# Dragon Skin Body Armor By Pinnacle Armor



## msteen1 (Jan 1, 2007)

SOV™ Flexible Body Armor "Moves when you Move"

Developments in body armor over the last thirty years are numerous, but very few actually have revolutionized the industry. The last two major developments were the introduction of Kevlar and Spectra products which significantly lowered weights compared to ballistic nylon. Now, Pinnacle Armor presents a revolutionary technology called *DRAGON SKIN*®, the first practical, _FLEXIBLE BODY ARMOR_ that defeats rifle rounds.
Pinnacle Armor was founded by a noted inventor and author in the field of ballistic armor, Murray Neal. Mr. Neal has relied on his combined expertise of ballistic sciences and field experience to jointly achieve a quantum leap in technology-the first flexible body armor that defeats rifle fire. Now you can wear armor that flexes and molds to the contours of your body and allows for greater coverage than a rigid 10" x 12" plate which is the typical coverage offered in current technology.
SOV™ flexible armor is completely fabricated in the USA for American Special Forces, Police Tactical Teams and approved foreign militaries.
Unmatched in its capabilities, the SOV™ flexible body armor system offers the following features in Level III, IV & V body armor: 

*Ballistic Capability*
_MIL-STD SOV-2000™_The MIL-STD SOV-2000™ Level III flexible body armor system will defeat the following rifle rounds that normally fall into the Level IV category and all lesser threats.
7.62 x 39 mm 122 GR, steel case mild steel core: 2300 - 2400 fps.
5.56 x 45 mm 65 GR, M855 (SS109 Green tip): 3200 - 3300 fps.
Additionally, the SOV™ - D.O.D. 2000 flexible Level III system exceeds the MIL-P-46593A fragmentation requirements around the high power rifle defeating areas.​


_MIL-STD SOV-3000™_The MIL-STD SOV-3000™ Level IV & V flexible body armor system will defeat the rifle rounds listed on our ballistic chart in those threat categories.​Additionally, the SOV-3000™ flexible Level IV & V systems exceed the MIL-P-46593A fragmentation requirements around the high power rifle defeating areas​
*Flexibility*The only Level III ballistic vests that are flexible enough to wrap around the whole torso area that "move when you move". No more restricted movements when rappelling, fast roping, diving, entry work, sky diving or other rigorous activities. These vests wear like level III-A soft body armor.​
*Lightweight*The lightest overt tactical and only covert concealable vests offering this type of protection and coverage.​
*Coverage Options*The only Level III ballistic vests that offer a minimum of 44% more coverage from our standard combined front and rear rifle protection than two standard 10" X 12" tactical plates. Full torso wrap coverage is available.​
*Nominal thickness*The SOV-2000™ is the thinnest multiple repeat hit vest on the market and is from .796" to .858" in total nominal thickness.​
*Diving Capable*The only Level III ballistic vests that are offered in a positive, negative or neutrally buoyant configuration. Two waterproofing configurations are utilized: an extremely durable and highly wear resistant sealing for the overt tactical vest, and a lighter durable, wear resistant sealing for the covert concealed vest.​
7 Min Vid but I think its worth its weight in gold after seeing it.
[youtube]DQPGDFdkDlw[/youtube]


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jan 2, 2007)

Keep in mind that the govt recently ran tests on the armor and I believe it didnt pass the required military specifications, and I am pretty sure they said military members couldn't wear it in the sandbox until it did. Unless of course it passed and I didnt know it.

Who knows, maybe they have re-tested it since this..........


Experimental flexible armor fails Army testing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12876952/from/ET/
WASHINGTON - The Army’s struggle to find a new, more flexible body armor was dealt a setback Friday when high-tech vests called Dragon Skin failed to pass military testing, a senior defense official said.
After three days of testing this week, the Army determined the body armor does not meet military specifications, said the official, who would not specify which tests the armor failed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the results have not yet been released.
The Army paid about $170,000 to buy 30 sets of the armor for the testing.
Generally, during testing, various types of ammunition are fired at the vests, and the armor also may be subjected to extreme temperatures or environmental conditions. The tests were done by H.P. White, an independent ballistic testing lab in Street, Md.
The Army has expressed great interest in getting more flexible body armor. A principal complaint about the armor used by troops on the battlefield is that it is so heavy and inflexible it might lessen a soldier’s speed and agility. The current armor includes heavy ceramic plates in the front, back and sides.
The Dragon Skin testing was delayed initially by a dispute over testing conditions between the Army and Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif., which makes the protective gear known as Dragon Skin.
Earlier this week, the Army announced it would carry out three days of testing, which signaled the dispute’s resolution. A request for comment from Murray Neal, Pinnacle Armor’s chief executive officer, was not immediately returned.
Neal previously has contended that his armor is high quality, and its “capabilities have been proven to be significant improvements over the current Army issue.”
He said he has nine years of ballistic data, both classified and unclassified, that show the armor taking over 40 rounds of ammunition from an AK-47, then another 150 rounds from a submachine gun, all at close range, without a failure.
_© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed._


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jan 2, 2007)

Some background into the whole thing on wiki, very interesting read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor


----------



## EATIII (Jan 2, 2007)

so as of 20 Dec it has it's level III rating,Is the Army going to retest? or will
they? or will they need to?


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jan 2, 2007)

I'd guess that since it failed their last level 3 testing, they'd probably retest it. That is , if they are willing to shell out another 170g's


----------



## EATIII (Jan 2, 2007)

If I remember correctly the did the test because it wasn't rated at all,If they will do another test, and I owned the co I would give them the vests!


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jan 2, 2007)

yeah so would I


----------



## EATIII (Jan 2, 2007)

Man that would be sweet to cut the weight of those plates by 1/2, and have better protection!


----------



## milspecmonkey (Jan 2, 2007)

Defense review has been keeping track of the shenanigans too.
I think this is the latest? : "Dragon Skin Flexible Body Armor Officially Receives NIJ Level III Certification"
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=963

Do a search for pinnacle or dragon skin and the other articles will come up.
From looking at the past articles it looked like some serious internal Army conspiracy crap with the investors of Interceptor armor holding back dragon skin with no full explanations.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 2, 2007)

Based on some info I've gotten from one of the people involved in the last test, it doesn't look good for DragonSkin - unless they've fixed a lot of issues with the plate carrier and the plates/stacks themselves.  It'd be great if the guys in the sandbox could get lighter armor, but until it's proved out as fully Level III, or LevelIV - the current stuff works, and is proven.  DS failed a couple of the tests miserably, I don't want defective armor on my brothers in arms. Fix it, get it right, get it to the guys.


----------



## 03Gunner31 (Jan 28, 2007)

That's awesome!

Anyone know if it's approved for use in combat, yet?

Considering it has been approved for use in combat, will Leathernecks get it at the same time as the other services?


----------



## Gypsy (May 20, 2007)

Some of you here probably still remember The Reaper...and perhaps visit over at PS.com. Thought some of you would like to read his observations as it relates to Dragon Skin. 

This is posted with their permission.


Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth 

My opinion on the Army testing of Dragon Skin http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...00121may07.pdf and the NBC "testing" of body armor http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18771902/ 

Hope you find it informative, feel free to share.

TR

***************

Dragon Skin?

There may be something better called Dragon Skin, but better than what?

Bottom line up front. From 16-19 May 2006, in Department of Defense (DoD) test protocols at HP White Labs, Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests suffered 13 first or second shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI) threat baseline 7.62 x 63mm M2 Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition. The Project Manager (PM) Soldier Equipment Briefing report is on line and is easily available. 

I say again, of eight Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin (DS) vests tested for V0 penetration, four of them failed, and 13 of 48 rounds fired for record were complete penetrations. Of these, significant first shot failures were noted when the DS vests were exposed to diesel fuel, a serious concern since almost all of our vehicles use this fuel and between spillage during refueling and the potential for saturation after an IED attack on US convoys, vests can easily be contaminated with fuels. A first shot complete penetration was also observed after a DS vest was drop tested. Anyone who has served understands that a 48 pound vest is going to get dropped, dragged, and abused a LOT in a combat zone, even during normal patrolling and movement. Finally, and most significantly, the vest cannot be exposed to heat. With solar loads regularly generating vehicle interior temperatures well in excess of 150 degrees, the DS vest disks delaminate themselves and fall to the bottom of the vest, effectively reducing the armor protection to nearly nothing. All panels shot after high temperature exposure failed in the first shot. This is unacceptable and is hardly a characteristic I would look for in a product to replace the current proven ESAPI in conjunction with the Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts (ESBI).

According to the X-Rays in the Army report, all hits were in protected areas with full disk coverage. Also easily seen in the X-Rays is the complete failure of the vests adhesive to retain the disks in place during extreme hot and cold weather testing.

NBC also neglected to mention the weight penalty of the Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests, which can weigh up to 47.5 pounds or 20 pounds more than the Interceptor vest with ESAPI and ESBI. They appear to have tested the armor, flat, which favors the flexible Pinnacle armor. And they tested it at room temperature only, which means, I suppose, that if you are a soldier who never leaves the office, say, at NBC headquarters, the Dragon Skin may work well for you. If you, however, actually have to go outside, well, you may not want to throw away the Interceptor with the ESAPI quite yet. 

The Pinnacle SOV 3000 vests tested were purchased and manufactured the same month that the Army PM test was conducted. They were tested under the ESAPI Purchase Description for front and rear, and ESBI Purchase Description for left and right side. All tests were conducted with 7.62 x 63mm 166 grain M2 AP projectiles stripped from Government Issue complete rounds and hand loaded for each shot by HP White Lab personnel. These rounds were loaded to a specific velocity (+ or – 25 fps) known to replicate the most common threat AP ammunition. In scientific testing, 27%, or more than one in four of these rounds went completely through the armor and into the target. Are you sure you want to suit up a loved one in this stuff?

Strangely, in their investigative reporting seeking to prove the superiority of the Dragon Skin armor over Interceptor with ESAPI, NBC did not appear to use actual ESAPI and ESBI plates for the comparison. Instead, they seem to have shot some other armor that Jim Magee provided and that he stated ““This is what the soldiers and Marines are wearing.” In fact, it may not be. So much for journalistic integrity.

Did the Army really ban the armor last year and issue a Safety Of Use Message (SOUM) even before formally testing it?

Not exactly. Army personnel witnessed a May 2004 test of DS in SAPI plate configuration where the Dragon Skin vests failed catastrophically. Nevin Rupert, Murray Neal, and Chief Scientist Dr. James Zheng were all on the range watching that day. I believe that Mr. Neal stopped the test early due to catastrophic failures of the Dragon Skin. There were also Army, AF, and USMC observed and reported failures of the DS armor in ballistic testing prior to the release of the Army Safety of Use Message in March 2006. The Dragon Skin armor design has a history of failure. Look at the Army PM report.

Would NBC allow soldiers to wear prayer beads and paper party hats as armor until the Army formally tested it and issued a soldier safety release?

Some people may think that Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down, or that it is better than the Interceptor. Seemingly credible people also believe that they have seen UFOs, and that Elvis lives. That does not make it true.

The SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests are too heavy, prone to failure under threat fire, and unreliable in extreme temps. I am not sure what role James Magee, Colonel, USMC (Ret.), the former President of Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. has in this, but there may be motives here that are currently unknown. I would be hesitant taking people’s own word for their expertise, especially given his position at Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT). His claim that he is the “inventor” of Interceptor body armor seems like a bit of a stretch as well, since people who have been on the Army body armor program since the late '90s do not recognize his name. 

More stopping power and more coverage? Not exactly. In the Army tests, which cost the taxpayers over $250,000 just last year, stopping power of the Dragon Skin was questionable, as was the ability of the armor to maintain ballistic integrity in high temperatures typical of the AOR. More rifle coverage and less ballistic integrity for 20 lbs. of extra weight? Hmm, not sure I like that trade-off. The GAO seemed satisfied with the Army and Marine ESAPI programs as well in their report as of 26 April 2007. 

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may, or may not have bought Dragon Skin for elite operatives in Iraq. I don’t have access to that information, but the CIA is not subject to US Army procurement policies or regulations. Ask them why they bought it, how it worked for them, and if they are still procuring it for their personnel.

Mr. Nevin Rupert now calls himself a whistleblower. He says the Army’s timing wasn’t coincidental. He claims that their loyalty is to their organization and maintaining funds. Rupert believes he was recently fired by the Army, he says, for supporting Dragon Skin.

There are plenty of disgruntled employees in every organization. I suspect that Mr. Rupert was relieved for cause. As a Federal employee, he cannot be terminated without good reason. I am sure that he would prefer that the details not be discussed, but I believe that his termination may have had to do with other matters than some dark conspiracy. He can open his employee files to the media if he really wants to.

Rupert also says he was ordered not to attend the May 2006 tests of Dragon Skin. If he was not able to be an impartial tester and finder of facts, as his job required, then what role was he to have played at the test? It would appear that the performance of the armor would speak for itself. And it did. It failed miserably, especially at temperature extremes, when most of the armor disks delaminated themselves and fell into a nice belt at the bottom of the vest. Not much protection down there, but I am sure they made a nice jingling sound as they were moved around.

As far as the officers and scientists involved in the testing, what interest would Army officers from combat arms have in supporting a lesser technology armor? Because it wasn’t invented by the Army? They don’t hold stock or care what the source of the armor is, just that it works. Do you really think that would put their brothers' lives at risk over some sort of parochial turf war? And their own as well, when they get issued the gear on their next deployment? I am sure that they would much rather be back in a unit rather than stuck in an office job pushing papers. I know I would.

(continued)


----------



## Gypsy (May 20, 2007)

*Part II*

I am not sure how things work in the news industry, but does Lisa Myers know everything her staff does or brings with them to shoots? Is she responsible for endorsing everything they do? Do they occasionally deviate from her guidance? Should we follow them with a camera and see?

Does she review and approve their expense accounts for company equipment? Can she provide a list of every item her crew carries, and the source of those items? Does her driver have clean underwear? Is she responsible for knowing that level of detail? Why should the general be?

NBC News claims to have commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor vest. According to them, Dragon Skin outperformed the Army’s body armor in stopping the most lethal threats.

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.

NBC has not yet mentioned what model Dragon Skin was shot. Apples have to be compared to apples. You can wear armor that will stop .50 BMG, but you will not be mobile in it. I can test a stock appearing Ford Mustang that has twice the rated horsepower too, but it doesn’t mean the one you buy will perform like it does.

What was their sample size? Did they shoot up 30 SOV 3000s or ESAPIs?

Where did they shoot it? From the video, it appears to be on a flat surface. Do you see a lot of soldiers shaped like doors? Is there a problem with testing it on a torso shaped platform, replicating the soldier that NBC is so concerned about? Did they test single and multiple round impacts on all four impact faces of the vests?

What weapon, projectile, and impact velocity did NBC use? There is only one Army performance standard for ESAPI body armor testing. Was it the prescribed threat level for testing that is required in the acquisition documents? Are we counting on the enemy firing only a single round at the Pinnacle SOV 3000 level IV Dragon Skin vest? What happens if he has plenty of ammo that day and shoots twice?

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.

The alleged NIJ test that Pinnacle refers to on their web site did not follow the DoD armor test protocol either. NIJ certification tests do not include high temperature, low temperature, or temperature shock conditioning tests. NIJ test conditioning is limited to water spray, all done at ambient conditions. NIJ is looking at adopting temperature cycling and accelerated aging in the new revision, NIJ Standard 0101.05, to be published, but this test was not conducted to the Army standard, so for Army procurement, it is irrelevant. I have heard that law enforcement units who have the Pinnacle armor use one set for training, and keep another locked away in climate control for actual call-outs. Maybe they are aware of this problem as well.

Incidentally, it would appear that Pinnacle continues to have additional legal problems with the government, as the investigators continue probing them for their fraudulent NIJ certification claim problem. 

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.

(continued)


----------



## Gypsy (May 20, 2007)

*Part III*

So these independent, limited tests by NBC raise questions about the Army’s claims?

It would appear that Pinnacle already has some serious credibility issues, including claims posted on their web site. For example, despite Pinnacle's claim, US Army Special Forces Command, which equips all US Special Forces, has never heard of Pinnacle, much less purchased armor from them.

Why does NBC not speak with the purported father of flexible armor, Mr. Allan D. Bain, whose web site http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm states: 

“The fact is most of Pinnacle Armor's systems were invented by Allan D. Bain formally of Armor Technology Corp. Pinnacle Armor started manufacturing after we educated Mr. Neal how to make armor by contract executed in October of 2000 that was fair and honestly fulfilled. Pinnacle Armor and Mr. Neal never manufactured any body armor prior to this date. So if you hear about Pinnacle Armor or the "Dragon Skin" armor being manufactured since 1995 your talking about armor that Pinnacle Armor never made or developed. In fact Murray Neal was a sales representative for Armor Technology from 1997 - October of 2000 a company owned entirely by Allan D. Bain, the true inventor of Dragon Skin."

"There are quite a few reasons, and if you have read the Pinnacle Armor propaganda you will hear about tales of fraud, sabotage, and protection of the good old boy network as it relates to The "Interceptor Vest". I can tell you as someone who works with the military on this kind of endeavor there are a lot of reasons why this armor hasn't been universally adopted and the reasons above are basically false. The truth is Pinnacle Armor received clearance to forward samples to the Army and was paid 170,000 dollars, and that was after they were paid almost a 1,000,000.00 dollars to develop the armor from where we left off after we sold patent rights to Pinnacle Armor in October of 2000." 

"The major flaw was not observing the Article One testing environmental conditioning protocol, which calls for the armor to withstand 165 degrees F for 6 hours. After five years of development and having the protocol in hand you would figure that the adhesive used to affix the tiles to the high strength fabric would be of the high temperature variety, it wasn't, and because of that these vests failed. OOPS!" 

Essentially, the inventor of Dragon Skin freely admits that the current manufacturers of the armor are aware that it cannot handle temperature extremes without falling apart, and pretty much ripped the government off last time. Did NBC look into that?

Critics told NBC they’d like to see the Army re-test and re-evaluate Dragon Skin, so why not retest the DS vest now? Because it is too heavy, and not reliably bullet resistant. Warfighters want lighter and flexible, not heavier and flexible. What if Pinnacle has changed the adhesive? Will Pinnacle be recalling Dragon Skin armor with substandard adhesive manufactured before the Army discovered this shortfall? Well, I would hope so, after a free FAT test at taxpayer expense. All other vendors pay for the FAT if they fail, Army pays if they pass. Would Murray Neal like to donate another 30 vests for destructive testing? Even so, the Army may retest, at a cost of many more tax dollars since the Pinnacle vests are several thousand dollars each. At the end of it, will there be an expose by NBC on how the Army wastes our tax dollars retesting failed body armor? Why is NBC promoting this failed technology? What is their agenda?

For any vendor that wants to compete for Army body armor work, the system is evaluated against the ESAPI standard/requirements as stated in the performance specification-not evaluated against the IBA itself. If you meet the standard, you are eligible for an award if pricing is in the competitive range during Full and Open competitions. To my knowledge, Pinnacle has never responded to a Full and Open competition. Why doesn’t Pinnacle Armor compete for Army business like every other body armor vendor? Why should they get special treatment? It appears to me that Pinnacle is attempting to restrict competition. I wonder how other manufacturers of body armor that have passed the ESAPI FAT protocol feel about this?

What about it, Mr. Neal? Are you willing to ante up this time for a round of government testing, or do you just want to sell the Army another load of defective armor?

And for NBC, would this have been an even juicier story if the Army bought and issued the Dragon Skin, after knowing that it was inadequate and defective, and dozens of soldiers died? Again, this armor failed the Army tests, not slightly, not on a technicality, but miserably and utterly. The designer of the Dragon Skin armor himself admits its inadequacy. Yet some would like it fielded more widely. Look at the Army test results. They speak for themselves. As an American soldier, I am glad that the Army tested it and discovered the real truth, rather than listening to armchair quarterbacks, snake oil salesmen, and charlatans. This refusal to yield to the SFTT, Dr. Roberts, and NBC has saved soldiers' lives. And that is the real bottom line here.


----------



## x SF med (May 21, 2007)

I've been following the Dragon Skin debate, and seen some of the tests, and some of the shitty armor they've produced - guys and gals, I wouldn't want you wearing it based on what I've read and seen...  You deserve better than what Pinnacle is producing at the moment.  I trust the guys doing the independent testing more than the Navy Dentist, one tester I know of was SF for a long time, and only cares about getting the best armor to the troops, and is above reproach.

my.02, YMMV


----------



## pardus (May 21, 2007)

x SF med said:


> I've been following the Dragon Skin debate, and seen some of the tests, and some of the shitty armor they've produced - guys and gals, I wouldn't want you wearing it based on what I've read and seen...  You deserve better than what Pinnacle is producing at the moment.  I trust the guys doing the independent testing more than the Navy Dentist, one tester I know of was SF for a long time, and only cares about getting the best armor to the troops, and is above reproach.
> 
> my.02, YMMV



Thats all I need to know!


----------



## ODA CDR (May 21, 2007)

*Come on General!!!*

I can't believe Gen. Wayne Downing actually participated in this show. Of all people he should know the process of testing equipment that gets fielded to the troops. I certainly hope we find that his part in that NBC show was taken out of context or I wonder what percentage he has in Pinnacle?


----------



## x SF med (May 21, 2007)

Ummm, I believe Downing is readying himself for a political career after the military, it's a good way to get the facial recognition of the voters....  those in the GO ranks tend to be political animals anyway, why not a popularly elected position rather than a privately elected position.


----------



## Paddlefoot (May 21, 2007)

They should send it over to the guys over at _Mythbusters_. They usually devise a testing protocol that replicates actual conditions as closely as possible.

Put those vests on "Buster" and see how he holds up.


----------



## pardus (May 21, 2007)

Paddlefoot said:


> They should send it over to the guys over at _Mythbusters_. They usually devise a testing protocol that replicates actual conditions as closely as possible.
> 
> Put those vests on "Buster" and see how he holds up.



You know what, thats not a bad idea. :2c:


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2007)

Paddlefoot said:


> They should send it over to the guys over at _Mythbusters_. ...




That idea has merit.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 23, 2007)

Army Taking Dragon Skin Case to Hill
 By Christian Lowe  |  May 22, 2007






The Army plans to brief Congress about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports touting the vest's capabilities prompted calls from lawmakers for an official explanation. 
The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said he plans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast an investigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series of interlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armor currently issued by the Army.
"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning on going over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."
Brown declined to specify which lawmakers contacted his office, explaining he's still working out the final details on this week's congressional visit.
The Monday briefing was the first public accounting after a year of silence on the Dragon Skin issue. Army officials are fighting back with an aggressive campaign to undercut NBC's claims, which based much of its report on ballistic tests the network conducted in Germany and on the claims of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor.
http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=9791216&type=CO 
The Army laid out its case with x-ray photos showing complete penetrations of the armor during a standardized test in mid-May of last year. Brown appeared at the Pentagon briefing with the actual test articles that had failed to stop armor-piercing rounds, which Army officials claim its current enhanced small arms protective insert plate can withstand.
"'Zero failures' is the correct answer," Brown said. "One failure is sudden death, and you lose the game."
The Dragon Skin vests tested by the Army in May suffered 13 penetrations in 48 shots, service officials said.
The controversy first went public last March when the Army issued a so-called "Safety of Use Message" that banned all store-bought armor, and specifically stated that Dragon Skin did not meet the service's requirement for ballistic protection.
At the urging of Capitol Hill, the Army bought 30 Dragon Skin vests in May of 2006 and put them through a standard "first article" test to see if the armor could hold up to the same ballistic conditions its current-issued ESAPIs must endure during certification.
According to Karl Masters, one of the Army's top ballistics experts, the Dragon Skin failed to stop a 7.62 x 63mm APM2 round on the second shot of the test.
"We ran this vest through the exact same test protocol that every ESAPI supplier goes through," Masters said. "Can you meet the ESAPI requirement or not?  That's the question."
The Army initially held off countering Pinnacle president Murray Neal's claims that his armor was superior, despite the adverse test results, in hopes of keeping the dispute from going nuclear. But after nearly a week of NBC News reports claiming Dragon Skin is stronger, the Army decided to lay out its case.  
"The intent was not to blow bridges between the Army and some very credible contractor," said Brig. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the Army's top spokesman. "It's just that with this most recent news report and its potential impact on Mr. and Mrs. America ... that's why we went with this" detailed defense.
Pinnacle's Neal told Military.com Friday the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology. He called Army claims that his vests failed "a bold-faced lie" and said the service is embarrassed to admit its current armor isn't the best out there.
Army officials say they want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramic disks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility than currently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest, Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.
"We're very interested in this type of armor - in this concept," Brown explained. "It has great promise. But it is not meeting our requirements as we speak today." 
Brown hopes his public case against Dragon Skin will keep Soldiers and their families from doubting the strength of their Army-issued vests.
"This is not just some number on a wall, this is personal to us," Brown said. "It's very near and dear to us which is why we take it deadly seriously."


----------



## pardus (May 23, 2007)

> Pinnacle's Neal told Military.com Friday the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology.



WTF?  :uhh:  

Fucking shoot it, did it go through?

The end.


----------



## AWP (May 23, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> WTF?  :uhh:
> 
> Fucking shoot it, did it go through?
> 
> The end.



That's exactly what I was thinking. Design, workmanship, whatever....no one cares if the bullets goes through it.


----------



## x SF med (May 23, 2007)

Pinnacle is a whining bunch of fags, that want to make money off the soldiers and US Government/Taxpayers, with no regard as to the quality of their armor. They should have to wear it and go on a few raids in the sandbox, or be willing to test the armor on their families to prove how good it is.


----------



## surgicalcric (May 23, 2007)

> ...Pinnacle's Neal told Military.com Friday the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology...



I think what he means is they were testing the armor the way it will be used and it wasnt designed for the rigors of combat, but for show and tell...

R_M sends


----------



## LibraryLady (May 23, 2007)

surgicalcric said:


> I think what he means is they were testing the armor the way it will be used and it wasnt designed for the rigors of combat, but for show and tell...
> 
> R_M sends


 
Ain't that the truth.  :cool:



Boondocksaint375 said:


> Army officials are fighting back with an aggressive campaign to undercut NBC's claims, which based much of its report on ballistic tests the network conducted in Germany and on the claims of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor.



Never trust testing by a manufacturer.  They will make sure the testing is designed to guarantee the item passes with flying colors.

Never trust testing by the media.  They will make sure the testing supports their contentions.

LL


----------



## Paddlefoot (May 23, 2007)

x SF med said:


> Pinnacle is a whining bunch of fags, that want to make money off the soldiers and US Government/Taxpayers, with no regard as to the quality of their armor. They should have to wear it and go on a few raids in the sandbox, or be willing to test the armor on their families to prove how good it is.



Indeed. I feel the same way about a lot of the hardware that gets peddled to the military. The Osprey is a case in point. Every executive, lobbyist and program director should have to take rides in that thing every step of the way.

If the principals in these companies are so confident that this armor stops all of these rounds, put it on and may the best armor win.


----------



## ODA CDR (May 23, 2007)

*Don't mean to hijack but...*

You know you can't even fit a HUMVEE in the Osprey! What a colossal waste of $$$$.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jun 2, 2007)

ODA CDR said:


> You know you can't even fit a HUMVEE in the Osprey! What a colossal waste of $$$$.



They will with the *new* and *improved* Heavy Lift Osprey.

If two tilt rotors are good, then four tilt rotors must be better. Right? Right?!...:doh:


----------



## Looon (Jun 2, 2007)

Any body armor is better than no armor.:uhh: Of course there is going to be some fucking shady shit going on regardless of which system is better.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jun 13, 2007)

*Dragon Skin Backers Hammered on Hill*
By Christian Lowe | June 07, 2007
The technical expert solicited by a major news network to certify its tests of Dragon Skin body armor admitted Wednesday that the controversial vests weren't "ready for prime time." 

In an investigative report broadcast by NBC May 20, the network used the expert opinion of Dr. Phillip Coyle - the former director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration - to certify results of side-by-side tests conducted at NBC's expense in Germany.
In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.
But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.
"You're saying today ... that you cannot say that it's ready for prime time. That's your testimony?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) asked Coyle.
Coyle agreed that the NBC tests fell short of proving Dragon Skin was ready for fielding.
Sitting beside Coyle at the hearing, Pinnacle president Murray Neal put forward a vigorous, if disjointed, defense of his product, telling lawmakers in written testimony the Army was manipulating test results, conducted unfair shots on his armor and released contradictory data to lawmakers and the media.
"Nothing jives, nothing makes sense," Neal told committee members. "The information coming from the Army is fraught with inconsistencies."





Video: Do U.S. Troops Have the Right Body Armor?

While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, Neal denied Army claims that a dozen more rounds penetrated his Dragon Skin vests. 
He argued x-ray photos of one vest the Army claims failed showed the Dragon Skin disks had stopped the round.
"The bullet did not go through the armor," Neal said flatly.
Army officials responded by showing lawmakers a video clip of Neal inspecting the same vest after a test shot, watching engineers dig the penetrating round out of ballistic clay backing.
"Are you telling me if you were wearing this vest ... and that round hit you in the chest, would that have killed you or not?" a skeptical Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) asked Neal.
"No," he replied.
The Armed Services Committee hearing is the latest round in the long-simmering debate over Pinnacle's claims that its armor system - which uses a series of linked ceramic disks wrapped around a Soldier's body to stop armor-piercing rifle rounds - is better than the Army-issued Interceptor vest that uses four rigid ceramic plates.
At the request of Hunter and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the Army conducted a so-called "first article test" for Dragon Skin armor at a private ballistics lab in Maryland last year to see if the Dragon Skin technology met Army specifications. 
Those tests resulted in 13 penetrations in 48 shots, the Army claims, including a full penetration on the second shot of the first test vest.
Investigators with NBC conducted their own series of tests at a German lab this spring, firing dozens of armor-piercing rounds at both Dragon Skin and a vest they said contained Army-issued plates, though Coyle cast some doubt on whether they were the same plates used by Soldiers in the field. 
The NBC tests showed Dragon Skin absorbing many more rifle rounds than the Army vest, prompting Coyle's assertion that Dragon Skin was better than Interceptor armor.
Coyle, Neal and NBC are calling for another series of independent, side-by-side tests to prove once and for all which armor system is better.
"The best way to resolve this matter would be for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command to conduct comparable side-by-side tests of both Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor," Coyle said. 
While Hunter subjected both Neal and Coyle to harsh questioning over their claims, the California lawmaker agreed that another round of tests is the only thing that will put the issue to rest.
"We need to straight away, in an expeditious way, to find out if there's value to this system," Hunter said. "And if there is value, we need to extract it as soon as possible and get it to the troops in the field."


----------



## pardus (Jun 13, 2007)

> While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, Neal



This Neal is an asshole!

What the fuck does a side by side prove? fuck all.

It doesn't really matter if it's better than the current issue one, what matters is if it passes the testing.

It didn't, simple as that.


----------



## Gypsy (Jun 13, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> This Neal is an asshole!
> 
> What the fuck does a side by side prove? fuck all.
> 
> ...



I can't remember if it was mentioned earlier...probably was...but this jackass is a dentist.


----------



## pardus (Jun 13, 2007)

Ah, then I retract all my negative statements, he's obviously highly qualified in the fields of engineering and body armour


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jun 13, 2007)

*Air Force considers ban on body armor maker*

Based on the first paragraph, this would preclude Pinnacle from being awarded any government contracts, regardless of which branch they would be supplying, correct?

At least that's the way it reads. Maybe they are just referring to AF contracts.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_pinnacleban_070612/


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Jun 28, 2007)

I hope they come out with something that works soon.  the current interceptor stuff just isn't that comfortable and it's hard to move around in, especially if you have the DAPS installed.  just to make it more comfy I ditched my LBV and put mag pouches on my vest, and used a S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12 and extra bs like earplugs and stuff.  I'm not aircrew rated yet, so I don't get the high-speed air warrior shit they issue now.  it makes it interesting when you see some big fucker dismount a helo wearing the big bulky IBA with an aircrew helmet on instead of the ACH.  se la vi.  Flight Medic School, here I come.  (just a few more months....)  oh, and lets not forget, if you're humping an aid bag or radio, I hope your straps have enough extra length so you can wear it over the vest.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 28, 2007)

_*S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12 *_

Damn dude, could you have used any more acronyms in that sentence?


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Jun 28, 2007)

Marauder06 said:


> _*S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12 *_
> 
> Damn dude, could you have used any more acronyms in that sentence?



Absolutely.  but if that's a hint that I used too many, let me translate:

Spec-Ops Brand Interceptor Body Armor battle belt to mount my Improved First Aid Kits and 2 Tactical Tailor Vertical pouches for my Personell Recovery Communications-12 (check that one... ) and other miscellaneous bullshit.

:)


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Jun 28, 2007)

while I'm thinking about it, is anyone wearing the new OTV the Army adopted?  it's side entry and has a little pull-tab for emergency doffing (in case you fall in a river, i imagine, or a medic needs to remove it quickly).  it's also adjustable in the shoulder straps and supports all the current mods, like the deltoid/axillary/groin/throat pads and such.  I got wind of it a few months ago, big army says us nasty girls get to keep our front-entry shit since everyone else is getting side-entry vests as part of RFI.  Anybody?


----------



## 8'Duece (Mar 8, 2010)

Gary Roberts is the "Dentist" that claims to be an expert in gun shot wound ballistics.  Navy reservist dentist, with claims of 20+ years in law enforcement and military...................military being a "dentist"  How much time does a "Dentist" spend in the ER or Trauma ward treating GSW's ???.............NONE !!!

He goes by the screen name of "DocGKR" on many sites.  He's over at m4carbine.net.  He's now acting as if he's a 1911 expert by regurgitating everything and anything was written by Hilton Yamm and Larry Vickers.  What a bafoon.

I had a run in with him regarding this matter. 

He mentioned that I posted "BS" Over here on Shadowspear.   He obviously looked up "82ndtrooper" and saw that I was over here.  What "BS" of anything serious have I posted here ? other than just my opinions, which is not "BS" it's just that, "Opinions" on any subject matter. 


He's a charlatan, fraud and snake oil salesman.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 8, 2010)

8'Duece said:


> Gary Roberts is the "Dentist" that claims to be an expert in gun shot wound ballistics.  Navy reservist dentist, with claims of 20+ years in law enforcement and military...................military being a "dentist"  How much time does a "Dentist" spend in the ER or Trauma ward treating GSW's ???.............NONE !!!
> 
> He goes by the screen name of "DocGKR" on many sites.  He's over at m4carbine.net.  He's now acting as if he's a 1911 expert by regurgitating everything and anything was written by Hilton Yamm and Larry Vickers.  What a bafoon.
> 
> ...


 
I had a big fuck you back and forth with DocGKR and Pat Rogers a few years back on lightfighter. I think both imbelish their background far outside their true "know how/ BTDT"... I would not worry about the "BS" comment, I always viewed Gary Roberts as a fucking fool (the kind Will Brinks would fall inline with) and anything spat out of his fucking mouth is not worth listening too...

I have read many of your posts and even though I may not agree with somethings you post, I am smart enough to know that there is more then a few ways to skin a cat. I have learned a great deal from your posts on the suppressers and MP5, and you know a AR better then most (still think your piston is gay ) but my point is that you know what you know and your not a retard.  

As for all the clowns drinking from the Hilton Yamm/ 10-8 cool-aid, you know what I think about that...


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2010)

I liken guys like the combat dentist to Mike Sparks.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> I liken guys like the combat dentist to Mike Sparks.



He still around?


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2010)

SOWT said:


> He still around?



I hope not. I haven't heard anything about/from that idiot in years, though on occasion I will see some of his fanciful musings of crap stuck to the bathroom walls of the Internet.


----------



## 8'Duece (Mar 8, 2010)

J.A.B. said:


> As for all the clowns drinking from the Hilton Yamm/ 10-8 cool-aid, you know what I think about that...




Hilton Yam know's his stuff, but If I wanna impress somebody I too can just vomit everything he has posted on 10-8 and attempt to impress somebody.  Problem is, you can find his exact words in print and then somebody calls you out on it, like our "Combat Dentist"


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 9, 2010)

Yeah I agree, I am not to impressed with Yam's stuff (not to say he is not a smart 1911 guy) just disagree with some stuff he has posted. But yeah the combat dentist is a tool and its hard to believe anyone listens to that clown....


----------



## AWP (Mar 9, 2010)

J.A.B. said:


> ....its hard to believe anyone listens to that clown....



People tend to, in my view, be dumb and/ or lazy. Some will carry preconceived notions into a discussion without the words to articulate their thoughts and ill-formed opions.

And that is where a guy like the combat dentist comes in.

Take a healthy dose of another man's work and add in some pretty pictures to support your thoughts.....even if they are all old news, and you can influence a lot of people. The dumb and/or lazy will buy into it because it is right in front of them, especially if you can mix layman's terms with some scientific (or scientific-sounding) words. Those without the words or very incorrect thoughts who already agreed with your work will buy into it because of the way you presented it.

From there it becomes a snowball tumbling down a mountain and soon takes on a life of its own.


----------

