PDA

View Full Version : Level III Patrol Armor Test



DocGKR
06-18-09, 04:17
In order to provide protection against rifle threats in active shooter incidents and other high risk encounters, a large local LE agency is exploring a trial program of issuing Level III rifle plates & simple plate carriers for uniformed Patrol Officers to quickly don over their uniforms and concealed Level IIIa soft armor. Individual officers would also have the option of personally purchasing a plate system. Final plate selection is likely to be based on a combination of cost, weight, durability, and most importantly the ability to successfully defeat several common threats, including: 5.56 mm 55 gr M193 FMJ, 62 gr M855 FMJ, and 45 gr LeMas Land Warfare JSP; 7.62 x 39 mm 123 gr M43 type FMJ and 124 gr M67/8M2 type FMJ, 7.62 x 51 mm 147 gr M80 FMJ, 12 ga Federal Cartridge 1 oz slug (LEF127 RS).

As part of the procurement process, we tested six different Level III plates, from five vendors: Armored Mobility Incorporated (AMI) TAC3S single curve, Diamond Back Tactical (DBT) LTC27400 single curve, DefenseTech (DT) Defend-X IM-LCP-LIII triple curve, MSA/Paraclete (MSA) DHP3-1012 (cat #10098941) triple curve, and two triple curve plates from Tencate--a LE SAPI hybrid plate (TenH) and a compressed Dyneema plate (TenD) that is essentially identical to the previously tested AMI SAPI3 plate.

All plates tested were 10 x 12 inches. Plate weights varied due to design and construction differences:

AMI: 7.5 lbs--3 mm steel over compressed Dyneema
DBT: 6 lbs--8 mm aluminum oxide backed by what appears to be resin reinforced Kevlar
DT: 4.5 lb--Dyneema composite
MSA: 6 lbs--Aluminum oxide backed by compressed Dyneema, Gold Flex, and closed cel foam
TenH: 4.25 lbs--Aluminum oxide backed by compressed Dyneema and closed cel foam
TenD: 3.25 lbs--Compressed Dyneema

The plates was inserted into a 1000 denier Cordura plate carrier over Level IIIa soft armor panel (Twaron backed by Dyneema) and secured against a life-size curvilinear torso replica made of Perma-Gel. All shots were made at a perpendicular angle to the plate, with no oblique hits. Three shots of each rifle ammunition type were fired, with the desired shot placement to be one shot into each corner of a 3” equilateral triangle. In order to reduce the potential for AOA issues, the 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm shots were made at 25 yards using a 5.56 mm 20” barrel AR15 and a .308 26” barrel Remington 700. The available 7.62x39 mm and 12 ga weapon-ammo combinations proved to have insufficient accuracy to ensure accurate shot placement at 25 yards, so testing of these systems was conducted at 3 yards using a 16” barrel 7.62 x 39 mm AKMS and a 12 ga. 18” barrel Remington 870.

TEST RESULTS:

AMI: (vendor requested that one plate be used for all test shots)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

DBT: (vendor only supplied one plate—this was totally destroyed by the nine 5.56 mm shots, so no larger calibers could be tested)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate

DT: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots, second plate used for larger calibers)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 fully perforated the plate--2 were stopped by the soft armor, 1 penetrated through the soft armor
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

MSA: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots, second plate used for larger calibers)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

TenH: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots, second plate used for larger calibers)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

TenD: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots, second plate used for larger calibers)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 fully perforated the plate and underlying soft armor
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

Projectile Penetration Protection: The AMI plate offered the best PPP of any of the plates tested, followed by the MSA and TenH plates; the plate with the worst PPP for the threat rounds was the TenD.

Back Face Deformation: The AMI plate offered the least BFD, followed by the MSA plate; the plate with the greatest amount of BFD was the TenH.

Spall: The AMI, DT, and TenD plates had no detectable spall; the DBT plate exhibited an extensive, excessive amount of spall.

Plate Weight: The TenD was the lightest plate, followed by the TenH and DT; the heaviest plate was the AMI.

Durability: The most durable and robust plate appeared to be the AMI, followed by the DT and TenD; the most fragile plate appeared to be the DBT.

Annual X-ray Assessment: The AMI, DT, and TenD plates do not require an annual x-ray assessment; the DBT, MSA, and TenH plates ideally should have a yearly x-ray analysis to assess for hidden cracks in the ceramic elements.

Cost: The least expensive plate was the DBT; the most expensive plate was the AMI.

BOTTOM LINE:

If 5.56 mm M855 “green tip” was NOT a threat, then the DefenseTech Defend-X IM-LCP-LIII or Tencate Dyneema (or equivalent AMI SAPI3) plates would be reasonable options, however, given the scenario that the expected threat level included all the calibers and loads tested above, including M855, then:

-- If I knew I was getting out of my vehicle and walking directly into a gunfight, whether or not I had underlying soft armor, I’d want to be wearing AMI TAC3S plates.

-- If I was going to be spending a lot of time wearing my armor, needed to have a high degree of mobility, and always wore soft armor under my plates, then I would choose the Tencate hybrid LE SAPI plates.

-- The MSA/Paraclete plates are also high on my list for LE armor, as they offer good protection, can work without soft armor, are not too heavy, and are cost effective.

From L to R: AMI, DBT , DT, MSA, TenH, TenD: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/postimages/83238-LIIIPatrolPlateTest.jpg

CLHC
06-18-09, 12:08
BOTTOM LINE:

If 5.56 mm M855 “green tip” was NOT a threat, then the DefenseTech Defend-X IM-LCP-LIII or Tencate Dyneema (or equivalent AMI SAPI3) plates would be reasonable options, however, given the scenario that the expected threat level included all the calibers and loads tested above, including M855, then:

-- If I knew I was getting out of my vehicle and walking directly into a gunfight, whether or not I had underlying soft armor, I’d want to be wearing AMI TAC3S plates.

-- If I was going to be spending a lot of time wearing my armor, needed to have a high degree of mobility, and always wore soft armor under my plates, then I would choose the Tencate hybrid LE SAPI plates.

-- The MSA/Paraclete plates are also high on my list for LE armor, as they offer good protection, can work without soft armor, are not too heavy, and are cost effective.
Very informative write up once again Sir DocGKR! :cool:

DocGKR
09-14-09, 00:43
This past week, we had an unexpected opportunity to shoot a couple of additional Level III plates to the same protocol as used for the Level III Patrol Armor Test in the initial post of this thread.

During this follow on testing, we shot two different Level III triple curve plate designs—a DefenseTech (DT855) Defend-X TCPL LIII and the In the Line of Fire (ILF) PBAIII01012 LIII.

Both plates tested were 10 x 12 inches. Once again, plate weights varied a bit due to design and construction differences:

DT855: 5.2 lbs—HB25 Dyneema composite
ILF: 6.1 lbs—an approximately 6 mm thick non-ferrous metal layer that on visual exam appears to possibly be aluminum overlying layers of Spectra Shield II and Gold Shield polyethelene laminates.

The plates were shot in exactly the same manner as previously discussed.

TEST RESULTS:

DT855: (one plate used for 5.56 mm and 12 ga. shots; second plate used for .30 caliber hits)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of Corbon 130 gr TSX successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

ILF: (vendor only provided one plate)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 fully perforated the plate and underlying soft armor
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate

Projectile Penetration Protection: The DT855 offered PPP on par with the MSA and TenH plates previously tested.

Back Face Deformation: The DT855 and ILF plates had midrange BFD that fell in between the best and worst plates previously discussed.

Spall: Neither the DT855 or ILF plates had significant spall

Plate Weight: The DT855 and ILF plates offered intermediate weights compared to previously tested plates.

Durability: Both the DT855 and ILF plates appeared to offer an acceptable level of durability on par with the plates previously tested, like the MSA and TenD

Annual X-ray Assessment: Neither the DT855 nor ILF plates require an annual x-ray assessment.

Cost: The LE pricing of the DT855 and ILF is unknown to us at this time.


CONCLUSION:

Kudos to DefenseTech for improving their plate in order to stop M855! Likewise, thanks to In the Line of Fire for submitting their plate for independent testing and verification.

If 5.56 mm M855 “green tip” was NOT a threat, then the In the Line of Fire PBAIII01012 LIII plate is an acceptable option, much like the previously tested DefenseTech Defend-X IM-LCP-LIII and Tencate Dyneema (or equivalent AMI SAPI3) plates.

The DefenseTech Defend-X TCPL LIII+ joins the AMI TAC3S, Tencate hybrid LE SAPI, and MSA/Paraclete DHP3-1012 as Level III plates capable of stopping the common spectrum of Level III threats faced by LE Patrol officers, including 5.56 mm M855 62 gr FMJ.

--------------------

In the Line of Fire also sent a Level IIIa hard plate, model PBAIIIA1012 to be tested. This plate weighed 4.5 lbs and was a triple curve 10x12” plate design using an approximately 6 mm thick non-ferrous metal layer (likely aluminum) overlying layers of Spectra Shield II polyethelene laminate. The plate lived up to its Level IIIa rating, stopping 9 mm 127 +P+ JHP, .44 Mag Win 250 gr JHP, and 12 ga. Win slugs fired at a distance of 10 feet. In addition, the In the Line of Fire IIIa plate stopped .30 cal M1 Carbine 110 gr FMJ also fired at 10 feet; 5.56 mm M193 55 gr FMJ easily defeated the plate. The big question is why someone would want to wear a Level IIIa hard plate, rather than IIIa soft concealable armor…

tinman44
09-14-09, 04:32
If 5.56 mm M855 “green tip” was NOT a threat, then the In the Line of Fire PBAIII01012 LIII plate is an acceptable option, much like the previously tested DefenseTech Defend-X IM-LCP-LIII and Tencate Dyneema (or equivalent AMI SAPI3) plates.

The DefenseTech Defend-X TCPL LIII+ joins the AMI TAC3S, Tencate hybrid LE SAPI, and MSA/Paraclete DHP3-1012 as Level III plates capable of stopping the common spectrum of Level III threats faced by LE Patrol officers, including 5.56 mm M855 62 gr FMJ.

The big question is why someone would want to wear a Level IIIa hard plate, rather than IIIa soft concealable armor…

How common a threat would m855 green tip steel projectile ammo be to the local authorities? I know it can be had but this is mostly a military round. Gang bangers and the "average" criminal is not going to be firing this at police is he?

Also I thought I read on the first post that the idea was to wear lvl III soft and hard, therefore to double the chance of stoppage?

I know nothing about balistics or armor I just get really bored sometimes and delve into the unknown to keep me awake :P

NinjaMedic
09-14-09, 05:20
It is fairly readily available to all gun owners and if you are going to incur the cost and weight penalties of wearing Level III plates I would think the appropriate choice would be the product that defeats all reasonable threats. Just my opinion.

tinman44
09-14-09, 05:40
I could argue or rather ask, how often is this round used in crimes? What are the odds/chances a police officer or sherriff deputy would need something to defeat personel armor piercing rounds? Again I'm just curious, not trying to counter anyone elses choice of "need"

DocGKR
09-14-09, 12:58
tinman44--You seem to have some misconceptions regarding body armor; I suggest you read these: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19910 and http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19912.

5.56 mm 62 gr M855/SS109 FMJ is NOT an AP load; current 5.56 mm AP is 52 gr M995.

Level IIIa is generally soft concealable armor designed to stop handgun and shotgun projectiles; Level III is hard armor designed to stop non-AP center fire rifle bullets. Some Level III armor requires Level IIIa soft armor underneath (in-conjunction), while some does not (stand-alone).

Since 5.56 mm M855/SS109 FMJ has been a NATO standard load for over 20 years and is readily available on the commercial market; depending on location around the county, some agencies report frequently finding it at crime scenes. I know of one SWAT team has faced criminals using SS109 on their last two call outs.

Jim from Houston
09-14-09, 20:12
M855/SS109 is far from an exotic round...in fact, I know of several ammo dealers who had nothing to sell BUT surplus SS109 during the recent ammo shortages brought on by the election...you can find boxes and buckets of green tips at most of the gun stores here in Houston...I might venture to say that, if you encountered a bad-guy with an AR in my particular locale, there would be a fairly good chance that he had this load in his magazines. For the past year or so, at least, it's been "what's available".

Case in point:
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/catalog1/index.php/cName/ap-steel-core-penetrator-ammo

DrJSW
09-17-09, 10:55
There is no doubt in my mind that M855/SS109 is a real threat to domestic LE personnel. It has been highly available and (relatively speaking) inexpensive. At the last LE carbine class I attended (spring '08) it was the most common ammo type used by the guys who weren't shooting department-issued ammo. At's showing up at crime scenes in these parts, as well.

CarlosDJackal
09-22-09, 07:11
I could argue or rather ask, how often is this round used in crimes? What are the odds/chances a police officer or sherriff deputy would need something to defeat personel armor piercing rounds? Again I'm just curious, not trying to counter anyone elses choice of "need"

Not that I need to reiterate what hs already been said. These rounds are readily available in the countries which support terrorist, narco-terrorism and sources of illegal arms that are regularly sold to gangs and such.

Selecting body armor based on the "typical" (under-powered) round that you would encounter is like selecting your patrol cars based on the average speed posted in your jurisdiction. It's narrow-sighted at best.

Personally, if I could wear armor that would stop a .50 AP rounds, I would. JM2CW.

BLACK LION
10-06-09, 13:24
Not that I need to reiterate what hs already been said. These rounds are readily available in the countries which support terrorist, narco-terrorism and sources of illegal arms that are regularly sold to gangs and such.

Selecting body armor based on the "typical" (under-powered) round that you would encounter is like selecting your patrol cars based on the average speed posted in your jurisdiction. It's narrow-sighted at best.

Personally, if I could wear armor that would stop a .50 AP rounds, I would. JM2CW.

I agree....

DocGKR
01-07-10, 15:12
PPI PLATE TEST

A bit of range time opened up during the holidays, so more Level III plate testing was able to be conducted, again using the same protocol as previously described above, except for the addition of a 24” barrel M1 Garand to fire .30-06 M2AP shots at a distance of 3 yds.

In this round of testing, we shot two plates, including the PPI 10x12” triple-curve Level III/IV ICW IIIa model 2518 (2518) and the PPI 10.5x13.5” triple-curve size large model 10008L “ESAPI Surrogate” (10008).

Plate weights and construction are as follows:

2518: 6.4 lbs—8 mm of aluminum oxide over what appears to be resin reinforced Kevlar.
10008: 6.5 lbs—Thin closed cel foam layer over 10 mm of boron carbide, followed by resin reinforced compressed polyethelene (likely Dyneema or Spectra).

The plates were shot in exactly the same manner as previously discussed.

TEST RESULTS:

2518: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots; second plate used for .30 caliber hits; third plate used for AP shots)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M2AP successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of SSA 70 gr AP successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

10008: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots; second plate used for .30 caliber hits; third plate used for AP shots)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M2AP successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of SSA 70 gr AP successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

Projectile Penetration Protection: The PPI plates offered level III PPP on par with the DBT, MSA, and TenH plates previously tested; they also offer level IV PPP protection like the DBT plate.

Back Face Deformation: The plates had midrange BFD that fell in between the best and worst plates previously discussed.

Spall: Like the DBT plate, the PPI plates exhibited an extensive amount of spall.

Plate Weight: The PPI plates were among the heavier plates compared to previously tested plates.

Durability: The PPI plates used significant amounts of ceramic and are thus more fragile than non-ceramic containing designs.

Annual X-ray Assessment: The PPI plates should have a yearly x-ray analysis to assess for hidden cracks in the ceramic elements.

Cost: The LE pricing of the 2518 is around $300, while the 10008 is in the $1000 range.

CONCLUSION:

The PPI 2518 level III/IV and PPI 1008L “ESAPI Surrrogate” plates are capable of stopping all level III threats commonly faced by LE officers, including both 5.56 mm M193 55 gr FMJ and 5.56 mm M855 62 gr FMJ. In addition, they are capable of defeating the .30-06 M2AP Level IV threat.


DISCUSSION:

Thankfully, the folks at PPI sent us enough plates to conduct a thorough test, as there have been numerous questions about these plates. It appears that the Level III/IV ICW IIIa PPI 2518 plate offers very similar construction, performance, and price range as the DBT level III/IV ICW IIIa plate (labeled as being constructed by Leading Technology Composites, part number 27400) which received limited testing as discussed in the first post of this thread. Both the PPI 2518 and DBT 27400 are relatively thin plates that offer a low profile due to their reduced bulk.

With these ceramic plate types, the amount of spall is a significant concern—during testing of the 2518 plates, a can of spray adhesive sitting 4 feet to the side of the plates was unexpectedly punctured by spall fragments and burst. In addition, with plates that depend primarily on ceramic elements to stop projectiles, shot spacing can be critical. Because of the generosity of PPI, we had enough plates to experiment with this parameter. These ceramic plate types are able to successfully stop projectiles when a 3” spacing between shots is maintained, however, when shot spacing was decreased to 2” or less, the additional shots fully perforated both the plates and underlying IIIa soft armor.

Due to the spall issues with these ceramic plates, I would definitely feel more comfortable wearing soft armor underneath, even if only anticipating level III threats. These are probably not the plates you want to casually throw into the trunk of a patrol car and then load several hundred pounds of other gear on top of; annual radiographic assessment of these plates is likely a very good idea…

RFB
01-08-10, 23:40
Sir,

Do you have any vendor contact information for the DefenseTech (DT855) Defend-X TCPL LIII?

Thank you,

RFB

DocGKR
01-09-10, 00:26
http://www.defenstech.com

Burt Gummer
01-10-10, 14:07
EGI is selling level III rifle plates mentioning DocGKR as one of the consultants for the product:

http://www.expertguns.com/shop/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=28

What's the skinny on these?

DocGKR
01-10-10, 14:44
Oh, the joys of truth in advertising.

My "consultation" with EGI consisted of a 10 min telephone call where I told them the problems with steel plates and why they were not a good idea for CONUS LE use, followed by a brief email exchange...

298436
01-11-10, 16:36
Doc,

You mentioned in another thread about contact shots with certain IIIa armor with handguns and the vulnerability thereof.

Would you know if these rifle vests offer protection against contact shots with rifles and handguns?

DocGKR
01-11-10, 18:06
Generally not a problem with rifle plates.

298436
02-16-10, 11:55
May I ask another question...?

A buddy is in the sandbox with standard IBA with plates, and wants to know what range would he be "safe" from handgun and rifle fire against his armour? 300m? 200m? 100m?

DocGKR
02-16-10, 13:48
What threat ammo? What armor (hard or soft)?

298436
02-17-10, 12:01
He says he'd like to know about the plates and the soft, so I consider that "both".

7.62x54R and 7.62x39.

neo9710
04-26-10, 20:52
http://www.defenstech.com


I called them today and it looks like the plate is not available yet. Anyone know where I can get the PPI 10x12” triple-curve Level III/IV ICW IIIa model 2518 (2518)??

DocGKR
06-01-10, 01:02
Recently, Ceradyne single-curve “Hard Ballistic Armor Insert: Body Armor Hard Small Arms Protective PRU-61A/P22P-15” (PRU) have become available to LE via DRMO/1033 programs, however no terminal performance data on common LE threats was readily available. We were asked to test these plates, unfortunately, due to unexpected range repair issues, our testing program has been quite limited that past several months. Fortunately, a nearby LE agency helped facilitate this test.

http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/1531591257671.jpg

Plate weights and construction are as follows:

PRU: 7.4 lbs—what appears to be 9.5 mm aluminum oxide backed by 8 layers of stiff, resin reinforced loosely woven ballistic fibers.

The plates were tested in exactly the same manner as previously discussed.

TEST RESULTS:

PRU: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots; second plate used for .30 caliber hits; third plate used for additional 5.56 mm shots and 12 ga slug)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
2 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plates; however 4 shots of LeMas perforated the plates and underlying soft armor
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate (note that the recovered projectile remnants were discovered in the LAST layer of ballistic material…)
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of M80 successfully stopped by the plate; 2 shots perforated the plate and were stopped by the underlying soft armor.
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate

Projectile Penetration Protection: While these plates were able to stop both M193 and M855, they did not offer adequate protection against the higher velocity 5.56 mm varmint projectile or the M43 or M80 .30 caliber threats.

Back Face Deformation: These plates had mild BFD compared to other plate types.

Spall: Like other plates using ceramic layers, these plates exhibited a fairly extensive amount of spall.

Plate Weight: These were among the heavier plates compared to previously tested armor.

Durability: These plates use significant amounts of ceramic and may be more fragile than non-ceramic containing designs.

Annual X-ray Assessment: These plates should have a yearly x-ray analysis to assess for hidden cracks in the ceramic elements.

Cost: Free from DRMO...

BOTTOM LINE:

The Ceradyne single-curve PRU-61A/P22P-15 SAPI plates do NOT appear to be reliably capable of stopping all level III threats commonly faced by LE officers and would not be a good choice if other alternatives are available.

DocGKR
07-02-10, 13:03
Recently, Tactical Armor Products Gamma Plus single-curve Level III plates (TAP) have become available to LE via DRMO/1033 programs. A newer triple curve version of these plates is also available commercially for a very low cost.

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7045&filename=TAP%20level%20III.JPG

Plate weights and construction are as follows:

TAP: 4.9 lbs—what appears to be 4.5 mm aluminum oxide backed by compressed polyethelene (likely Dyneema or Spectra) with a total plate thickness of approximately 1 inch.

The plates were tested in exactly the same manner as previously discussed.


TEST RESULTS:

TAP: (one plate used for 5.56 mm shots; second plate used for .30 caliber hits; third plate used for additional AP shots and 12 ga slug)
3 shots M193 successfully stopped by the plate.
3 shots of M855 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of LeMas successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M43 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M67 successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of M80 successfully stopped by the plate
1 shot of 12 ga slug successfully stopped by the plate
3 shots of SSA 70 gr AP perforated the plates and underlying soft armor

Projectile Penetration Protection: The TAP plates offered level III PPP on par with the TenH plates previously tested.

Back Face Deformation: These plates had larger BFD, similar to the previously tested TenH plates--soft armor backing is highly recommended.

Spall: The TAP plates exhibited a moderate amount of spall.

Plate Weight: These were among the lighter plates compared to previously tested level III armor.

Durability: The TAP plates thin ceramic layer is susceptible to fracturing; several of the plates we tested exhibited small chips and cracks in the ceramic on arrival. These plates require careful handling and storage to prevent damage.

Annual X-ray Assessment: The TAP plates should have a yearly x-ray analysis to assess for hidden cracks in the ceramic elements.

Cost: Free from DRMO...

The newer TAP triple curve plate is $149.95 via commercial procurement: http://www.triadtactical.com/P...l-III-ICW-10x12.html (http://www.triadtactical.com/PACA-GAMMA-M-Level-III-ICW-10x12.html)


BOTTOM LINE:

The TAP Gamma Plus single-curve plates are capable of stopping all level III threats commonly faced by LE officers, including both 5.56 mm M193 55 gr FMJ and 5.56 mm M855 62 gr FMJ.


DISCUSSION:

The TAP Gamma Plus plates provide an impressive level of penetration protection, given their relatively light weight and low cost. Use of soft armor underneath these plates is strongly suggested due to BFD. The downside to these plates is their relative fragility--these are not plates you want to casually throw into the trunk of a patrol car under several hundred pounds of gear. In addition, as with other plates using ceramic elements, if shot spacing is closer than 2 inches, the TAP plate is likely to fail. Annual radiographic assessment of these plates is a prudent measure…

firecop019
07-08-10, 05:13
Doc,

You've added a few plates since the last time I read the thread. Our department just bought some new Pointblank Level IIIA vests that have the pouches in front and back for large plates. Which should we be looking into and try to get prices for?

Thanks

rob_s
07-08-10, 07:24
wow, that Gamma sounds like a nice option, especially given the price. Too bad Triad does LE only on armor sales, and appears to be out of stock anyway.

shooter521
07-08-10, 15:05
Too bad Triad does LE only on armor sales

No, they don't. They require "credentials," but did you catch the disclaimer? Other credential options are available so contact Triad if you have questions about the policy. I suggest you drop them a line or give them a call; you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at what they accept for creds from non-mil/LE type folks. I bought a set of soft armor inserts for my Eagle PC from Triad a couple years ago with no problems.

rob_s
07-08-10, 17:51
Hmmm, I could have sworn I emailed them once before about plates they were selling and was told "LE only". Must have been another vendor then.

Stickman
08-02-10, 13:21
Doc,

Any thoughts on the Protech 2110 level III plate?

stff
09-03-10, 19:05
Thank you to all for the outstanding information in this thread.

I'm interested in purchasing the MSA/Parclete armor tested. Can anybody point to a reliable vendor please who cell to civilians. I have Googled extensively and have come up dry.

DocGKR
09-04-10, 13:58
Grey Group Training.

kaltesherz
09-04-10, 21:59
How does 5.45mm 7N6 perform against hard plates? Since it's becoming a more common round these days you might want to include it in future testing

DocGKR
09-05-10, 00:16
Both M193 and M855 are harder to stop than the M74 FMJ (7N6) that we have tested. We have not had the opportunity to do formal wound ballistic testing against body armor using some of the newer 5.45x39mm military loads...

johnlee
09-18-10, 05:42
No, they don't. They require "credentials," but did you catch the disclaimer? Other credential options are available so contact Triad if you have questions about the policy. I suggest you drop them a line or give them a call; you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at what they accept for creds from non-mil/LE type folks. I bought a set of soft armor inserts for my Eagle PC from Triad a couple years ago with no problems.

I've been dealing with this for years, I do private security. Many years ago I rode in an armor car, I was the target that carried the "easy" money in and out. I'll never do that job again without rifle plates over my soft armor. I may be going on that detail again soon as it pays more and I have a mortgage to pay.

Doc, any help for us civi's?

BLACK LION
09-18-10, 20:39
There are a few places that will sell to "law abiding citizens" and "private professionals" alike. Places like Bulletproofme run you through a verbal disclaimer, while other places like Diamondbacktactical require you to fax a copy of a guard card, PI liscense or what have you.

johnlee
09-19-10, 10:14
Thanks, I didn't know DBT would sell to security. I may have to contact them.

DocGKR
09-20-10, 01:26
Lot's of vendors will sell to the public with reasonable credentials (LE, Mil ID, CCW Permit, Guard Card, PI Lic, EMT/Fire ID, etc...), for example Grey Group Training, Triad Tactical, LN Curtis, DBT, AMI to name a few.

Altair
11-24-10, 21:25
If using armor that has a ceramic element, where can you get it X-Ray checked?

500grains
11-25-10, 07:28
Lot's of vendors will sell to the public with reasonable credentials (LE, Mil ID, CCW Permit, Guard Card, PI Lic, EMT/Fire ID, etc...), for example Grey Group Training, Triad Tactical, LN Curtis, DBT, AMI to name a few.

Good on these guys! I really like companies that take a 'bad guys (presumably felons) vs. good guys' approach rather than a 'gov't vs. the common man' approach.

Ak44
05-06-11, 14:33
Doc whats your opinion on the Defender plates on Crye's website? I planned on buying some AMI plates but the ones they offer (10x12) do not fit in my Medium JPC.

DocGKR
05-06-11, 14:50
They are standard Ceradyne ceramic plates.

Discobobby
05-12-11, 21:37
Ak44: Sorry for jumping in late, but you may still want to give AMI a call, even if you need another carrier to fit. They've gone WAY out of their way for me, and I'm just a single order customer, not an agency buying hundreds of plates at a time. They're responsive, respectful and their stuff gets great reviews, and those plates can take a heck of a beating and still perform.

I think people vastly underestimate the need for proper NDE with ceramic plates, and it's an issue that isn't discussed enough. If you don't have the resources or expertise to do it right (and that includes a lot of large agencies) I think it's worth getting a plate that doesn't require it. And IMO the AMI plates are the best of that breed. And they're good folks. This admittedly reads like an ad for those guys, but they earned it with how they've treated me.

RustedAce
05-14-11, 22:59
Have you tested any of the ultra-light polyethylene level 3 plates?

I know a couple of people make them, but have not seen any testing on them.

DocGKR
05-15-11, 01:52
RustedAce: a couple of relatively lightweight (approx 3 lbs) compressed Dynema plates were discussed in this thread--these stop most LIII threats except M855 and M855A1...how light do you mean?

RustedAce
05-15-11, 05:52
RustedAce: a couple of relatively lightweight (approx 3 lbs) compressed Dynema plates were discussed in this thread--these stop most LIII threats except M855 and M855A1...how light do you mean?

Ok, I see the TenD one you did, sorry missed it the first time. Do you know if Point Blanks version of this offers similar protection?

There is one here, model #PB-SA23525-L3

snackgunner
05-15-11, 07:12
Im looking for info on the BAE NIJ LEVEL IV SAPI Plates. Has there been any testing on these plates?

kaltesherz
05-15-11, 11:44
Im looking for info on the BAE NIJ LEVEL IV SAPI Plates. Has there been any testing on these plates?

BAE owns Ceradyne, so they should be the same IIRC

snackgunner
05-15-11, 14:55
Thanks for your help

sjc3081
06-11-11, 15:43
Please excuse my ignorance but how do the Armorworks SAPI plates 2005 manufacture compare with the plates tested. They seem to be rated for M80 ball max. Do they stop 5.56 penetrator green tip and are they stand alone or must they be used in conjuction with IIIA soft armor?

Gargoyle
06-29-11, 14:22
I would love to see the good Doc continue this stellar testing and reporting thread!

Hopefully some tests of the plates offered through "Bulletproofme" and their "multi-hit" level IV plate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2Y1I4ZQ_A

DocGKR
06-29-11, 15:52
If someone wants to send in a pair of plates, we'll test them. Otherwise, we mainly test what various agencies ask us to assess.

mildot
06-29-11, 16:31
Doc, I'm up north, this place seems to get reviews?
http://lineoffire.ca/#

I know you may not have time to take a look, but we don't have many options here.Your opinion is valued.
I was interested in the Protector line, with plate backers, and AP rds are not an issue here.
Cheers

EzGoingKev
07-03-11, 14:10
Doc -
Based on the results would you venture an educated guess as to how all these plates would fair against the .30-06 cartridge?

As it is a largely popular cartridge in CONUS that there could be a decent chance of taking a hit from one.

Thanks.

DocGKR
07-03-11, 17:01
With the LIII plates, if it stops .308, it stops .30-06. The LIV is already tested against .30-06 AP and stops standard .30-06 rounds without problems.

AZ-Renegade
08-28-11, 16:20
My agency issues the MSA level III plates but we do not have a system in place to have them x-rayed annually.

Generally speaking, where do other agencies/departments go to have their plates examined? We are near the Phoenix area.

DocGKR
08-28-11, 17:19
There are a variety of non-destructive techniques that can be used to assess plate integrity, including ultrasound and radiography, as it is ideal if armor plates using ceramic materials are tested annually. Given the current widespread proliferation of digital radiographic technology (hospitals, your K9 team's and/or mounted unit's veterinarians, larger USPS facilities, TSA screeing machines at airports, your EOD folks, etc...), getting images is not the problem. The hassle is ensuring and tracking that all the plates are actually assessed each year...

tpd223
08-28-11, 19:33
Doc,

Our bomb guys said they can do the X-rays for us locally, but we don't know what to look for exactly.

Is this as simple as "it's the part that looks like a crack" if you see one?

DocGKR
08-28-11, 23:17
Good discussion here: http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/440107306/m/61120452763?r=44220452763#44220452763.

DocGKR
11-01-11, 21:03
An LE agency here just tested the AMI Tac3S plates against a .338 Lap Mag 250 gr solid copper Ruag Swiss P Tactical load (http://www.ruag.com/Ammotec/De...8_Lapua_Mag./SWISS_P (http://www.ruag.com/Ammotec/Defence_and_Law_Enforcement/.338_Lapua_Mag./SWISS_P)) fired from a 26" barrel McMillan Tac at 100 yds with an impact velocity of 2665 fps. The LIII Tac3S armor stopped 2 hits spaced about 2.5" apart without any problems. Very impressive!

http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/1111404556171.jpg

LOBO
11-01-11, 21:09
+1, Very impressive!

Odd Job
11-02-11, 11:18
With regards to X-raying these plates, my recommendation is to use a medical X-ray unit instead of that XR-200 source if possible. Several advantages:

1) Fine focus (sub mm instead of 3mm) leading to much better resolution images.
2) More exposure flexibility (in terms of both tube current and time).
3) Availability of grids to reduce secondary scatter.
4) A more carefully controlled radiation area.
5) Better quality assurance (in theory) of the recording media.
6) More precise collimation and central ray aiming with less likelihood of movement unsharpness.

The other thing that may play a role here (maybe teamonetl can confirm, I posted this on Lightfighter also) is the angle of the stationary anode of the XR-200 vs the angle of a rotating anode on modern medical X-ray apparatus. With some stationary anodes and short SID (source to image distance) you get a thing called anode heel effect, where the anode itself attenuates the X-ray beam. It does it towards one end of the image, which gives you an uneven exposure. The closer the source to the subject, the more marked the effect.

I see the images on Lightfighter have an uneven exposure and one way to prove whether this is anode heel effect is to X-ray a plate twice, and rotate it 180 degrees about the z axis between views. If the processed uneven exposure does not "rotate" with the plate, you have anode heel effect which is quite bad according the limited preview I see of those images.

Regardless of whether you X-ray these plates on a digital system or on conventional film/screen systems, I recommend handling the X-ray inspection of these plates much the same as the X-ray inspection of lead rubber aprons used in radiology. Some points:

1) Each plate gets a unique ID which equates to a unique file folder on whatever storage system is being used to keep the images. Free DICOM software is available (such as K-PACS) to handle this, and it is not difficult to set up a standalone film digitizing station if you are acquiring images on film. I just recently set one of these up in a radiologist's house, so he can digitize his academic collection.

2) The images must be inspected at full field view and also at a 1 to 1 pixel ratio.

3) If post-processing is available then edge enhancement tools can be used to (temporarily) adjust the image to highlight cracks.

4) X-rays must be performed serially and consistently with a view to having a folder per plate, where priors can be compared to current images.

5) It may be helpful if you are using a medical facility to X-ray these, to have a slot of no more than 30 minutes booked in the fluoroscopy suite so that you can do stress fluoroscopy of plates with equivocal plain film appearances.

If I was in a position to do so, I would love to take care of a DICOM database for these plates. The facility could charge a small fee to have these X-rayed on a weekend, and some of that could go to a volunteer radiologic technologist/radiographer.
All round it can be a win.

I am not sure how helpful CT would be, but I would only consider it if two scans were done of each plate, with the plate being rotated about the Z axis 90 degrees between the scans, so as to eliminate false negatives caused by cracks being parallel to the scanning plane.

panzerr
11-03-11, 08:47
With regards to X-raying these plates, my recommendation is to use a medical X-ray unit instead of that XR-200 source if possible. Several advantages:

1) Fine focus (sub mm instead of 3mm) leading to much better resolution images.
2) More exposure flexibility (in terms of both tube current and time).
3) Availability of grids to reduce secondary scatter.
4) A more carefully controlled radiation area.
5) Better quality assurance (in theory) of the recording media.
6) More precise collimation and central ray aiming with less likelihood of movement unsharpness.

The other thing that may play a role here (maybe teamonetl can confirm, I posted this on Lightfighter also) is the angle of the stationary anode of the XR-200 vs the angle of a rotating anode on modern medical X-ray apparatus. With some stationary anodes and short SID (source to image distance) you get a thing called anode heel effect, where the anode itself attenuates the X-ray beam. It does it towards one end of the image, which gives you an uneven exposure. The closer the source to the subject, the more marked the effect.

I see the images on Lightfighter have an uneven exposure and one way to prove whether this is anode heel effect is to X-ray a plate twice, and rotate it 180 degrees about the z axis between views. If the processed uneven exposure does not "rotate" with the plate, you have anode heel effect which is quite bad according the limited preview I see of those images.

Regardless of whether you X-ray these plates on a digital system or on conventional film/screen systems, I recommend handling the X-ray inspection of these plates much the same as the X-ray inspection of lead rubber aprons used in radiology. Some points:

1) Each plate gets a unique ID which equates to a unique file folder on whatever storage system is being used to keep the images. Free DICOM software is available (such as K-PACS) to handle this, and it is not difficult to set up a standalone film digitizing station if you are acquiring images on film. I just recently set one of these up in a radiologist's house, so he can digitize his academic collection.

2) The images must be inspected at full field view and also at a 1 to 1 pixel ratio.

3) If post-processing is available then edge enhancement tools can be used to (temporarily) adjust the image to highlight cracks.

4) X-rays must be performed serially and consistently with a view to having a folder per plate, where priors can be compared to current images.

5) It may be helpful if you are using a medical facility to X-ray these, to have a slot of no more than 30 minutes booked in the fluoroscopy suite so that you can do stress fluoroscopy of plates with equivocal plain film appearances.

If I was in a position to do so, I would love to take care of a DICOM database for these plates. The facility could charge a small fee to have these X-rayed on a weekend, and some of that could go to a volunteer radiologic technologist/radiographer.
All round it can be a win.

I am not sure how helpful CT would be, but I would only consider it if two scans were done of each plate, with the plate being rotated about the Z axis 90 degrees between the scans, so as to eliminate false negatives caused by cracks being parallel to the scanning plane.


This is very complete, but x-raying is not that big of a deal and should not be made to seem more complicated than it is. Use of a digital x-ray is good enough to give you the detail you need. Radiolucent (appear darker than the surrounding area), straight lines will suggest cracks. Baseline x-rays for comparison are not necessary as cracks will be evident due to their regularity (straightness) and radiolucency (darker appearance).

In the post you are referring to on lightfighter (http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/440107306/m/61120452763), grossly visible cracks did not significantly diminish the plate's ability to defeat a round. It follows that small cracks that are not grossly visible (stressed or unstressed) will not significantly diminish a plate's ability to stop rounds so use of additional imaging modalities will be overkill.

Odd Job
11-03-11, 10:34
Use of a digital x-ray is good enough to give you the detail you need.

I agree the digital receptor is enough, what I don't like is the 3mm source on the portable unit.


It follows that small cracks that are not grossly visible (stressed or unstressed) will not significantly diminish a plate's ability to stop rounds so use of additional imaging modalities will be overkill.

My recommendation was based on an equivocal plain film result. But I see what your argument is: how much detail do we need and what imaging do we need to detect "significant" cracks. That leads to a whole different line of questioning: the possibility that a plate has a crack and can still be put into service.
I don't know whether the rounds were directed at the cracks or just so happened not to hit any.
There was an old thread on TF some years ago where I remember having a similar conversation about the variability of protection offered by dragonskin armour based on the overlapping discs.

Maybe DocGKR can comment here on this specific question:

If you detect any kind of crack radiolologically on a ceramic armour plate, will you allow it to be put in service?

If so, under what conditions?
If not, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to employ the same imaging used to diagnose bone fractures, on ceramic armour plates.

TriumphRat675
11-04-11, 16:54
This thread needs to be stickied...

DocGKR
11-04-11, 17:23
If you look at the Hard Armor Sticky, you will note that this thread is linked...

Midi
05-17-12, 17:33
Has anyone heard of the Kryron terminator line of Armor from Bourque Industries? Is this better than ceramic? Has anyone tested it? Is this any better than other armor out there already? Ran across their site and the discovery channel bit on it and was wondering if this is really any better on any aspect?

Midi
05-17-12, 17:34
Forgot to post the link for their website.. sorry..

http://bourqueindustries.com/body-armor/

alw357
09-02-12, 15:15
Does any one have any experience with the plates from
AR500armor.com?

Doc have you tested them? Their videos look pretty good and the price point is hard to beat.

Thanks a head of time for any input.

EzGoingKev
09-02-12, 15:19
Does any one have any experience with the plates from
AR500armor.com?

Doc have you tested them? Their videos look pretty good and the price point is hard to beat.

Thanks a head of time for any input.
Please forgive me if I am out of my lane but that armor is just a metal plate. Not as good as ceramic plates.

Bullet spalling is your biggest concern with metal plates.

alw357
09-10-12, 23:10
Nothing to forgive. I know they are Metal and that Ceramic is better, but I work for a small (80+ sworn) Law Enformcement agency and was lookign at putting something together to try and get the department to purchase a set of these and a carrier for each sworn person. I was looking at the price per set although I am concerned about performance. What I see on the video (I know it's their video) looks pretty good.

I was also thinking that I could take some old soft armor and place infront of the metal plate to help counter the spalling.

Jack-O
09-21-12, 22:16
If spall is a concern then having the plates coated with at least 6mm of Line-x should do the trick. Line-x actually has a product called Paxcon that is made specifically for that.

jenrick
09-22-12, 08:50
A 1/4" of Rhino-Line truck bed liner worked well in my totally unscientific test to reduce spalling. However what worked the best was a combination of rhino line, a hard spacer block (foam, plastic, etc, about 1/4" thickness) to provide stand off and a ballistic panel over that prevented any spalling. This does make the steel plates almost twice their original thickness, however. You also need spare soft ballistic panels, with all the 5 year warranty worries they come with.

-Jenrick

rchen404
09-22-12, 17:26
If spall is a concern then having the plates coated with at least 6mm of Line-x should do the trick. Line-x actually has a product called Paxcon that is made specifically for that.

Jack, do you have a source for civilians. Apparently, line-x only sells to agencies. Dumb - what liability? I can buy armor itself, how is spall guard subject to more liab than the armor itself?

It is our company policy not to provide this service for the private sector. If you are affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can send in a notarized letter explaining the need and we can proceed from there. I am sure you can understand the potential liability for LINE-X here.

Jack-O
09-23-12, 00:00
http://www.paxcon.co.uk/spray-on-spall-liner.html

I dont have any sources for that. It has been my experience that with a call to the person in charge and a credible and checkable story that such things can be had without much drama. the real cost is gonna be when they tell you that you need to buy 2-55 gallon drums of the stuff so your applicator can spray your plates. at that point the cost "savings" will probably disappear.

to be honest Line-x's marketing website on the stuff makes it look like a softer/stretchier version of their standard bed liner, but it may not be that simple. If I were doing a homebrew non certified type thing I'd make the applicator mess with the mix ratio a bit and spray on a 10mm thick layer then go out and try it like Jenrick did. Line-x is pretty tough stuff anyway.

Frankly if it's gonna be a lot of drama, I'd probably just go with the AMI plates and call it good.

EzGoingKev
09-23-12, 05:03
It was mentioned the price was hard to beat but how much more cost are you adding by doing all these work arounds?

Also in the end, how is all this going to weigh vs using either stand alone ceramic plates or plates and backers?

Army44
11-11-12, 15:54
Has anybody tested the plates from Ar500 armor? If so what were the results? And has anybody tested these plates?

http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=18147&tabid=548&catid=2778

http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=22997&tabid=548&catid=2778

BigLarge
11-11-12, 18:20
Is it just me, or are most plates only 10x12? Cant seem to find but 1 or 2 options for 12x14 plates. Pulled out my issued 10x12 plate, and its tiny on me (6'0 240).

Seems even for an average sized person, 10x12 is to small.

ArmySGTPM
01-23-13, 16:22
DefenseTech (DT855) Defend-X TCPL LIII

has anyone had any luck finding a place to order this plate? I see no info regarding this model on Denfenstech.com and can not seem to find any LEO who has purchased this plate. If anyone has any information regarding the Defend-X TCPL L3 please let me know.

LOBO
01-23-13, 18:15
Is it just me, or are most plates only 10x12? Cant seem to find but 1 or 2 options for 12x14 plates. Pulled out my issued 10x12 plate, and its tiny on me (6'0 240).

Seems even for an average sized person, 10x12 is to small.

I've been pleased with my Eagle Industries MOLLE LE Plate Carrier w/ cummerbund. It's an XL and holds 11" x 14" plates.

Caduceus
02-24-13, 17:28
Any updates with newer ammo? TSX, 64gr JSP, MK 318, etc?

I second the question about places to purchase those plates. The stuff I have found online is not in this thread.

DocGKR
02-24-13, 21:46
"Any updates with newer ammo? TSX, 64gr JSP, MK 318, etc?"

5.56 mm 50-70 gr TSX, 62-64 gr bonded JSP, MK318 make no difference for LIII plates--5.56 mm M193, SS109/M855, M855A1 are the threats that must be defeated by LIII plates.

TiroFijo
02-25-13, 06:16
Doc, is M855A1 the largest threat to level III plates? Or are there cases where higher velocity M193 outperforms it at short range?

Hillbilly
03-25-13, 00:21
Doc,
How is the bfd on the ami tac3s if not wearing soft armor underneath? I understand they are stand alone but should you really make an attempt at getting soft underneath as well regardless of time at hand?

DocGKR
03-25-13, 08:56
Hillbilly--I am not concerned about BFD behind the Tac3S.

TiroFijo--M855A1 is a tough LIII threat to stop.

wtturn
04-27-13, 19:24
Any testing done on the Midwest Armor Sigma III+ plates?

Opinions?

http://midwestarmor.com/Midwest%20Armor%20SIGMA%20III-Plus%20Body%20Armor%20Torso%20Plate.aspx

ETA: Saw your answer on Lightfighter.

DTtuner
04-30-14, 10:56
Any testing done on the Midwest Armor Sigma III+ plates?

Opinions?

http://midwestarmor.com/Midwest%20Armor%20SIGMA%20III-Plus%20Body%20Armor%20Torso%20Plate.aspx

ETA: Saw your answer on Lightfighter.


Care to provide link, detail, usable information?

DocGKR - How about the Midwest MASS III plates?

soulezoo
04-30-14, 13:22
Care to provide link, detail, usable information?

DocGKR - How about the Midwest MASS III plates?

I don't believe that Doc is posting here any longer. Others can explain.