Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[Pete]

Originally Posted by VelociMorte

Karl,

Are you stating that Pinnacle Armor labels their SOV-2000 product as compliant, when in fact it is not?

That web site only shows Pinnacle Armor going up to Level IIIA, not III or IV.

Man, just look at all those companies with Level IIIs and IVs. I wonder how heavy and bulky that Level IV stuff is. Also if it is Level IV all over or just on plates.

Looks like I can have a little fun next weekend digging around some of those companies.

Pete

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by Karl.Masters

There are three ways to verify the compliance status of an armor that has been labeled with the NIJ Type III compliance statement:

1) Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the NIJ Type III compliance certification.

2) Check the NIJ/NLECTC CPL at http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp[/url] to determine if the model is certified for NIJ Type III performance.

3) E-mail or call the NIJ/NLECTC directly with an inquiry. E-mail to kmerlo@nlectc.org or call 301 519-5119.

In the case of a conflict between the Type III compliance statement on the armor label and the CPL, as we seem to have in this case, I recommend that you contact the NIJ directly for an explanation of this unfortunate situation.

Karl

VM,

Welcome to my world.

You can verify this situation for yourself by contacting the NIJ/NLECTC.

Is paragraph 2A of post #15 in this thread by W-M starting to make sense?

Karl

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by Pete

That web site only shows Pinnacle Armor going up to Level IIIA, not III or IV.

Pete,

I checked with NIJ/NLECTC on the discrepancy between the CPL web site and the compliance statement on the labels, and received the following response:

"The list on our website is up to date, therefore the model you are inquiring about is not certified. But you may have noticed though that model MIL3AF01 is certified. Your Dragon Skin vest is what we call an "in conjunction" vest, meaning it is the combination of a hard armor and soft armor. When we test these, two things must occur. First, the soft armor must be tested and certified (as the MIL3AF01 is). Second, the combination of the two are tested together as a system. If that passes, it certified to that exact configuration. Meaning our certification applies only for that hard armor used with that soft armor.

What I am getting at is that the SOV2000 and the MIL3AF01 have not been tested together and are not level III certified. I have spoken with Pinnacle Armor about the issue and we are trying to get the situation resolved, hopefully by getting it tested."

Karl

[VelociMorte]

Oh well. I guess now if I get shot through the vest my wife gets the life insurance and a nice settlement from Pinnacle...

[Eagle5US]

Originally Posted by VelociMorte

Oh well. I guess now if I get shot through the vest my wife gets the life insurance and a nice settlement from Pinnacle...

That's one way to look at it...of course, I'd rather have a proven reliable piece of equipment and live to spend my own money with my wife instead of my widow spending a mondo settlement with a Fabio lookalike in Bermuda someplace

Eagle

[TPD1280]

Get something you have confidence in. Ignore hype, do your homework, and accept it if the answers don't fit your desires.

In this thread you have the answers to your questions. No matter how bad you want the answer to be different, it aint happening.

[MtnGoat]

09-13-2006

sftt.org


By Roger Charles

Tried to find more information on the testing. But I have some really slow speed for internet, so I'm lucky if I don't get dropped while I'm reading a home page.


Karl Masters, what do you know about this test data?

I'll be looking to see what offically comes from this testing with the certification by NIJ. This will be one big step forward for "rifle" proetction.


MtnGoat,

sftt.org is not a creditable source of information, it's linked with defensereview.com and echos what David Crane posts, IMO both lack any real research data, mostly hearsay from both websites.

In the future please don't post anything on this website from either of their websites. We have no desire to lend credence to anything either has to say. All they are are internet tabloids and a waste of time.

TS

[sf11b_p]

At first thought I wouldn't want a military article tested only to non-military use, at first glance the statement reinforces that. I believe military body armor requires more than a "bullet proof" LEO vest.

that the NIJ tests did not include all the components in a DOD First Article Test (FAT), such as environmental tests.

From what I read the requirements of NIJ are that materials, workmanship and resistance meet the protection level (bullet size and velocity) and warrantee life claimed.

Here's links to NIJ testing issues and requirements. These are power point and word documents.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/...body_armor.htm

Evidently NIJ testing fails to test for automatic fire or consecutive and multiple hits, weather, other impacts besides single round specific caliber, and if I read it right, different size plates and body size or consider coverage.

Oh, and there are two NIJ testing standards, bullet and stab. I haven't seen if DoD or NIJ tested anything not claiming stab resistance to that standard.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

That's one way to look at it...of course, I'd rather have a proven reliable piece of equipment and live to spend my own money with my wife instead of my widow spending a mondo settlement with a Fabio lookalike in Bermuda someplace

Eagle

Yeah, but let's ask her what she thinks...

[Cincinnatus]

Oooh, that's got to sting...

[Team Sergeant]

Sure been a lot of crap on the internet concerning dragon skin especially after the future weapons show. Lot’s of non-military websites writing articles concerning dragon skin pro’s and cons. (mostly pro’s coming from websites that take paid advertising)

I’ve read a lot of stories concerning dragon skin, and I was looking to confirm some of the stories to no avail. (Dragon TALES?) Stories such as “the president wears dragon skin” as does the secret service?????? My personal favorite is that Special Operations personnel are wearing dragon skin and that’s false.

Most of the websites screaming from the rooftops that dragon skin is the “best” are being paid by advertisers or sponsors, funny how that works. My other favorites are the “defense and military” websites started by private citizens with zero back ground in the military and none in the DoD but are self made MILITARY experts and the sheeple actually listen to them. (no wonder jim jones could get 1000 people to drink the koolaid)

Can’t anyone discern the difference between creditable internet sites and the internet tabloids? Many of those same tabloids are citing ProfessionalSoldiers.com in their articles concerning dragon skin, some are saying we are bias in our opinions, listen up you internet tabloids, unlike your websites we have a few thousand years of military experience and a few thousand in the area of Special Operations. We have no sponsors; no advertising, in short no one pulls our strings. We actually believe in the US military, it’s mission and the protection of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen. Do you honestly think our opinion or integrity is for sale? Do you honestly think we don’t want what is best for our military? Do you have any idea what goes into the testing process for military equipment? Obviously you do not.

For all those who don’t know whom to believe, remember anyone can start a defense or military review website, anyone, even those with no military background. Pay them enough and they’ll post anything, true or untrue or if need be fabricate. They need no degree, no experience, and little money to purchase a catchy domain name such as “tactical______ ” or “defense______” or “military______” you fill in the blank. These websites are owned by civilians, private civilians with an eye for profit: sheeple consider yourselves warned.

There are hundreds of Special Forces Soldiers on this website, soon that will be thousands. I've yet to read where Special Forces soldiers lack credibility.

Personally I’d like to see a better body armor for our troops just as much as I’d like to see the internet tabloid websites dry up and go away.

Any of the tabloids care to confirm the dragon tales? Please sound off like you’ve got a pair.

De Oppresso Liber,

Team Sergeant

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well said Brother.

[jakerrr]

I'm only looking for the cold hard facts regarding Dragon Skin. However, it seems there's plenty of @$%* and unsubstantiated hype to sort through.

This may help clear some of the smoke. I emailed the NIJ yesterday to ask about the legitimacy of Pinnacle's claim that their Dragon Skin SOV-2000 vest is able to stop Level III rifle threats.

Here's their answer:

John,



Thank you for contacting the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC). Our program does administer NIJ’s voluntary body-armor testing program and publishes a list of compliant models: http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/. As evidenced on that list, there is one model of Dragon Skin that is NIJ level III compliant (SOV2000.1-MIL3AF01). This particular configuration is a Dragon Skin plate insert used in conjunction with a previously compliant level IIIA model (MIL3AF01). The resulting system does meet level III requirements.



Regards,



Kevin Merlo

NLECTC

301.519.5119

However, I didn't ask about Pinnacle's Level IV vest, the SOV-3000. Pinnacle claims that vest is able to stop Level IV rifle threats. That vest is not listed on the NIJ registry. So, that's going to be a follow up question. Has it not been tested yet or did it fail?

Ever critical, but open minded

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Sure been a lot of crap on the internet concerning dragon skin especially after the future weapons show. Lot’s of non-military websites writing articles concerning dragon skin pro’s and cons. (mostly pro’s coming from websites that take paid advertising)

I’ve read a lot of stories concerning dragon skin, and I was looking to confirm some of the stories to no avail. (Dragon TALES?) Stories such as “the president wears dragon skin” as does the secret service?????? My personal favorite is that Special Operations personnel are wearing dragon skin and that’s false.

Do you have any idea what goes into the testing process for military equipment? Obviously you do not.

Any of the tabloids care to confirm the dragon tales? Please sound off like you’ve got a pair.

De Oppresso Liber,

Team Sergeant

TS,

Don't see anybody stepping up to the plate. No surprise there.

It is also no surprise that different test ranges get different results with this armor. The three primary sensitivities are shot location, curvature, and temperature.

Shot location: Did the projectile impact a single ceramic disc? Two overlapping ceramic discs? Three overlapping ceramic discs? There are three distinct levels of protection within this armor design that threat projectiles can encounter. Consequently, there are three distinct levels of performance.

If one takes the perspective of selling armor, we shoot at the three overlapping disc coverage area. Let's call this "best case".

If one takes the perspective of the user wearing it, perhaps there is more interest in shooting at the single ceramic disc coverage area. In my view, the "worst case" shot location from a vulnerability perspective is what Soldiers and law enforcement agencies are most interested in.

Curvature: Was the armor panel tested in a curved configuration, similar to how it is worn? Or was the test run with the armor panel mounted flat?

If one takes the perspecitve of selling armor, we can minimize air gaps between the overlapping ceramic discs by testing it flat.

If one takes the perspective of the user, perhaps there is some interest in knowing how this armor performs - against maximum rated threats - when it is curved-as it will be when it is worn. Do the curvature induced air gaps between ceramic discs matter at maximum rated threats?

Temperature: Was the armor temperature conditioned prior to testing? If so was the armor panel positioned flat in the chamber, or positioned in the chamber as it is worn? This issue has proven to be extremely relevant to durability and maintaining ballistic integrity.

WRT to the recent media events - I didn't see any M-80 NATO ball (NIJ Type III threats) going down range. AK 7.62 muzzle is comonly accepted as 2380 fps. NIJ Type III 7.62 threat test velocity is 2780 fps +/- 30 fps. So on TV we're shooting a lighter bullet roughly 400 fps slower than what the system is rated, and as of Dec 06, NIJ certified to defeat. Was that AK projo actually running at muzzle? Don't know, didn't see a chronograph. It would be even more interesting to know the velocity of the 9mm, based on the subgun used on TV. Bet it wasn't anywhere close to NIJ IIIA velocity, currently 1430 +/- 30 fps. Guess what-an NIJ certified type IIA vest with no ceramic can do the same thing against that particular 9mm weapon where the projectiles are very likely running at subsonic velocity. We'll never know-no chronograph and no air temp/pressure/RH instrumentation.

WRT to the relevance of recent media events - the bullets that our Soldiers are dealing with down range are armor piercing 7.62x54R - from SVDs, FPK/PSL, Al K's and PK MGs-not PS Ball out of an AK with mild steel core referred to on TV by "experts" as an armor piercing threat. Very misleading.

What about weight? Mass efficiency of the armor? If we have overlapping ceramic disc coverage, doesn't that mean that any panel of this design is going to be heavier than a plate with a uniform density built to defeat the same threat? Of course it does. But you never see a scale in any of these videos.

What about design trades? If we design the armor to defeat the rated threat at a single disc area, good news for the wearer in terms of protection, bad news in terms of the extra weight of 2x and 3x overlapping coverage areas that the wearer is humping around the battlefield. If we defeat the rated threats at 2x ahnd 3x, but not 1x areas of coverage, then you are wearing flexible swiss cheese armor.

Balllistic protection is all about armor performance. Performance has to be defined in terms of a specific ballistic threat (mass and velocity) at a specific armor weight per unit area. It IS NOT about testimonials and marketing.

If armor threats/velocities are not defined/documented, if you don't know how the armor was tested and how much it weighs- be afraid.

v/r
Karl

[Team Sergeant]

I went to Pinnacle Armor's (Murray Neal) website and see they have hired the jello experts to test their armor. That should add creditability to their product. I've been told that the jello protocols are the only protocols that the FBI will use. (The heck with live tissue testing and authentic surgeons, besides jello doesn't argue, no mess and the results are always the same.)

I sure hope that the dentist told Mr. Neal we on ProfessionalSoldiers.com were already questioning the dentist's expertise and scientific method concerning his jello testing. I'm sure there's no conflict of interest there.

Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center. Most "Dr.'s" I know are proud to list their medical specialty, Dr. Roberts are you not a doctor of dentistry? Or did you forget to place that on Pinnacle Armor's website? Now don't get me wrong, I believe you are the foremost expert on bullets colliding with jello, and I believe the FBI thinks highly of your jello testing, but please tell me when you became an expert on the testing of body armor??? Are you a certified NIJ armor tester?

Moving on……

The dentist states that Dragon Skin can handle high temps etc etc etc thusly refuting the Army's claims. I've not yet seen the Army's claims? Have you Mr Neal? Dr Dentist? Mr Neal as the inventor / owner of Dragon Skin I’m sure the Army told you why Dragon Skin failed the testing did they not?

Mr Neal you do know that the US military fights in cold weather. Dr Dentist where's the cold weather data? I'm just a boy from Iowa but when I was attending Special Forces Sniper school we'd shoot at these steel figures hanging from chains at a few hundred meters (300 I think) and there were more at various ranges out to 1000m. The idea was that if hit it would "ring" giving us almost instant feed back and we could also "see" the impacts (bullet exploding). In the "cold" weather the instructors would tell us not to shoot the steel targets because they become too brittle and the bullets would punch a hole in them. I'm sure that's not the case with Dragon Skin body armor. (Cold weather data????)

I'd sure like to know who put this information in wikipedia concerning Dragon Skin????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor

Mr. Neal care to share with us on ProfessionalSoldiers.com who in the "SPECIAL OPS" community is currently wearing Dragon Skin? If it's in wikipedia it must be true, just like sftt.org and defensereview.com.

Personally Mr. Neal I hope your product becomes as great as you tout it to be, I really do. But this is not the Discovery Channel and we will not be easily fooled, by anyone.

Team Sergeant