View Full Version : Anyone bought or used Dragon Skin yet?
If anyone missed this- check this page out...
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
They got my attention; anyone have experience with this stuff?
losbronces
05-20-07, 21:52
There seems to be quite a bit of controversy around this body armor (i.e., is better than G.I. issue level III armor), stirred by NBC recently.
I have no idea what to believe. :confused:
Here is link with some discussion:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002784.html
FYI, this was forwarded to me this morning via e-mail:
Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | May 19, 2007
<http://images.military.com/pics/FL_dragon2_051907.jpg> The war between Pinnacle Armor and the Army went nuclear this week as NBC News claimed that Pinnacle's innovative "Dragon Skin" armor is far superior to the vest the Army currently issues to Soldiers.
The report shows test conducted by NBC that seem to prove the vest - as its proponents have claimed over the last several years - can take many more rifle shots than the Army's Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts.
But Army officials disclosed to Military.com <http://www.military.com/> that in a series of tests conducted by the service in May of last year, the Dragon Skin vest failed to stop bullets as well as the current Army armor. In fact, test results showed that bullets slipped through the vest as early as the second shot.
"The bottom line is that Dragon Skin by Pinnacle catastrophically failed to meet the requirement," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier, in a May 17 interview.
Pinnacle's president Murray Neal told Military.com the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology - which uses a series of small ceramic disk "scales" to cover the entire torso.
He called Army claims that his vests failed "a bold-faced lie" and said the service is embarrassed to admit its current armor isn't the best out there.
The Army's ESAPI is a rigid ceramic plate about 12-inches high and six inches wide. Soldiers wear front and back plates and two smaller side plates, all of which are designed to stop armor piercing AK-47 rounds found in the war zone.
The controversy went public last March when the Army issued a so-called "Safety of Use Message" that banned all store-bought armor, and specifically stated that Dragon Skin did not meet the service's requirement for ballistic protection.
At the urging of Capitol Hill, the Army bought 30 Dragon Skin vests in May of 2006 and put them through a standard "first article" test to see if the armor could hold up to the same ballistic conditions its current-issued ESAPIs must endure during certification.
According to Karl Masters, one of the Army's top ballistics experts, the Dragon Skin failed to stop a 7.62 x 63mm APM2 round on the second shot of the test.
"We ran this vest through the exact same test protocol that every ESAPI supplier goes through," Masters said. "Can you meet the ESAPI requirement or not? That's the question."
Neal argued in a release after last year's tests that Masters and another Army ballistics expert were dumbfounded by the "flexible armor system" and weren't sure where to place the shots for the test.
"Deviation from the ESAPI test protocols and procedures tool place by the selection of shot placements of APM2 rounds around the ceramics in non-rifle defeating areas," Neal said in a written statement.
But Army officials said the shots were aimed at the same areas for ESPI testing and that the first penetration would typically have been the end of the "sudden death" test.
Engineers agreed to continue with the evaluation, however, subjecting separate Dragon Skin vests to submersion in oil, salt water, extreme cold and extreme heat.
Army data shows 13 complete penetrations or unacceptable back-face deformations - where the bullet doesn't go all the way through but causes enough of a dent that it would result in serious trauma - on four failed vests.
The tests were held in mid-May at H.P. White labs, a respected ballistics testing facility in Street, Md. H.P. White is the same test lab where the Army evaluates all its armor components, preferring not to use the Army-run Aberdeen Proving Ground ranges to fend off accusations of bias.
More troubling to Army testers was the near complete delamination of the disks from the Kevlar backing within the Dragon Skin on several of the environmental tests.
After being subjected to 160-degree heat for six hours, the Dragon Skin vest failed on the first shot. X-ray photos of the vest show the disks slipped off their backing, exposing portions of the chest area without any ceramic protection.
"Certain areas of the adhesive hardened and become brittle and when that happened, they all dropped down," Brown said.
Further tests in minus-60-degree cold, immersion in oil and diesel fuel showed similar delaminations and shot failures.
Neal said the Army manipulated the x-ray photos, but admitted one vest had an adhesive "anomaly."
Perhaps the biggest Army concern is Dragon Skin's weight. An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though Masters admitted it did have more rifle protective coverage than issued vests.
"The Army continues to look at these types of armor," Masters admitted. "If we can ever eliminate this weight penalty, we may have an opportunity to go to gapless coverage."
The Army declined to provide details of the test failures when the controversy erupted last year, claiming operational security concerns.
But the NBC News investigation prompted officials to rethink their strategy in an effort to keep Army families from purchasing Dragon Skin vests for their loved ones in the combat zone.
"Soldiers must have confidence in their equipment when they go down range," Brown said. "They've got to know that they're wearing the best and their families have got to know that they're wearing the best."
For more information, including Army documents and Pinnacle's rebuttal, see Defense Tech <http://www.defensetech.org/>.
I don't know what to believe. When the Army says "we are using the best available", I have to throw the bullshit flag on that one.
Military contracts are just as political as any other big money deal.
What ever happened to all the(100,000+) Interceptor vests that were recalled?
I know the Marine Corps had a huge problem collecting and reissuing vests. I had many close friends who found out their Interceptor was "possible defective" after 2 tours in Iraq...really reinforces my faith in the DOD.
Pat_Rogers
05-22-07, 07:47
Marketing hype and whining on the errornet does not constitute testing.
The media does not "test". They make money and push their agenda.
The media will distort the truth for any reason that furthers their politcal cause (see CNN/ Tailwind).
The company makes a lot of noise about how their poor product has been ignored/ wronged (like many others in this business) and their product is soooo much better if only the big bad .gov would stop beating them down.
They entertain the masses and strike to the hearts of the families of servicemen.
The truth apparently lies somewhere else though.
So how come members of any gun forum despise the media except when it relates to cops and stuff like dragon skin? In these cases they take it at face value. How come?
So how come members of any gun forum despise the media except when it relates to cops and stuff like dragon skin? In these cases they take it at face value. How come?
I was going to go in another direction. How come people on this forum treat the TDP like it is the Ten Commandments straight from Mount Sinai. However, they don't trust the government testing and specifications when it comes to armor?
Pat_Rogers
05-22-07, 09:02
Excellent Dport!
I have been around long enough to see the government LIE about testing.
I seem to remember a certain rifle that the military didn’t want to deploy. Amazingly, it continued to fail at field testing. This rifle would end up being called the M16.
I have been around long enough to see the media LIE.
I remember a program on TV where they talked about all the machine guns being purchased from the local gun shop and using in crimes. The local gun shop didn’t have nor sell ANY machine guns. They had been robbed recently.
I think it is time for independant testing on this product. Lets see who is telling the truth. If it is the GOV. it is time to fire some people. If it is the DragonSkin the EXECs get a free trip to the sand pit and they get to pay for the testing.
Where is Consumer Reports when we need them?
Just re-posting the following for information (I don't use body armor & don't have a dog in this fight). Moreover, its hard to trust either the media or .gov:
"Army Said To Be Resisting Use Of Superior Body Armor. NBC Nightly News (5/17, lead story, 5:50, Myers, 9.87M) reported, "For troops in the line of fire body armor can mean the difference between death and life. The US Army insists our troops have the very best. Without question that armor has saved lives in Iraq and Afghanistan." Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, US Army: "The body armor we issue to our soldiers today is the best in the world. Bar none." Myers: "But is it really the best? An NBC News investigation including independent ballistics tests suggests" there may be a better armor called dragon skin. "Some soldiers and their families have tried to buy dragon skin, believing it offers better protection. But the US Army banned dragon skin last year, even before formally testing it." In an interview with NBC, Jim Magee, who designed the "interceptor" body army currently used by the Army, said, "Dragon skin is the best out there. Hands down. It's better than the interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases it is two steps ahead of anything I have ever seen." Myers: "Why? He says more stopping power and more coverage." Magee is "not alone. The CIA bought dragon skin for these elite operatives in Iraq they say after it passed CIA testing. But Brig. Gen. Mark Brown in charge of body armor for the Army says the Army conducted its own test last year." But the Army "banned dragon skin in March, almost two months before that testing began in May." NBC News "commissioned an independent side-by-side test of dragon skin and the Army's interceptor vest. In that testing dragon skin outperformed the Army's body armor in stopping the most lethal threats."
BTW - the dragonskin failures appear to have occured at high and low temp extremes. At ambient temps it performed well.
I am currently running DS Level III armor in Iraq.
I am a little nervous with some of the recent info coming forth.
But for me it als came to the fact the flexibility of the DS armor allows me to exit and enter vehicles and conduct other activites that an ESAPI insert would not allow - I hope I dont have to put it to the test though...
losbronces
05-22-07, 16:39
[QUOTE=Pat_Rogers;54473]Marketing hype and whining on the errornet does not constitute testing.
The media will distort the truth for any reason that furthers their politcal cause (see CNN/ Tailwind).
I don't ever take the press at face value. I was involved in an incident that received national press coverage in the 1980s and the press reported things that didn't happen and presented other misinformation constantly (television, newspapers and magazines). Further to that I have seen significant misquotes and errors in what I would consider to be "puff" pieces where the press isn't even pushing an agenda. They just simply got the quotes wrong and they supplied erroneous information to their readers. For some of these unimportant articles, facts were supplied in printed form and the press still messed them up. These are not small town newspapers that I'm speaking of either.
On the other side, the millitary is spending money to develop "products" and I'm sure they are protective of that process as well. There is a lot at stake for those involved in the process. While the press blew the Bradley vehicle issues out of proportion, there were issues.
So, what I'm saying here is that I don't know what I don't know.;)
John_Wayne777
05-22-07, 16:52
Personally I am wary of anyone who attempts a marketing campaign to the public for a piece of military equipment.
If there wasn't a major media dislike for the mission in Iraq and in the global war against jihadist idiots in general, stories about body armor wouldn't happen.
The media uses stuff like this as a means of attacking the mission and leadership of our military forces. You didn't see them printing stories about body armor when everybody was babbling about the "peace dividend".....that tells me something.
My 2 cents.
Your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, etc.
John_Wayne777
05-22-07, 16:54
I am currently running DS Level III armor in Iraq.
I am a little nervous with some of the recent info coming forth.
But for me it als came to the fact the flexibility of the DS armor allows me to exit and enter vehicles and conduct other activites that an ESAPI insert would not allow - I hope I dont have to put it to the test though...
Doc Roberts recently tested Dragon Skin and found that it offered good protection, if I remember correctly.
If you don't have one of the units that had adhesive issues you should be just fine....not that I want you to get shot or anything. :D
Edit -- Yes, he did. Here's a link to the testing:
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001286
Cliff note version is that they tested the DS armor after baking it at 170 degrees (for 12 hours) and it showed no problems with disc migration. To quote Doc R:
Both armor systems clearly met and exceeded the NIJ level III requirements and offered true multi-hit protection from the class of rifle projectiles they are rated to stop.
John_Wayne777
05-22-07, 16:56
I think it is time for independant testing on this product.
I could be wrong here, but I believe DS was tested by the military and they found problems with the adhesive used in the vests that caused the ceramic discs to migrate...which left openings that rounds could go through.
I believe DS corrected this issue by using a different adhesive to hold the ceramic discs and that the improved vests don't have migration problems even at extreme temps.....but (again, if I remember correctly) there was some dispute about doing a retest of the DS product.
John_Wayne777
05-22-07, 17:01
So how come members of any gun forum despise the media except when it relates to cops and stuff like dragon skin? In these cases they take it at face value. How come?
Because many of us have preconceived notions that stories can play into. If something comes along that re-enforces something we suspect or believe, we have a desire to snuggle up to it and make it a pet, as opposed to a story that portrays us as bloodthirsty slaughterers of pre-schoolers.
I know that the military bureaucracy makes mistakes and doesn't get it right 100% of the time...but I also know how big their mission is and have some idea of just how many challenges and conflicting interests and pieces of information that go into practically every decision they make.
Personally I am way too stupid to make sense of it all. I doubt I could come up with a better answer than the professionals without being extremely lucky.
...and I have never been accused of being lucky.
In reports I have read available on the net, they had issues with testing DS flat vs. Arched as the scales have less overlap and coverage when Arched (Like how it would hang on a User,vs hanging against a flat surface)
Bottom line is it was tested using the ESAPI protocol and failed against that protocol. And it was tested By H.P White which is a independent lap not linked to DOD.
Nothing complex there... it's like failing your 2 mile run while taking your APFT test... you either run it under your time limit our you go over... and fail...that's it...
I suppose you could go and whine to your Plt Sgt that the APFT was administered unfairly and that you want a retest... or you could go back to the gym and work out until you pass.....
And all the Money and Hype and time wasted (Taxpayers dollars) could have been spent buying Armor that already passes the standard and has saved hundreds of lives....
Remember the insurgent video showing them shooting a Medic with a 7.62 x 54MM rd. and he gets back up.... wonder what he thinks of the current Issued Armor.
I'm not saying the Interceptor is the end all be all... but if your shit does not pass a standard... you don't go and cry about the standard.. you go back and fix you shit until it meets the standard. Sounds pretty simple to me.
I have no Dog in this fight anymore then I had one in the Stan Bulmer/Blended Metal/Wonder bullet... and look where that is at today.....
If vendors were more worried about passing the standards then a lucrative Defense contract worth millions... then there would be no crying fowl.. Get you shit to pass the standard and there is no crying needed.....
Interceptor works. It has countless saves.
Dragon skin might be better. I honestly don't know.
I do know this. If it was my ass on the line, I would go with what is proven. I'll let the other guy experiment with whatever *might* be better.
Too bad the SAPI standards only apply to "brand new, out-of-box" plates.
Anyone who's been in the military in the past 6 or so years has heard "if you shake the SAPI and it sounds like a shattered light bulb on the inside- it's no good".
I've had very close friends watch their buddies take shots to the chest from AK fire; many were stopped however, a few guys lost their lives to the "standard".
What's the point of spending $800 on each plate if you have to treat them like a carton of eggs- if you ask me the Army is full of shit.
I'm with Kevin on this issue- DS is what I'll be wearing.
Recently there has been a lot of misinformation posted on the internet about our testing of Dragon Skin. Portions of our test results were openly published and are in the public domain--it appears that several entities may be misusing this information to support their own agendas.
In October of 2006, we did a limited Dragon Skin Level III SOV-2000 test for a LE agency, not the military. The Dragon Skin stopped the threats it was rated to stop--it did not stop two types of level IV AP ammo we used nor was it rated to stop them. Although it did not fail in our limited testing, we recommended that Dragon Skin undergo additional durability and ballistic testing prior to giving any consideration of using it as a standard issue item, although for certain specific scenarios, such as KevinB is facing, Dragon Skin may be the only currently viable alternative providing rifle level protection. That Dragon Skin did not fail in our LE test and that it passed the H.P. White NIJ certification testing, does not in any way refute or contradict military testing efforts or the failures they observed. Despite what some individuals have insinuated, I have the greatest respect for LTC Masters and his efforts to protect our troops. The more data available in researching an item, the better.
davemcdonald
05-22-07, 20:22
RWBlue
I don't really have a dog in this fight but as to your statement about outside testing, the test were held at HP White labs.
For light reading
http://www.hpwhite.com/
Dave
Recently there has been a lot of misinformation posted on the internet about our testing of Dragon Skin. Portions of our test results were openly published and are in the public domain--it appears that several entities may be misusing this information to support their own agendas.
In October of 2006, we did a limited Dragon Skin Level III SOV-2000 test for a LE agency, not the military. The Dragon Skin stopped the threats it was rated to stop--it did not stop two types of level IV AP ammo we used nor was it rated to stop them. Although it did not fail in our limited testing, we recommended that Dragon Skin undergo additional durability and ballistic testing prior to giving any consideration of using it as a standard issue item, although for certain specific scenarios, such as KevinB is facing, Dragon Skin may be the only currently viable alternative providing rifle level protection. That Dragon Skin did not fail in our LE test and that it passed the H.P. White NIJ certification testing, does not in any way refute or contradict military testing efforts or the failures they observed. Despite what some individuals have insinuated, I have the greatest respect for LTC Masters and his efforts to protect our troops. The more data available in researching an item, the better.
Refreshingly concise. I now how have something that i can parrot back to recently mobilzed 5th column on this that will shut them up.
After having caught up on the DS interweb discussion on several sites over the last few days, the main take home message is encapsulated above. I've lso that the "no dog in this fight analogy" has been used ad nauseum as a qualifier to interweb post on this topic. I have no problem with a qualifier, just that particular analogy pops up like mad in every DS thread. (no offense davemcdonald, that last bit was an attempt at levity)
DiabhailGadhar
05-14-11, 08:05
I've been looking over the web the last few days and. Haven't really seen any "new" information on this has anyone recently heard anything new and improved about DS or is it all still a contest between DS and ESAPI? Thanks for any info..
Whiskey_Bravo
05-14-11, 12:01
Holy necro post batman. From 2007?
While an out-of-the-box DS offering would stop what it said it would stop, exposure to 120+ temps, diesel, and a laundry list of other things commonly found in the everyday interactions of folks in current conflict areas would delaminate the discs. They'd fall off of the places where they were mounted and leave gaps...making it so that it would no longer stop what it said it would stop.
Also, given that, even if they had anything slightly resembling reasonable endurance, the things cost something like $4k each, in a lot of cases. A cost/benefits analysis alone made it so that there was never any "contest" to begin with, and any that existed was pretty definitively concluded sometime around the last post of this thread...
...by which I mean, the last post PRIOR to the necropost. What is it with everybody wanting to bugger what are painfully obvious to be corpses, of late?
If one's post is not ADDITIVE to the topic, and is a question that can be answered by using the Search buttons (both the lack of traffic and the dates are what are called, in investigative circles, "A clue..." https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php?searchid=3078593), then a thread revival is not in any way warranted.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.