The engineering test and scientific studies were done after the experience in the field and confirmed the results that at CQB distances 5.56mm had issues with consistent reliability in terms of lethality.
I'm interested in the specific claim you made as follows:
"...we averaged 8 rounds the first tour with green tip in the house to put a target not wearing body armor down."
You also provided additional information that the statistic was sourced by:
"...going into buildings with bad guys and shooting them until they are no longer a threat."
So, in your first tour your group averaged 8 rounds to put a target not wearing body armor down.
In order to interpret that statistic properly, more information is required. Was 8 rounds the average number of hits (or perhaps COM hits) achieved per non-body armored target down? Was that simply the total number of rounds fired for an entire mission divided by the number of targets down? Were the rounds typically fired full auto, semi-auto, or burst?
These are straightforward and simple questions and the reasons that the answers are important is self-evident.
You quoted the statistic as support for your argument and I agree that kind of information is very interesting and applicable to the discussion. But without the additional information required to properly interpret the statistic, the value is obviously quite limited.
You can search the boards as the information, reports, and original documents have all been posted in previous threads.
If you want to be taken seriously, follow the rules of polite debate. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. It is unreasonable and impolite to make a claim and then basically tell people to "go fish" when they ask about the claim and the supporting evidence for it.
Especially in a case like this when the claim is apparently based on personal experience (i.e. "we averaged"), it shouldn't be nearly so difficult to provide simple answers to simple questions.
Reading is fundamental. And you guys say I don't need to highlight!
The quote you are responding to is very specifically about: "Level III Lightweight UHMWPE Body Armor"
You responded with a comment and a link about: "Level III steel body armor"
Furthermore, your link contains the following statement:
"Our Level III
steel body armor provides industry leading protection against "penetrator" rounds such as the
5.56 M855/SS109 - which are capable of defeating UHMWPE type level III body armor options."
1. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor (the PE stands for polyethylene) is not the same thing as steel body armor.
2. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor will be defeated by M855/SS109.
Had you read all the material provided by the source you linked, or the information provided in the links Bartholomew Roberts provided, the following paragraph would be unnecessary.
The
standard for Level III armor does not include protection against the 5.56 penetrator rounds like M855, M855A1 or SS109. Some manufacturers (like the one you quoted who claims their
Level III+ steel armor is "industry leading") DO make Level III armor that they claim
goes beyond the official standard for Level III armor and is, in fact, tested to defeat some 5.56 penetrator rounds. That doesn't change/redefine the official standard for Level III, it just means that some manufacturers are going above and beyond the minimum that the standard requires.