Protective vests and being honest

[Double Naught Spy]

A vest for civilian use?

I know. Crazy isn't it, just like firearms for civilian use.

If you live in suburbia with a very low risk of incident? No thank you. The only reason I would keep a vest as a civy would be for SHTF bugout equipment. Although the stuff doesn't hit the fan that much, it DOES happen. If I wouldv'e been in New Orleans after Katrina, I would've probably donned a vest. Other than that... keep em'.

Funny how the same criteria when applied to firearms makes firearms necessary but vests unnecessary. In general, guns are very poor protection against incoming shots.

 

[5whiskey]

guns are very poor protection against incoming shots.

You mean my $2,000 LMT AR with $1,500 worth of optics, lights, and accessories won't stop a bullet? I got jipped.

Firearms are necessary for more than just self-defense. They are recreational. They are a tool. Then they are a weapon. The order depends on you're occupation and specific needs. A vest is a defensive tool and nothing more. It also sucks having to wear one, but I do it anyway because I have to. I definately would not choose to while venturing out to the mall. I'm not going to call anyone a loon if they choose to keep a vest on hand "just in case". I would feel that paranoia has set in if they refused to leave the house without it. And yes, guns are poor protection against incoming. They are an excellent form of defense by good offense, in the right hands of someone who is paying attention to their environment.

It's the same concept as "is a revolver enough?" For most folks, a revolver will be more than enough (if we're only talking SD) because they will never actually need to use it. For the MAYBE 2% of people who may actually use it for SD, a revolver will still be enough for 95% of those. So it becomes a risk assessment. Do you want to carry 30 rounds of ammo in a full size pistol in case you're the 1 in a million that will need it one day? Do you want to wear a vest, as a citizen, everywhere you go because you may be the 1 in a million that randomly gets shot?

 

[Skans]

I've always wanted some kind of protective vest - its one of those things on the "want" list, that I probably will never actually buy, though.

 

[youngunz4life]

countzero

I think a helmet is a piece of tactical equipment that deserves serious consideration.

Back in the day hockey goalies wore no helmet. Then for many years, hockey players in general wore no helmet. The thought was ridiculous even though black eyes, broken noses, and loss of teeth was commonplace. Then, overtime, everyone had to wear a helmet and only the "grandfathered" hockey players could pass(example: Ricky Middleton AKA "Nifty").

There was a day when wearing helmets was rare for motorcyclists. Now it is the law in many states while others still give the rider the choice(example: New Hampshire AKA 'Live Free or Die'). Most wear helmets even when they do not have to, yet there was a day when most didn't even when they knew it was prudent. To take it a step further, many military installations require protective padding and vests for their soldiers that ride.

I wouldn't be surprised someday if and when it is commonplace to have a mother putting a helmet on a child when she gets in the car to go to daycare. Will it happen? Maybe not, probably not, but times change and perceptions and 'data studies' change+evolve. Just think of how many car accident victims could've survived if they had been wearing a helmet...sortof like the whole seatbelt evolution all over again. I am old enough to remember when the whole "the seatbelt actually killed the guy in the accident because he was trapped" held some serious weight.

 

[youngunz4life]

5whiskey

I'm not going to call anyone a loon if they choose to keep a vest on hand "just in case". I would feel that paranoia has set in if they refused to leave the house without it.

the LT behind the desk and the one out of less than 1% that wears one when he "won't need it" does it because 'you never know'. superstition maybe?

 

[markj]

Be sure to get a vest you can add plates too in case someone wants to shoot at you from behind....in the mall or somewhere.

Was 5 shootings in Omaha over the weekend, I would think a vest might just have been a good thing for at least two that died, both teens. Shoulda been playing football instead of playing with guns.

A helmut would look keen and all but they are heavy and attract attention.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You mean my $2,000 LMT AR with $1,500 worth of optics, lights, and accessories won't stop a bullet? I got jipped.

Naw, you didn't get jipped. The problem with your LMT is that it won't cover enough of your body. It will likely rate a I-III level of protection depending upon where hit. It will undoubtedly stop a limited number of rifle rounds with various parts and have trouble stopping shrapnel with other parts.

Historically, guns have provided a very limited amount of ballistic protection. Folks involved in gun battles report their firearms being struck by incoming rounds with some frequency, often stopping or deflecting the round and often ruining the gun in the process.

 

[Shadi Khalil]

I would like to see a picture of someone wearing a vest and a CCW under their normal, everyday clothes. I'm sure one of you can do it.

 

[FireForged]

As a citizen, a protective vest is a little over the top for me.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It would be amusing to wear a vest in 108 degree weather. And then when I go to gym to lift, I usually meet our deputy chief - watching me change - might start him thinking about me! Now why is this FOG who wears a Rangemaster t-shirt to work out, wearing a vest. Hmmm!

Haha.

 

[Catfishman]

I can see scenarios in which civilians could use bullet resistant vests.
A business owner shutting down at the end of the day or just knowing that you are going to be in the presence of an untrustworthy person would be appropriate and practical times.

BTW - Where can you buy bullet resistant vests? I've never seen them for sale anywhere.

 

[C0untZer0]

There are dozens of makers out there, you can just Google "Bullet Proof Vest" or "Body Armor" and you'll get a bunch of hits.

I didn't know anything about any of this stuff before I started the thread. There 4 or 5 manufacturers of fiber out there and maybe 6 main brands/types of fiber.

Kevlar by DuPont is the most well known. Their new fiber - Kevlar XP is 25% lighter than traditional Kevlar allowing for thinner, lighter vests offering the same level of protection.

There is SB51 by Dyneema a contender for the world's strongest fiber, which competes with Kevlar XP in the ballistic fiber market.

http://www.innovationintextiles.com/articles/619.php

In addition to the fiber manufacturers there are companies like Honeywell that take the Kevlar XP and use it in different ways to create materials like "Gold Shield" or other name-brand fabrics.

When it comes to companies that take sheets of fabrics and make actual vests and things the list is huge:

http://www.bodyarmornews.com/body-armor-manufacturers.htm

 

[C0untZer0]

Generally speaking, body armor is getting thinner, lighter and more flexible while providing the same level of protection.

I believe it will outpace the ability of bullets because bullet design has hard legal lmitations on it - at the international level and in the U.S. Look at New Jersey for an example.

It is possible to increase the ability of bullets to penetrate ballistic armor. I know the Soviets had created steel core bullets surrounded by lead/antimony that gave superior penetration without ruining gun barrels. But I don't think those rounds were generally available to Taliban and Al Quaida. I guess it's not a huge technological leap to produce those. Criminals in the U.S. don't have access to that stuff and generally wouldn't pursue it. I don't see them shelling out money for casting and reloading equipment to create bullets designed to defeat body armor. Their average victim is not going to be wearing body armor. If you read the general tone of the posts on this thread, even people who are interested in self-defense and arming themselves are not going to be wearing bullet resistant clothing, so I think it's safe to say that the bullet technology that criminals in the U.S. avail themselves of is going to stay fairly stagnant in relation to it's ability to defeat bullet resistant fiber.

On the other hand, fiber manufacturers and fabric makers are making advances every year with the end result that body armor increasingly becomes stronger, lighter, more flexible, and more concealable.

From what I can tell, the fabric is not becoming cooler to wear. Generally speaking the same advances that make fabric more bullet proof also makes it less heat conductive. I guess another way of thinking about it is that the better it reflects bullets away from your body, the more it is going to reflect heat back toward your body. There have been some advances though in moisture-wicking undergarmets which allows for cooling, the undergarments acting like a radiator of sorts.

 

[ATW525]

I have a vest for the range, but it's just not comfortable enough for everyday wear. Not to mention that here in NH, committing any felony while wearing body armor is a felony itself, and any sentence is for that is not allowed to run concurrently with any other sentence. That means if I have to defend my actions in court after a self defense situation, I'll be looking at an additional charge and even longer prison term should I lose.

 

[C0untZer0]

Unless you knew better - you'd think this is an ordinary soccer mom going grocery shopping, taking her kids to soccer practice or on her way be in a MTV rock video.

You'd never guess that she's bullet-proof.

 

[C0untZer0]

mmm looks like one of my posts got deleted...

Some actual pictures of people wearing Level III

I don't think the suit would work for me - I can hardly keep a suit coat on anyway, so I don't think I could sit at work all day in a suit with a vest underneath.

 

[Shadi Khalil]

Countzero,

Do you really think a terrorist organization with all sorts of access to explosives and heavy arms DOES NOT access to armor piercing rounds? I bet they do, especially if they were russian made... Thanks for posting the pics.

 

[C0untZer0]

I can't say if the Taliban and Al Quiada had armor peircing rounds in enough abundance that they used them straight on personell.

And the term "armor piercing" can mean different things including accelerating a projectile to extreme velocities. The bottom line is that anything that peirces armor is armor piercing.

I would have thought though that if insurgents/terrorists/Taliban/Al Quaida had armor peircing ammuniction for small arms it would have had more of an impact and, I think we would have heard about it in the news.

It seems like they had plenty of fuel and explosives, maybe they just preffered blowing things up (including themselves) to trying to engage targets at longer distances with armor peircing rounds.

 

[C0untZer0]

I have been trying to figure out which are the most common calibers criminals use to commit crimes.

My initial searches didn't turn up much but then I mustered my chi and exerted some intense riatsu with a serious search-fu.

I was specifically thinking about this as it relates to body armor.

The step up from Level II to Level III is to protect against 10mm to 10.8 mm (.40" -.430") 240-ish grain / projectiles traveling in the 1430fps range.

And .355 - .357" 158-ish grain projectiles traveling in the 1410fps range.

Figuring out the probability of encountering a bad guy wielding a 10mm with hot rounds, a .44 magnum, or a .357 magnum might be a factor in decising to go with a more comfortable Level II vest


A study done in by the University of Pennsylvania showed that, in
Philadelphia,:

In 1985, of 91 homicides

44% .38 caliber revolver
19% .25 caliber pistol
14% .22 caliber revolver
14% .32 caliber revolver
3% 9 mm pistol
2% .357 caliber revolver

In 1990, of 204 homicides

23% 9 mm pistol
18% .38 caliber revolver
16% .357 caliber revolver
16% .22 caliber revolver
10% .32 caliber revolver

"The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services studied 844
homicides that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 through 1991.
Firearms were identified as the murder weapon in 600 cases. Over 70%
of the firearms used were handguns. Of those handguns where the
caliber and firing action could be identified, 19% were a .38 caliber
revolver, 10% were .22 caliber revolvers, and 9% were 9 millimeter
semiautomatic pistols."

"The Hawaii Department of the Attorney General, Crime Prevention
Division, studied 59 firearms-related homicides in Honolulu from 1988
to 1992. Handguns were used in 48 homicides (over 80%) including 11
handguns of 9 millimeter caliber, 10 of .357 caliber, 10 of .38
caliber, and 5 of .25 caliber."

Guns Used in Crime

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature Articles/0900GUIC/Guns Used in Crime.htm


Handguns Taken in Evidence in California, 1993

5,222 - .22
4,693 - .25
1,477 - .32
4,842 - .380
4,671 - .38
5,295 - 9mm
2,395 - .357
1,787 - .45

Does California Have Crime Guns?
An Analysis of Justice Department Data

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/snsweb.html


The top 10 guns used in crimes in the United States, according to an
unpublished Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report:

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

America's Most Wanted Guns

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html


"The number one gun used in crimes during 1999 was the Smith & Wesson
.38 caliber revolver. 4.6% of all handgun crimes involved this type of
gun"

An Analytical Discussion of Gun Violence in the United States

 

[chadstrickland]

Just out of curiosity. But wouldn't it be fair to say that considering it is "criminals" we are talking about and not a specific army of a foreign country or something of that sort then the gun the said criminal chooses to use would be completely random? I mean alot of people see a criminal as a crack head or something. But it just as well may be a professional robbing the bank using m4 with ss109.

Once again..I am confused