Talk:Dragon Skin body armor/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

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[1]. As a note I found here[2] 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)

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).

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: [3] [4] [5] --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...). [[6]]
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. [[7]]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

All this has been mentioned already in previous posts. We know that Discovery channel AND History channel have tested it.Konraden88 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Headline text

A Hand Grenade is an easy stop for almost any vest my friend; window dressing for untrained viewers. The host of Future weapons wasn't doing any side by side testing, or any identification work in qualifying the rounds, so it's just a show. Doesn't mean a whole lot.

72.46.196.80

It was future Wepons not mail call

Two differen't shows. Both actually dealt with Dragon Skin. --Xylix 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the live fire videos shown on Pinnacle armor's website it is interesting to note that the .308 or M-80 Ball ammunition is being fired from a weapon that lacks the barrel length to achieve NIJ test velocities for level 3, unless the bullets have been hand loaded and checked with a calibrated chronograph. Further, the test dummy wearing the Dragon Skin unit is allowed to move freely on impact. These two variables alone will make any armor, flexible or otherwise perform better.

Irrelevant, SOV-2000 has been tested by many groups, including NIJ. The Effectiveness of SOV-2000 is not up to debate, only the effectiveness of SOV-3000 (The Level IV Dragon Skin Armor) --Xylix 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Italic textTruth in advertising is important and is never irrelevent.

If the desire for Boron Carbide plates and level 4 performance wasn't so high on the wish list of the Army, many rigid plates are capable of defeating level 3 and 3+ ammunition in the numbers of live fire hits as claimed on the Pinnacle website against some of the test rounds when tested in the identicale manner. However,we concede the point that segmented tiles that limit energy transfer througout the system will tend to perform better in the repeat hit category.

In the early 1990's Allied Signal the manufacturers of the first Spectra materials performed very well against multiple hits. They ran an entire advertising campaign showing medium to high energy handgun rounds defeated in the two panels that made up a concealable unit. It was titled "101 reason to use Spectra" The testing was performed at H.P. White for independant validation of the velocities and projectile constructions.

Med to High energy Handgun rounds are Type IIIa targets. Raw flexible vests without inserts are capable of withstanding the vast majority of these threats these days. Type IIIa is typical before inserts. --Xylix 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC) OK!

http://www.evolutionarmor.com/lams.htm

We were able to repeat this test with a Spectra vest that defeated 40 .44 magnums and over 75 9mm FMJ rounds. So defeating all the 9mm rounds after defeating 20 AK-47 rounds again is not surprising. It is however a nice demonstration that impresses the untrained eye.

Most of the 9mm ammunition was impacting ceramic rubble and/or previous bullet remains before it was able to engage the remaining backing materials that all Dragon Skin units have behind the tiles.

Also important to note that although Dragon Skin sports some impressive weights it's because they have combined the OTV and the ceramic plate into a flexible composite. The equivelant in uniform thick planular plate technology would be a stand alone plate. Level 3 stand alone plate technology is capable of matching that weight and performance so long as you don't use Boron Carbide in it's current manufacturered form. Tote Systems of Australia uses a SiC4 plate that meets level 3 performance and is quite light and thin, 4 lbs, and actually has quite good repeat hit capability. They also have a 3+ plate called the SCUD 3+ that will defeat the 7.62mm x 39 mm API at 2500 - 2600 Ft./Sec. In some of the testing it was also able to defeat the APM2 at lowered velocities again at 2500 - 2600 FT./Sec.

http://www.tote.com.au/hard_armour.htm

Flexibility and coverage seems to be the main advantage of Dragon Skin when compared to the myriad of hard plates being sold to market today. The weight benefit per Sq. Inch coverage errodes further when you compare Dragon Skin to level 3 PTE plates that usually weigh in at about 2.75 Lbs for a 10" x 12" stand alone plate and 2.5 Lbs for an upgrade plate, and the new hard armor Dyneema material will cut another 15% off those figures. These PTE plates are cheaper, lighter, and very capable of multi hit performance from both handguns and rifles. The downside to these PTE plates is they are not capable of defeating the M855 or 7.62mm x 39mm API at least at the cited weights mentioned above under strict laboratory conditions. However, if you conduct an unofficial test similar to that which Pinnacle advertises in their movie clips, the reduced velocity might make for a nice show against the previously described rounds.

Flexibity IS the point of Dragon Skin. Nothing else it has is all that impressive... with the exception of very high multi-hit resilance (against even assualt rifle threats). Current fielded plates don't stand to repeat blasts on this level. These are confirmed in multiple tests beyond Pinacles. Your continous reference to Pinacles own tests as "unmeritous" is deciteful. Review the multiple other tests as well, many of which consists of the vest over "unmoving" bodies. --Xylix 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


"We are not trying to deceive anyone, it was a reference to the actual test they did on their video, I doubt that is can be duplicated to the degree that they depict in a real laboratory at real NIJ velocities. We are not trying to say that Dragon Skin does not exhibit excellent repeat capabilities, it does, but Pinnacle armor's testing on their video shows are different than the real testing at the laboratory. The follow up with the 9mm is really just window dressing to impress untrained viewers, and we think that is deceitful, but often marketing is about just that, taking advantage of untrained buyers".

The deceit here is the implication that this has anything to do with Dragon Skin. If you wish to discuss the merit and unscientificness (with which I agree) of Pinnacle's advertisements, the discussion should be held on the wiki page of Pinnacle's. In any case, all adverstisement is about impressing the viewers. This is nothing compared to the vast majority of far more rediculous advertisements out there... (For instance, car commericals with "slicing pressure waves" formed by their awesomeness/power/speed), or "Energizer Bunnies" that never run out of power and nothing can outlast. An attempt to focus on Pinnacles "imperfections" on a set of tests only existing as a display to the uninitiated layman is disingenious to a discussion concerning the merits of the armor itself. --Xylix 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The high price of the Dragon Skin is a relic of the low manufacturing levels.

Hard plates produced in low volumes would cost 2 to 5x as much as they currently do. Consequently a true mass manufactured Dragon Skin vest would probably range from $1,500 to $2,000 a suit. In otherwords, the use of current prices in comparison to say, the Interceptor, is in error for a "large sale". Basic law of economic scale, the more you buy, the cheeper they get (per a unit that is).

"No this is a false statement, making 100 hard plates Vs. 10,000 isn't that much different, you don't pay for the tooling on the first sale, and the scale of economies argument especially doesn't apply to Dragon Skin, because even a 1000 full coverage flexible rifle vests use about 140,000 tiles. This is sufficient quantity to get volume pricing. We know this because we deal with the vendors of ceramic and titanium carbide all the time. Typically ordering even as low as 50,000 tiles for stock and inventory will give you excellent pricing". We are certain that Pinnacle has sold at least that many over 7 years. If they haven't, well thats another problem all together".

This is so flat out false that I won't honor it with a reply. Do some studying of basic economics. --Xylix 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have never manufactured these units, you do not deal with ceramic or titanium companies directly for materials and components to manufacturer armor, and you have never designed armor like this, or any newer generations, so who are you? Unless your Murray Neal in Disguise you have no credibility, and even if you were the same would be true because no company likes to let outsiders in on their component and materials pricing, and Mr. Neal clearly is trying to land the most lucrative body armor contract in history, which makes him as a source, extremely biased.

Perhaps if Pinnacle Armor reduced their prices by 1000 - 2000 dollars, which is easily accomplished compared to some of the price tags I have seen, there wouldn't be so much uproar about the Army buying more units.

The tiles and fabrics used to manufacture a full coverage level 4 unit don't add up to more than 1800.00 dollars, so why does it cost 5,000.00 dollars to buy one? If it's not greed then what? A unit priced in the 2800.00 dollar range would certainly be considered much faster. Why haven't they tried this marketing idea, Value and Performance, this is a good question. Our belief is that they really believed they could sell 100,000 units at 3500.00 dollars profit per unit. Greed is the only answer, and that's pretty sad when you consider the people these units are intended to protect.

You are ignorings costs: The cost of the facilities to build the vests, the cost of the machines to build the vests, the cost of training personal, the cost of research and development, etc... All these are shared over a relatively small number of sold "vests" (and predicted future sells). This is quite similar to how the B2 bomber costs ~$1 billion dollars a "plane" and how the F-22 raptor costs $ circa 200-300 million, where in reality, the manufacturing cost is much lower (and if a much larger volume of planes was bought costs would be 1/2 to 1/4th this amount!). In any case, I'd also point out that the 0.5 to 1.5 billion to equip the entire US force at Iraq is not only pocket change compared to the Iraq War's cost ($1000 billion), but also compared to the DoDs budget (500 billion a year). The cost really isn't that much of an issue, the DoD probably wouldn't even notice it was missing.

"we are not ignoring this, and you cannot expect to pay for all this with the first orders; these costs are recouped over time and charging this kind of money for a vest that cost less than 2000.00 dollars to manufacturer is a formula for not getting the big contracts". The defense department is not going to spend that kind of money on this kind of item, lets outfit 100,000 troops with 5,000 dollar vests, 1/2 a billion dollars Vs. 1/2 that for the current model. The military has an ominous variety and quantity of equipment to buy and maintain. Plus it still hasn't passed Artical 1 testing, and there are other systems they are reviewing".

Exactly, you DON'T PAY FOR THEM IN THE FIRST ORDERS. A designer must anticipate sells, and attempt to spread them across all sells. To do otherwise is to have a product too expensive to sell. However, a company has only limited funds, and MUST recuperate that money within a set time or go bankrupt. As such, they have to front load the costs earlier, and then lower it as they surpass a set of extremely conservative estimates. As such, if you double the anticipated sells, these added costs drop by at least 1/2, and probably by 2/3rds. Thus, the often observed greater number of sells = smaller cost. This is VERY VERY BASIC econmics.
It is silly at this point to presume that Pinnacle anticipated a massive sell to the DoD (indeed, if they did they may well be facing bankruptcy!). Further, it is unlikely that they anticipated much more than 10,000 to 30,000 vests before recovering basic costs... and is far more likely they loaded most of the costs in the first 3,000 to 10,000 vests (15 to 50 million dollars)... presuming Pinnacle even has that kind of money.
By implication, we can presume that 100,000 sells to the DoD would thus, have a large impact on pricing. How much so? It is difficult to say. However, a drop in half is likely. To be sure I'd want information from the manufacturer's and Pinnacle of the "raw cost" of actually producing the vest. Unfortunatley, that isn't available. --

Xylix 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My Friend you have assumed that it is really difficult to make Dragon Skin and takes high priced equipment and serious training to make Dragon Skin. It's actually quite easy. Once the tooling is in place and you have your design set for performance and legalities, even a 1000 units in a year at 2800 - 3000 dollars for a Full Coverage rifle resistant flexible vest is quite profitable. The profit is enough to pay for the whole thing, set up costs, R&D, training and machines with money left over son, don't believe the hype you simply don't know what your talking about, sorry!

To be honest, I'd suggest you review my discussion of Pro-vs-Cons for such a vest above. I cover most of the cost concerns vs effectiveness (and even logistical concerns, and to a degree delivery times). --Xylix 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The very first sale of Dragon Skin SOV 1000 went to a government and cost 970.00 dollars, and worked perfectly against the AK-47 mild Steel core at 2300 - 2400 Ft./Sec. Hmm.