# Personal armor



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

Thoughts on personal armor in a SHTF situation. The pros are quite obviously more protection from various threats based on how much and what kind of armor you're wearing. The cons of course are more weight slows you down. I have a pair of bracers made from fairly thick stiff leather I wear to Renaissance fairs. The cover my entire forearm. They're powerless against a firearm and only cover my forearm. Ballistic armor is expensive and again slows you down if your objective is to move fast. Just curious as to people thoughts on the matter is all.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

I have looked into plate carriers for a while, I think they have there place. If you where guarding your home I think it would be great. If you had a 50 or 200 mile trek to get somewhere on foot not so much.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

I do have a couple sets of military soft armor - wish I wouldn't have bought it. Although I might turn around and sell it all at a nice profit. 

If I'm going to wear armor it will either be A) soft concealable vest, good for most handgun rounds or B) Hard - probably AR500 metal - plates that will stop most rifle rounds. The military vests I have can carry metal or ceramic plates but no(Ok, it still covers more area, but...) need for the HEAVY, THICK and HOT kevlar if you are going to wear plates... 

Also, you can get a high quality carrier and steel plates for about the same price as the military kevlar, although I don't really think either of those will ever be needed - but when crime is high and everyone is carrying a gun to the store having some concealable vests might be a great idea.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Body armor does little to protect you from a good shot. Even with plates your hands, feet, and head are still vulnerable. Are you going to wear protection that is rated for a 3006? 358 Winchester? or the more common 9mm and 223?

Even a tank is vulnerable if it can't move fast enough.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I saw a good price on some level IV armor. It was six hundred bucks for the front and back plate with soft armor built into the carrier. With Molle webbing stitched onto the front and back. I already move at a snails pace so the extra weight wouldn't slow me down and because I'm slow (not as fast as a bullet) the extra protection would be a boon.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Nachtjager said:


> Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Over the last year, I've bought a variety of surplus body armor off the internet and I think everybody that's into serious home protection should make the investment - if you shop around, you can get bargains on this stuff. The soft body armor isn't that restrictive or heavy and doesn't really affect weapons handling or movement very much. My wife and daughter both have Level II soft armor vests with trauma plates in front for additional protection, and they're covered from neck to belt line. Interestingly, you can also pick up the surplus German flak vests (which are level IIa armor for cheap - $49 a pop right now) and they're camo, easy to put on, and they can be worn over the other soft armor, giving you an added and much larger area of protection that covers the neck, shoulders, and farther down on the torso - I love those things.
> 
> I have a level II soft vest with a trauma plate, and a used NYPD surplus SWAT tactical vest that has lots of pockets and a pistol holder, which also has level IIIa armor in it and a fairly large steel trauma plate in front which is rated as level III for rifle fire. That vest provides complete torso and neck coverage, only weighs about eight pounds, and it's very flexible. Only paid somewhere around $80 for it as I recall.
> 
> ...


Can you link to those flak vests and a validation they will stop bullets? I've heard that many times before but I have personally shot up 2 different flak vests and they didn't even stand up to standard .22lr. EDIT: FWIW they were both old US surplus vests, so I don't know how others would hold up.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

If someone attacks me while they are wearing a vest, I'm gonna shoot them in the face.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

PaulS said:


> Are you going to wear protection that is rated for a 3006? 358 Winchester? or the more common 9mm and 223?


Level IV E-SAPIs can stop M2 .30-'06 AP rounds, and can be found on Ebay for $200 for a set. Should do the trick against SP or Ballistic tip hunting ammo. More powerful calibers may penetrate, but that's dependent on type of round, range, angle, ect.

I'm going to vote for body armor, at least in the form of a good plate carrier. There are certainly times when having it would come in handy, and not be a hindrance, such as standing watch, or on your neighborhood watch's patrol. If there is ever a time that you don't need it, or feel that it is slowing you down.... take it off. Better to have and not need than need and not have, and just because you have it doesn't mean you're stuck with it.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Level IV onlly weighs about 35 pounds and doesn't protect the head or extremities. Shot for the head or crotch.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

I have issued to me, 3A personal body armor made by prisoners in the federal system and yes I know that makes no sense but it is the government. I also have plate armor called MSA paraclete that is supposed to stop rifle rounds. It's heavy but the worst thing I found is that it is incredibly hot. It limits movement and wears you out from the weight but it can save your life.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Body armor is the reason we started training to take headshots on intruders. For years we practiced middle of mass shooting but that seems like a bad idea with "full body" body armor. You cannot protect the face and head, the hands and feet. There are always ****** in any armor.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

In any tactical situation, people tend to take cover. Then they expose just enough to take a shot.

Body armor might be good if you expect to get ambushed or are in a static defense, but who the hell just plows forward like civil war infantry these days? If I'm coming after you, I'll be crawling from cover to cover while someone provides covering fire. I'll be trying to flank you, not charging right up the middle. Body armor won't do me much good.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

If you really think you need armor, take a look at DKX plates. Their rifle plates (Max III) weigh less than 3 pounds and will stop a .308 at 20 yards. (150 gr ball ammo) These are kinda thick, but they actually float!

Nutnfancy did a test on this plate, shooting it 6 times at 20 yards with a .308 with no penetration.

If you get them from www.firearmsprostore.com you can use coupon code "nutnfancy" to get an additional discount.

Here's his test shoot...






They also have pistol plates for less than $200 and other products as well.

PS: I don't give a shit if you like Nutnfancy or not. As far as I am concerned, it could have been anyone pulling the trigger. The point is that the plate took 6 shots from a .308 at 20 yards without failing. Stay focused.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

First if you buy the old style flake jacket the military used they will not slow or stop a bullet with out the steel plates in them.
Vest have a place but to be effective they must be worn correctly, worn all of the time. Face facts not many will.
Modern day vest have a limited life spans and the effectiveness degrades over time.
If you do purchase good ones keep them in packaging until the day they are needed.
Want a Big shock research 5.56 and it's ability to perpetrate steel plate ( Goes right through ) . That is another reason Military uses the ceramic plates now.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Want a Big shock research 5.56 and it's ability to perpetrate steel plate ( Goes right through ) . That is another reason Military uses the ceramic plates now.


Depends on the type and thickness of steel. I used some old junk steel, and at about 25m, neither 5.56 or 7.62 would penetrate half inch steel, but both would penetrate 1/4" steel. No real difference between them, aside from the size of the crater.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I have fired my 30-06 through half inch plate many times. I use hunting bullets 165 gr BTHP. My 357 will put a hp bullet through 3/8" steel. If you are wearing armor plan on getting hit in the head, hands or feet because those are your exposed areas.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> If you really think you need armor, take a look at DKX plates. Their rifle plates (Max III) weigh less than 3 pounds and will stop a .308 at 20 yards. (150 gr ball ammo) These are kinda thick, but they actually float!
> 
> Nutnfancy did a test on this plate, shooting it 6 times at 20 yards with a .308 with no penetration.
> 
> ...


 That's why I have a 300 win mag.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

One of my favorites armor or no armor. Armor plate carrier with AR500 steel plates most handguns arnt effective really past 30-50 yards anyways and as a secondary weapon the initial rounds are going to be of a heavy caliber. Although the argument can be made for well placed shots I challenge you to first get a target that can move slowly 3-4 mph a walking speed (just think how fast a man jogging would move as well) then shoot a 4 inch target while you yourself are moving at an oblique angle and honestly the hips would be the thing to shoot anyways.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I competed with my revolver out to 100 yards on a target that is less than 1/4 the size of a man. It takes a bullet from that revolver less than .120 seconds to go 100 yards. That means about a 6" lead at 3 mph (less than the width of a human head). At an oblique angle the lead would be less and the head is a huge 8" target. The target is down and that is with a pistol, off hand, at 100 yards.


----------



## flyhoovers (Oct 25, 2013)

Maybe for you...who competed. We have all heard story after story of police that miss quite often even at short range for a variety of factors. I am quite certain that the average cop is able to train a lot more than I am. Personally, I know I have lots of improving to do to comfortably feel I can hit a moving target with that kind of precision, especially if I am moving and adrenalin pumping at the same time. 

My stance is the same...totally depends what "specifically" you want to prep for. There are absolutely situations where armor can save your life and keep you fighting. Plenty of situations where I wouldn't wear it. BUT...I cannot think of a situation where I would WANT to wear it...but wouldn't because I felt whomever was on the other side was probably a good enough shot to defeat it. For that reason I have armor.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

I too love the it when people say that "if the BG is wearing body armor, I'll just shoot them in the Head, groin, or limbs". Seriously? Moving targets are hard as hell to hit, and they only get harder when you start moving, or you've been moving and are tired, out of breath, or on an adrenaline high. At that point, most people are lucky to actually put rounds on target, let alone put rounds on a much smaller target like the head or groin. That's the reason why "center of mass" is the standard for shooting. Can it be done? Absolutely, but it's hard.

Oh, and while I enjoy competition shooting, and believe it to be much better training that static range shooting, competition is not combat. Accept that a move on. 

Moral of the story here is that body armor is out there, and if you're willing to add a few pounds, it could save your life. If not, that's your decision too. There are both times for its use, and times that it should not be used.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

PaulS said:


> I competed with my revolver out to 100 yards on a target that is less than 1/4 the size of a man. It takes a bullet from that revolver less than .120 seconds to go 100 yards. That means about a 6" lead at 3 mph (less than the width of a human head). At an oblique angle the lead would be less and the head is a huge 8" target. The target is down and that is with a pistol, off hand, at 100 yards.


I dont think your taking into account travel while your lead is small your hands must remain in motion defeating much of the inherent accuracy in competition shooting. Ive shot in competitions as well unless your gonna provide details of the comp I wouldnt consider them an applicable experience. Id also like to know what kind of pistol you were using. I work with some of the best tactical shooters in the US and none I know would even think about taking that shot with a pistol id save my ammo and position tell they got closer if all I had was a pistol.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

ApexPredator said:


> I dont think your taking into account travel while your lead is small your hands must remain in motion defeating much of the inherent accuracy in competition shooting.


I was trained to ambush moving targets rather than try to track them. Just hold off more than the required lead and send it when they come into the right spot.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Either way to pull off an ambush you need pattern of life or your just laying in the prone for no reason. Every military in the world is using plates at the very least on their elite troops the value of plates is evident if you can afford them get them they are worth their weight.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

This is why the Rock Island Armory 1911 in 22TCM is a good investment.


----------



## Eternal_Prepper (Nov 12, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Even a tank is vulnerable if it can't move fast enough.


I would feel pretty safe if I had a tank :mrgreen:


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

"Ambush" in this context doesn't mean laying "in the prone" and waiting for someone to happen by. It's a technique for hitting moving targets.

Our most elite forces rarely use body armor. If they are going to be clearing buildings, they might, but usually feel the extra weight isn't worth it. Elite forces are highly motivated and don't need the psychological boost armor gives less well trained troops.

Our regular forces wear it because it's issued and required. I suspect it gets more people killed than it saves because it can make you feel invulnerable. 

If you plan on standing in an open field and fighting, by all means wear some. If I ever find myself in that situation, I would get my ass out of the field and into cover, or at least go prone. When prone, body armor doesn't do much good and it keeps you higher off the ground.

When fighting from behind cover like a sensible person, body armor is a moot point. When you pop up to fire, all you're going to expose is your head and as little of your arm as possible. Body armor doesn't cover your head or arms.

If it makes you feel safe, wear it. Just understand that feeling safe isn't the same as being safe.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> Our most elite forces rarely use body armor. If they are going to be clearing buildings, they might, but usually feel the extra weight isn't worth it. Elite forces are highly motivated and don't need the psychological boost armor gives less well trained troops.


That's a load of garbage. Every time I've ever seen SF, SEALs, MARSOC, EOD, etc, on operations or in training, they're wearing body armor. Just finished a few days working with some "highspeed" types, and they were all wearing plate carriers. Depending on their mission profile, they might use a lower profile rig, but they've still got it. That's for both urban and field operations. For long range patrolling, I can see they opting not to bring it, but that would be the only case.

In fact, I know that the "sneakiest" of the sneaky squirrels not only use armor, but they have even more than regular Infantry units, and use it when the situation calls for it.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Well yeah, they often wear plate carriers. That doesn't mean they have the plates.

There's a famous line from "No Easy Day" (the first hand account of the Bin Laden raid) Bissonnette says to his friend, "If I get shot, don't tell my mom I wasn't wearing these plates."

As I said earlier, it does depend on the mission, but going unarmored is far more common than you think.

Anyway, believe what you will. <shrug>


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

A plate carrier without plates is probably one of the worst load bearing methods out there. I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it is anywhere near as common as you seem to believe. I guess we'll both just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Doomsday (Jun 25, 2013)

I’m not planning on buy or using body armor! Body armor only protects the vital areas at best. And in a SHTF situation if you are wounded in the arm or leg you will most likely die a slow painful death. So if I’m hit I want it to be quick!


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Doomsday said:


> I'm not planning on buy or using body armor! Body armor only protects the vital areas at best. And in a SHTF situation if you are wounded in the arm or leg you will most likely die a slow painful death. So if I'm hit I want it to be quick!


Actually I think you've got that a little backwards. Going off of the Civil War, or the Revolution, many, if not most, soldiers hit in the extremities survived their wounds. They may have had to amputate the arm or leg, but they still survived. However, the vast majority of those hit in the chest or stomach didn't survive. "Gut shots" were almost always fatal, and typically resulted in a few days of agonizing pain before the victim died. I think that avoiding that is worth the extra weight of a pair of plates.


----------



## Doomsday (Jun 25, 2013)

rickfromillinois said:


> I don't understand the mindset that if you are wounded you are going to die. What happened prior to the discovery of antibiotics? If you had a doctor who washed his hands and instruments your chances of survival from wounds to the extremities was fairly good, including amputations. More people survived amputations then those who died from infections from those amputations during the Civil War, and most doctors then DIDN'T sterilize their instruments. In your prep kit, keep some good vodka to soak instruments in and save a couple of shots for patients. Wash wounds. Getting a wound is by no means a death sentence.
> 
> I plan on having body armor for me and all of my family members in case we have to defend our home. I probably wouldn't use if I hunting or doing some recon/scavenging, but definitely use it during a defensive engagement. I didn't wear any when I was in a Recon platoon, but did when I was in the Infantry at a site on the Korean DMZ. If you think that being behind cover or a wall will negate that, let me point out that a 30-06 FMJ round will easily go through most houses, including those made of brick. Then there is the problem of ricochets, flying concrete chips, and splinters. Also there is the possibility that you might have to move from one position of cover to another. If you have body armor for your wife and kids that stop one .22 round, buckshot, or 9mm round, it's worth the money. No it won't cover 100% of your body or from all rounds, some one might have a .50 cal Barrett, but it is somewhat ludicrous to say that since it won't work in all situations I won't bother with it. As usual allot depends on the individual and where and how they plan to work their survival location. If you won't get body armor, that is your choice and I am good with that. I will.


I have no problem people choosing to use body armor but its not for me. My bug out location is 25 miles from nowhere and 10 miles is dirt road! Where am I going to find this doctor you are talking about? It takes 1.5 hours now to get to the nearest doctor or hospital. I can't imagine how long it would take during a SHTF. You could be ambushed or kill just trying to get to the doctor. I agree if you are close or have access to doctors or hospitals your chances are improved. My armor is going to be avoidance! If I'm in a gun battle and get hit I will have little chance to make it to a doctor in time. I know this going in so I'm prepared to live or die with this mindset.


----------



## Doomsday (Jun 25, 2013)

Alpha-17 said:


> Actually I think you've got that a little backwards. Going off of the Civil War, or the Revolution, many, if not most, soldiers hit in the extremities survived their wounds. They may have had to amputate the arm or leg, but they still survived. However, the vast majority of those hit in the chest or stomach didn't survive. "Gut shots" were almost always fatal, and typically resulted in a few days of agonizing pain before the victim died. I think that avoiding that is worth the extra weight of a pair of plates.


Civil War Primary amputation mortality rate: 28% Secondary amputation mortality rate: 52%. Then again you are assuming you have access to a doctor. See the comment above.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

To sum up how I feel; is it bulletproof? No it's bullet resistant so it may or may not. I work in areas that the average temp every day is 115 degrees and anyone will tell you that body armor is unbearably hot. Will I do a vehicle stop without it? Hell to the no!


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Doomsday said:


> Civil War Primary amputation mortality rate: 28% Secondary amputation mortality rate: 52%. Then again you are assuming you have access to a doctor. See the comment above.


28% is a helluva lot better than your chances with a gut shot. As for not having a doctor, well, hate to break it for ya, but very few people will have doctors. Or dentists, mechanics, gunsmiths, farmers, etc. Those are skills you will have to depend on yourself, your family, and/or your group for. I don't see how "not having a doctor" is any more legitimate of a reason to avoid body armor than "not having a gunsmith" is for not using a gun. Less in fact!

Again, I have no problem with people not wanting to use body armor. I just want everybody to be logical in their reasoning, and to think things through. A debate on the internet may not change anybody's mind, but somebody reading through this thread while debating the pros and cons may benefit from the arguments discussed here.


----------



## Doomsday (Jun 25, 2013)

Alpha-17 said:


> I just want everybody to be logical in their reasoning, and to think things through. A debate on the internet may not change anybody's mind, but somebody reading through this thread while debating the pros and cons may benefit from the arguments discussed here.


Are you saying I'm not logical and have not thought things through because I don't agree with you? A better example is riding a motorcycle with or without a helmet. There are pros and cons with both. Either way doesn't mean the person has not thought out their decision.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

rickfromillinois said:


> If you think that being behind cover or a wall will negate that, let me point out that a 30-06 FMJ round will easily go through most houses, including those made of brick.


I just want to point out that if it won't stop a bullet, it's concealment, not cover. But yeah, I get your point. There isn't much cover from a .50 and none from the 152mm rounds I used.

It really comes down to personal choice. I don't plan on walking across open fields. I don't plan on storming any buildings. I would rather carry less weight. These are my choices, so no armor for me. The only armor I would use is the kind you can climb inside and drive away.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Doomsday said:


> Are you saying I'm not logical and have not thought things through because I don't agree with you? A better example is riding a motorcycle with or without a helmet. There are pros and cons with both. Either way doesn't mean the person has not thought out their decision.


My statement was more of a blanket statement for this entire thread than directed at any one person. If you don't want to have armor, that's your call, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need it and don't have it.


----------



## MikeyPrepper (Nov 29, 2012)

Exactly


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

Any alternative armor ideas out there? I know a lot of what has been said has mainly focused on ballistic body armor, but there are other ways to think about protection. For example a lighter armor load means increased mobility which could allow one to more quickly avoid or vacate an area where someone had their sights set on you. Other things to think about too would be other threats. Feral animals, natural puncture hazards, things like that. If you think about what is the most likely threat and try to meet that it might steer one down a different path when it comes to protection. For instance hard leather could provide some protection against feral animals and other hazards. Likewise the areas that ballistic armor doesn't protect, namely the extremities, would be the areas where other non-ballistic injuries could occur. Just other things to think about.


----------



## TrialAndError (Jul 21, 2014)

its like you said. Weigh your options and priorities. Plate carriers are heavy, but they WILL save your life.


----------

