Harsh Words over Dragon Skin Certification tests

[Crosshair]

It's not clear that Dragonskin actually meets that advertisement: only on shots that impact normal to the discs. Oblique shots are a problem.

It will be interesting to see how well it performs against such an impact. My guess is that impacts such as that will be the achilles heel of the design.

 

[Firethorn]

While extra protection is good, I have to wonder if getting the main vest up to level IV, full wrap protection is the best allocation of resources.

What do I mean? Well, what's more likely: A rifle shot at the right angle to bypass the high protection zones to the chest, or a arm/leg hit, considering the average marksmanship(or lack of it) of our enemies.

Also, a large percentage of our casualties are from IED's, not gunfire. I wonder if a 'bomb-suit light', with even just level-II arms/legs might not be a better idea, as it generally doesn't take a huge amount of protection to stop shrapnel.

Jeff, gelatine, being elastic, springs back. Kinda hard to measure that. Clay stays where it is. That's why they use it, as it gives them a better measure of how much deformation gets through. In the sense of creating a 'comparison' test, it's a matter of 'the best they've got'.

Those are the just plain interesting questions the useful one is if it can be used to be a thinner, more flexible pistol rated vest using their tech? Something as thick as a 2a, more flexible, and rated for 3a would of course let them own the market if it was proven not to be another zylon.

What if it costs 3-4 times as much as the other vests? Not every department can afford the kind of dough to replace everything. Heck, I'd still be getting Interceptor for years if the DoD decided to switch. I'm not a combat troop, after all.

 

[Master Blaster]

The History Channel has been running a show called bullet proof, as part of its modern marvels series. They have shown the Dragon skin armor being constructed and tested. Its made up of a whole lot of little round ceramic discs that are woven into the vest, like scales hence the name.

They did a test on TV where they fired 60 rounds of steel jacketed ammo they brought back from IRaq (actual Military issue ammo) from two AK47s at various angles from 15 feet away. They then fired 130 rounds from two MP5s at 15 feet. The armor did not suffer a single penetration and in fact only showed a few small scratches and tears in the outer carrier.

A standard trauma plate whould have been in a thousand little peices after the AK rounds....

Pretty amazing.

 

[Correia]

Actually, the modern Gamma Level IV plates don't shatter when you shoot them with rifle bullets anymore. I've got a demo one that has been shot 30 times with a .223 and 20 times with a .308. It is bulgy, but still okay.

 

[Lucky]

Jeff like Firethorn says, my understanding is that they want the test medium to be a witness material. They have rules as to how big a crater can exist behind the armour, and they measure them. If it's too big, then the armour doesn't pass for that cartridge. So the armour might 'stop' a shotgun slug, but if the back face deformation is too big, then it's not rated for them.

Also, does anyone here understand why there would be 'concern' about oblique angles? If this just BS because the armour has already proven itself to work against perpendicualr shots (which are harder to stop!)???

And who the heck is afraid of lawsuits over ricochets??? 'OMG that guy shot you and the bullet bounced off and hit me, you owe me money!'

They all sound like stupid arguments against a good product. Rearden armour.

 

[slzy]

having the salesmen wear their product seems the only fair way to settle this.

 

[Crosshair]

Also, does anyone here understand why there would be 'concern' about oblique angles? If this just BS because the armour has already proven itself to work against perpendicualr shots (which are harder to stop!)???

Because there is the chance that the bullets could get between the small plates. Think of the armor as the shingles on your house. When the rain is comming straight on it does a very good job of stopping the rain. Now put your house on it's side and see how waterproof the roof is with the rain landing on it at an odd angle. This is the possible shortcoming of the design. and it needs further testing.

 

[Lucky]

Didn't the article say that the brand new regulations invented for the armour type specifically do test those impacts, and it did pass? And they were commenting on the 'legal liability' of ricochets from oblique shots.

I don't know, I do feel confused.

 

[mrmeval]

That's the company that refused to hand over samples for testing by the Army IIRC.