything I heard that's a *lot* of money.

Unless you go the way of soft cop armor. But that stuff is uncomfy. And stiff. And concealable may be an overstatement. Anything beyond that is truly uncomfy and unconcealable.

So it's more an issue of well ... for all the money and effort you'd spend on preparing yourself in everyday bulletproof clothing or soft armor ... an armored car, a very secure house and working fom home seems almost affordable.

Or am I totally misjudging this?

SquareBeer
April 30, 2012, 01:22 AM
stumpers and jenrick,

Thanks for the great information!

Someone said something about money and of course money is an issue but it is with purchasing guns as well. I don't think we need all guns to be safe nor do we need head to tail 7 days a week in armor to be safe! I don't need a helmet and all going to work but one for a shtf or maybe even that midnight rumble wouldn't hurt.

Patchbunny
April 30, 2012, 01:43 AM
I don't know who made it anymore, or if it's even still available, but years ago a body armor manufacturer made a fanny pack with a Level 1(?) vest tucked inside. In times of trouble, you opened the top of the pack, pulled out the top of the vest, and pulled a top loop over your head to hold the vest in place across your front. You could get the vest in place really quick.

Lost Sheep
April 30, 2012, 01:57 AM
Thanks for the support about the vest, guys. I would not have gone out an bought one purposely, but it came to me as "boot" in a trade.

Now that I have it hanging in my closet, I have two choices. Trade it for something or put it on if I feel the need to be armed or protected, which usually happen simultaneously (by definition, right?).

I do feel a little paranoid putting it on. But I would feel really stupid to have it and not use it.

I think even Shoobee would agree that feeling or looking (vested, armed and half nekkid, but with good shoes-you haven't seen my front yard!) stupid or paranoid is better than being holed, especially since I already have it laying around. By the way, I sleep in shorts. Not suitable for everyday wear outside, but modest enough to avoid indecent exposure charges.

Lost Sheep

Wapato
April 30, 2012, 02:00 AM
Alright, so the general consensus seems to be that nobody sells level I armor anymore, and level IIA isn't much better than IIIA, which is going to make you miserable. So it's not really something for everyday wear.

I don't suppose anybody has tried out the Miguel Caballero stuff or knows how easy it is to wear. It looks like they've got a basic armored tank top you could wear under about anything for everyday use that only weights a few pounds.

His items run in the thousands though.

To address the OP: Any newly manufactured body armor will using the NIJ .06 standard, which basically mandates the vest panels be water proof. This means new armor is stiff and very unbreathable compared to panels produced 5-6 years ago. However all vest manufactures will tell you that they only warrant a vest for 5 years. Ballistic testing however shows that even 15-20 year old vests appear to work just fine still.

I know of no manufacture that produces a level I or level IIa vest any more. Level II is the lightest most manufactures produce as actual protective vests. However the difference in bulk, flexibility, etc. between a level II and level IIIa vest produced under the NIJ .06 standard is minimal. However a level II vest produced under the old standard is MUCH more flexible, lighter, etc. then a comparable IIIa vest.

A round that penetrates the vest looses velocity as it penetrates the ballistic material. How much is certainly not a constant however. A round that the material is not rated for might barely clear the panel on one round, and zip right through the next. In general though non-armor piercing pistol rounds will be stopped by the ballistic material, and if they do penetrate they wont have much velocity left (shallow penetration). Rifle rounds will zip right through with very little velocity loss.

A vest basically spreads any impact over the entire panel, rather then having it focused on one spot. They work very well in car crashes, fist fights, and even edged weapon attacks.

If I was going to look at a vest for non-LE work, I would look for an older (5-6 year old) level II vest. It will be low profile, comfortable (for a vest), and fairly light. Yes you are going to be out of the manufactures date of service, but there is basically no evidence that a vest constructed out of the appropriate materials (NO ZYLON!) is still not capable of functioning as needed.

For further info I'd check out: http://bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml They are good company, and I've had good luck with them in the past.

-Jenrick

Interesting post. Again, it seems odd to me that gun manufacturers are pumping out the .25ACPs but the armor makers don't seem to be trying to achieve the same thing by sacrificing even significant protection to give practical comfort.

And in a gun free zone at least you should be able to still wear the armor for fleeing.

But one thing I really wanted to ask about was the knife and fist fight angle. I thought vests were pretty worthless against knives? Hence the stab proof vests.

Does the fistfight thing only apply to plates or IIIA or would it also apply to IIA.

Any idea if Cabellero stuff might still protect in those manners?

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 30, 2012, 02:05 AM
1 - LEO

2 - military

3 - bank robber

4 - better prepared

Fixed that for you.
Don't know why wearing body armor would be seen as paranoid, some people just like to be prepared. Aren't you the same guy that has or would have Craigslist transactions at your own home because your handgun is all the way in your bedroom safe? Seems like you are paranoid.

woerm
April 30, 2012, 02:16 AM
reasons to wear body armor.

statistics.

I was working on the border.

about 100 ft from international border, civil war going on the other side of border.

If there is a bullet with my number on it oh well nastys were armed w/ real AK's and real M-16's level IIA doesn't help much on that level the turtle suits that do more or less immobilize someone like me (fat, over 50 geek).:rolleyes:

hobby of nastys on other side started to include grenades.:cuss:

oh crud. a level IIA will help on those. :cool:

got armor (had to buy it myself employer was uninterested in armor)

wore it daily for about a year. job ended I still have the armor.

If I'm ever in a similar situation I'd wear it again it's cheap insurance.

You don't have to be paranoid. I'd make the same assessment if I worked in a liquor store.:scrutiny:

woerm

Lost Sheep
April 30, 2012, 02:31 AM
My last post was somewhat off-topic, so to redeem myself, here is stuff that I feel might have been too lightly covered.

The best way to not lose a gunfight is to not be there when it happens. The discomfort of wearing a vest continuously is not a major factor factor me. I only use it when I really need (or think I might). This amounts to a few minutes a year at most. However, I am considering wearing it at the range. Depending on how comfortable it is.

But if you are not required to be in harm's way all the time, then you have some control over when you are, and when you wear the vest.

I agree with Shoobee that a vest is needed in a very small minority of situations where deadly force is involved (by either party) and situations where deadly force is involved are also rare. Do the math. A vest is appropriate for most civilians extremely rarely. The problem is that no one knows when that will be and control over that factor is very slight for most civilians. So the odds go back up.

Against non-ballistic threats, the best is less helpful. I have been told that kevlar is not much good against edged weapons. A knife thrust will cut through as easily as any equally heavy cloth (I am told) Blunt force trauma hits as hard with or without armor. So, a heavy, thick weave jacket would provide pretty much as much protection against those threats.

Balance the inconvenience of being hospitalized with a gunshot wound against the inconvenience of being treated for being shot while wearing a vest. Factor in the probability of taking a bullet on any given day and see if the 100% probability of inconvenience of the vest is greater or less than the hospitalization.

For me, the answer is usually "no vest". Except late at night in squirrely circumstances and when comfort and style take an extreme back seat to safety.

And in those circumstances, if I was REALLY suspicious that I might actually get shot at? A phone call to 911 and holing up in my bedroom (with the vest) would be my course of action.

Lost Sheep

coloradokevin
April 30, 2012, 06:03 AM
I just took off the Level IIIA vest that I wear all week at work, every week, everyday, day in and day out, because of the nature of my job. I really don't like that thing, and didn't like the one I had before this one, either. Personally, I'll leave it in the closet until I go back to work.

Vests aren't comfortable. They're hot in the summer, cold in the winter, they trap sweat year round, they're heavy, they don't flex like normal clothing does (even though they are "soft" armor), and they only protect your upper torso (an important area of your body, to be sure, but also not the only important area).

I'm not telling you not to get a vest if you want one, but I'd truly consider whether it's worth your money to have one. They provide limited protection, and they aren't something you're going to want to wear in everyday life if it isn't something you need for your job. I always have a gun available if I need it, but the vest is a part of my work uniform that I don't really feel like strapping on when I'm not working.

For me, it makes sense to wear a vest when I'm working, because I'm probably better than 1,000 times more likely to get in a gunfight at work than I am on my own time. Even then, I still don't plan on absorbing any hits with that vest... it's a much better plan to focus on winning the gunfight before you catch a bullet anywhere on your body, on or off of the vest.

Anyway, to more directly answer your question, I once saw a vest that really intrigued me at a police supply store. It was light and flexible, and wasn't nearly as uncomfortable looking as the vests I've always worn. It was made out of a material called Zylon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zylon

Anyway, the NIJ standards (again) became tougher in 2006 for most vests (long after the Zylon news faded from the headlines). The ballistic panels in my old IIIA vest were covered in a breathable fabric (that really doesn't breath when you consider what's behind them), and were thinner, lighter and more flexible. My current vest (post '06 standard) is noticeably thicker than my old vest, and the ballistic panels now appear to be covered in some sort of water resistant or waterproof material.

I can't really tell you much else on the subject of I/IIA/II vests, since I just don't feel comfortable with that threat level protection when I'm working.

Vern Humphrey
April 30, 2012, 10:29 AM
shoes and vest would be a big waste of time.

pants and gun is plenty.

youre living in the wrong neighborhood if you also need a vest.
So if someone were to break into your house, instead of getting your gun, you'd call the moving company and realtor?:rolleyes:

Sam1911
April 30, 2012, 11:30 AM
Holy Thread Drift, Batman! :scrutiny:

(Six posts deleted. When you see it drifting, please let the Staff know, don't contribute to the death of the thread.)

If you enjoyed reading about "very light armor?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!