Video rebuttal of the Dragon Skin issue

[jualdeaux]

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/0...nal-terrorism/

Wrong ammunition, wrong plates and apparently disregarding all the info sent by the military. sounds typical.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[armoredman]

Interesting.Not surprising - weren't they the ones with the rocket motors attached to a GMC pickup to make the gas tank explode on video? Mass media, three huge companies attempt to influence your thinking to thier direction.

[swiftyjuan]

All I can say is that they borrowed my Garand to test the Dragonskin last Friday (the Sheriff's Department), and it stopped AP bullets at 56 feet. I was impressed; so was a British observer. I understand that he bought 1,800 units.

[BAC]

Eh, US Army's been accused of flat lying about the authenticity of the tests, slanting tests for new (possibly replacement) equipment heavily in favor of existing (current issue) equipment.

Watched Future Weapons detonate a fragmentation grenade on Dragon Skin. Watched Mail Call unload at near point-blank with an MP5 on full auto into Dragon Skin. Seen all the tests from Pinnacle's site trying to convince myself it's not all it's cracked up to be. Haven't been able to do it yet.

Never seen it in person, but hear a lot of incredible reviews of it. The heaviest tactical dragon skin armor appears to be 8.97 lbs + 8.97 lbs, so roughly 18 pounds plus the carrier, distributed evenly across the torso, in either negative, neutral, or positive buoyancy where water is concerned. The MOLLE webbing's nice too.

Global Security says that the Interceptor body armor weighs in at 16.4 pounds (two inserts 4 lbs each, plus 8 lb outer vest) for basic coverage; more coverage = more plates = more weight.

Where the one solution in the Interceptor controversy appears to be adding more SAPI plates (more weight), Pinnacle's armor requires no plates and is apparently* more effective in "non-coverage" areas; that is, areas that the company does not guarentee will stop Class IIIa+ ballistic threats (*even though many users have sworn that "non-coverage" areas on them have been hit and still produced no damage to the wearer).

I suppose the issue really comes down to cost; vests appear to run around $4k and up for the more basic configurations, and are sold to only military, LEO, and civilians via John Wages of "The Range Pistol Club" in California (if you have a clean record and they have them available).

For what it's worth, I'd love the dragon armor; even 30 lbs isn't nearly as heavy when it's evenly distribued on the torso.


-B

[OPFOR]

First, 30 lbs is heavy, if you wear it long enough. Less is DEFINITELY more when it comes to carrying weight in combat.

Second, from what I understand, what the DS really failed at was the temperature tests...it seems the adhesive that kept the "scales" together failed at relatively low temps - not something we can have considering the environments we're fighting in now.

In the end, I'm not read up on this enough to make a truly informed decision. However, I've worn, shot, and seen people shot/fragged/burned while wearing IBA, and it performed VERY well. I'm not willing to switch out just yet...

[Blackeagle]

Second, from what I understand, what the DS really failed at was the temperature tests...it seems the adhesive that kept the "scales" together failed at relatively low temps - not something we can have considering the environments we're fighting in now.

Definitely true. I've also heard that they had some problems when the adhesive was doused with diesel fuel (and if you're wondering why that's a problem, imagine being shot at right after your vehicle's fuel tank was shredded by an IED).

[cagueits]

I started this topic back in 06 and Skygod shed some light about the failures this past May 07. You may want to read his thread.

His:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ht=dragon+skin

Mine:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ht=dragon+skin

[OPFOR]

Definitely true. I've also heard that they had some problems when the adhesive was doused with diesel fuel (and if you're wondering why that's a problem, imagine being shot at right after your vehicle's fuel tank was shredded by an IED).

I don't wonder about this test at all... After every IED strike, we had guys basically covered in fuel. If the tank itself doesn't do it, the jerrycans (and, in at least one case, the 55 gallon drums) will. Your armor had better work at that point, 'cause things usually get real interesting after that first boom...

[BAC]

Evolution Armor Systems has something to say about the tests, and Allan D. Bain has little good to say of Murray Neal. I'm all for a verbal scuffle, but I hate pointless controversy...

Which is a shame, too. I don't feel like I've bought into a gimmick (those videos don't lie), but I still feel like I've been fed a line about their long-term durability to adverse conditions.


-B

[MattInFla]

All I can say is that they borrowed my Garand to test the Dragonskin last Friday (the Sheriff's Department), and it stopped AP bullets at 56 feet. I was impressed; so was a British observer. I understand that he bought 1,800 units.

There's no doubt that under lab conditions. Dragonskin is very impressive.

But when the Army tested it following exposure to temp extremes and contaminants like fuel, it failed dramatically.

Armor that can't tolerate high heat is pretty useless in the desert....

Matt

[MattInFla]

An interesting discussion of Dragon Skin, along with links to the Army testing results: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...d.php?p=168686

Matt

[phaed]

i also read that it was "scale migration" due to the adhesive losing properties under heat. that sounds like a simple enough problem to fix.

from what i saw, our govt was too busy giving the iraqi's money to spare much more for body armor or vehicle armor for ours. i didn't get the impression that it was a high priority.

[OPFOR]

I guess I had a different experience then most when it came to equipment. I deployed (the first time) as a Recon/Sniper platoon leader in a light infantry battalion. When the orders came down, we had (let's face it) crap for equipment. However, when we stepped off the planes in theater, we had the works:

IBA with plates and shoulder, groin, and underarm coverage for every swinging Richard in the BN

Brand new M4s

M68 CCOc (Aimpoint 2s)

ACOGs (two or so per squad)

Re-barreled, tuned, and tested M24s for my snipers (ours were kinda old prior to deployment)

M14s for my spotters (we did have to get the optics ourselves, but a friendly local Police union bought us Leupold VXIIs and mounts, and shipped them to us, at no cost)

M109s fresh from Barrett

ACHs (the new, improved Kevlar helmets)

TAC-SAT and MBITR radios (we didn't even have enough SINCGARS prior to deployment)

New MOLLE gear everything

New cold weather gear

New sleeping bags

New individual tent systems

New boots (four pair each - two regular, one hot weather, one cold weather)

Et cetera, et cetera....

The only thing we lacked at first was uparmored HMMWVs, and this is only natural as we were a Light unit with only a handful of vehicles (none armored) on the TO&E. After about 6 weeks in country (and some major IED activity), we recieved enough uparmored HMMWVs (or at least add-on armor kits) to have 3 per line platoon - and enough kevlar and "hillbilly" kits to upgrade every vehicle we had. We also got extra M240s, M2HBs, and Mk 19s for the newly acquired vehicles. The new ones also came with FBCB2 kits (digital packages that include tactical internet, real time GPS mapping shown in the vehicle, IFF technology, and other nifty features), integrating us with everyone else on the battlefield.

There was a lot to complain about over there, but our gear issues were WAYYYYYYYYY down the list. We were VERY well taken care of. I know this wasn't the situation for all deployed units, but it was for us, and I just wanted to dispel the notion that everyone that was sent in harms way did so under-prepared and inadequately equiped.