U.S. Armor comments on body armor contact shot efficacy

[DocGKR]

I recently received the following message:

"Sent: Tue May 12 23:49:16 2009
Subject: "Contact Shots" Effect on Body Armor; Scientific Fact or Urban Myth?

The true facts of the matter are that as law enforcement "Urban Myths" go, the "contact shot" concern ranks right up there with "cop-killer bullets"; an interesting yarn, but how many cops have actually ever seen one, let alone confiscated any from a bad guy? Back in the day, I showed several of my co-workers on the job a handful of rounds that were the Smith & Wesson "Ni-Clad" bullets, which was simply a bullet coated in nylon, with no other "special" properties; the theory behind that design was to provide better bullet lubrication while traveling through the barrel and also to attack the corrosion and mold that sometimes formed on bullets kept in your ammo pouch for long periods of time. They, of course, all "ooo'd" and "aaahd" over seeing real "cop-killer" bullets made out of "Teflon"! Nylon-coated bullets? Yes. "Cop-Killer" bullets? No.

The perceived concern here is that the muzzle blast from a contact shot will "melt" any of the other laminated or polyethylene ballistic materials other than aramid (Kevlar) material, and thereby compromise the vest's bullet resistance abilities. We had his specific round of concern, the .40 S&W 165 gr. Speer Gold Dot tested today by United States Test Laboratories, an NIJ-Certified lab in Wichita, KS against our XLT II and XLT-IIIA, both of which use Honeywell's "Gold Flex" laminate as their outermost layers.

The test reports showed, as expected, that against our XLT-II, the "non-contact" shot penetrated the first five (5) outer layers of the 24-layer panel while the direct "contact" shot penetrated the first six (6) outer layers of the 24-layer panel, exceptionally well within the safety margin. On our XLT-IIIA, the "non-contact" shot penetrated the first four (4) outer layers of the 28-layer panel while the direct "contact" shot penetrated the first five (5) outer layers of the 28-layer panel, again, exceptionally well within the safety margin. Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that "contact shots" are deadly which is simply not true, at least in our experience. If you stop and think about the physics for a moment, the flame from a muzzle blast is a very, very brief, instantaneous event and does not provide enough "muzzle-blast-flame-on-ballistic-material time" to do any significant damage beyond the first outer layer when a laminate or polyethylene ballistic material is used.

I hope that this answers your question; please let me know if you need more information.

Best regards,

Georg L. Olsen
General Manager
U.S. Armor Corporation"

[DocGKR]

I learned so much...for example:

I was very glad that U.S. Armor does not consider contact shots a threat to officer safety, despite the fact that a significant number of LE officers are assaulted and killed each year at contact distances...

Likewise, it was nice to learn that contact shots will not melt polyethelene laminate armor materials...but wait, what happened to this polyethelene laminate vest on a contact shot:


I was even happier to discover that contact shots can't "do any significant damage beyond the first outer layer when a laminate or polyethylene ballistic material is used." But whoops, when we tested the U.S. Armor XLT IIIA vest using the same agency mandated contact shot protocol that both the DBT QVA3A and RVA3A vests recently passed, the U.S. Armor vest did NOT seem to be "exceptionally well within the safety margin", as noted below:



Oh, and who knew that the Nyclad design was actually "to provide better bullet lubrication while traveling through the barrel and also to attack the corrosion and mold that sometimes formed on bullets kept in your ammo pouch for long periods of time" rather than to reduce airborne lead contamination on indoor ranges, as stated by Federal Cartridge--I feel so ignorant now...

[the1911fan]

I followed your advice long ago (after the Zylon failures that broke on TF) and have used the US Armor Classic Enforcer all Kevlar. All Kevlar is still the best correct?

[DocGKR]

All woven p-aramid vests using Kevlar can work very well when constructed correctly, see: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19912

[dbrowne1]

This is interesting given your prior praise of that company's products.

Also, it seems that Mr. Olsen qualified his remarks about contact shots by saying "in our experience" and referenced specific testing, by an independent lab, to support his assertion that at least with respect to two of their products that use some laminate materials, there is not a significant difference in performance between contact and non-contact shots for that .40 load.

Certainly not a systematic refutation of other tests that show poor performance by some vests/materials against contact shots from some loads, but not a blind statement by him, either.

[DocGKR]

The .40 165 gr Gold Dot is one of the easier loads to stop...

The U.S. Armor Enforcer Classic works very well against all threats, including contact shots, yet the company keeps pushing other vest models that don't work as well and refuses to get their vests tested under the FBI protocol...

The main problem with the message is the attitude that contact shots are not a threat--this is VERY WRONG! Below are comments from an experienced LE officer from a large agency in a similar body armor thread at LF: http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums?a...1572#600101572:

"Of the three officers at my agency that have been shot in the last year all were shot at contact distance. Some or all of the shots were fired while the officer had a hand on the suspect. So with all due respect, **** your "urban myth", Mr. Olsen."

[Jim from Houston]

Body armor that's intended for use by police officers should be effective against all commonly carried police handgun ammo types (since an officer's own weapon is, by most statistical analysis, the one most likely to be used against him).

Several of the commonly issued police rounds, such as the Ranger 9mm 127gr +p+ and the .357Sig loads are a far greater threat for contact shots than any .40...if you're trying to prove that a vest is "safe" for contact shots and you didn't test the hot stuff, I gotta wonder what's up?

Also. if this is so "not an issue", then fine...submit the vests for the FBI protocol and then no one will be able to say jack to your company.

Here's a report of some testing that I found that's an interesting demonstration of why .40S&W is a poor choice to test a vest's capabilities...notice that this is the awful Zylon crap (proven to NOT protect officers in real world shootings) and yet it does fine against the .40...switch to the 9mm and watch out...

http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...sting-results/

[John_Wayne777]

Jesus...

You really have to be sucking on the stupid to actually state that a contact shot isn't a big deal. It's a VERY big deal. A certain percentage of officers shot every year are shot with their own weapons. This generally happens at very close range.

Don't excuse pitiful performance...fix it.

[Saginaw79]

I believe they say its a non concern for their armor stopping it, not that its a non concern for the officer.

Were the vests that failed made by the same company?

[Jim from Houston]

I believe they say its a non concern for their armor stopping it, not that its a non concern for the officer.

Were the vests that failed made by the same company?

I don't see where you get that limited interpretation from the message. Here's a quote:

"If you stop and think about the physics for a moment, the flame from a muzzle blast is a very, very brief, instantaneous event and does not provide enough "muzzle-blast-flame-on-ballistic-material time" to do any significant damage beyond the first outer layer when a laminate or polyethylene ballistic material is used."

This is clearly a statement that is claiming that contact shots won't penetrate laminate ballistic materials...Dr. Roberts has just posted pictures showing exactly such an event.