Body armor the good the bad histiocytoma and the ugly d-rmor gear

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of histiocytoma dog removal cost time is probably aware of my opinion of laminates (not great). UHMWPE laminates are not recommended for use in soft armor histiocytoma dog removal cost at all (due to heat degradation and contact-shot issues), while aramid based laminates have problems with delamination, heat/sweat retention, and similar difficulties with muzzle-contact shots.

Despite several generations of laminates being produced since the original histiocytoma dog removal cost iteration was released back in the 90’s, the problems remained- limited lifespan of the armor package due to creeping edge histiocytoma dog removal cost delamination, feeling like you were swathed in plastic shrink-wrap (which, essentially you were), and poor performance against shots that allowed hot muzzle blast histiocytoma dog removal cost to melt the plastic film holding the unidirectional layers together.

These glaring deficiencies have prompted the major developers of aramid-based ballistic materials, teijin and dupont, to create a new generation of materials that attempt to histiocytoma dog removal cost combine the admitted advantages of laminates (extremely thin ballistic packages, greater flexibility, good edge and high angle hit resistance) with the known advantages of woven aramids (breathability, no delamination worries, greater ballistic package longevity).

These efforts led to the debut of dupont’s kevlar XP in 2009, and teijin’s twaron LFT SB1 in 2012 and LFT SB1+ in 2013. These materials utilize a hybrid of both woven and laminate histiocytoma dog removal cost technology, and so the term “wovenates” is best used to describe them. Rather than using the traditional, and flawed method of encapsulating with a plastic film, both companies chose to use a very flexible resin to histiocytoma dog removal cost saturate the fibers. This obviates delamination, and also allows for a much thinner overall ballistic package. The two different designs (XP and SB1) rely upon tried and true aramid fibers arranged in unique histiocytoma dog removal cost fashion, similar to standard woven kevlar fabric. This combination of attributes makes for a highly flexible, yet durable material.

It has been known to me for some time that histiocytoma dog removal cost there was a solution, but it warranted further investigation. That solution was/is ultra hard steel. Most armor-rated steel possesses a brinell hardness (BHN) of around 480-510 (the well known “AR500”). This standard steel, used for target gongs, and of late, rifle plates, is hard, but not hard/tough enough to stop M193 at high velocity. This round, due to its energy and small frontal profile, “punches” out cylinders of material, a mode known as “shear-plug failure.” UHS, by comparison, possesses extreme hardness, almost approaching that of ceramic (anywhere from 650-720 BHN).

Calling their plates “AR680,” in reference to the BHN, these plates can be fully expected to stop M193 at histiocytoma dog removal cost a remarkable 3300 fps. The price point is $134 per plate, which although higher than regular AR500, is very reasonable given the exceptional capabilities. Weight for uncoated plates is 6.2 lb., which is the same or close to some ceramic plates histiocytoma dog removal cost on the market! With the build-up line-X coating, the weight rises to 7.4 lb. Per plate, but that is still a vast improvement over the older, less-effective AR500.

As it has been for millenia, there are always trade-offs in terms of protection vs. Weight/concealability. The most protective suits, while they can be made with extremely good ergonomics, will tend tno be hotter, heavier, and far from low-profile. Semi-rigid and rigid armors, which include forms of metal mesh (traditional “maille”), interlocking articulated plates (metal or metal/composite), lamellar, or solid plates are very efficient at stopping cuts and histiocytoma dog removal cost thrusts. Their weight and heat burden tend to be fairly high. Materials range from stainless steel, titanium, to rigid para-aramid (kevlar/twaron).

Fabric materials are currently used in the majority of concealable histiocytoma dog removal cost stab/cut vests. These include the familiar materials kevlar, twaron, and spectra. As before, UHMWPE laminates should be eschewed, even though they may provide better numbers in terms of histiocytoma dog removal cost weight. The known weaknesses of this material outweigh any benefits. Generally, the para-aramids are woven, similar to their ballistic counterparts, but are much tighter weave. This is to prevent spikes from pushing the fibers aside. The number of layers is directly proportional to the protection histiocytoma dog removal cost levels, which are rated in a similar way to ballistic standards. They are:

The test protocol involves dropping a weighted sabot (weighing about four and a half pounds) from different heights with the test blade or spike onto histiocytoma dog removal cost the armor sample. Up to 7mm of penetration is allowed at the minimum histiocytoma dog removal cost force, and up to 20mm at the maximum force. Any greater penetration at either energy will fail the armor. There is *no* penetration permitted for the spike test at any energy level. A single sample armor may be subjected to over 30 histiocytoma dog removal cost drops, with no overpenetration permitted.

I am sure a lot of folks are wondering about histiocytoma dog removal cost how well knife/stab armor performs against bullets. The answer is “not as well as a dedicated ballistic vest.” K/S armor is engineered towards a very different threat compared histiocytoma dog removal cost to handgun rounds. Knives, spikes, and syringes have a very small frontal area compared with histiocytoma dog removal cost handgun bullets, and as such, require different materials and construction methods to be used. There are dual and triple rated vests (ballistic + knife and ballistic + knife + spike), but they are generally VERY expensive, and heavier/thicker than dedicated armors. If you absolutely have to protect against multiple threat types, try to wear before purchasing to ensure it is comfortable.

In several of my posts, I mention that while UHMWPE UD armor is an excellent histiocytoma dog removal cost choice for certain applications, and has material advantages over woven or laminate aramid ballistic histiocytoma dog removal cost fabrics (higher potential V50, positive buoyancy, UV resistant, waterproof), it suffers from several glaring weaknesses (degrades to complete ineffectiveness above 170F, no breathability, delaminates/curls, and is WEAK AGAINST CONTACT SHOTS).

It is important to reiterate that last weakness: a large number (if not the majority) of self-defense and duty scenarios take place at 0-5 feet, where contact shots are a high likelihood. Woven kevlar soft armor has shown to provide EXTREMELY good histiocytoma dog removal cost protection against contact shots (defined as the muzzle of the weapon being in physical histiocytoma dog removal cost contact with the vest or armor panel). The point at which kevlar chars is around 500F, and it will retain its strength below this temperature.

The failure mechanism for UHMWPE in contact shots is the histiocytoma dog removal cost high temperature propellant gases that exit the muzzle microseconds after histiocytoma dog removal cost the bullet. These gases heat the area surrounding the muzzle and bullet histiocytoma dog removal cost path, and cause the laminate to melt/denature. This allows the bullet to penetrate much further than would histiocytoma dog removal cost normally be possible. In the case of large caliber revolvers (with a large muzzle blast footprint), this can allow the round to completely defeat the vest.

One of the primary reasons I started this site was histiocytoma dog removal cost to provide balanced, reasoned, and honest evaluations of various materials and armors that are histiocytoma dog removal cost out there. While it is true that steel has known issues and histiocytoma dog removal cost challenges, ceramic is not perfect, and downplaying these considerations (COST and fragility being the two biggest), do not make them go away. While it is true that there are VERY affordable ceramic histiocytoma dog removal cost plates (the midwest guardian IV being at the very top of histiocytoma dog removal cost the list), and also true that ceramic plates are not porcelain dolls, to ignore the fact that EVERY armor (throughout history) is a compromise of many different factors is to ignore histiocytoma dog removal cost reality.

Most people purchase steel plates because they are the most histiocytoma dog removal cost affordable option. They are also hands down the most durable, and if someone has honestly evaluated their needs, and found that they don’t want to worry about their logistics tail (replacing a broken ceramic plate) and would rather allocate the difference in cost to other histiocytoma dog removal cost areas (training/ammo/etc.), then deriding them for their “inferior” choice is not going to alter their decision. It is true that steel plates are heavy for type, and do have issues with front face splash (albeit less of an issue with proper spall-mitigation technologies). But for someone that wants an inexpensive, demonstrably effective way of keeping centerfire rifle rounds out of histiocytoma dog removal cost their vitals, without breaking the bank, steel works.

In conclusion, I recommend folks re-read the “good, bad, ugly” posts again. Each of the three major plate types has pros and histiocytoma dog removal cost cons- there is no BEST option for all people or all histiocytoma dog removal cost roles. Know your needs, and know the options. Strong opinions are good, but they should be tempered by the realization that not histiocytoma dog removal cost everyone needs/wants the same thing.