View Single Post

Old 06-08-2006, 00:02   #52
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Karl.Masters is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
TS: Appreciate the advisory.

Pete: 5x5.

Mr. Crane: After reviewing your web site, I see that you have already determined the military utility of Dragon Skin for the Army. Fortunately, that's my job-not yours. I also note that you feel free to demean those who have views different from yours. That's a non-habit forming technique in this forum.

The Army has a cautious and deliberate process to field personal protective equipment. It is impossible to "hype" your pet body armor onto the backs of Soldiers. Leaflet drops on capitol hill, smear campaigns, and glossy brochures with rosy performance claims are not going to get Dragon Skin through the ESAPI first article test protocol. In the absence of ballistic performance data that will support a Soldier safety release, Dragon Skin is a NO GO for fielding.

I recommend that you do some more research on the product you advocate. I invite your attention to the Federal Trade Commision website. A search on body armor will illustrate that the FTC has taken a rather dim view of body armor manufacturers that misrepresent the National Institute of Justice compliance status of their products.

The sun is about to shine on the Army's rationale for issuing the body armor Safety of Use Message. Get your suncreen ready.

I'll be watching to see if you set the record straight, or if I will have to do it for you. Welcome aboard.

Karl
  Reply With Quote