very light armor?

[stumpers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

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

What about #5 - Bear Attack!!!

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

 

[Nushif]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

been there done that routine

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).

hobby of nastys on other side started to include grenades.

oh crud. a level IIA will help on those.

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.

woerm

 

[Lost Sheep]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Sam1911]

Holy Thread Drift, Batman!

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