# Vests vs No-Vests



## LANCERXO2 (Jan 16, 2014)

Hey guys, new to this site but wanted to get people's input. I co-founded a militia with a friend of mine and we've recently hit a difference in opinions on whether we should have vests and/or plate armor for the our militia. His idea is that he doesn't want anyone of our guys wearing armor, says that it won't protect you from rifle cartridges, etc. and that it was just for "emotional support" for those who wear it and that all it does is weigh you down. I on the other-hand believe that we should integrate body armor (various degrees, i.e. plate carriers with level 3 or 4 plates in real down and dirty scenarios should this nation collapse full on and we actually have to fight our way out of many situations to a concealed light level 2 armor for just personal protection should someone bear any ill-will to us. I can respect his views because he actually wore them for a living for 6 years (he was a marine that recently got out). My thought here is that if it provides even some security, wouldn't it be worth it? To all those that read this and know a thing or two on body armor, what are your thoughts, are plate carriers and plate armor worth it in case of real bad situation scenarios or is there really no point to wearing armor?


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Just an opinion, but as a civilian, if society has deteriorated to the point that body armor is going to do you any good, there will be so many other things to worry about besides getting shot. Until you have those bases covered, I agree with your friend. Also, if society does fall to the point where body armor will help you, I expect there will be quite a bit of it littering the battlefields.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Excellent first post. I know zero about body armor. only what I have seen on TV, and the urban myths that I have heard. I have heard if you make it so strong it can stop a Big bullet, that little bullets will get throu it. The Govt "ban" on cop killer rounds that could penetrate armor may be a little far fetched, I dont know for a fact, but heard NO police officer has ever ben killed by cop killer rounds. 
I guess if you can afford to implement it into your militia, thats on you and you partner. 
Anyways, glad to have you on here, and look forward to chatting/debating/learning with/from you.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

I would leave the choice to the individual. Helmet is probably more critical as its your head you pop up to shoot from cover.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

body armor... a priority... nope

but if part of your uniform includes a plate carrier well argument over 

personally, with the range of calibers of firearms available in the USA, make it a low priority, but nothing stops you from doing independent research on the topic


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

Okay coming from someone whos been shot with a vest on and wears one in the private sector now...

In a shoot out...a vest is worth its weight in gold and then some! Im quiet possibly here today cause I was wearing my vest when I got shot one night in a sweep though a section of town outside bagdad. Your friend is right in some respect but didn't finish the sentence. Yes its true that a Threat Level II or III vest (most commonly worn vest) will slow a rifle bullet down slightly, making it basically worthless dead weight to you in most cases. But there are vest available that do stop rifles rounds and a lot of folks tested the crap out of it by being shot with it on. Some was lighter or more comfortable but all of it rated to stop a rifle bullet did. Iraqi's figured this out and instead of sniping us would often take a head shot or wait for you to raise your arm and then try to thread a bullet in the gap under arm the vest doesn't cover. The biggest down fall to vest of this level is that they are expensive even compared to the Threat Level IIIA vest. The average Joe in a typical militia aint likely going to be willing to spend that much money for something they might not use here, that they certainly hope they never need to use here.

Inor makes a few very good points though should things deteriorate enough to need it here in the US. In some of the third world countries I have been in there are a lot of things that are going to possibly kill you more times over than being shot.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Would I want armor if I were going to go hunting out in the woods or in the mountains, No. Would I want armor if I were defending a location from attackers or I was going into a building that I thought might have armed enemies inside, Yes. The whole argument that the armor you have might not stop a .300 Winchester Mag round so why have it seems a little short sighted to me. Would it stop the same round if it had gone a couple of hundred yards and gone through a couple of walls first? Would it stop a pistol round? A .22 round? Buckshot? Flying wood splinters? 

Body armor may not be the highest priority, but I personally would gladly have some on hand if money wasn't a problem.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

When you add armour you are adding weight & decreasing speed & mobility. Goes for both troops & vehicles.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Leaving it to an individual choice is the most reasonable. As long as a person has a good quality, practical and functional rig to carry and get to spare magazines fast that doesn't inhibit their movement and capability to a reasonable amount, that's what matters most. I'm with your buddy though in my personal gear choices as vests that actually protect against rifles with plates are very heavy and hot as shit too to wear for me. They inhibit my movement too much and wear me down faster. It's not like you guys are going to pool money into a gear fund for vests and keep everyone standard right? So it all becomes personal purchases anyways and what a person likes and fits their needs best. Some guys like LBE's, some vests, some chest rigs, some guys want molle/pals, and some guys like already designed rigs. As long as a person has a good quality, practical and functional rig to carry and get to spare magazines fast that doesn't inhibit their movement and capability to a reasonable amount, that's what matters most.









::redsnipe::


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

choice is gold.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

here is a link to a report about body armor
30 Things You Need to Know About Body Armor - Article - POLICE Magazine


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Here is a little more info found on the old trusty Interweb
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

A 'bulletproof' vest or other armor will protect you from the vast majority of pistol ballistic threats you are ever likely to face. But there is always a tradeoff between more protection and more wearability (and the constraint to stay within your budget). Please know that:

rifle rounds
unusual high velocity pistol ammunition
pistol ammo fired from a rifle barrel
armor piercing ammunition
sharp-edged or pointed instruments (e.g., knives, icepicks, etc.), and/or
other unusual ammunition or situations...
CAN defeat body armor.

Also, at some angles projectiles can slide, or deflect off the edges of Armor, or ricochet. Furthermore, projectiles that are successfully stopped by armor will always produce some level of injury, resulting in severe bruising, broken bones, and possibly serious internal injury or even death. Soft body armor defeats most pistol and shotgun projectiles, but NO vest on earth makes you invulnerable to all threats. To state the obvious, getting shot ALWAYS carries some risk.

Be aware that your head is much more susceptible to blunt trauma than your body. ANY impact of a bullet on a helmet WILL CAUSE INJURY AND CAN CAUSE DEATH. You put the odds more in your favor with head protection, but, just as with ANY armor, no guarantee of invulnerability can be made.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

No matter whether you choose to use body armor or not; the head, hands and feet are vital areas that cannot be protected. You have to be able to see, handle tools and or weapons, and you have to be able to move. A simple 380 auto will injure these areas even with full battle armor and the armor limits mobility and endurance. Unless you plan on having a facility that is blast proof (impossible), fire proof, that is large enough to be a farm and pasture land (impractical) your use of body armor is very limited.

In most cases body armor gives the wearer a false sense of security that is likely to get them injured or killed.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

There's already a pretty long thread on armor on this forum. Might be worth a look:
http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-prepper-survival-talk/5695-personal-armor.html

My opinion is that a level III or level IV plate carrier is nice to have, and won't break the budget. The plates will also stop most if not all rifle rounds you're likely to see. Great pieces of kit to have, and the best part of being in a militia.... you can always choose if you want to wear it or not. No bureaucracy to say you have to.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

Armor Level

Protection

Type I
(.22 LR; .380 ACP) This armor would protect against 2.6 g (40 gr) .22 Long Rifle Lead Round Nose (LR LRN) bullets at a velocity of 329 m/s (1080 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 6.2 g (95 gr) .380 ACP Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets at a velocity of 322 m/s (1055 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It is no longer part of the standard. 
Type IIA
(9 mm; .40 S&W; .45 ACP) New armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9×19mm Parabellum Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets at a velocity of 373 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1225 ft/s ± 30 ft/s); 11.7 g (180 gr) .40 S&W Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 352 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1155 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 14.9 g (230 gr) .45 ACP Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 275 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (900 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 355 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1165 ft/s ± 30 ft/s); 11.7 g (180 gr) .40 S&W FMJ bullets at a velocity of 325 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1065 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 14.9 g (230 gr) .45 ACP Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 259 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (850 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Type I]. 
Type II
(9 mm; .357 Magnum) New armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 398 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1305 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 10.2 g (158 gr) .357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 379 m/s ±9.1 m/s (1245 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 10.2 g (158 gr) .357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ±9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I and IIA]. 
Type IIIA
(.357 SIG; .44 Magnum) New armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 448 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1470 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 430 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1410 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II]. 
Type III
(Rifles) Conditioned armor protects against 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA]. 
Type IV
(Armor Piercing Rifle) Conditioned armor protects against 10.8 g (166 gr) .30-06 Springfield M2 armor-piercing (AP) bullets at a velocity of 878 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2880 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, IIIA, and III].


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If the armor is hit instead of an unprotected part of the body. The armor doesn't protect the face and head, neck, hands and feet. It also won't protect at all from oblique angles. (where the bullet hits under the protection - like bent over or crawling in a prone position)


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

PaulS said:


> If the armor is hit instead of an unprotected part of the body. The armor doesn't protect the face and head, neck, hands and feet. It also won't protect at all from oblique angles. (where the bullet hits under the protection - like bent over or crawling in a prone position)


Some people have something larger than a .30-06 too. A buddy of mine has a .458 win mag, Im pretty sure no matter what you are wearing-it will go through it.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

This is real . watch carefully . If I have the chance body armor is going on.


----------



## sepp (Feb 7, 2014)

I have body armor that my family chipped in and bought me after I completed AIT. As for saying it won't protect against a rifle round. I will have to find the video but on the military channel they showed a medic in Iraq getting shot by a Dragunov sniper rifle in the chest and he jumped right back up and got behind cover.

Found it on youtube.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Whoa whoa whoa....let's get this conversation going in the right direction.

First...
Body armor (like everything else in the arsenal) is a tool. Without training on how to use said tool, you're chasing your tail. What am I saying? Others have mentioned a false sense of security. Sure...if you have no training and you have never been exposed to a fire fight without it. Anyone trained in firearms are trained to shoot "center mass". Think about it. Shooting ranges, training sessions, basic marksmanship classes all train center mass. Why? It's where the 95% of the vital organs are, and also most likely to result in a kill shot. Coincidentally, it's also the largest part of the body to target. Sure...a head shot will kill. But, it's also a smaller target, not to mention usually in a constant state of motion which makes accurately engaging in exigent circumstances much more difficult.

Second,
It works. See linked video. You think this is the only time body armor has saved soldiers lives? Hell no! Ask anyone that's ever been engaged, near explosions, frag, whatever. You can see the armor working in so many more situations than just direct bullet impacts. Does anyone think to counter their own argument? If it was ineffective, why is it issued to EVERY soldier going down range, and why does EVERY soldier in harms way wear it? Answer: because it increases your chances of survival. Period!

Third:
Someone mentioned the movement/dexterity or lack of when wearing it. Reference my first reason. Training. When ever we trained...we were wearing our "battle rattle". Train like you fight. You get tired of hearing it when in a combat unit. But it's never more true than when you're in combat. You realize that because you ruck in it, you sometimes PT in it, you do dismounted operations in it, react to contact/ambush drills in it, and pretty much you're always in it, that you notice it less and less. That's the achievement in it. When you can function just as good in it, as you can out of it...you have just doubled you life expectancy on the battle field. This is why training is so important. And that's also why people who have seen too many movies would be reluctant to wear it. They probably have never had to use it in real life. 

Fourth:
Choice was mentioned. And sadly...this is so true. You can't make someone understand the impact of such a decision until it's too late. Do you think that someone that just took a gunshot to the chest would ever say...I'm still glad I wasn't wearing that body armor, I'm so much faster without it? Ummm...no. Fact is, if armor is an option...wear it. Train in it. Love it. Love to hate it. It doesn't matter. 

You have 2 options here. To wear or not to wear. Let's evaluate. 

To wear it: Means having ballistic protection covering the majority of your vital organs that keep you alive. You might move/run a touch slower, but you can still move at 75-90% speed and effectively engage enemies. You have a much smaller "presented profile" to your adversary. Think about like this...they have to hit you directly in an exposed area (arms, legs, neck, head) to take you out of the fight. That's tougher still because you're moving or behind cover. You can sustain multiple gunshots (and frag) to the armor and still have the ability to move even if knocked down by a powerful round or hit in an exposed appendage. Not to mention you're still alive to communicate/direct friendly forces as needed. And let's not forget...it's not just the plate that does the stopping. The kevlar weave is actually what provides the protection. The plates (called trauma plates) are designed to absorb and disperse the kinetic energy of large caliber rounds or heavy impact over the broad area of the kevlar weave underneath. This means...less chance of broken ribs or focal point internal trauma due to direct impact. Thus...making you a tough son of a bitch to kill. It takes better training/skill/marksmanship/firepower from the enemy to defeat you, which if you're prepared is NOT an easy task for them.

To not wear it: Means you can move about 10-15% faster than if you were wearing it. Cool. But, the first bullet (or frag depending on size) that hits/contacts your "center mass" basically takes you out of the fight. You may now be in a position to have to administer "self-aid" and risk the lives of your companions because you may not be capable of moving to a covered position to receive "buddy care". All in all...your increase in speed (which is not an actual increase, it's just how fast you are physically capable of moving without armor on) gives you a perceived "sense of security" that you can move swiftly...or at least more swiftly than with armor. Valid. But, you can't move faster than a bullet or frag. Ever. 

In a nutshell. For me it's a no-brainer. Armor all day every day if you can get it. Get the best shit you can afford...and TRAIN WITH IT ON!!! You're only doing yourself disservice by doing anything else. Every time I shoot (for the Air Force, it's mandated wear on the range) I wear my armor. You'll find that anything you need to do...you can do wearing armor. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

So using the logic that you shouldn't get body armor because it won't stop some calibers of firearms, then you shouldn't take cover behind a large tree because a .50 cal round will go right through it. The advantages of wearing body armor may not outweigh the disadvantages in every situation, BUT it will in many situations, and IMO if you are hit in the chest with either of the 2 most common rounds, a .22 or a 12 ga. firing something like 00 buckshot, I think that you would be very happy that you were wearing body armor. I suggest that people look at our wounded returning from Afghanistan who have been hit with small arms fire. An overwhelming majority of them have been hit in the legs or arms. Those who have been hit in the chest, the round did not go through the body armor but come through an oblique angle and hit an exposed area. When in Afghanistan my nephew who was with the 10th Mountain Division was hit in the chest with a 7.62 x 39 round (Ak-47). It broke a couple of ribs and left a hell of a bruise, but he and his wife are expecting their first child in May. 

There is a reason that most front line military units and police officers on the street wear body armor. Just as an interesting antidote, the actor who play Eddie Haskell on the very old "Leave it to Beaver" show (talk about showing my age) became a L.A. Police officer after the show ended. He was shot in the chest by someone using a .38 spcl. He is alive today because he was wearing body armor. That was a long time ago and there have been many improvements made since then.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

I am curious about your militia as in why to what end, are you politically motivated or are you gonna be humanitarian post shtf. Weve all just made the fed hitlist so to the FBI analyst reading this I am just curious man chill.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Notsoyoung said:


> Would I want armor if I were going to go hunting out in the woods or in the mountains, No. Would I want armor if I were defending a location from attackers or I was going into a building that I thought might have armed enemies inside, Yes. The whole argument that the armor you have might not stop a .300 Winchester Mag round so why have it seems a little short sighted to me. Would it stop the same round if it had gone a couple of hundred yards and gone through a couple of walls first? Would it stop a pistol round? A .22 round? Buckshot? Flying wood splinters?
> 
> Body armor may not be the highest priority, but I personally would gladly have some on hand if money wasn't a problem.


I agree.. You will hear people say 'It wont stop a such and such round so I don't want it." What about everything else? Odds are you wont be shot with the worst case scenario round and more likely a more popular bullet that the vest WILL stop.. People can be SO closed minded sometimes..


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

I have invested in armor. if I have just a small chance to make a bad situation livable- ill take it.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

shotlady said:


> I have invested in armor. if I have just a small chance to make a bad situation livable- ill take it.


You might laugh at this...but on days where you don't have to go anywhere, wear it. Wear it around the house. Do chores in it. Something that simple aids muscle memory, especially if its a heavy set of armor. My level 4 RBR weighs a shade under 40 lbs with 90 rounds attached to it. I wear it around the house when I'm not working...not all the time...but at once-twice a month to keep those minor muscle groups remembering how to function with a heavy load.


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

sounds like a sound idea! I have one, but in ca it cant have the sappies in it. I have the sappies, but its a felony if I merge the two for the system. it is very heavy. I haven't used that a round the house. I do wear a weighted backpack on the tread mill. thank you for the tip


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

shotlady said:


> sounds like a sound idea! I have one, but in ca it cant have the sappies in it. I have the sappies, but its a felony if I merge the two for the system. it is very heavy. I haven't used that a round the house. I do wear a weighted backpack on the tread mill. thank you for the tip


Felony? Is that a California thing? Shit, I wear mine to the range out here. You might need to move out here with me. It's okay, I have extra rooms. LOL! But I don't think the feds are going to come busting your door down because you have the plates in when you're walking around the house. If they do...I'll testify as a character witness on your behalf.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> You might laugh at this...but on days where you don't have to go anywhere, wear it. Wear it around the house. Do chores in it. Something that simple aids muscle memory, especially if its a heavy set of armor. My level 4 RBR weighs a shade under 40 lbs with 90 rounds attached to it. I wear it around the house when I'm not working...not all the time...but at once-twice a month to keep those minor muscle groups remembering how to function with a heavy load.


Good call; coincidentally I was wearing my new LBV around the house yesterday. No plates in it, just mags, a pistol and a radio, but I figured it needed to be broken in given that it was stiff enough to force me into some really good posture. Next time I'm out at our range I plan to throw myself off the side of a hill in it and roll around for a little bit - should do the trick. 

Just remember to take it off before you answer the door! Unless it's Jehovah's.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

LANCERXO2 said:


> Hey guys, new to this site but wanted to get people's input. I co-founded a militia with a friend of mine and we've recently hit a difference in opinions on whether we should have vests and/or plate armor for the our militia. His idea is that he doesn't want anyone of our guys wearing armor, says that it won't protect you from rifle cartridges, etc. and that it was just for "emotional support" for those who wear it and that all it does is weigh you down. I on the other-hand believe that we should integrate body armor (various degrees, i.e. plate carriers with level 3 or 4 plates in real down and dirty scenarios should this nation collapse full on and we actually have to fight our way out of many situations to a concealed light level 2 armor for just personal protection should someone bear any ill-will to us. I can respect his views because he actually wore them for a living for 6 years (he was a marine that recently got out). My thought here is that if it provides even some security, wouldn't it be worth it? To all those that read this and know a thing or two on body armor, what are your thoughts, are plate carriers and plate armor worth it in case of real bad situation scenarios or is there really no point to wearing armor?


Dude, this is an absolute no brainer. If cost is not an issue get NOT only vests but every peice of armour you can.. you could manufacture plates for relative cheap.. ballistic sheilds. Body armour can be life saving it is really that simple. It is a force multiplier. For anyone planning to fight a way you want metal plates that are despalled as much as possible.

If you train in the stuff you will get use to it. For a prepper, it is more so a choice of mobility vs. protection, as not all preppers need to expect going up against armed adversaries, at times it may be a war against nature instead of man. However for a militia - militias plan on fighting, they are in the business of war, and in that case, body armour is definately something you want, atleast for assaulters. If you plan on only engaging at sniping distance body armour can be secondary, if you plan on totally relying on structural protection, that is a personal call but if you are doing building to building fighting, urban fighting or open terrain close in, body armour is a vital help, as a stray bullet or richochet can happen... of course it doesn't mean you still won't be killed.. chances are snipers using 50 calibre rounds will cut through the wall and you with or without body armour.

If you are an assaulter or occupational you want body armour.. if you have to be out in the open taking a shot can mean the difference between life and death.

I would say though for militias that intend to be under cover at all times, to hold one hardened position and not be mobile personal protective armour may not be much of a bonus, but lets get real... body armour is part of the kit for a reason, it works, and it saves life.

However no it isn't essential but if you arn't a sniper at more than 600 meters you probably want body armour if you arn't in a fortification.`

From the miltia training Ive seen though a lot of it is woodland meaning you plan on using trees and earth as personal protection... body armour is more so about when you are out in the open or going up against 50calabre body armour ... kevlar is problematic .imo the metals ofter better protection because they work against fragments and bullets...

you need to train with the stuff though.

You don't want to be hiking long distances with it.. if you have mobility such as cars/trucks to haul armour it makes actually using the stuff during protracted engagements more realistic.. it takes a whole lot of energy to run around in the things which leads to higher need for food and water supplies... it adds weight not only the armour but supplies you need to carry to stay effective.

It all depends on the type of war you are fighting... and the area you are fighting in.

You might consider just having armour for your asaulters.. and leave support personnel without armour.

Basically if you have people who will be clearing buildings, or taking out hard points.. armour will be highly beneficial. People who are doing hit and run attacks, or sniping not as useful.. However with thermal imaging and other stuff... there is a new element to this. body armour does not need to be heavy but if you want to defend against assault rifles most of it is.. atleast the economical stuff.

If you are up against 50 cals you arn't going to be wearing this..






The key is knowing what weapons the enemy has.. then knowing how to kit yourself to meet that threat..


----------



## BetrayedAmerican (Jan 8, 2013)

There is a ton of things to think about but in the end the answer is simple YES - NO...

Smokin04 has some of the soundest advice I have heard on this subject and that is depressing as I know there are more vets in here then himself and I. 

On that note, this is where I go off and use the Choice option.

I hated my armor in Sniper school. I was the young soldier thinking that snipers were agile fast and silent so that means no armor... WRONG. Even snipers where armor... When I turned in my rifle and switched to Combat Engineer for my last Afghanistan trip I still had to wear armor. It is a fact of life and what is known in the Army as a Combat Multiplier (ANYTHING, that gives you an advantage in combat) The multiples if you would like to crunch numbers is WAY higher with body armor than without. 

All this being said, this is where it gets stupid.. I personally in a WROL or SHTF situation would not be worried about Armor as much as I was in the military. 

From what I have learned my whole life growing up to the age of 17 for shooting and camping and wilderness survival in the woods of Alaska up to the graduating AIT at 18 to finally being out of the service at the age of 26, I believe in myself my skills and my circumstances enough to get me through a situation. Fight or flight is the first thing going through your head when you are hit. When that bullet hits and you feel like a car just got dropped on your chest it burns but you know that somehow that armor just stopped that round, now on the other hand you are firing or listening to bang bang bang and all of a sudden you smell something like clothing being burnt and then a iron metallic smell fills your nose and then the burn hits you... That round was not stopped so then what... 

Armor has its uses and yet there is no 100% protection but for the average person I would say learn hard fast and well the ways to be a shadow for that will keep you alive a lot longer than someone who has armor in my opinion

Complacency is a huge killer of soldiers, now based on this topic answer what that means to yourself and if you are unable to get the correct answer I will answer it for you.......

Armor YES if it is around
Armor by choice, This guy NO


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

How about this: If you are going to be static or walking a perimeter, armor. If you are going to move around a lot or need to move quickly, no armor.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Mike45 said:


> How about this: If you are going to be static or walking a perimeter, armor. If you are going to move around a lot or need to move quickly, no armor.


I couldn't agree more. I was in Recon for a few years and when we went out to do our job we didn't take body armor. On the other hand while pulling guard duty on the DMZ in Korea we had body armor and I wore mine every time I left the bunker. As for the "I don't need it because I am going to be sneaking around and no one will see me" philosophy, that is fine as long as you don't have a home base that you might end up having to defend. By the way, think about how strong the walls of your home is. Do you really think that it will stop a fmj 165grn 30-06? It won't. Most walls won't stop any center fire round fired from a close distance. It will go right through you house, but the walls just may slow the bullet down enough that if hit your body armor will stop it.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I couldn't agree more. I was in Recon for a few years and when we went out to do our job we didn't take body armor. On the other hand while pulling guard duty on the DMZ in Korea we had body armor and I wore mine every time I left the bunker. As for the "I don't need it because I am going to be sneaking around and no one will see me" philosophy, that is fine as long as you don't have a home base that you might end up having to defend. By the way, think about how strong the walls of your home is. Do you really think that it will stop a fmj 165grn 30-06? It won't. Most walls won't stop any center fire round fired from a close distance. It will go right through you house, but the walls just may slow the bullet down enough that if hit your body armor will stop it.


With all of the stuff we had on our vests, water, 210 rounds of ammo, and whatever else you decided to put on it-the average weight was 50lbs, mine weighed 53. Not many people can move fast with that much weight on them. Granted, adrenaline goes a long way in helping movement, but it doesn't last forever. If you have a simple Blackhawk plate carrier that affords no more protection than the plate itself, you are more mobile-but less protected. The plates the military have now are rated to stop armor piercing rounds, but only one of them. I don't know if you can buy those on the open market or not as I have not done the research on it. A few years ago the best stuff you could buy was the Dragon Scales (very expensive), not sure if that is still the best stuff out there or not. Supposedly a grenade would not penetrate that vest, you wouldn't have a face, arms or legs, but your vest was intact! But like I have said, body armor is great protection against people who might shoot you aiming center mass. I see someone coming towards my house with body armor on, I won't aim center mass and will get the biggest, heaviest bullets I have to shoot them with-just in case they have a helmet or one of those nifty face masks on.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

shotlady said:


> sounds like a sound idea! I have one, but in ca it cant have the sappies in it. I have the sappies, but its a felony if I merge the two for the system. it is very heavy. I haven't used that a round the house. I do wear a weighted backpack on the tread mill. thank you for the tip


have they managed to make regular AR500 steel plates that happen to be the same size and shape illegal too.


----------



## Maxxdad (Feb 5, 2014)

In the bad old days all we had was the flack jacket. Sure it would stop mid velocity flak, but a 9mm would punch a nice little hole in the front and right out the back. Lickity split. As a Police Office I did wear 2A. There are just so many things on the list. Water, Power, Food, More guns and ammo. I have finally gotten enough LBE for 4 people and need 3 more. Night Vision is next on the list. If and this is a big if, I get the basics handled I will look at armor. Not because I don't think it a great idea (We are defending in place), but because 7 sets is a boat load o'cash. I'd concentrate on training and basics if I was in the posters shoes, then go for the armor.


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

I don’t have anything against body armor but it would be on the bottom of my last to add to my kit. There are more important things that me and my family will need to survive a SHTF event than body armor. I’m having hard time as it is to get my bugout bag down to a weight that I can manage now!:shock:


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

As is the case for allot of things for most of us, you have to prioritize things because of budget restraints.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Maxxdad said:


> In the bad old days all we had was the flack jacket. Sure it would stop mid velocity flak, but a 9mm would punch a nice little hole in the front and right out the back. Lickity split. As a Police Office I did wear 2A. There are just so many things on the list. Water, Power, Food, More guns and ammo. I have finally gotten enough LBE for 4 people and need 3 more. Night Vision is next on the list. If and this is a big if, I get the basics handled I will look at armor. Not because I don't think it a great idea (We are defending in place), but because 7 sets is a boat load o'cash. I'd concentrate on training and basics if I was in the posters shoes, then go for the armor.


 All those flak jackets were good for was to flatten the bullet out enough to hurt really bad when it went in your body. We were told they were just for shrapnel (anything less than 400fps) and knives, and were useless against any kind of bullet.


----------



## Conundrum99 (Feb 16, 2014)

I don't know about you but I am alive because of second chance IIIA vest. I was shot by a 9 mm in the back by one of my team members in a live fire exercise, it felt like a freight train run over me a left one hell of a bruise for about two months. I know you have to wonder why he shot me in the back maybe it wasn't a accident, but he was a brother in arms and accident happen that's why we train. 

In my group there is a varied opinion about armor, no armor, concealed armor or tactical armor. Me personal take is both concealed and tactical for different scenarios. You can get descent concealed or AR 500 tactical for the price of a good scope or tactical flashlight. Personal choice is best.
View larger image

Operator II Plate Carrier w/ Armor & Pouches - ATACS-FG

CODE: AR500-OPII-ATACS-FG
List price: $290.00 
Price: $275.00
You save: $15.00 (5%)
-5%
In stock
Armor (?):
Choose your 10" x 12" Level III Body Armor

PAXCON Coating (?):
Chest Plate PAXCON Line-X Spall & Fragmentation Mitigation Coating

Side Body Armor (?):
Add Side Body Armor (Pair)

Production Lead Time: up to 3-4 weeks
Quantity:
Add to wish list


----------



## BlackDog (Nov 23, 2013)

I haven't gone for body armor yet. Like others, the basics of food, water, etc. have had priority. I'm in decent shape on those now so am considering it more strongly. Though I am wrestling with the idea of sliver first. Aside from brass, lead and copper I haven't done any metals prepping yet.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I haven't gone for body armor yet. Like others, the basics of food, water, etc. have had priority. I'm in decent shape on those now so am considering it more strongly. Though I am wrestling with the idea of sliver first. Aside from brass, lead and copper I haven't done any metals prepping yet.


Preps will be currency after an economic fall. While silver is great for a safe investment, it doesn't do shit for a shtf scenario. Armor can keep you alive to aid in keeping your family alive. In my humble opinion...silver wont buy or provide anything other than metal to make your own bullets.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Just a quick anecdote for those of us who are old enough (or just plain old) to remember the "Leave it to Beaver" show. The actor who played the character "Eddie Haskell" later became a L.A. Police Officer. He was shot in the chest with a .38 which was stopped by the vest he was wearing. I bet he was a big fan of a vest.


----------



## Spooky110 (Apr 3, 2014)

Times when it would help, times when it wouldn't. It's too subjective. 

Good to have it and train with it, but maybe not to require it.


----------



## tribby01 (Jun 2, 2014)

I have Body armor and a set of plates that have been proven to stop a few ak rounds. I also have police bullet proof vest thats 3a I plan on getting the ballistic inserts for the 3a vest just to have. Id rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

I believe in only one type of militia unit. Family

Unless you have a bunch of eunuchs you will never hold the group together.

Take your troops give them vest and hold a weekend exercise that states they must keep the vest on from mid-night Fri. to noon Sunday. I'll bet not one does.

I'll also bet one idiot will soak his with water to cool it. It will be worthless until dry.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> I believe in only one type of militia unit. Family
> 
> Unless you have a bunch of eunuchs you will never hold the group together.
> 
> ...


As far as vests are concerned, I would never wear one. The humidity here would render one useless because you'd sweat like a pig. I prefer mobility to false security.

Insofar as militias are concerned, there are two units in Georgia where one guy has NINE kids and another has four. Those men have been in the militia at least 10 + years, so I don't buy the notion that they are eunuchs. Do they get a lot of people flowing in and out? Betcha your arse. But, the core groups have long term members and that is a necessity since no man is an island unto himself.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

PalmettoTree said:


> I believe in only one type of militia unit. Family
> 
> Unless you have a bunch of eunuchs you will never hold the group together.
> 
> ...


I agree with your logic, and some points you make. I don't agree with armor being worthless wet. I suppose that more or less relies on the quality of the armor (whether it real or not). Military type armor is affective wet, dry, soaked in diesel, oil, hot, cold, etc. It has to be in order to be approved by DoD forces. That's part of their "endurance testing for field usage". This is also why Dragon Skin failed. Under heat (above 120*) and diesel tests, the internal scales fell apart, and the armors effectiveness was reduced by more than 60%. The Interceptor passed all the tests, which is why it is the standard US equipment.

As far as keeping it on for a weekend....yes, I bet most will tap out. This isn't surprising as even on week long exercises for us, we would work in a "rotation" that allows us to drop our gear and recover. IMO nobody can stay in fully loaded out IBA for more than about 20 hours unless they absolutely have to. You will suffer from battle fatigue by day 2-3. Battle fatigue sucks. Found my breaking point (when in my prime) was about day 5. I was able to drop my gear for 1-1.5 hours at a time for chow breaks and stuff, and roughly 4-6 hours of sleep per night. Day 5 came around and I was "over it". My body was tired, joints were stiff and on fire...back was very upset with me. Morale of the story...it's normal to suffer when wearing battle rattle. You can train and train...but everyone has their breaking point. I agree that everyone should know what/when theirs is. I wouldn't think any less of a person because theirs is on day 2-3. Their body probably just isn't use to the extra 50-60 pounds.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

If you look around you can find SAPI plates for around $100 each. I live within 50 miles of two army bases so there are lots of surplus stores. Inspect the plates well to make sure they are not cracked.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The "worthless when wet" description would only apply to fabric based vests, if I remember right.
The military uses solid plates in their carrier vests. As Smokin said, these MUST pass multiple environmental tests in order to be used.
Water would not affect these in the least.

The best compromise would be to find a kev vest that also has plate carrier panels.
Then you could drop plates if you absolutely needed to, and still have rudimentary protection from the Kevlar.

As for militias, they will be target numero uno. Personally, I'd stay away from them for the time being.
If SHTF, all bets are off and you might as well reach out to them.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> If you look around you can find SAPI plates for around $100 each. I live within 50 miles of two army bases so there are lots of surplus stores. Inspect the plates well to make sure they are not cracked.


I'd be careful buying those. They are illegal to purchase (and to sell) if they carry a military NSN. You can however buy the civilian equivalent (if your state allows)...like these:
Steel Armor Plate - Ceramic Ballistic Plates - Bullet Proof Body Armor - Concealable Body Armor

Also for clarification purposes, there is a difference between a "plate carrier" and "body armor". Most of the time a plate carrier is just that, a pocket of material shaped large enough to fit ballistic plates inside. The crappy thing is, most ballistic plates don't "stop" the round from penetrating. They disperse the kinetic energy of the impact so the wearer doesn't die from impact trauma. The kevlar weave material BEHIND the plate is actually what traps or "stops" the projectile. So if your plate carrier system does not have 1/4-3/8" thick kevlar inserts behind it, I'd be a tad reluctant to go charging fearlessly into a gun fight. FWIW, an AP 5.56 NATO, or AP 7.62 NATO will easily pierce most ballistic plates.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

I have a question about steel plate armor in a vest. If the round hits at an angle could it ricochet? I guess what Im asking is could the plate save your heart/lungs but skip the round up into your head/neck and kill you anyway?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> I have a question about steel plate armor in a vest. If the round hits at an angle could it ricochet? I guess what Im asking is could the plate save your heart/lungs but skip the round up into your head/neck and kill you anyway?


Yes, it can. This is known as "spalling". Most plate manufacturers have some method of dealing with this. Either they coat their plates in a material designed to capture the spall, or they highly encourage using Kevlar to surround the plate to do the same thing.
The overall question you still must ask yourself is, would you rather take that round to the chest, or take the risk of possible ricochet?
I think we'd all answer the same on this one.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smokin04 said:


> I'd be careful buying those. They are illegal to purchase (and to sell) if they carry a military NSN. You can however buy the civilian equivalent (if your state allows)...like these:
> Steel Armor Plate - Ceramic Ballistic Plates - Bullet Proof Body Armor - Concealable Body Armor
> 
> Also for clarification purposes, there is a difference between a "plate carrier" and "body armor". Most of the time a plate carrier is just that, a pocket of material shaped large enough to fit ballistic plates inside. The crappy thing is, most ballistic plates don't "stop" the round from penetrating. They disperse the kinetic energy of the impact so the wearer doesn't die from impact trauma. The kevlar weave material BEHIND the plate is actually what traps or "stops" the projectile. So if your plate carrier system does not have 1/4-3/8" thick kevlar inserts behind it, I'd be a tad reluctant to go charging fearlessly into a gun fight. FWIW, an AP 5.56 NATO, or AP 7.62 NATO will easily pierce most ballistic plates.


Aren't most plates certified to stop 7.62? The steel inserts I've looked at certainly are, and I've seen tests proving it. They stop the round cold, no penetration, minor bulge on the backside.
They still recommend you have a form of shock padding to back the plates in order to absorb the force, but they certainly stop the 5.56 and 7.62.

What kind of plates are you referring to that won't?


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

keith9365 said:


> I have a question about steel plate armor in a vest. If the round hits at an angle could it ricochet? I guess what Im asking is could the plate save your heart/lungs but skip the round up into your head/neck and kill you anyway?


The real problem will be the follow up shot. If you get hit with anything larger than a 5.56, it will most likely knock you down or cause you to be off balance for a few seconds. It seems too many people think you will be Robocop in those things and take a hit and keep on doing what you were doing. If you are wearing a plate carrier, or IOTV, any spalling will most likely be stopped by that. A ricochet is a different story, not much you can do about those except hope it doesn't hit you anywhere else.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Aren't most plates certified to stop 7.62? The steel inserts I've looked at certainly are, and I've seen tests proving it. They stop the round cold, no penetration, minor bulge on the backside.
> They still recommend you have a form of shock padding to back the plates in order to absorb the force, but they certainly stop the 5.56 and 7.62.
> 
> What kind of plates are you referring to that won't?


Perhaps I said it wrong. Most if not all ceramic and steel Level 4 plates will stop the first 3-5 rounds. And yes, 7.62 is the standard in which they're judged against. Ceramic Level 3/4's don't hold up well to larger calibers like .30/06 and up. 




Here's a single .308 destroying a plate. Figure next round would likely penetrate.




With something like a plate carrier, there is no ballistic protection anywhere other than the plates. The plates can only take so many hits until they're useless. Same could be said with kevlar weave inserts I suppose. Diffrerence being a body armor system protects more area than just a plate carrier will. Here a vid where a SINGLE 5.56 NATO didn't penetrate, but it did damage (separated the ceramic layers) the plate to where the next 2-3 hits would likely penetrate.






Not saying armor is inaffective...at all! Just saying, you just have to be careful which you buy.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I get ya now. Totally agree with the sentiment. Know what you're buying, and know its limitations.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Plate carriers are the nice tradeoff between protection mobility and utility. Know your weapons why buy armor that stops secondary weapons doesnt seem logical so most Kevlar to me is just really expensive clothing.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Kevlar (depending on whos) stop more than secondaries. It's stops frag, shrapnel, etc. I always called it an organ pillow, LOL! Level 2 vests (mostly kevlar with a thin trauma plate can stop knives and other bladed weapons. It's an important piece to the "overall" or multi-threat protection kit. 

If you knew exactly what your enemy was going to hit you with, then sure you could load out accordingly. But enemy element of the unknown could case you to become a casualty.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Have you guys seen the Kevlar vests infused with a polymer liquid?
Once the liquid sets and hardens in the fibers, the Kevlar is nearly impervious to blade attacks.
Normal, untreated Kevlar can be compromised by a blade because it can separate the fibers.
With this new addition, that threat is neutralized.
I saw a clip on YT about it, showing a prison system that was interested in it due to the danger of inmates making shivs/shanks and using them on guards.
Pretty cool stuff.
I'd link the vid, but YT is blocked at work.

Of course, the point is moot if your vest carries plates, but still a nice lightweight option.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> Kevlar (depending on whos) stop more than secondaries. It's stops frag, shrapnel, etc. I always called it an organ pillow, LOL! Level 2 vests (mostly kevlar with a thin trauma plate can stop knives and other bladed weapons. It's an important piece to the "overall" or multi-threat protection kit.
> 
> If you knew exactly what your enemy was going to hit you with, then sure you could load out accordingly. But enemy element of the unknown could case you to become a casualty.


Never knowing is why the military weighs you down with 50+ lbs of gear! Yes you are protected, but your mobility suffers greatly. I think for what we are talking about a good carrier and a 7.62 rated plate would suffice. Very few who come to try to take your stuff or confront you about anything will carry anything larger than that.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

I don't know if mobility suffers that much. When you train with it, it pretty much becomes part of you. I know I can't sprint as fast with rattle on, but I'm still just as combat effective as wearing just a plate carrier. The plates are the heavy part anyway. The difference between a PC and IBA is only about 6-8 lbs. Load ammo on the PC and the difference starts to be less and less obvious. 

But I agree...a PC will suffice for most civilians.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> I don't know if mobility suffers that much. When you train with it, it pretty much becomes part of you. I know I can't sprint as fast with rattle on, but I'm still just as combat effective as wearing just a plate carrier. The plates are the heavy part anyway. The difference between a PC and IBA is only about 6-8 lbs. Load ammo on the PC and the difference starts to be less and less obvious.
> 
> But I agree...a PC will suffice for most civilians.


My IOTV with all 4 plates, water, 180 rounds of ammo, and a few other gadgets weighed 54lbs. You put the DAPS on, even more cumbersome, and if you fell-getting up was not speedy either. I could move fast-ish if I had to, but was not as maneuverable as with just a PC. I think that would be overkill in a SHTF situation because I think the ability to move would be more important. Now for me, I know exactly where to aim if someone is wearing body armor, and its not center mass-under the arms, hips, thighs, or shoulders-but then with a .458 Win Mag, it won't matter where I hit them. This is if someone should try to get at me or mine and is wearing it.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

I am just saying theres not much more coverage by the kevlar and the chances of being hit with shrapnel form close range weapons is significantly lower than a long gun. The difference in mobility is huge to me I not only felt more mobile had better heat loss it increased my accuracy. I think your getting what 10% more coverage with kevlar panels over non-critical areas against secondary weapons for an increase in 8-10 lbs. Even the military is switching for troopers that know how to fight.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't often run around with my level 4 vest (just kevlar with inbuilt ceramic plates) but when things get weird I keep it close or wear it. Ever since people started showing up at my house I've made a point to sleep with it and have it handy where I'm at incase I need to put it on if there is a hightened chance of firearms exposure. I need to fix the neck area on it though, as it is only comfortable relatively to wear backwards and not sitting or bending over. If I fixed the neck area it'd be way more comfortable to wear. I think it'd also benefit from webbing or suspenders overtop of it to keep it down and tighter to the body. I like going out and running in it a few times a year just to know I have it wired in should I ever need to wear it while running, same as for my gas mask (as the masks actually needs to have very controlled breathing and exertion levels)


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Apex, simply...no they're not. The military is not switching...at all. Not even close....probably not for 5 years. The interceptor is still the primary IBA and is not going anywhere. People think that because of what they see in the movies. Sure spec ops (mostly in hollywood) can wear what ever the hell they want, simply because they choose their own load out per mission requirements. But the regular infantry/fighting man is still sporting an interceptor vest. 

It's awesome that you get better mobility from less than IBA. Not taking anything away from what you choose to rock. And arteries are critical areas...as I'm sure you know. But to give the impression that a plate carrier is more effective (or as equally as effective) than a kevlar supported IBA is just not an accurate statement. To imply that I don't know how to fight because I choose to rock an IBA, is frankly an insult that I don't choose to respond to. If that's not how you meant to say it, then my bad, but that's how I interpret your comment. I've been to combat on more than one occasion...and I've witnessed the effectiveness of kevlar on the field of battle. Plate carriers alone would result in more deaths...just a fact of ballistics. It's not all about penetration.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Will said:


> I don't often run around with my level 4 vest (just kevlar with inbuilt ceramic plates) but when things get weird I keep it close or wear it. Ever since people started showing up at my house I've made a point to sleep with it and have it handy where I'm at incase I need to put it on if there is a hightened chance of firearms exposure. I need to fix the neck area on it though, as it is only comfortable relatively to wear backwards and not sitting or bending over. If I fixed the neck area it'd be way more comfortable to wear. I think it'd also benefit from webbing or suspenders overtop of it to keep it down and tighter to the body. I like going out and running in it a few times a year just to know I have it wired in should I ever need to wear it while running, same as for my gas mask (as the masks actually needs to have very controlled breathing and exertion levels)


Damn Will...sleeping in it? That's hardcore brother.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> Apex, simply...no they're not. The military is not switching...at all. Not even close....probably not for 5 years. The interceptor is still the primary IBA and is not going anywhere. People think that because of what they see in the movies. Sure spec ops (mostly in hollywood) can wear what ever the hell they want, simply because they choose their own load out per mission requirements. But the regular infantry/fighting man is still sporting an interceptor vest.
> 
> It's awesome that you get better mobility from less than IBA. Not taking anything away from what you choose to rock. And arteries are critical areas...as I'm sure you know. But to give the impression that a plate carrier is more effective (or as equally as effective) than a kevlar supported IBA is just not an accurate statement. To imply that I don't know how to fight because I choose to rock an IBA, is frankly an insult that I don't choose to respond to. If that's not how you meant to say it, then my bad, but that's how I interpret your comment. I've been to combat on more than one occasion...and I've witnessed the effectiveness of kevlar on the field of battle. Plate carriers alone would result in more deaths...just a fact of ballistics. It's not all about penetration.


Occasionally I like to read profiles. 
Dont know where your getting your info but it doesn't coincide with mine. If we SPEC OPS in our hollywood movie wisdom choose to wear plate carriers what makes you think IBAs are more effective to gainsay that observation if they were we would be wearing those. The regular guys are still sporting regular gear because it costs money to change it force pro is the reason its phasing out but even force pro doesn't trump the money.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

ApexPredator said:


> Occasionally I like to read profiles.
> Dont know where your getting your info but it doesn't coincide with mine. If we SPEC OPS in our hollywood movie wisdom choose to wear plate carriers what makes you think IBAs are more effective to gainsay that observation if they were we would be wearing those. The regular guys are still sporting regular gear because it costs money to change it force pro is the reason its phasing out but even force pro doesn't trump the money.


I'm getting my info from being down range 8 times in the last ten years and being issued gear every time. As I stated, spec ops is a different world, they can run whatever they want. Regular infantry can not. To put it in the easiest possible terms, if a PC was more adequate, or was better for the infantry, we without a doubt would be wearing them. Cost isn't even a concern because PC's aren't even close in cost to a full interceptor setup. An interceptor costs ~$1600, where as a NICE PC can be had for under $200. Not only that, the interceptor has a proven battlefield record. The only people who know the true combat effectiveness of plate carriers are the less than 1% of the servicemen that choose (and not allowed) to wear them.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Let's ease the tension here just a bit.
You both seem to have real world field experience using these systems, and both seem to have differing opinions on them.
That's completely fine, and you both could be making valid points as far as your knowledge of those systems is concerned.

Now, let's bring this back down to the rest of us civis.
It is my uneducated impression that a Plate Carrier(PC) would offer effective protection against small arms, as well as standard rifle fire (up to 7.62)
It is my uneducated impression that an Interceptor Body Armor(IBA) rig would offer effective protection against most small arms, such as the 9mm.

Smokin, you said this:


> Plate carriers alone would result in more deaths...just a fact of ballistics. It's not all about penetration.


Could you elaborate as to why this is? If penetration is minimal with plate, what "ballistic" factors exist that would still result in fatal trauma/injury to the wearer?

Apex, you seem to be in the cap of, "cover the vitals, keep mobility". Is that right?

I've been looking into various options in the body armor field, and have come to the conclusion that a system that employs a mix of both would be the most beneficial.
Side panels not included, if a vest contained plates, and those plates were accompanied by a Kevlar panel, would this offer the best protection?

Also, Smokin, where did you find plate carriers with plates for $200? Not sure I could pass that up, even if you say they are somewhat less effective.

Gentlemen, educate me. (but be gentle)


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

My bad Kauboy...not trying to start anything with Apex...he seems like a good dude. But, you're right, we're just on different wavelengths.

Plate carriers minus plates are around for less than $200. Military has an abundance of plates, so no extra purchase would be necessary. I was stating that to say cost was not an issue for Uncle Sam.

I've seen a .308 AP go through an AR500 plate on the first hit. If there was kevlar behind the plate, the chances of penetration reduce that much more.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smokin04 said:


> I've seen a .308 AP go through an AR500 plate on the first hit. If there was kevlar behind the plate, the chances of penetration reduce that much more.


I would completely agree with that, as I said, a mix of the two seems to offer the best protection.
However, I thought your point of view was that the IBA system, that doesn't use steel plates, would be more effective than a plate system.
Would the IBA stop a .308 AP?
Or did I misunderstand something?


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> Damn Will...sleeping in it? That's hardcore brother.


With it. Although standard pasg steel IIIa from Israel makes an awsome pillow.

It does keep you warm though. I figure a good prepper mod would be getting some felt or nomex on the underside of the thing instead of rather thick cordura type cottony fabic.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm holding off and waiting for a personal cloaking device or invisible shield generator. 

There are a whole lot of things one should be focusing on before adding a vest to their preps. There are things you really need and things that are nice to have. A vest falls into the latter category.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Somebody on here has the signature which says something to the effect of "If you can't protect what you've prepared, you're simply the temporary owner."
I think that fits well into this discussion.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Seneca said:


> I'm holding off and waiting for a personal cloaking device or invisible shield generator.
> 
> There are a whole lot of things one should be focusing on before adding a vest to their preps. There are things you really need and things that are nice to have. A vest falls into the latter category.


waiting that tech is 3 years old atleast now.

I remember when various systems were proposed in 2004 now they even have squid models.
Take a look at this for example

http://www.hyperstealth.com/Quantum-Stealth/






http://isnblog.ethz.ch/security/cloaks-of-invisibility-the-latest-frontier-in-military-technology

This same thing also may be used in law enforcement to mask police vehicle and make them appear as regular vehicles.






It may seem far fetched but until you have a vector thrust jet that was previously cloaked sitting above your head you really won't believe what technology actually exists these days.

Its out there not just people but various vehicles, and most likely also robotics/drone systems.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Somebody on here has the signature which says something to the effect of "If you can't protect what you've prepared, you're simply the temporary owner."
> I think that fits well into this discussion.


Ive said before, if someone wants what you have bad enough-they will eventually get it (unless you kill them of course, but there will always be more). No structure is impenetrable, no plan fool proof, etc. The best we can hope for is surviving the initial wave of madness, and then get the hell out of the area.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Re-bump...

Here's why I don't run a plate carrier only. .308 AP through a plate on the first go...and a .50 AP through 2 plates like butter. Would the kevlar behind the plate stop the AP? IMO yes. AQI snipers run AP rounds in draganovs down range, and troops have taken direct hits. 



 For some reason, there's not many youtube vids of full armor taking hits.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

If you are of the opinion that any vest or carrier will stop a .50 BMG, I'd like to see it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Outdoor Forums mobile app


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

No, I can't imagine armor (any IBA) stopping a .50 cal. Especially not AP. I don't think I'd want to be hit with it either...probably just liquify your innards with that much energy. The important one for me was the .308 AP going right through it. You can buy those rounds anywhere, and it's a very common caliber. The video of the troop was shot by a 7.62x54 (PKM rounds, better ballistics than a .308) and the vest stopped it. So I was just trying to illustrate that a 2 part vest (ceramic plate with kevlar inserts) is more effective than just a plate by istelf.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I gotcha. Agreed!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Vests and plate carriers are of little value outside the theater of war. If you think about it you will see that your sides, legs, arms, hands, feet and head/neck are always exposed.If you are lucky enough to get shot by someone who is an excellent shot and he is aiming for your chest then the vest or plate might protect you from serious injury. If he is not a good shot then he is lust as likely to hit you in the neck or leg. I, personally, would not aim for your chest. I practice for head shots and no amount of armor is going to stop a 30 caliber bullet from splitting your head open at any range that I will shoot it. The vest and plate will make my job easier because you will be sluggish and tired making you an easier target. NOTE: I can put three consecutive rounds into a target the size of your eye at 100 yards while being harassed by three guys. 

The only things that a vest will do for you is make you feel more confident and slow you down.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Vests and plate carriers are of little value outside the theater of war. If you think about it you will see that your sides, legs, arms, hands, feet and head/neck are always exposed.If you are lucky enough to get shot by someone who is an excellent shot and he is aiming for your chest then the vest or plate might protect you from serious injury. If he is not a good shot then he is lust as likely to hit you in the neck or leg. I, personally, would not aim for your chest. I practice for head shots and no amount of armor is going to stop a 30 caliber bullet from splitting your head open at any range that I will shoot it. The vest and plate will make my job easier because you will be sluggish and tired making you an easier target. NOTE: I can put three consecutive rounds into a target the size of your eye at 100 yards while being harassed by three guys.
> 
> The only things that a vest will do for you is make you feel more confident and slow you down.


This whole reasoning is beyond me. A vest is good if you are shot by a good shot who hits you in the chest but isn't worth much if someone who is a bad shot misses and hits you in the arm instead? You have to be kidding me. What is more likely to be fatal, a shot to your chest or your arm? As for a vest is worthless because I am such a great shot and will just shoot you in the head, uh huh, keep telling yourself that. It would seem that some people have never actually been in a combat zone, and make no mistake about it, if you are holding off armed people who are attacking you home, you are in a combat zone.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Vests and plate carriers are of little value outside the theater of war. If you think about it you will see that your sides, legs, arms, hands, feet and head/neck are always exposed.If you are lucky enough to get shot by someone who is an excellent shot and he is aiming for your chest then the vest or plate might protect you from serious injury. If he is not a good shot then he is lust as likely to hit you in the neck or leg. I, personally, would not aim for your chest. I practice for head shots and no amount of armor is going to stop a 30 caliber bullet from splitting your head open at any range that I will shoot it. The vest and plate will make my job easier because you will be sluggish and tired making you an easier target. NOTE: I can put three consecutive rounds into a target the size of your eye at 100 yards while being harassed by three guys.
> 
> The only things that a vest will do for you is make you feel more confident and slow you down.


While a SMALL part of my open mindedness can see where you're coming from...If you could hit me in the head with a cold bore at 3-500 yards while I'm running in between covered positions, my hats off to you. Coincidentally, while it's also awesome to practice on a range with distractors behind you, it's not the same as the target shooting back at you...let alone his squad mate laying down suppressive fire on your position while we maneuver to your flank. Can't shoot me (or even at me) if you're hiding behind a rock Paul. You're making some fairly large assumptions in your skills...and I'm not saying you're not a fine shot. But, if you can NOT engage me directly at beyond 300 yards, then you've already lost because there is NO situation that can't be solved tactically...(and military trains to 300yd targets minimum). For me...we trained against fully equipped assaulting/ambushing squads. A single shooter (or a small ambush) is not a difficult tactical situation to overcome...especially to a cohesive and trained unit.

For example, I (along with a small unit of OPFOR...6 others) assaulted a FULLY GUARDED MILITARY COMPOUND equipped with mobile fire teams (full machine guns, armor, etc) posted sentries, entry control measures, K9 teams, etc. We were able to insert and destroy 56 personnel and significant resources in less than 19 minutes. Using MILES gear, I killed 11 after I killed a posted sentry and made it to the roof top of the facility. From there it was a turkey shoot. I was eventually captured because I ran out of ammo. You'd be surpised at how quickly 390 rounds gets used. This was a training exercise thankfully, so no US soldiers were harmed (some pride was hurt though) in the making of this awesome night.

I promise you that you will be aiming at center mass beyond 250 yards because a head shot (or to even aim for the head or legs) on a moving or covered target is just wasting your ammo. And guess what I'm protecting...head (MICHE helmet), center mass (IBA w/ DAPS), and thighs (drop panels w/ kevlar weave). So unless you're shooting .50 cal, or have a serious full auto weapon (which is still overcomable), AND a bunch of buddies to help you out...you're comfortable bench rest position will be QUICKLY overrun. And not to mention...only a fool would assault in broad daylight. So can you plug head shots at 100 yards with low/no light?

Please understand Paul, I'm not trying to instigate a debate. I respect you and all of your inputs...I'm just trying to illustrate the point that I AM trained, and I wear armor. We TRAIN in armor...so we FIGHT THE SAME...equipped or not. There is no place for arrogance or over confidence on the battlefield. Every move must be rehearsed or planned if you want to survive. Wearing IBA just makes me and my squad mates that much tougher to kill...and when the time comes, rest assured we will be wearing it.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

I've got it...and depending on what I need to do, how I need to move, I will wear it. A recon? no. An assault yes? defending? yes. an ambush? probably not. zSome good valid points there SMokin.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The simple fact is, people who are professionally in the line of fire want vests and or carriers. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, decades of actual experience have proven their effectiveness. Range time doesn't discount this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Outdoor Forums mobile app


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Incidentally are helmets any good at stopping bullets?


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Lucky Jim said:


> Incidentally are helmets any good at stopping bullets?


It depends on the bullets being fired. Older Vietnam style helmets...not really. Chinese knock-offs, not at all. US models of MICH and SOF (FAST) helmets are quite good at what they do. But most IIIA's are only pistol caliber rated. Taking a bullet (of any caliber) to the helmet will most likely kill you (or take you out of the fight) anyway from blunt impact trauma (BIT). Now modern helmets protect FAAAARRRRR better than the helmets I wore 10+ years ago from BIT. They're more comfy on your noggin for long hours and are great for mounting NODs and other devices to them. Anything you can do to free up your hands is crucial when operating. But I know for sure, they can't stop a rifle round directly.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Yeah, and I suppose they could make super-thick helmets but the weight would be too much, and if a bullet hit them it'd rattle your brain real bad even if it didn't penetrate.

PS- speaking of vests, if I was a modern soldier issued with a standard vest, could I choose to wear a second one on top for double the protection, or wouldn't the brass allow it? Or would wearing two be too heavy anyway?


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> Incidentally are helmets any good at stopping bullets?


Yes, in the 82nd museum on Bragg there is a helmet with an AK round embedded in the front, didn't go through. The guy wearing it was knocked out and had a pretty bad concussion, so yes they can stop bullets-but you'd better have a buddy there to carry you to safety!


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> Yeah, and I suppose they could make super-thick helmets but the weight would be too much, and if a bullet hit them it'd rattle your brain real bad even if it didn't penetrate.
> 
> PS- speaking of vests, if I was a modern soldier issued with a standard vest, could I choose to wear a second one on top for double the protection, or wouldn't the brass allow it? Or would wearing two be too heavy anyway?


The vests issued are pretty bulky, and two of them would make you pretty immobile. Also, they change how you hold a weapon-you have to practice a lot with them on to get good at shooting with them. When we first started going over there, many people wanted to buy higher quality vests-but that was squashed pretty quick. Now if you wear a plate carrier with a thinner piece of steel, you might be able to wear a military style IOTV vest over that without seriously altering how you shoot. The IOTVs have enough room where the plates go that you might be able to put a piece of steel plate behind or in front of the ceramic plates, that would be doable. Ive never seen anyone inspect for plates by physically taking them out before a patrol, I just punched my guys in the chest-you can tell if they are in there or not.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Lucky Jim said:


> Yeah, and I suppose they could make super-thick helmets but the weight would be too much, and if a bullet hit them it'd rattle your brain real bad even if it didn't penetrate.
> 
> PS- speaking of vests, if I was a modern soldier issued with a standard vest, could I choose to wear a second one on top for double the protection, or wouldn't the brass allow it? Or would wearing two be too heavy anyway?


I wouldn't wish that on someone I hate. Wearing one vest is intrusive to say the least. Wearing two? I couldn't imagine. You'd be so heavy that you would lose near all mobility. That's another reason dragonskin never made the cut. A large size dragonskin weighed 47 pounds without ammo and gear attached. An Interceptor is under half that weight...and even with full rattle loaded BARELY gets over 40 pounds. In fact, I'm going to weigh mine when I get home. I will weigh the vest with plates, no-plates, plates w/ DAPS/collar/groin-pro, all that plus ammo, radio, ifak, etc...

And Mike...all I can say is that there is a reason that ONE helmet is in a MUSEUM...LOL! That helmet is a freak of nature, and stopping 7.62 is not within the normal operation on it's resume.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

I say wear a vest. it maybe heavy but you get used to it after awhile. and if you are to wear one make sure it can defeat common rifle rounds. AR500 works really well, it can take multiple hits of 762x54R. the spalling problem has been solved. I think its better to have protection than none. if you take a hit in the head, you're done. but if you get hit in the chest, then you will survive to fight another day.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Mike45 said:


> ..When we first started going over there, many people wanted to buy higher quality vests-but that was squashed pretty quick..


Squashed by who? If I wanted a better vest and anybody tried to stop me i'd raise some kind of hell..


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2014)

i would get a vest if i had the money...although a quote from dumb and dumber comes to mind.."what if he shot you in the face harry?" def a helmet for reasons already stated by a poster here. i also like the idea of it stopping shrapnel..does it actually have this ability?


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> Squashed by who? If I wanted a better vest and anybody tried to stop me i'd raise some kind of hell..


Military is all about uniformity Jim, nobody wants a formation that looks all ragtag with a bunch of different uniforms/vests. Because if Joe can buy a better vest, I want a better rifle, or pistol, or the 10million other things that someone thinks they need that is different or better than the guy next to them.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

nightshade said:


> i also like the idea of it stopping shrapnel..does it actually have this ability?


Yes it does.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Something else to throw into the mix, if the SHTF and you have to be concerned about people shooting at you, what are the 2 most popular firearms in the Country? IMO if they aren't the .22 LR and 12 ga, shotgun, they have to be towards the top. For the 12 ga. shotgun, how many owners of those only have game loads and not buckshot or deer slugs? Just how many .50 cal rifles are out there? How many rifles that fire 7.62 NATO? Then how about protection from bullets that have gone though walls or have traveled a couple of hundred yards and has lost much of their velocity? IMO armor to wear while defending a position makes allot of sense.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Lucky Jim:
> Squashed by who? If I wanted a better vest and anybody tried to stop me i'd raise some kind of hell..





Mike45 said:


> Military is all about uniformity Jim, nobody wants a formation that looks all ragtag with a bunch of different uniforms/vests. Because if Joe can buy a better vest, I want a better rifle, or pistol, or the 10million other things that someone thinks they need that is different or better than the guy next to them.


Whatever happened to "adapt, improvise, overcome"?
If the military wants robots I'm glad I never joined up, I'd have made a lousy soldier, always questioning orders and stuff..

PS- Nam Huey pilot Robert Mason gripes in his book 'Chickenhawk' about the long delay before armored chest protectors were issued to his unit, beats me why he didn't buy a vest (or even make something) instead of going into hot LZ's naked.
I once emailed him about it and it went like this-

*ME*- For about half (?) your year-long tour, you and most of your Cav pilot colleagues were without chest protectors, yet other units (Prospectors) always had more than enough.
Didn't you or your Cav mates ever get mad and feel like raising hell about the shortage, as obviously it was caused by some incompetent admin foulup. 
_*MASON*- We complained, but it's difficult to know to whom to complain in an organization the size of the US Army. Besides, we didn't know other units had them until we were assigned to them later._

*ME*- Why didn't your superior officers do something to put it right? (Personally I'd have been so mad I'd have been in a permanent state of near-mutiny and done stuff like leaking the story to the media and continually bellyaching to the brass).
I'd have even somehow made my own chest protector (a slab of thick steel) hung around my neck and buttoned under my flight suit. I might even have put another slab under a cushion to sit on.
_*MASON*- They did try to get us the armor. The officers who could've gotten the armor were met with a wall of bureaucracy that claimed the stuff was just lost in the vast supply line and would turn up any day. So, the belief that the chest protectors were on the way, just delayed, kept us going. Besides, it's a war, right? I thought armored helmets would be smart, too, but they were never made. These days the helos are armored quite well, but a Huey wouldn't get off the ground with the armor they carry on a Blackhawk, for example._










home


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If I was in the military, putting myself in harms way - like cops do, then it might be prudent to wear a vest. In those situations you can take cover and wait for reinforcements.
After the SHTF you can't follow military training - in most situations you are going to be going up against folks who don't shoot well, loosely bound together for an advantage. In my situation I will begin to eradicate them before they know what's happening. I don't plan of fighting the military - or attacking like the military. I will be the ghost that fires and moves while under cover. Fast attacks from several directions and non-military folks will be completely confused. I have enough open land around me that I am aware of people, in and out of vehicles) before they see my home. 

This is a crazy mixed up world where punks and wanna-be-Rambos will be dying to show how brave they are. The ones that are left are scared people who won't go looking for a confrontation when it is a risky venture with an unknown benefit. Trespassing on my land is likely to get you killed in most cases when the law enforcement is gone. It would take a large group spread out a long ways to make my job of protecting my folks and property even challenging. We can easily take on a small group of untrained individuals. When the first shot drops the guy in front of you, or beside you, you are too busy looking for cover to even figure out where the bullet was fired from. Then another person is dropped from a completely different direction or you dive for cover and a rake or leg-hold trap grabs you. You still don't know what you are up against but for a small group that would be enough to make most of that kind of scum turn around and head in a different direction. It won't stop a well trained military force but I don't figure we will see military raiding parties.

I need speed and cover - and I have planned for that. I have planned for other types of distractions to keep any group off balance and at their highest stress level. 

I won't fight fair, I'll fight to win and use everything I know to do that. 

It won't be indiscriminate killing but if you are part of an attacking force you will either die quickly or wish you had.


----------



## Innkeeper (Jun 18, 2014)

Smokin04: We weighed our Vests during my Last Deployment 2010-11, and this is the newer Vest the LBV not the IBA I wore in 05-06. I had the XL model and with plates, Daps, side plates neck and groin and ammo, not counting camelback or IFAK, it weighed in at 56lbs.I did like my older IBA for one reason only if I was getting 5 min down time somewhere it was safe I could peel it open and let some air in to cool off with the LBV have to go on and off over your head not so easy, but I do like that they spread the load of weight around a lot better then the older IBA.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> If I was in the military, putting myself in harms way - like cops do, then it might be prudent to wear a vest. In those situations you can take cover and wait for reinforcements.
> After the SHTF you can't follow military training - in most situations you are going to be going up against folks who don't shoot well, loosely bound together for an advantage. In my situation I will begin to eradicate them before they know what's happening. I don't plan of fighting the military - or attacking like the military. I will be the ghost that fires and moves while under cover. Fast attacks from several directions and non-military folks will be completely confused. I have enough open land around me that I am aware of people, in and out of vehicles) before they see my home.
> 
> This is a crazy mixed up world where punks and wanna-be-Rambos will be dying to show how brave they are. The ones that are left are scared people who won't go looking for a confrontation when it is a risky venture with an unknown benefit. Trespassing on my land is likely to get you killed in most cases when the law enforcement is gone. It would take a large group spread out a long ways to make my job of protecting my folks and property even challenging. We can easily take on a small group of untrained individuals. When the first shot drops the guy in front of you, or beside you, you are too busy looking for cover to even figure out where the bullet was fired from. Then another person is dropped from a completely different direction or you dive for cover and a rake or leg-hold trap grabs you. You still don't know what you are up against but for a small group that would be enough to make most of that kind of scum turn around and head in a different direction. It won't stop a well trained military force but I don't figure we will see military raiding parties.
> ...


Rule of thumb, if you are using a rifle in combat, wear protection. Your enemy will always rise to the occasion, or you should at least always expect them to.
A determined group of starving individuals will be more formidable than you might expect, even if outgunned. Fighting you, they *might* die. Running away empty-handed, with nothing to feed themselves and loved ones, they absolutely *will* die. When faced with that decision, men will act in ways you've never planned for. Protect yourself in every way possible, and plan your strategy without assumption or arrogance about your own abilities. (no offense meant to you, just offering advice to all who think they have everything figured out already)


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> If I was in the military, putting myself in harms way - like cops do, then it might be prudent to wear a vest. In those situations you can take cover and wait for reinforcements.
> After the SHTF you can't follow military training - in most situations you are going to be going up against folks who don't shoot well, loosely bound together for an advantage. In my situation I will begin to eradicate them before they know what's happening. I don't plan of fighting the military - or attacking like the military. I will be the ghost that fires and moves while under cover. Fast attacks from several directions and non-military folks will be completely confused. I have enough open land around me that I am aware of people, in and out of vehicles) before they see my home.
> 
> This is a crazy mixed up world where punks and wanna-be-Rambos will be dying to show how brave they are. The ones that are left are scared people who won't go looking for a confrontation when it is a risky venture with an unknown benefit. Trespassing on my land is likely to get you killed in most cases when the law enforcement is gone. It would take a large group spread out a long ways to make my job of protecting my folks and property even challenging. We can easily take on a small group of untrained individuals. When the first shot drops the guy in front of you, or beside you, you are too busy looking for cover to even figure out where the bullet was fired from. Then another person is dropped from a completely different direction or you dive for cover and a rake or leg-hold trap grabs you. You still don't know what you are up against but for a small group that would be enough to make most of that kind of scum turn around and head in a different direction. It won't stop a well trained military force but I don't figure we will see military raiding parties.
> ...


I think that you are making allot of erroneous assumptions. The first being that you can't follow military training. I am not sure what your assumptions as to what military training consists of, but I am pretty sure that you wrong. I don't remember ever being trained to "take cover and wait for reinforcements". IMO those with military training are going to have a big advantage. I think you are also making a huge mistake in assuming that most of the people are going to be poor shots. If you want to remain secure you had better start planning on them being as good of a shot as you are, if not better. I also think that you are making a huge mistake in assuming the type of people and their motivation that you might be running into and how they will react.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Pual...I'm not going to repeat what others have said. We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 

IMO vests should be worn because they do provide benefit. It may not provide benefit in your strategy...more power to you. Vests are a tool, just like a rifle...and they absolutely have their place. In similar fashion as you...I would not choose to be offensive. I'm not a forceful millitant type. I would defend the homestead...nothing more. Thankfully, we're preppers and we wont be the ones taking things by force because we're already prepared for shtf.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

A military force has logistics, man power and supply chains. If you follow military strategy you will run out of supplies very fast. Using the same tactics that the military does will deplete your stores fast. You won't be able to call for air support or evacuation. You won't be able to call for reinforcements.

If you fight like the pioneers or the VC did then you have a chance. As long as you know your terrain and plan for quick response at the beginning you have a better chance with a few individuals than you do fighting in close combat. 

The reason I say you can't use military combat procedures is that you don't have military support. If you are a small group military tactics will cause problems - in my opinion.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

PaulS said:


> A military force has logistics, man power and supply chains. If you follow military strategy you will run out of supplies very fast. Using the same tactics that the military does will deplete your stores fast. You won't be able to call for air support or evacuation. You won't be able to call for reinforcements.
> 
> If you fight like the pioneers or the VC did then you have a chance. As long as you know your terrain and plan for quick response at the beginning you have a better chance with a few individuals than you do fighting in close combat.
> 
> The reason I say you can't use military combat procedures is that you don't have military support. If you are a small group military tactics will cause problems - in my opinion.


Again, you're entitled to your opinions. You will never know the true depth or strength of your enemy until the battle is over. You may never know I had helo support, until it lands on your lawn. You may never know I had stand-off CPEC teams until they shoot your spotter. My group has a fairly impressive arsenal, including some weapons that most would never expect. And that my friend...is why over confidence can be deadly.

And again...I'm like you, I defend, not attack.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

PaulS said:


> A military force has logistics, man power and supply chains. If you follow military strategy you will run out of supplies very fast. Using the same tactics that the military does will deplete your stores fast. You won't be able to call for air support or evacuation. You won't be able to call for reinforcements.
> 
> If you fight like the pioneers or the VC did then you have a chance. As long as you know your terrain and plan for quick response at the beginning you have a better chance with a few individuals than you do fighting in close combat.
> 
> The reason I say you can't use military combat procedures is that you don't have military support. If you are a small group military tactics will cause problems - in my opinion.


Paul you simply dont understand military tactics/strategy 
Strategy is the grand scheme of things and it doesnt work small scale because it doesnt need to doesnt want to.
Tactics are the plans of the small units and how they overcome things. 
Military tactics/strategy includes things like sending a small 15man team deep behind enemy lines with absolutely no support other than what they carry in with them so yes military training can be a benefit just depends on the training so.....


----------



## Innkeeper (Jun 18, 2014)

PaulS said:


> A military force has logistics, man power and supply chains. If you follow military strategy you will run out of supplies very fast. Using the same tactics that the military does will deplete your stores fast. You won't be able to call for air support or evacuation. You won't be able to call for reinforcements.
> 
> If you fight like the pioneers or the VC did then you have a chance. As long as you know your terrain and plan for quick response at the beginning you have a better chance with a few individuals than you do fighting in close combat.
> 
> The reason I say you can't use military combat procedures is that you don't have military support. If you are a small group military tactics will cause problems - in my opinion.


Actually over the years I have had to train in "small unit tactics" a lot so IMO yes your last statement is off. But I agree guerilla tactics are important our own ancestors and yes the VC proved it as well. everything depends on a situation.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Small unit tactics are a necessity! You have to be able to work together and have clear communications within your group. I see a difference between small unit tactics and the broad definition of "military tactics".

Think about what a military base would use as resources to defend itself compared to what resources you have available to defend your home or bugout location. The military base could call on several branches of military for external support while utilizing those supplies that are on base. The military base has resources that we, as preppers, don't have and probably wouldn't want to have. They have an infrastructure to support the vehicles (both land and air) and men that preppers just don't have. They have hardened facilities that are out of reach for nearly all preppers. 

Given that information if the power grid went down even the military would run out of fuel in a few weeks and then their electronics would be worthless. For preppers fuel would be a problem of limited supply and an inability to replenish what you use. Stored ammo and reloading supplies are also limited for preppers so it would be wise to use it sparingly to make it last. The military force could go through thousands of rounds of ammo "wasted" in "cover fire".


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Given that information if the power grid went down even the military would run out of fuel in a few weeks and then their electronics would be worthless.


Weeks?
Allow me to introduce you to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
They have enough for many YEARS.
If we had any inkling to the idea that those reserves are for us normal folk, we are fooling ourselves.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Weeks?
> Allow me to introduce you to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
> They have enough for many YEARS.
> If we had any inkling to the idea that those reserves are for us normal folk, we are fooling ourselves.


From your Wiki-link:


> The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were cut off during the 1973-74 oil embargo, to mitigate future temporary supply disruptions. According to the World Factbook,[5] the United States imports a net 12 million barrels (1,900,000 m3) of oil a day (MMbd), so *the SPR holds about a 58-day supply (when accounting for domestic production*).


Yes, there are reserves but without power to pump the fuel it will sit until power is restored or it could be tapped by the military using generators and pumps. You do understand that that 600-700 million barrels is only about two months worth of reserve and that includes domestic production to add to the reserve. In a power down event domestic production would be at a standstill for lack of electricity.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Silly silly... believing the government's figures.
Have we learned nothing?

Also, that # of days figure is what it would take to run THE COUNTRY off of the reserves.
Not just the military.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Silly silly... believing the government's figures.
> Have we learned nothing?
> 
> Also, that # of days figure is what it would take to run THE COUNTRY off of the reserves.
> Not just the military.


Actually that number is what it would take to run the country off the reserves and current domestic production. 
Pumping it after the SHTF would make it last a lot longer because it would have to be pumped manually (not using the pumps that use grid power) and trucked to where it would be used. Those pipelines that criss-cross the country for distribution would be useless.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Actually that number is what it would take to run the country off the reserves and current domestic production.
> Pumping it after the SHTF would make it last a lot longer because it would have to be pumped manually (not using the pumps that use grid power) and trucked to where it would be used. Those pipelines that criss-cross the country for distribution would be useless.


The original point still stands. The military would get first dibs, and it would last them years. Assuming the armed forces remained cohesive, they've got the manual labor to do the work.

Plus, this is all assuming that "grid power" is somehow unobtainable. If the military had the reserves, they'd have power.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I would say personal choice. My choice would be to have body armor. Sure you can get shot where it doesn't cover like people say. I would rather use it and have a better chance of not getting the "Enemies Marksmanship Badge.".. I like the rule of rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it..


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There are a lot of details involved with the choice to have and use body armor. There is also (the bad part in my opinion) the psychological effects of having it. If it makes you braver - or allows you to take risks that you would not normally take then it might not help. It will slow you down and might cause heat exhaustion in the summer. I don't need those two things on my mind or affecting my health. I plan to stay out of the path of incoming bullets as much as possible. My situation makes it less likely that I will need to defend myself from any band of ruffians - by the time they get here they are probably lost or looking to get away from trouble - not into it.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

PaulS said:


> There are a lot of details involved with the choice to have and use body armor. There is also (the bad part in my opinion) the psychological effects of having it. If it makes you braver - or allows you to take risks that you would not normally take then it might not help. It will slow you down and might cause heat exhaustion in the summer. I don't need those two things on my mind or affecting my health. I plan to stay out of the path of incoming bullets as much as possible. My situation makes it less likely that I will need to defend myself from any band of ruffians - by the time they get here they are probably lost or looking to get away from trouble - not into it.


You're looking at it wrong Paul. What good is bringing up the point of someone will "move slower" or "be braver" with it on...

When someone who has trained for years (like me for instance) probably moves 3 times faster IN IT than almost any civilian you'd ever encounter without it? We have a saying...you're only as fast as your weakest/slowest link. My slowest guy was a 16 yr vet embedded with Spec ops on 2 seperate deployments, and has over a dozen combat kills. He's my SLOWEST. And he always had his armor on.

All I'm saying is you have no context in which to base the term "slower" if you've never engaged a soldier or unit in direct contact.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> There are a lot of details involved with the choice to have and use body armor. There is also (the bad part in my opinion) the psychological effects of having it. If it makes you braver - or allows you to take risks that you would not normally take then it might not help. It will slow you down and might cause heat exhaustion in the summer. I don't need those two things on my mind or affecting my health. I plan to stay out of the path of incoming bullets as much as possible. My situation makes it less likely that I will need to defend myself from any band of ruffians - by the time they get here they are probably lost or looking to get away from trouble - not into it.


Heat exhaustion is recoverable. Two rounds to the heart is not. I don't want that on my mind.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Body armor DOES WORK. Period. And at about 24lbs. total MAX (with steel plates and anti-spalling sleeves), it's not that much weight. Saying it will slow you down/bulk you up, etc. is just overthought. I'm with Smokin04 on this. The degree on how much it effects you physical abilities is pretty well non-existent.

A good 4-5lb. plate carrier with front and back NIJ Level IV Stand-Alone ceramic plates is only going to be about 18 pounds total. Though NIJ does not have a certification process for multiple hits, MOST reputable manufactures of ballistic plates test their products to defeat multiple hits from various rounds.

NIJ Certification standards for Level IV is the defeat of one .30-06 Armor-Piercing round at 2,850fps. Many companies trial their plates beyond that single round test. 

In closing, PBA does work, and when worn properly, really does not physically limit or handicap someone in the least.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Here's a good link to a PDF of the NIJ Ballistic Threat Protection certification process if anyone is interested.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf


----------



## TrialAndError (Jul 21, 2014)

There are pros and cons to about any piece of gear. Yes, plates are heavy, but they CAN and WILL save your life.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyone who thinks a vest is a good investment needs to spend a day at a gun range. Look at the patterns that people shoot and then compare that pattern to the protected zone of a plate carrier. Most of the targets I see you would be just as well protected running nude compared to a 10 x 14 chest plate. Most of the shooters that I see (hunters and average guys most of them) can't keep five shots inside ten inches anyway. 

In a SHTF event any bullet would is going to be life threatening - especially one that hits below the waist.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Anyone with bad aim will simple be taken out faster.
For the rest, I'd rather be protected than not.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Anyone with bad aim will simple be taken out faster.
> For the rest, I'd rather be protected than not.


Agreed. A non-immediately life threatening injury can be dealt with, and while it won't be easy, having body armor isn't the reason you got shot, and it wouldn't matter in those situations any way. Plates help avoid some of the more likely, immediately life threatening wounds.


----------

