Talk:Dragon Skin body armor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

It was future Wepons not mail call


This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. See below for more information.

Will the results of the Army retest really never be revealed? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "will probably not be released in the forseeable future"?

Contents

[edit] More information

Can someone review this news articles and incorporate it into the article? http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060420_dragon3,,00.html Also, a google search of "dragon skin" shows numerous websites touting the vast superiority of dragon skin.

I'm going to start by saying that I do not have sufficient information to sort through this topic in any detail. I'll continue by taking a tangent to suggest you sign your posts with four tildes (~), even if not logged in.
More on point, however. The validity of Defense Review has been called into question in other discussion regarding this talk page and as with many subjects the internet often proves to be a greater source of rumor and echoed sentiment than legitimate information. That said, this article is a source refuting Masters' arguments and stating it has the qualification and information to do so unequivocally.. blah. Darker Dreams 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It really doesn't matter

The copper encased subcaliber tungsten-carbide projectiles in 7.62x39 penetrate 19mm RHA from 75 meters and 7.62x54R penetrates 25mm RHA from 100 meters, they are in manufacture in Hungary since 2003. You cannot stop that with body armour, not even ceramics.

There is no magic bullet out there, trust me. There is always a catch, even with depleted uranium or tungsten munition. TestPilot 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it can stop a 12 gauge,steel,tungsten,or DU round fired out of a smoothbore or rifled shotgun. I also wonder what a lead slug would do. Still,it sounds like a great vest. Dudtz 11/8/06 7:53 PM EST

All of the tests of Dragonskin have been preformed with low- to medium-power handgun or assault rifle ammunition. Dragonskin has been proven able to resist 9mm pistol ammunition, which is universally recognized as a low powered handgun ammunition (at least when compared to .45 ACP, .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum, and other, commonly available "hot" loads). Likewise, although Dragonskin has demonstrated resistance to assault rifle ammunition, including 5.56mm NATO and the 7.62mm short rounds used in Soviet Kalashkinov weapons, it has not demonstrated imperviousness to "full powered" rifle ammunition, such as 7.62mm NATO/ .30-06 Winchester ammunition. Assault rifle ammunition, by nature, is smaller and lighter than "true" rifle ammunition - less "hard hitting". Based on this characteristic, a sniper using "full powered" hunting ammunition of at least comparable power to 7.62mm NATO/ .30-06 Winchester would not be inconvenienced by Dragonskin protective gear. The reader can well imagine the results of Dragonskin encountering available, powerful loads, such as .454 Casull, .50 Action Express, or .50 S&W Magnum handgun ammunition, or .460 Weatherby or .50 Browning Machine Gun rifle ammunition. Grenade tests are meaningless, since the force of the explosion is not concentrated on a point, as would be the case with a bullet impact, so assigning Dragonskin impact resistance traits based on the ability to withstand grenade blasts is pointless. -- 07:52, 8 February 2007 by 24.66.186.214

Uh, no. It is highly apparent that you lack the willingness to read, or the ability to retain. Further, the presented argument is fallacy based upon deeming a supposed lack of tests as supporting a view that has no evidence for it whatsoever.
  • Dragonskin passed NIJ III: That means it can stop all Type III expectations, and you can bet they'll test the limit (9.6 grams at 840 m/s), which is roughly 7.62x51 NATO.
  • The December 2006 'did test 7.62x51 NATO rounds, they did not penetrate.
  • Armor protection is not a magical "Works" or "Useless", rounds that are even beyond the capability of the armor can and will be stopped. They may not however, be stopped by a margin that they can be safely deemed non lethal, merely less lethal.
  • .454 Cassul, .50 Action Express and other large pistols are not part of any testing regime. Given the stats on these guns almost all of them are likely to be stopped by Type III armor, and potentially quite easily at that. They have relatively poor penetrative charateristics due to spreading the energy and momentum over a relatively caliber. More to the point, almost all of these guns nearly exclusively use JHP rounds, and may be surviable in mere IIIa, though I wouldn't recommend trying it.
  • No body armor provides protection against the .50 Browning. Duh! Nor does any body armor provide protection from the 25mm Bushmaster cannon, nor from 120mm APFSDS.
I fail to understand what, if any, point you are presenting. Further, what you do present seems nothing more than a deluded attempt to undermine truth based on nothing more than "fancy words" and a "distortion of truth". --Xylix 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinnacle Armor Seems to be Editing This Article

An edit was made on Sept 1st by someone with the IP Address: 66.17.42.30 this reverts via traceroute to a customer of arrival.net, which is a downstream of alter.net. Arrival.net only services the California area, where Pinnacle Armor is located. The website pinnaclearmor.com is also a customer of arrival.net, downstream of alter.net The edit was to take out comments made about the retest by one of the testers. This is a pretty big coincidence if you ask me... -- 24.118.89.238 4 Sept, 2006

[edit] 24.118.89.238 is a disgrace to Wikipedia

You've got a lot of courage, big man. logging in anonymously and constantly harassing me and defacing this site. What makes you think that your OPINION, that for some reason Pinnacle Armor should be portrayed in the most pointlessly negative possible fashion is more valid that the FACTS that I am posting. I am well aware of the reason you will not sign into an account in wikipedia, its because you know that this type of harassment you are imposing on this page would result in a ban. I'm guessing you are a teenager right? because no educated adult would act in this petty manner. Wikipedia is NOT a random blog for you to post your opinion, it is supposed to be a user contributed encyclopedia. The bottom line is this: Pinnacle Armor produces a life-saving product that is PROVEN far superior to not only what the military is currently giving our troops, but superior to most any other armor produced today. You don't have to agree with that, but still, the fact remains. So unless you are some sort of muslim extremist, pinko commie, or just hate America in general, get your facts straight and f**k off. --Matts31415

In wiki's own words: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

I am the original creator of this article. Matts3145, the fact is that what you are putting in the article is not true, and this is an easily verifiable fact. Pinnacle's first press release in fact did not say "there were no failures, recalls or banning of the armor." Read the press release here. So why do you want this article to say the press release said that? I propose we put in the article exactly what the press release said: that they "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."
...
The Washington Post article said nothing about "contract specs" (again, read it yourself here) so why do you want the article to say it did? I propose we put in the article exactly what the Washington Post (and about 100 other newspapers that day) said: that Dragon skin "failed" the retest. And the Washington Post article said nothing about their source being unverified, so unless you have proof it was unverified I wouldn't be adding it.
...
Everything in this article is easily verifiable. I don't get why you want to change the article to say that Pinnacle's press release said things it didn't say and have the Washington Post's article saying things it didn't say. I propose we put in the article exactly what was said by these sources. And I wouldn't call people commies just because they don't want to hide the fact that Dragon Skin failed the tests, it was the U.S. Govt that tested it and decided it wasn't good enough for the Army and Marine Corps. Heck, one of the govt testers even said they recommend it to insurgents. I guess he hates America. Please refrain from calling people a disgrace to Wikipedia and calling people cowards when the only use you've had for your Matts31415 ID has been editing this article and this article only. Admin, could you tell us if Matt's ISP is arrival.net (the same as Pinnacle's ISP)?-- Fromos 16 Jan, 2006
  • First, can we please be civil?
  • Second, by definition, the section under discussion is a controversial issue (I didn't know it was that hotly contested though).
  • Third; obviously the references exist online. Can someone simply attempt to collect the appropriate citations and what they say, without editorials, as a prelude to creating a consensus version when protection is lifted?
Darker Dreams 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, what proof do you have of the army supposed tests??? The army is not who tests these vests, it is a branch of the Department of Defense called the NIJ. The NIJ has now tested the vests and has given them their official approval. Don't believe me? Just check the link in the reference section, there is the official letter from the NIJ stating those facts. The problem we are having with this page is this: For quite some time, there were certain individuals high up in the Army and Government, that for whatever reason (probably something to do with lobbyists), were leaking extremely slanderous and false statements about Dragon Skin vests. Just because someone said these things, does NOT make them FACT. So now, because you heard something on TV or whatever, (and tv is always true, right?) you believe this propaganda to be fact, and are constantly defacing this page with that false info. Furthermore, newspapers will often quote things that people say. does this make them fact, or opinion? in this case, i can tell you that it is opinion, or at best, ignorance in believing anything that comes out of gov't official's mouths. So unless wikipedia has become some sort of platform for spreading the propaganda of corrupt officials of our government, or for perpetuating uninformed opinions, then i propose you let my version of this page remain. Oh,and maybe if i traceroute back to your ip, i find out it is the same ISP as a competitor of Pinnacle Armor trying to make Pinnacle Armor look bad? User:Matts31415 Jan 17, 2007
Matt, what proof do you have that that Army's claims and Washington Post's sources are incorrect? There's isn't any hard evidence either way, which is what makes the dispute somewhat controversial. Until the proof is available, we have to put in the article what these sources are saying. We have to put in the article exactly what the Army said, we have to put in the article exactly what the Washington Post said, we have to put in the article exactly Karl Masters said, and we have to put in the article exactly what Pinnacle said. Altering what they said to suit an agenda is simply unacceptable. The article isn't making any claims either way, it's just stating what the authorities have said. And Darker Dreams, this topic isn't as controversial as Matt has made it out to be. It's pretty well accepted they failed the tests and were deemed not suitable to replace Interceptor. If you'll notice there is no public outcry over it. The NIJ haven't approved it for Level IV threats or worse, which is what the military was testing it against. The only people having the outcry is Pinnacle, who obviously has something at stake over it. The references are collected, reread my previous post (the only you replied to). User:Fromos 17 Jan, 2007
I'm replying to an older version of the page because 24.118.89.238 went through and edited within User:Fromos' reply. Regardless of the reason that seems like Bad Form, and I'm choosing to ignore it.
There has been a public outcry, which is how this article came to my attention. It sounded something like (this is a paraphrased version of something a friend of mine who is in the army said) "several agencies, including the president's protection detail use this armor, but we give our troops armor that brakes if used in strange conditions, like a knee-high fall." That piqued my interest, comments from public officials and civilians led me to take enough of an interest to do some research. (I often start research at Wikipedia, partially so I can try to end by improving Wikipedia.) I'm not saying that it's the sort of hue and cry that arises when, say, a million people are displaced within the US without adequate federal response, but there is/was/has been a cry.
That said, part of Pinnacle's complaint about the test is that it wasn't completed[1] and I've seen elsewhere accusations that Masters' "day job" is working for Interceptor (I believe this was in an article that is/was linked from this article)- all of which are serious accusations, if confirmable, liable, if not, and only belong in the article if cited. Regardless, if it is that settled then why do the agencies listed, including in-field generals, use this product instead of Intercepter- an item this article states as (cited) fact?
Mainly, I'd like to see civility and the addition of citations instead of simply back and forth reverts. I asked for citations because it seemed like a place to start building a consensus- it should be easy to figure out what others have said, and from there we can build a consensus to what the sides of the argument are and, theoretically, a basis for demonstrating it aside from the use of vulgarity, namecalling, and blanket dismissals. Darker Dreams 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Fromos is 24.118.89.238. Public outcry? Where? Google News tracks 4,500 newspapers worldwide. Here's a list of stories that have appeared in the press about Dragon Skin in the last 3 months. There are exactly zero news stories that have talked about Dragon Skin in the past three months. Doesn't look like any type of outcry to me. In fact nobody's even written about this brand of body armor since they failed the retest the military gave it. Before the retest I believed Pinnacle was a great vest myself, which is why I created this article. Then it became very evident that it just didn't stack up to the Interceptor, and Pinnacle wouldn't even comment about the retest for a month. You can't always believe the hype. Had one of the testers not trashed it on a message board they probably would never had even disputed the retest. The generals probably don't even wear Dragon Skin anymore now that it's settled. If you still believe it is superior then fine, the military disagrees with you but you are entitled to that opinion. Just don't edit the article to put words in people's mouths and make it look like they said things they didn't say. User:Fromos --17 Jan, 2007
Just a brief reply to Formos's above comment: as of January 22nd, there are now two references to Dragon Skin armor.] Granted, one is a reference to the Discovery Channel show "Futureweapons," but I felt it would be useful to alert you to this. NehpestTheFirst 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't keept track of the issue, there was more of a conflict when I first watchlisted the article. Simply because its fallen from the news (which, generally, doesn't care about subjects for which there is no new movement) doesn't mean that the conflict has been resolved. Before the Iraq war there were big chunks of time that the mideast wasn't in the news... The other side is that the retest is, apparently, classified- which means that all we have is hype on both sides (unprofessional behavior on a message board v unprofessional press release- sterling reccomendation for either side). If you can find a citation that there are no longer generals in-field wearing the vest, or other agencies which have discarded its use, I would like to see that.
You have made the mistake of assuming that I have an opinion regarding the value of Dragonskin- my opinion in entirely thus; it's cool, if it functions as advertised. Now, can someone show me facts? Darker Dreams 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why in the hell someone classify body armour test results?

They afraid insurgents will read reports and adjust angle of small firearms attacks against troops? TestPilot 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...yes? A more cynical explanation might be that the armor underperformed, but the government still wanted to order them (collusion), without having to face press scrutiny about efficiency. --Eyrian 05:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinly veiled listing of Pinnacle's bitch list RE: DOD testing

This Wiki page is a disgrace. There is nothing objective or unbiased about anything written here and I say this as a huge DragonSkin fan. If Wiki cannot police itself better than this it is not a credible source of information about anything.

This page is not about DragonSkin at all. It is about the unfair way Pinnacle Armor's product was tested and the author is just grinding an axe. It is pathetic beyond description to find this sort of thing in what purports to be an Encyclopedia.

I think if Pinnacle were aware of this page THEY would ask for its destruction. No good can come from airing a list of bitches from one side only. This page has zero credibility and will likely injure Pinnacle.

Solidpoint

I've taken a shot at the page, and done what I can to eliminate the most egregious NPOV. Is there anything else still wrong with it? I'm not particularly familiar with the issues surrounding this armor, so I'd like some expert input. --Eyrian 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Eyrian, Thanks, I got your message an hour ago and will give this a good read over the next day or two. Right now I am knee deep in ballistics tables trying to estimate the BC of the 5.8x42 Chinese assault rifle cartridge so I can wrap up the comparative assault rifle cartridge graphs for the 6.5 Grendel site. Just glancing at this page it looks like you have done some good work here. We have a member on the 65Grendel.com site who is on the NIJ advisory pannel so I have a great 1st hand source for resolving any issues. Sorry for the delay, but I just have too many irons in the fire right now. Thanks again for your efforts.

Solidpoint

[edit] Please use SI instead of the obsolete and inferior imperial units

Could some brave soul translate the inferior metrics used in this article to something readable, to facilitate understanding by non USAians? 130.232.134.251 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. And take a look at WP:CIVIL, while you're at it. --Eyrian 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As per the link you posted for the conventions of units and measurement, the SI units SHOULD be included in the article, if not replace the inferior and obsolete imperial units completely. And I am not being offensive btw, merely stating what is the truth and the fact. 130.232.134.251 19:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to add them, but I read translate as "replace". As an article about a U.S. Product, it's more than appropriate to use imperial units.
Civility is more than just whether you're correct, it's very much about how you say it. You're being needlessly confrontational.
As an aside, there are legitimate uses for imperial units. Certainly, scientific applications demand metric units. But for a variety of small-scale engineering applications, it's very useful to have units that are neatly divisible by three and four. --Eyrian 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned by the use of SI vs Imperial units (Being British, I use both of them), but the article also uses 'silver dollars' as a measurement of size, which I can't accept as being remotely scientific! It's also a bit confusing; I'm not familiar with silver dollars, but the linked Wikipedia page claims that they're about an inch in diameter, whereas further down in this article, it claims the discs in the Dragon Skin armour are around two inches in diameter, having just claimed that they are the size of a silver dollar. Which is it? TimTim 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"According to Defense Review [3] it now appears " Defense Review is shady, they have pages on there of an armor system for apc's, people, helicopters, etc. that cause the object to completely dissapear in the visible and IR spectrum. When you look at the images they are photoshopped up. Its laughable at best... And a full protective system for an APC is in the $30,000 range, completely laughable lol... Lets make your apc completly invisible to the human eye for 30k, all i need is seed money to get my project started, k ;-)...

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=876

yeah, Defense review seems to be in cahoots with Pinnacle armor. Defense review wrote some of the first internet articles ever made on Dragon Skin, and in those articles are many images and technical information that only could have came from Pinnacle itself. When the Army said Dragon skin failed their tests, a little while afterwards Defense review said they saw the official classified results and that they did not fail and were superior to Interceptor (information they only could have gotten from Pinnacle). Defense review published Pinnacle's press releases. Defense Review defended Dragon skin on the message board Karl Masters criticised Dragon Skin on (and Defense Review proved they had some false info on the Interceptor armor in the process, info that it appeared Pinnacle had been feeding them). And Defense review announced Dragon skin had finally met NIJ Level III certification (a long time after Pinnacle had been improperly labelling it as certified, BTW). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.89.238 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Pinnacle Armor

I've created the Pinnacle Armor article; if anyone here knows anything else that belongs there, I encourage you to add it. --Eyrian 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contract Specs?

It seems Pinnacle's editing this to confuse "failed the test" with "not failing contract specs". In the first test Pinnacle had a dispute with the Army over, the Army specifically said the Dragon Skin vest "failed" the test. Pinnacle said the vests stopped everything they were rated for and could've stopped even higher rated projectiles if one wasn't run over by a truck twice [2], but they never did deny the fact that the vests failed against the higher projectiles they were tested against and not rated for.

Somebody's editing this article to make it look like Pinnacle put out a press release after the first test saying the vests didn't fail and there were no banning or recalls of the armor, this simply wasn't what the press release said. Read the press release [3], it talks about not failing "contract specs" instead of not failing the test (which they claimed in press interviews that the test went far beyond their contract spec), the press release admits to vests being returned over a manufacturing issue, and says nothing over "no banning" (in fact there were reports the Army ordered troops to shed their Dragon Skin vests and warned they were withdrawing life insurance payments for anyone wearing Dragon Skin [4].)


Also, the Washington Post's exact words were that the Dragon Skin vests "failed" the second test. In fact their story was titled "Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests." Now why is someone editing this article to say the Washington Post article stated the vests had "not met a specification" instead of failed? Nowhere in the article does it was anything about specifications. Someone also added that the Washington Post's source was anonymous an unconfirmed, and while the WP did say in their article their source was anonymous because the results hadn't been released yet it did not say anything about their source being unconfirmed. In fact a highly respected new organization such as the Washington Post doesn't write such strong worded article without confirming their sources because they can face intense scrutiny and lawsuits. The article also said "A request for comment from Murray Neal, Pinnacle Armor's chief executive, was not immediately returned." It took Pinnacle over three weeks to comment on the tests and only did so in response to one of the testers badmouthing Dragon Skin on an online message board.

I'm correcting this article to show the exact words used, not what Pinnacle wants to come on here and change this article to say (yes, read the IP addresses in the history, a couple come straight from Pinnacle and the offendig edits are done by someone who quickly created a name and used it for editing this article only) -- 24.118.89.238 December 20, 2006

Does failure of 'contract specs' neccesarily denote failure of the ballistic tests? -Toptomcat 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You can fail a ballistics test but still meet your contract specs. The Army says Dragon skin failed their ballistics test, which tested against Level IV threats (and other various durability requirements), but of course the Dragon Skin armor they were testing was only contracted to meet Level III threats. In a war zone you will primarily face AK-47s which are level IV threats.
The problem here is Pinnacle (Matts31415) doesn't want this article to reveal that they did in fact fail the Army's ballistics tests, they want to talk about contract specs instead. What makes this wrong is Army and Washington Post's article said nothing about contract specs when they said Dragon skin failed their tests, yet Pinacle wants this article to read like they did and have the article putting words in their mouths and misquoting them to Pinnacle's benefit.
In fact the only place contract specs have been mentioned was in Pinnacle's first press release (read it here: [5], but Pinnacle doesn't want this article to say so. They also want to take out the part of the article that shows they admitted to taking back vests due to a manufacturing issue, and they want it to say there was no banning of the armor (which isn't exactly true). You'll notice Matts31415 won't be commenting about his deliberate vandalism on the discussion page here. The fact is tests showed Interceptor body armor to be superior, Pinnacle may dispute it but the article should reflect that.--24.118.89.238 Jan 15, 2007

The specs on the AK-47 do not indicate a Type IV threat.

Type III
(Rifles)		 This armor protects against 7.62 mm Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets (U.S. Military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6 g (148 gr) at a reference velocity of 847 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA].
Type IV
(Armor Piercing Rifle)		 This armor protects against .30 caliber armor piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. Military designation M2 AP), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr) at a reference velocity of 878 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].

AK-47 round Specifications

  • Round length: 55.80 mm (2.197 in)
  • Case length: 38.65 mm (1.522 in)
  • Rim diameter: 11.30 mm (0.445 in)
  • Bullet diameter: 7.90 mm (0.311 in)
  • Bullet weight: 7.97 g (123 gr)
  • Nominal charge: 1.60 g; SSNF 50 powder (24.7 gr)
  • Muzzle velocity: 710 m/s (2330 ft/s)
  • Muzzle energy: 2,010 J (1482 ft/lb)


It clearly falls into the Type III threat in both mass and velocity, and thus energy.

A minor point but still. Jcforge 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(Not a quibble, an agreement) Yep, FMJ AK-47 rounds, and even the 7.62mm NATO rounds [6](more powerful) fall under Type III armor protections. However, I'd add that Armor Piercing rounds of the same type are another matter entirely. Type IV however, specifically details that it must stop AP rounds (heavier and faster ones too!). 7.62x39mm API rounds not are strictly Type III weapons, though I wouldn't be surprise if Type III offered some protection against these bullets, they are enough lower in energy as compared to their 7.62x51mm NATO cousins.
As a side note, I've run across accounts of Dragon Skin stopping 7.62x39mm API rounds. --Xylix 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channels Testing on Dragon Skin

Episode 2 of Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel displays the true power of Dragon Skin
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/episodes/episode-schedule.html Watch. -- 65.11.12.249 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It stopped EVERYTHING, including a grenade.

Incredible stuff. I find it really suspicious that the Army classifies its test and then says Dragonskin failed those tests. Really suspicious.

Well, would this be added to the article then? 151.188.16.17 12:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above link provides only a listing that the program talks about dragonskin, not what it says or any other information. Perhaps something little more substantial and informative is in order? Darker Dreams 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I watched that too.

I heard that bullets hit with much more force than grenade shrapnel. My understanding is that shrapnel tears where as bullets first penetrate then tear when they break apart.24.83.178.11 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

Depends. Shrapnel typically has a lower velocity than a bullet, that is why there is no real risk of a guy getting killed 50 or 100 meters from a grenade, where as rifles can be deadly at much longer ranges. However, shrapnel can be larger in terms of mass, and can present a more effective cutting surface (depending on its nature). More importantly, at a point blank range, the sheer mass of the shrapnel is far and of in excess of that of most bullets. As a comparison genades carry enough HE, if I recall correctly, to deliver circa 700 Kj of energy, nearly 40x that of a 5.56mm round. Basically, a point blank grenade blast ranks high on the list of nastiness. It is however, impossible to equate this destruction to actual bullet resistence. The future weapons guy was really just having fun. (I, for one, had wanted to see him pull out one of those .50 caliber sniper rifles! Stop that Dragon skin!) --Xylix 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, I saw it too. Very impressive, at least for me. However, I went to the Discover Channel fansite message board and read that quite a few people saw a hole in the armor after it was shot, and Mack (the host) tried to cover it up because they try to show everything on that show in the best light possible: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6951990268/m/1361980078 Here are some of the posts:

  • "Why would you test a piece of equipment and then not show all the results (good and bad). You could clearly see the vest was shot close to the edge and a large hole was made, when the host came to inspect for damage he tried to hide the hole with his hand and kept covering the damage with different camera shots, This is what ruins trust with viewers. The vest would still have been incredible without the cover-up. why decive the viewers?"
  • "Grenades shouldn't penetrate. They are in no way armor piercing. They are just low mass fragment moving at high speeds. As for stopping round that penetrate light car armor, SAPI plates do that. They stop several rounds of M80 ball. We haven't gone to dragon skin, because for some reason they did not meet all of the army's requirements. Unfortunantly these tests are secret, so we don't know what they failed or why."
  • "First of all, yes I saw it too. After Mack shoots the back of the vest with 7.62 then 5.56 then 9mm, both guys (Mack and the creator) walk to the vest, then Mack says he wants to rip the vest. The tear is under the armpit, almost right at the corner where the back and the side meet." --Fromos 24 Feb 2007
Interesting accusation, can they provide any actual evidence to these claims? Because without evidence I'm afraid I can't view the statement of "some random guy" as having any truth value. (Seeding forums with good/bad statements to trumpet their product or "damage" anothers is a common tactic by companies these days... that, and most people are idiots) It shouldn't be that hard to produce a quality "expanded" jpeg highlighting the penetration. If it is the case, yes, Mack shouldn't have hidden it. However the named location would have been at the Kevlar anyway, no vest would have stopped a rifle shot in that area (Type three protection is only on the panels, like every other armor). --Xylix 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno who would be trying to discredit Dragon Skin, seems to me most people really want to see a significant advancement in body armor technology. I know I certainly do!!! But if something doesn't live up to the hype, people are going to be disappointed and annoyed. I'm pretty interested in that new tungsten disuflide material ApNano is making, supposed to be twice as strong as today's body armor material. -- Fromos 24 Feb 2007
Every other body armor producer faces the prospect of significant loss of market (as in, their entire market) if Dragon Scale performs as advertised. It might not seem that way now, but consider this: Prices fall with production, while Dragon skin costs 4-5x as much now, given mass production of a hundred thousand+ suits, prices may fall to only 10 to 30% higher than current body armor, all advances in materials apply equally to all body armor designs. That is, current armors will never "catch up" and Dragon Scale will cease to be more expensive while offering obvious advantages (increased mobility, comfort, resiliance, and even it seems, weight.) In the long run, it is an unbeatable product, and Pinnacle has the patent. Theres more than a billion dollars up for grabs on this issue. --Xylix 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Pinnacle has much more to lose at the prospect of a failing Dragon Skin product than it's competitors have to lose with a succeeding Dragon Skin product. Which is why we see evidence of Pinnacle armor manipulating the Wikipedia entry. There are American soldiers out there paying thousands of dollars for a hyped up vest that the military has tested and found inferior to their standard issued one. They were even wearing vests that said they were NIJ certified when in fact they were not until just recently (and they still aren't Level IV certified like the interceptor). The military found it so stressing that they ordered their troops to remove this inferior vest or their life insurance benfits will not be paid out. And they have no motive to reject Dragon Skin, they've got a budget of 400 billion dollars and want the best armor for the troops just like we do. If Pinnacle makes such good body armor, why haven't they bidded for the Interceptor contract like Ceradyne has? Fromos 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Pinnacle doesn't have the same resources to lie cheat and steal. Its always the biggest company that, when dying, makes the biggest mess going down.
As for you, Fomos, I really don't care about the personal bone you are grinding with Pinnacle. I understand skeptisism, but that isn't what you are displaying. Personally, I have yet to hear of a case of a single soldier complaining about shoddy quality in their own personal Dragon Skin vest. On the other hand, the US Army had to return well over ten thousand interceptors because they didn't meet ballistic requirements and accepted many others because they needed the vests at the time... and those are only the ones spotted. That, to me, says all I really need to hear. Now, I agree, Pinnacle has been involved in several poor, and unsavory business practices, such as implying that it is NIJ certified (They never claimed such, they claimed they met NIJ standards... a subtle differance). While that certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and casts doubt on their words, it is heavily mitated by the fact that they were in fact, telling the truth.
In any case, given that the military had already accepted Interceptor vests that don't meet ballistic standards, I fail to see why they'd make soldiers shed dragon skin (even if it did fail), in favor of another armor that has not only also failed, but is heavier, more cumborsome, and is in many ways still more likely to kill the soldier. The whole affair smacks of bueacratic games. Case and point, the life insurance costs are such small change to the army (3000 * 400k over several years = 1.2 billion, or 0.1% of estimated total military costs) compared to all the junk they are currently wasting money on as to be trival. Plus, the US army took a beat down on poor armoring of troops only two years ago, can you imagine the political flack the pentagon and the white house would take right now (much less six to nine months ago before mid-term elections!) if it was found out that the pentagon still hadn't armored the troops as well as possible? The Democrats would probably have 10 more seats and we might be seeing impeachment processions. The US military, and the commander and cheif has huge motivations to make Dragonskin look bad, because if dragonskin doesn't look bad then the media would start asking why all our soldiers are not wearing it. In otherwords, they don't pass they smell test as an unbiased entity.
Fortunately, the truth should be made apparent in the end. Eventually SOV-3000 will fail or pass NIJ IV standards, and the whole debate will be solved. If it passes, then we know the US Army study to be led by a bunch of liars, if it fails they the US Army study group might have been telling to the truth, but frankly, they still showed themselves to be untrustworthy by the way they've dealt with this matter. --Xylix 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking over the video on youtube I do believe I spotted the so called "bullet hole". It is on the far edge of the material (on right side of the screen before the kevlar stitching, after he puts all the bullets into the back), I can't tell if there was actual penetration, just a disruption on the front surface (like all the others it wasn't visible from the other side). It was though, very far from the main plates. It didn't appear to me that Mack was making any special effort to hide the hole, if he was he should be fired for the patheticness of his attempt. More to the point, his hands were in the same places as with previous removals. If anything Mack should be ashamed of his shoddy aim.  ;) --Xylix 19:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
just watched the video, for my first and second time. First, he said "I'm going to rip this thing off," he lays the armor down and his hands don't remain in one place long enough to hide anything. He then says he will "fire everything he can lay his hands on," narrates this, then (without saying anything about taking it down) pulls the vest off. The vest clearly has several disruptions on the outer surface- one of which his finger finds when he holds it up for the camera (dispite it being clearly visible in two other shots used immediately adjacent to him "hiding" it)- however, when showing the inner surface he again moves his hands across the surface, making it difficult to claim any part is particularly "hidden." I'll buy that there' an attempt to hidde penetration when someone shows me a still that the film doesn't show the penetration clearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darker Dreams (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] links for more information

listing of personal armor/ratings

can't find easy comparison on the Pinnacle site right off (similar IDs for order, but I couldn't right off find what the difference between sov2000 and sov3000 is...), but I saw this link on the web discussion with Karl Masters badmouthing the armor[7]. As a note I found here[8] the comment about Masters'association with the Interceptor.
blah. - this is such a mess of he-said-they-said I don't know what's what. all the sites with specs are .orgs or .coms (including the manufacturer who, of course, is one of those who's integrity is in question). I'd like to see a .gov with real information, of course then I'd need someone to translate it. Darker Dreams 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Chainmail

Minor gripe on the initial paragraph -- the pattern of ceramic scales resembles scale armor, but is not at all similar to chain mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.15.117 (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Diamond is Hard NOT Strong

Ok, to whoever wrote that "The discs are composed of an advanced ceramic composite (with a strength only second to diamond)". Diamond is not very strong. It is very HARD. It is a totally different property. As a matter of fact diamond can be "broken" easily with a hammer due to a property called sheering. The reference to strength should be changed to hardness. 24.83.178.11 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

Actually, Diamond is extremely "strong". Diamond has both very high compressive strength (one of the highest on earth), and very high tensile strength (Diamond fiber was once considered for a space elevator until carbon nanotubes came along). What diamond is not is very tough. Diamond's toughness is "merely" average to good. It is worth noting however, as stones and cermics go Diamond is still fairly high up the toughness list. I'd also point out that various forms of diamond are extremely tough as well... due to a lack of sheer planes. However, in comparison to its other rediculous traits diamond possesses toughness simply isn't impressive.
As such, the use of "strength" is proper. Further, the material "compressive/sheer strength" is very directly applicable to bullet resistance, where as hardness is of much lesser importance. Finally, it is quite likely that these cermics are "tough" like diamond, because ceramic aren't exactly tough either.  ;) --Xylix 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that when the term "strong" is spoken in every day language, the most similar physical property being refered to is that of "stiffness" (Young's modulus).24.83.178.11 11:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
Definitely not. While "strong" as a term is usually very contextual, and tends to be "multi-spectrum", it almost never refers to "stiffness" -- at least not in laymens terms! A "strong rope", is certainly not a "stiff rope". If there is any particular "aspect" that strength is associated with its "lifting", "pushing", or "pulling" force that can be produced or sustained. E.g. A strong man, is a man that can lift a lot of weight.
In any case, according to Young's_modulus, Diamond rates ~1 TPa (Insanely high). I'd also point out that the "stiffiness" refered to in Young's modulus is not at all the same as stiffness as generally understood by the laymen. --Xylix 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Xylix, I don't think you are the authority on how the word "strong" is used in every day life. That being said, I agree that it is a contextually "multi-spectrum" in its every day use. I think the biggest argument against your case is your own example. How many people talk about ropes or rope-like objects in every day life? Most of the objects we are surrounded by are defenitely not rope-like. As for the "strong man" example, we are discussing objects, not people.
If anything, your second paragraph is an argument to clerify what "(with a strength only second to diamond)" actually means. It is definately too general a statement.24.83.178.11 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
I'd hate to remind you, KnowledgeSeeker, that you are not an authority on what "strength" generally means either. For that, it is best to consult a dictionary. Additionally I have yet to see you provide a single point supporting your "claims", merely a questioning of the "strength" of my own. In the fight of "no support" vs "little support", little support wins. Your oppinons as thus offered, can be considered worthless.
In anycase, both of our oppinions are irrelevant. The peice of information in question has no citation backing it up. As such, we can neither justify any change in wording, as we don't know what specific kind of strength was meant, nor can we verify whether or not this claim is even accurate in the first place. As of now our choices are: Remove, or Maintain. Now if you feel a need to discuss "removal" that is another matter. I think it would be best though, at this time, simply to mark the sentence (or information segment) with a "citation needed" and give someone a chance to fill it in. --Xylix 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Xylix, since of the two points of "support" you provided one is ludicrous while the other has nothing to do with what we are discussing, I think that its fair to consider that your opinion is also worthless. Perhaps if you were to take your own advice and actually look up the word "strong" in a dictionary you could easily quell any objections you have to my "claims".
As for whether or not the uncited claim needs to be removed, I agree that the best course of action is to tag the sentence with "citatione needed" as if it turns out to be true, it would be a relevant and interesting fact.24.83.178.11 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
In engineering, when one is discussing strength of materials, it is generally referencing "yield strength" (the stress a given material is capable of withstanding before deforming permanently) or "ultimate strength" (the highest possible stress a material can take before fracturing) , but not stiffness (Young's Modulus), which is merely the slope of the stress/strain graph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC).Drewery 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We were not discussing the term in engineering but rather its use in everyday life. If you were to read the whole discussion, you'd see that we came to a mutual conclusion.24.83.178.11 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
The only mutual conclusion I gather from this discussion is that a reference is needed (which I agree with as well). I was responding to the claim that Young's modulus is the main criteria one uses for defining a "high-strength" material, and it is not- either in engineering, or from a layman's perspective. E (young's modulus) predicts the deflection of a material under a given load, but it does not predict the maximum load a material can take before failure (unless you're dealing with a compressive load on a thin column, where deflection causes buckling), which is what I believe a layman to define as a "strong" material. To put it another way, if you had a sugar-cube-sized piece of material that didn't deform at all when you loaded it with one kilogram, but yet completely shattered when you placed 2 kilograms on it, would you consider it a "strong" material? Such a hypothetical material would have an infinite E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).Drewery 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You've got one of the conclusions right. You should read the whole discussion through though before posting. The second conclusion is that neither of us (as well as yourself, from what i read) can be considered the "authority" on what "layman terms" are. Looking the word up in a dictionary is the conclusion (as suggested by Xylix, and accepted by myself) we reached. As for your example, it is an extreme case. Any material showing a high "E" I would think that in layman terms could be considered strong. Again, I am no authority on what "layman terms" are so looking the word up in a dictionary is the obvious conclusion.24.83.178.11 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
How about bulk glass (i.e, window glass)? The Modulus of Elasticity for glass is higher than that of aluminum alloy, similar to titanium, and on the same order of magnitude as steel. Would a layman consider glass to have similar "strength" to those other three metals? It would definitely give new meaning to the term "glass jaw". . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC).Drewery 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think that a "layman" looks at things from his own point of view. Bulk glass is obviously not strong. Like you said though, E does not predict the maximum stiffness of the material under a progressively increasing load. I will give you that SCIENTIFICALLY it is not a measure for strength. Personally I think that to a "layman" it depends on how the material is expected to function when its used. If a shelf bends under the weight of an object, would you say that it is a strong shelf? Your argument TOTALLY holds water from a scientific point of view but to the average guy who buys stuff at the local hardware store, bending is not a good thing I would think. At least that is the way I see things.24.83.178.11 11:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
"Any material showing a high "E" I would think that in layman terms could be considered strong."24.83.178.11 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
I stand corrected. I will change my claim from "Any material" to "Most materials" (items that bend when they shouldn't are not still strong from a "layman" POV IMO).24.83.178.11 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
You're correct, E is an important component of "material strength." For body armor, it does you no good if you have a high compressive/tensile strength, but your E is so low that the vest needs to deflect a foot before stopping the bullet. The Modulus of Elasticity (slope of the stress/strain curve) just needs to be considered along with compressive/tensile strength (highest point on the stress/strain curve) and the toughness (area under the stress/strain curve), as Xylix pointed out. Drewery 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I thought I'd just point out we know what it is made of now Silicon Carbide. Here is a link to some the the mechanical properties of this material: [9] [10] [11] --Xylix 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's very relevant to the topic at hand, but while diamonds are the hardest natural substance on earth they are also very brittle. Like Knowledgeseeker said, a blunt force to a diamond in the wrong spot can easily chip, crack, or split the diamond. In fact back in the old days that's how they used to cut diamonds. --User:Fromos 21 February 2007

We've already covered that, and BTW, diamond is not brittle. It's toughness, a measure of brittleness, is fair to good, a high rating as stones go. Now, some diamonds are brittle, typically those with large inclusions, or those that have undergone certain "enhancement" treatments. Some gemcuts can also increase the brittleness of a diamond... all three combined can result in a diamond that is down right frail. However, make no mistake, breaking a diamond is hardly "easy" (it is not super difficult either...). [[12]]
I'd also point out that a blunt force can break virtually anything, the question is only "how much force". As a comparison, Diamond has a fracture toughness around 3.4 MPa, concrete runs from 0.2 to 1.4; making diamond 2-15x times tougher than concrete. It is also about 4-5x as tough as glass. [[13]]. In otherwords, if someone ever did find a big old brick of diamond (or one was manufactured) you'd need a sledge hammer to break it... and it might take quite a few swings. --Xylix 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Let's get a picture in here? Maybe : http://www.defensereview.com/stories/pinnaclearmor/Pinnacle%20Armor%20Dragon%20Skin%20Test_1.jpg

>FrozenFood< 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tests of the SOV-3000

It seems to me that the SOV-2000 Dragon skin vest has been tested to death. There are no less than 5 independent confirmations of it's capability (including NIJ certification)... 6 if you add the FutureWeapons coverage of the vest. As such, any debate on the effectiveness of the SOV-2000 seems, well, silly.

However, the SOV-3000 currently currently has only one listed test of functionality, that by the U.S. Army. My question is:

  1. Is there any independent tests of the SOV-3000 as of now?
  2. Should we rewrite the article to imply that the legitimate question of quality likely applies only to the SOV-3000 -- which failed the army's test, not the SOV-2000 -- which has been repeatedly confirmed?

It seems to me that this would more accurately reflect real knowledge, and focus the debate of quality more closely to the model that specific failed. It is afterall, entirely possible that the SOV-2000 model works fine, but the SOV-3000 for any number of reasons does not.

As a side: It'd be nice to see some differing stats on the two models of vests. Such as weights and cost. --Xylix 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dragon skin too expensive for dubious advantages

I don’t understand the problem. There is a controversy about the effectiness of the Dragon Skin vest. But even if it meets the same protection level as the IBA there are no real advantages. It is only 1 ¼ kg lighter than an IBA with side plates. So why should the army buy this vest? In my eyes the dragon skin must also have some shortcomings because it is not issued in any military; even in those where new protective vests are issued. The Marine Corps gets its MTV with SAPI plates, the Royal Army and Marines also use ceramic plates in their new body armor and the German Army just got its new “Splitterschutzweste” with plates, too. I personally think that the high price of the dragon skin isn’t worth its "advantages" even if it reaches the claimed protection level. Hans-Jager 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of arguments on various sides. For one, while the weight isn't signficantly different the fact Dragon skin is flexible improves greatly how the weight is carried. In terms of "comfort" and "encumberance" this means Dragon skin will feel lighter. Much like how on a cold day a 20 mph wind might make it feel much colder. Unfortunately, there is no way to categorize this differance, but it is unquestionably signficant. Indeed, many soldiers are refusing, and have refused in the past, to wear armor plates or plate upgrades for comfort reasons alone. It is potentially especially beneficial for female soldiers, for whom their anatomy isn't well made for simple flat plates. Given that reduced mobility is seen by many troops as paramount for the inability to stop insurgents, anything that increases this agility is highly desirable. Dragonskin would do this.
Additionally, Dragonskin appears to have a "durability" that is, the ability to survive multiple round impacts much better than current armor. Normal plates can fail after a single bullet, and especially after 2 or 3. Which means, after the first shot the soldier is wearing what is essentially level III-a armor, which is easily penetrated by military rifle rounds. Since a soldier can get shot far more than once in a single encounter, this improves survivability. Also, given the cost of the plates, this potentially reduces cost differential. If you include a two plate replacements (front and back) with each interceptor vest the price jumps by circa $700. In this sense, interceptor vests falsely appear cheaper than they actually are. Finally, less replaced plates reduces logistical burden on the military.
There is also the legitimate argument that Dragonskins price might fall to 25% to 50% of current pricing if the military bought it in mass. Using current prices as a gauge will thus, create a false sense of competativeness.
Alternatively, there are reasons not to buy the vests. The first is that replacing all existing armor would cost circa 150 to 500 million, plus shipping costs, plus spares (+20% to 50%). It'd also take a few years (3 to 5) for manufacturing to grow large enough to provide that many vests. On top of that, the army will need a number of replacement vests for when the vests are damaged (and they will be). There is also political considerations, such is how the army's replacement of its armor would look, and the fact that the interceptor vest itself isn't all that old.
Additionally, Interceptor vests are more easily "fixable". To restore and interceptor vest the SAPI plate just has to be replaced. With Dragonskin it appears that the entire vest will probably need to be changed out whole sale. This means that logistics would be complicated with the delivery of the vests. They'd need to worry about having enough "Smalls, Mediums, Larges, Extra-larges" etc... There is also questions about how much of a differance the Dragon Skin vests will make. Only 3000 soldiers have died in Iraq as of today, and only a tiny fraction of those died to wounds which Dragonskin would have any arguable effect upon. With a price tag of 180 to 750 million (additonal costs), it needs to save 450 to 1900 soldiers to be "worth it" from a monetary stand point. It is unlikely that Dragonskin would be "worth" the cost in the insurance/vest raw number trade off. Admittedly, this reduces the value of human lives to the raw insurance costs, but there is truth to the issue.
Finally, the army could be hedging its bet that it'll be 10+ years after Iraq before it gets into another major war. Given the possibility of even better armors on the horizon: Soft-Hard reactive armors, carbon nanotube weaves, artifical muscle agumented, and even more advanced cermaics -- engineered synthetic diamond, etc... In which case, the Dragon skin might see little or no use military use, especially when the time factor for delivery to the soldiers is accounted for.
Honestly, I'm not sure from a military logistical sense that Dragonskin is worth it. My opinon as a citizen though, is a very different story. --Xylix 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Weapons

The host of Future Weapons personally tested the Dragon Skin with multiple types of guns, including an M4, an AK-47 with AP rounds equipped, and then placed a grenade directly underneath the armor, with every result the same: no penetration. The host was shooting point blank at the armor, and it seems that this armor is impenetrable, finally doing the job that it seems almost every other type of body armor can't do.

>FrozenFood< 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/a/Talk%7EDragon_Skin_body_armor_8228.html"