Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Level IIIA Body Armor vs Pistol, Rifle calibers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:19 AM
Original message
Level IIIA Body Armor vs Pistol, Rifle calibers
Found an interesting link last night-

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

Why post it here? We often hear legislators and the media talking about 'armor piercing ammunition' and 'cop killer bullets'.

As the above site demonstrates, the body armor worn by most cops is intended to (and succeeds at) stopping handgun ammunition. It even stops shotguns (00 buckshot or even a slug). However, even the two lowest rifle calibers punch right through it. They aren't 'armor piercing', they're actually some of the lowest 'hunting' calibers on the market.

Any attempt to ban ammunition that would pierce the body armor worn by most cops would effectively ban all hunting rifle ammunition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow! Really,totally useless against rifles. That hole was huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Holder loves to talk about "cop-killer bullets"
Edited on Mon May-04-09 09:59 AM by Pullo
He gets pretty chippy when he talks about it, although he seemed to have been muzzled since his Feb. AWB statement.


BTW, did you know .50 rifles fire heat-seeking bullets? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ">Caroline McCarthy's pal says so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yup. To stop even low-powered rifle rounds, you need NIJ Level III hard armor...
and to stop higher powered hunting calibers, you need NIJ Level IV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. And level III and IV weigh to much....
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

10 and 16.7 pounds for Level III and Level IV protection in a minimal sized protection (i.e. chest only, 10 x 12 inches). The rest of the suit will NOT be up to Level III or Level IV, but weighs more do to the greater amount of coverage (i.e. greater amount of armor).

While 16 pounds does NOT sound like much, once you realized this is addition to the basic weight of the rest of the Armour Protection, you see the problem is NOT the 16 pounds but that it is 16 pounds IN ADDITION to the rest of the armour and gear being carried.

Even in the Middle Ages, the weight of armor was its biggest draw back. In fact when gunpowder was introduced, armor fell by the wayside NOT because bullets could penetrate the armor, but that the distance one had to travel while in combat increased by a factor of 10 i.e. effective arrow range was about 100 yards, some could be further but tend to be ineffective beyond 100 yards. Cannon changed the battlefield, cannon ranges, even if only a three to four pounder, had a range over 1000 yards by 1500). Thus the area of combat changed from about 100 yards away from each other to over 1000 yards away from each other. Horse mounted units were the most affected by this, for prior to Cannon, they only had to change 100-200 yards and face arrows, but once Cannon was introduced charges from a safe location had to cover over 1000 yards, and the horses could NOT carry a fully armored knight that distance. The Pike came into widespread combat use, for a Pike is a weapon of attack, not the charge and retreat that was common in pre-gunpowder Infantry battles. Again in pre-gunpowder days, troops would face each other at about 100 yards (just outside effective Arrow Range) and left their light troops shoot arrows at each other trying to get fire superiority, then the infantry would attack or make a fake attack to see how the other side was shaping up, this could go on for hours as the two sides wore each other down. Once gunpowder came into use, Cannon forces both sides to stand 1000 yards from each other and any retreat would lead to massive attack by cannon fire on the retreating force, thus once one side made a commitment to an attack it was an all out attack without a withdraw, thus the pike came into widespread use.

I go into the above for it shows that weight of Armor affected its use. The longer one had to wear it AND MOVE AROUND, the more it wore you down. Thus once you are NO longer talking about 100 yards dashes, armor fell out of favor. Armor only came back into favor as artillery made the battlefield even less clear so both sides started to dig in field protection from artillery which in turn permitted troops to move in closer to each other (Armor also reduced distances Infantry had to travel, but again a WWII and post WWII development that lead to today's widespread use of Armor).

Now, with most of our troops traveling in some sort of Armored vehicle (Even if it is an up-armored Humvee) the distance most of them traveling on foot with full armor is limited, but once in combat the armor will slowly take its toll. Now, air power can be anywhere in Iraq and Afghanistan in 20 minutes so this is a minimal problem for our troops, but it is a factor when deciding to have them wear armor or not.

Secondary, remember the number 1, reason troops are "Casualties" in Combat is NOT that they are killed, but that they are wounded. Level III and Level IV armor give little or no protection to legs and arms, which if hit takes the soldier out. Thus the AK-47 is still an effective weapon against our troops, not as a killing weapon but as a wounding weapon. The combat results are the same, the soldier is out of the combat situation. The only way to avoid this is to increase Level III and Level IV to the whole body, but the weight would just be to much for an individual soldier to carry.

My point is Armor for Troops is NOT always a good thing, the extra weight is the huge downside. Presently the upside of additional protection overcomes the downside, but if our troops have to travel more on foot in combat the extra weight will slowly become a downside. This is true more of Level III and Level IV armor them lighter armor, but it is the biggest factor is the adoption and use of armor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. I love the Box o truth

I love the DIY perspective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great Post
Now I want the truth on "Things that go up"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sadly, I don't think it's all that useful for argumentative purposes...
Edited on Mon May-04-09 06:41 PM by dairydog91
Yes, the rifle rounds used are the relatively small 5.56x45 and 7.62x39, but I imagine many an anti-gunner will just fixate on the fact that those rounds were fired from an AR-15 and an AK clone (Which are, of course, evil armor-piercing cop-killing baby-murdering machines made by profiteering corporations). What we need are some pictures of a guy using Grandpa's .30-06 against a soft armor vest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Agreed..
Hard for non-gun-folks to realize that caliber is independent of the delivery system for something like this.

Here's a video that demonstrates relative power.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Neil Knox, RIP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC