Also, there is the question, inconvenient though it is, of whether or not Pinnacle, with a mere 30 employees, can produce anywhere near enough for the Army, Marines and also Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force personnel who would need them in Iraq..

to the reports it failed in army testing I would like to point out this video

The Dragon Skin became the subject of controversy with the U.S. Army over testing it against its Interceptor body armor. The Army claimed Pinnacle's body armor was not proven to be effective and that some failed an Air Force test and were recalled.

On December 20, 2006, Pinnacle Armor received the official letter from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) that they've passed the Level III tests, and that Dragon Skin SOV-2000 is now certified for Level III protection

that video I linked to was not just some online promotional video. it is a segment of a show called future weapons.

On June 6th, 2006 in comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain. I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Skin - don't. I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120F. I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..."

The Army will start fielding a new protective vest this month that weighs less, covers more and fits better than the bulky body armor soldiers wrestle with today.

Reacting to complaints from the battlefield, Army equipment officials last summer set out to redesign the current Interceptor vest to create one easier to maneuver in while carrying heavy combat loads.

.....

To address soldiers’ complaints, Army equipment officials had soldiers test several body armor designs from different companies in August 2006 at Fort Benning, Ga.

The Army chose six vest designs from 17 separate vendor candidates and let soldiers evaluate them against the Interceptor vest.

The Army came to it's current producer, who it has a multimillion dollar contract with, to oversee the testing, and the results are still classified. The wording he used to describe the armor "I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..." ... sounds a bit biased to me. It would be like the government going to coke and saying "hey how does pepsi taste".

It sounds like this was just a rigged test to silence the critics.

"We take this personally," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, executive officer for the Army's armor testing program. "One third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or daughter either in theater (at war) today or (who) has been to theater."

Holding up an armor-piercing bullet, Brown showed video of the tests, including footage of officials peering into the bullet hole in the Dragon Skin armor. "At the end of the day, this one disc has to stop this round. It didn't. Thirteen times," he said.

*snip*

In some of those cases, families were considering buying Dragon Skin armor because they believed it would provide better protection. The Army Monday said it was releasing the test details to help prevent families from spending money on body armor that is not as good as the protection already issued to the soldiers.

Brown described "catastrophic failures" by the Dragon Skin armor, and said that in 13 of 48 shots, lethal armor-piercing rounds either shattered the discs that make up the armor, or completely penetrated the vest.

*snip*

Brown added that the armor failed to endure required temperatures shifts — from minus 20 degrees to 120 above zero — which weakened the adhesive holding the discs together. And he said that the Dragon Skin's heavy weight was also a problem for soldiers who need to carry a lot of gear.

The Dragon Skin, he said, weighs 47.5 pounds, compared to the Army-issued Interceptor armor, which weighs 28 pounds.

After watching Gen Brown, and the rebuttal by dragon skin- I believe a disinterested and unbiased third party for testing is in order. Too much politics in this one.

considering the stories about how the troops armor doesn't always protect from. there is a reletively new and seemingly indestructable. It's called dragon skin. on future weapons, to demonstrate how tough it is they fired 30 7.62x39 warsaw round, 30 5.56x45 nato, and 30 9 mm from an MP5.

source

now, consider that generals use this, and some families have bought some for their sons and daughters.
but it's not good enough for US soldiers

question for debate:

should US soldiers be given this body armor, even if it is more expensive?

why should generals get to wear this (non GI) armor when the BOB (boots on the ground) are given interceptor (GI) body armor?

Mrs P- I watched the NBC version- that being said- the army has a long history of NOT getting the best items for the troops- and even ignoring data that goes against thier own conclusions- when I was in- it was boots. My foot had some nerve damage due to the old style combat boots- they had study after study showing that those boots put thousands of troops "on profile"- I don't know if it is the same now- but you always had a fairly large percentage of troops walking around in tennis shoes and the rest of thier normal uniform from damage from running in those boots.

When a superior boot came along, it didn't need to be shined. The boot was nixee by a high ranking general because "shining the boots is an army tradition and it would hurt espirit de corp because the boot couldn't be shined".

The army, air force etc have had boon doggle after rip off of the tax payer through the ages- it could be well intentioned bias, or outright corruption, who knows? But, the military HAS NOT been the best poeple to make the final choices, and sometimes they have been the best as well-

But no, in the end, I would not trust the general before an outside, non-biased third party. There is just too much room for mistakes, influence by mega corporations etc.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

*snip*

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You're going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

There are only two labs that are National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified to run NIJ body armor tests. They are the HP White Laboratory in Street, MD and US Test Labs in Wichita, KS. A third lab, Chesapeake Testing in Chase, MD, is under NIJ review for certification. Additional military facilities certify body armor performance for DoD. NBC does not own one of them, nor does NBC appear to be pursuing a scientific approach at a licensed facility. A proper test would require over two dozen SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests to be placed on a human torso model and shot by specific threat rounds at a standard range and impact velocity, from specific angles and impact points, and under a variety of contamination and environmental conditions that soldiers might face in combat. Fresh off the manufacturing line ESAPI would be shot for comparison, if further certification or validation (already awarded to the ESAPI) was needed.

Was the “Interceptor” ESAPI armor NBC tested government issued or procured independently? The markings on the armor seen in the video are unfamiliar and they appear to be independently procured non-issue plates from non-standard or non-qualified vendors. Wouldn’t a fair test use the fresh issue ESAPI plates, like the Pinnacle armor provided? Are the alleged ESAPIs NBC tested fresh and certified current production? Did they come from Pinnacle or a surplus store dumpster? There are six qualified vendors that have passed ESAPI first article protocol. The vendors deny providing plates to NBC. And none of them are Canadian.

*snip*

The Army conducted tests of both types of armor at the HP White test lab, the NIJ certified facility for testing body armor, in accordance with the required protocol for scientific testing. Where was the NBC test conducted? What were the protocols? What threats did the DS stop that the ESAPI did not? The Army used multiple environmental protocols designed to duplicate the different climates our soldiers serve under. Again, what protocols did NBC employ? If the user is sitting at a desk, clean and dry in a Forward Operating Base (FOB), as tested by NBC, the DS probably works fine. If the wearer has to go outside and deal with the weather, sweat, contamination, etc., according to the May 2006 test, it isn't going to stop Jack, half of the time (four out of eight vests failed in certified testing). Furthermore, a size extra large Dragon Skin weighs 47.5 pounds (vs. 28 pounds for the equivalent fitting OTV with ESAPI and ESBI side plates) for 743 sq. in. (vs. 720 for the Interceptor with ESAPI) of total coverage. With Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), rifle protection is the sum of the areas of the front and rear plates and the 2 side plates. The Pinnacle Dragon Skin armor does provide more rifle coverage, as long as it is climate controlled and not shot much, but at a significant weight penalty. I am sure that if I wanted to carry additional plates to equalize the weights, the ESAPI could have done even better.

Gary K. Roberts, DDS, Commander, US Naval Reserve is also cited as conducting a test of the DS armor. While he is a Navy dentist, and an alleged ammo expert, I am unsure how he has become a scientific tester of body armor, or what his official role is. He seems to be interested in environmental testing of body armor, but does not appear to be familiar enough with Military Standard (MIL STD) 810E/810F to understand the ESAPI test protocol. The Armored Mobility Inc. (AMI) armor used as a control in his test is not a military issued plate. He is also quoted on the Pinnacle web site. What was his involvement? Was his a sanctioned Navy test? If so, it failed to follow DoD or NIJ protocols. Was he testing on behalf of Pinnacle? Was he compensated for his testing? Who sponsored it? Unless Dr. Roberts, DDS is able to substantiate his testing as meeting the HP White and NIJ standards for body armor testing, I would have to discount the validity of this test as a basis for comparison with military or NIJ certification of the armor.

*snip*

There is a one-time failure policy in the test business for Resistance to Penetration (RTP) tests. Because an actual failure during use may be a death sentence. First shot complete penetrations are NOT allowed in the ESAPI RTP tests. These are considered catastrophic failures, resulting in automatic failure of the First Article Test (FAT). Ballistic limit (V50) tests are looking for 3 partials and 3 completes at the worst case shot location-a single disc area of coverage. The SOV 3000 failed RTP tests 50% of the time, as opposed to the issue ESAPI failing 0% of the time, at twenty pounds less weight. Not sure what kind of odds you like, but if it is my torso inside the vest, I would rather be lighter, faster and better protected over the cool guy factor, especially when it hits over 150 degrees in the back of the vehicle.

General Downing’s comments after observing the tests, even as an employee of NBC, were still non-committal. Perhaps he is aware of the protocol for testing body armor, and NBC’s compliance with that protocol, or lack thereof. Or perhaps not. He was a Ranger and a commander, after all, not a procurement officer.

I finally have more than two minutes to spare,so I'll weigh in some more on DragonSkin. I have no problem with additional, independent testing. But I think that after the years of buying $900.00 hammers, and the experiences of CR and myself a couple of decades ago, the American public labors under a general impression that anything the military procures is garbage and only lines the pockets of the defense industry.
Way back when I was a young underpaid private, the gear we were issued was substandard even for that time. Having grew up hiking and on a Search & Rescue team, I knew what good gear was, and spent my own money on Gortex and other quality equipment. Lately, the Army has entered the 20th century, and I haven't had to buy much of my own stuff. With projects like the Rapid Fielding Initiative, we are now issued items that I will use for hiking when I retire.
As I stated before, Interceptor Body Army is being replaced by a newer, lighter OTV that covers more body area than the current style, and weighs less. It has a quick release for emergency situations, and incorporates armor that is currently externally affixed to the vest.
Judging by the test results thus far, I really don't understand the clamor for DragonSkin, based on the wounds received by the majority of troops in Iraq. I cannot fathom how a DragonSkin vest would protect much more than the current OTV, even if the hype was realized. It certainly would not have helped in the majority of cases that I have seen.
As far as taxpayer boondoggles go, I'm all for saving even one life, but Mrs P is correct.........the 'every vehicle armored in Iraq' plan was indeed a waste of money. The last rocket attack in the Green Zone injured somebody in a shower trailer. Do we armor those now? In fact, my FOB gets rocketed or mortared nearly everyday, and not once has somebody been hit while driving a vehicle on the FOB. So where does the line get drawn, for taking sorely needed money out of one pot, and placing it into another?

that video I linked to was not just some online promotional video. it is a segment of a show called future weapons.

I would like to point out this article from military.com. also, from wikipedia

Pinnacle Armor put out a press release that that stated Dragon Skin "did not fail any written contract specifications with the Air Force" although it admitted they did "return the vests to Pinnacle following testing ... to address a manufacturing issue, but that issue did not affect the vests' performance during testing." Defense Review said they saw the test results and that they exceeded that of the Army's Interceptor vest

I do think the army would rig the tests as the are already deeply invested in interceptor body armor. also kind of convienient the results of the armies tests are classified. According to Allan D. Bain, the inventor of DragonSkin, the armor failed because it did not observe "the Article One testing environmental conditioning protocol, which calls for the armor to withstand 165 degrees F for 6 hours," thus the adhesive failed. btw it rarely get's over 120-130 in even the hottest places

so the armor it's self didn't pass it was the glue holding the armor carrier (the actual vest) that failed.



kinda odd too how private security agencies do use dragon skin and on has actually saved someone ( source article

horyok, even level 4 wouldn't protect you against a car bomb. the way to fight IEDs is give our troops better vehicles (30 new trucks are to be deployed) and the absolute BEST body armor. if there is a problem with the glue we should work on it and make it better. obviously the glues on the interceptor works, It just doesn't
have the stopping power dragon skin seems to. but we are going to buy from the lowest bidder, so I quess we're stuck with the cheaper armor