Type III-A body armour?

[Streinger]

I'm trying to determine what class is my old body armour I used to wear during the war and still have packed in my closet. It's Belgian made Zunblindage armour, with markings 80.05.04. on the inside. I can't tell how meny layers of kevlar it has, but it's aprox. 1.5cm thick, with 6mm removable steel plates both front and back. I did some research, and from what I found, it seems to be a III-A class, capable of stopping even a stronger rifle rounds, such as 7,62x51mm NATO or 7,62x39mm Russian.

I have a pic of me wearing the armour, so I can link it here if it helps.

[RooK]

I don't believe III-A has steel plates, but provisions to use them wouldn't be out of the questions. That would raise the protection level though.

[Streinger]

@Rook, you seem to be right about that. III-A doesn't have steel plates, III does.

Scroll down and check; the description matches my body armour (30+ layers of kevlar, plus 6mm steel plates)

Ballistic protection levels

[RooK]

Yep, III does seem to match your description. I know most police officers are issued II-A, smart ones upgrade to III-A because it's the most effective you can utilize while still having good mobility. Rifle rounds (or anything exceeding 2400fps~) can still penetrate it. If level III you were issued could stop a 7.62x51, it would have my confidence.

I know someone I'm working with on making hicaps for Saiga .308 rifles said he has one of only 3 facilities in the US capable of producing some advanced body armor of a ceramic clamshell design. Seems it stops just about everything they throw at it, but some of the prototypes he has are worth about $200k. Not exactly affordable for the masses, even if mass produced.

[Arms]

Does body armour get rated on a scale from 1 to 3 or was it 1 to 5?

[Parabellum]

Yep, III does seem to match your description.  I know most police officers are issued II-A, smart ones upgrade to III-A because it's the most effective you can utilize while still having good mobility.  Rifle rounds (or anything exceeding 2400fps~) can still penetrate it.  If level III you were issued could stop a 7.62x51, it would have my confidence.

I know someone I'm working with on making hicaps for Saiga .308 rifles said he has one of only 3 facilities in the US capable of producing some advanced body armor of a ceramic clamshell design.  Seems it stops just about everything they throw at it, but some of the prototypes he has are worth about $200k.  Not exactly affordable for the masses, even if mass produced.

←

Few, if any, police officers are issued II-A anymore. Most of the officers I know are issued III-A vests.

[RooK]

Few, if any, police officers are issued II-A anymore.  Most of the officers I know are issued III-A vests.

←

Depends. Many are still issued II-A due to old equipment. Small departments (vast majority of LEOs) either can't afford to upgrade or get hand downs from state departments when they upgrade. Either way, a lot are still running around in II-A. It isn't necessarily a terrible thing, seeing as most criminals use .22-.380 sized handguns, but it's nice to have the extra protection.

I know my uncle works on banks in the security/equipment department. Whenever they upgraded materials, he usually gets to bring it home and play with it. The tests are usually administered with a 6" .44 magnum at 20ft. One day he brought home some composite square material, no idea what it was. It was in a 9x9" square and was used for teller comparment bulletproofing and was light to hold. It didn't hold up to the test. Another time he had a huge piece of laminate glass from another teller window. Memory serves it being between 1 and 2" thick. When he shot it, the stuff went flying everywhere and virtually disentigrated. It did stop a .357mag though. *Note to self: If working at a bank and being held up, don't just duck if they fire, but run at the same time.*

[Streinger]

Does body armour get rated on a scale from 1 to 3 or was it 1 to 5? 

←

@Arms, check the link in my post; it seems to be a scale from I to IV.

Either way, a lot are still running around in II-A. It isn't necessarily a terrible thing, seeing as most criminals use .22-.380 sized handguns, but it's nice to have the extra protection.

I rememeber something I saw on reality TV once, a shoot-out between LEOs and a gang of bank robbers, I think. The robbers were wearing what now seems as either level III or IV body armours. The fotage was clearly showing how the robbers were repetedly shot by LEOs (who were probably armed with 9mm Berettas and '38 or 357 revolvers), and all the bullets did was made them twich. I guess with level II-A or III-A "soft armours", the blunt trauma force would knock them down, as often depicted in action movies. That goes for the extra protection you mentioned; when protected with something designed to stop even a rifle round, a pistol round can't do much more then make you twich...

FYI, the robbers were finaly killed by precise head shots...no body armour can do much there

[pz3]

200$ for level 3 body armor here, with 2 ceramic plates

used of course, but still functional.

Edited March 6, 2005 by Prozac360

[RooK]

Be weary of buying used armor if it's pretty old. Some of the materials used (kevlar isn't the only one) deteriorate from the constant day-to-day wear and it decreases their effectivness at stopping projectiles.

[Parabellum]

Nevermind. You obviously know everything.

[RooK]

No, I don't know everything, but my family has a nice extensive LEO background and I do know the kind of equipment they're running with around my parts.

[GRT]

I guess with level II-A or III-A "soft armours", the blunt trauma force would knock them down, as often depicted in action movies.

Newtons law wouldnt make that possible. If he was to get knocked down the person shooting would have to get knocked back also.

Also the robbery your talking about really happen CNN - NHR

MP3 of it

[Arms]

Yeah thanks Streinger for reminding me , gets rated on a scale from 1 to 4. Guess i forgot.

Edited March 7, 2005 by Arms

[Parabellum]

@ Prozac: A general rule of thumb for buying used armor would be to avoid it if the armor is more than about 4 or 5 years old. Also, the kevlar panels should bend and flex very easily. If the kevlar is stiff and hard to bend, it's old. Avoid it. Whether it gets used alot or not, kevlar should be rotated out of service every 5 years or so. If you're buying it for airsoft or paintball, then the above doesn't really matter, with the exception of mobility issues.

[Streinger]

Newtons law wouldnt make that possible. If he was to get knocked down the person shooting would have to get knocked back also.

Maybe what I was trying to say didn't come across well...my fault, due to bad choice of words. I didn't try to say that 9mm or .38 slug pack enough kynetic force to actually knock a person down...I ment that trough a soft armour a person would feel enough of a punch to have the wind knock out of them, which would send an average person down...

And I realise the robbery really happened...I saw it on reality TV, it was a raw fotage filmed mostly from a news chopper...

[GRT]

Oh yea now i get what your saying.

[ARDelta]

Newtons law wouldnt make that possible. If he was to get knocked down the person shooting would have to get knocked back also.

←

Not necessarily... the "reaction" force directed to the shooter is distributed through the action/cycling of the weapon, venting of gasses out of the weapon, the back and up motion of the weapon, hands, and arms, and is further offset by the bracing of the shooters muscles. This is opposed to the target which receives the force concentrated at a single spot on the armor which distributes that force across and through the surface of the armour. The big difference between the shooter and the target in this case is that the shooter is braced and prepared to counteract and distribute any force applied to him from the shot, whereas the target is not braced and prepared.

Now I have no idea if the typical 9mm pistol round actually packs enough force to physically knock down a person as if they were pushed over or not.

[pz3]

i didnt plan on buying it.

friend was selling it

and it was 2 years old from the navy seals

[Pfarrer]

Now I have no idea if the typical 9mm pistol round actually packs enough force to physically knock down a person as if they were pushed over or not.

←

Depends on how big the person is, how close the shooter is, how the person is standing, etc.

[Streinger]

I read once that survivors saved by a bodyarmour described an impact of the slug "as if laying down, and a bowling ball was dropped on their body from 10ft high". I can understand that the impact feels like that, but wether a 9mm slug actually packs the same amount of kynetic energy as a bowling ball dropped from 10ft, I'm not sure...

[Streinger]

Ok...I did some calculation, and here are the results: A 14lbs (6,35kg) bowling ball droped from 10ft (3m) will pack aprox. 317Joules of energy.

A 7,475gram 9mm FMJ slug fired from a weapon with initial velocity of 381m/s packs a 537Joules at the muzzle, and then, depending on how far it trevels and how much it's velocity has decreased, has the following energy; 150Joules at 200m/s, 233Joules at 250m/s, 336Joules at 300m/s and finaly 457Joules at 350m/s.

To determine what's the velocity decrease ratio would take some further calculations, but I guess if the round is fired from relatively close range, the bowling ball analogy stands...

It's also safe to say that most average people would be knocked down by such an impact, although there's a number of factors to consider, like wether the person is moving or not and in what direction, the weight and strenght of the person, is the bodyarmour soft or hard etc....

[Giampi]

Ok...I did some calculation, and here are the results: A 14lbs (6,35kg) bowling ball droped from 10ft (3m) will pack aprox. 317Joules of energy.

If E=mgh where E=energy, m = mass, h=altitude, g = gravity acceleration=9.8 m/s^2

the Energy becomes = 187 J

Nothing to say for the other calculations

[Streinger]

Right...i didn't took into the account the current velocity of the ball in relation to the distance traveled (3m)...it would took the ball some 0.8 sec to travel the distance, acheeving the energy of some 205Joules...(I rounded up the gravity to 10m/sec for easier calculation...so that might explain the difference)

[Parabellum]

Look folks, it's basic science: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the projectile could actually knock someone to the ground, the shooter would also be knocked down. Quite often, people don't even realize they've been shot - especially if the weapon used is a handgun. While one could say that both the shooter and the target could be knocked down, it would be more of a psychological reaction than an issue of energy. Think about it - what's the first thing you do if you get the wind knocked out of you, or if you get hit hard and disoriented? You consciously and purposefully either sit down or fall to the ground. How many times have we read police reports where subjects were shot ten or even fifteen times, all the while continuing to advance on the officers and/or victims? How many times have we read anecdotal reports of American soldiers having to shoot enemies five or even ten times before the person eventually fell down? Unless the target suffers physiological collapse, the question of whether or not he/she hits the ground is largely one of the psychological effects of being shot at and hit.