What's the protection rating for a Pasgt framentation vest? Is it level II and does it stop 9mm nato ball?

I have heard that it, and the helmet are nominally rated at Level II. The jacket, to the best of my knowledge, has not been NIJ tested, so there is no real rating. I do recall reading an article a few years back by a guy who shot up a few of them to see how they'd hold up, and they did manage to stop most 9mm rounds.

The helmets have been rated, because so many companies sell them to law enforcement. The milspec helmets come in at Level II. There are commercial production helmets available at IIIA, that are identical in appearance to the GI helmets, and weigh less, but they cost in the $3-400 range.

You can find more info on what the NIJ ratings mean at:

http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/0101.04RevA.pdf

When I was assigned to a L.R.S. unit back 90-91 we tossed em, because of the bulk and discomfort, but a bigger reason I believe is that they are ineffective for anything but the smallest frags!

As for the helment, it works, but breaks down from U.V. last I heard, maybe they have fixed that problem by now, I do not know. The ones that are sold cheep to the public are UV damaged in most cases and just give a false sense of security, while someone profits from selling such damaged goods to the unknowing!

btt

Soldier Of Fortune did an article about this after the L.A. Riots.I think it rated between a level IIA and level II, I can try and dig the article out if you really want to know.  

From what I've read, these vests are not intended/rated for ballistic protection, just to protect the wearer from "flying stuff" from nearby explosions, etc.  However, for the price, they would afford "some protection" in a hostile situation.  I don't think it's wise to think of them as real body armor, though.

Here's a related question...  Even if a vest (NIJ rated or not) doesn't totally stop a round, wouldn't it generally absorb enough energy to greatly reduce the injury?  Wouldn't it also be likely to prevent expansion of hollow point rounds, both by absorbing energy and clogging the tip of the round. I haven't come across any comments on this in anything I've read.  Seems like there should be a major relationship between penetration and survivability. It doesn't sound fun, but I'd rather be injured than dead...

btt

of all the acronyms on this site this is the only one i cant figure out what the hell is
BTT

I 'THINK' garandman did some 'experiments' on this topic........

Yeah, I did see some tests that Garandman did on actual military body armor rated for .308 ball. It was pretty interesting.  I wonder if he did the same test on Flak jackets?
Anyhow I happened to pick up a size small Pasgt vest in a trade deal on the board and was just curious.  The vest is way to small for me, but would fit a petite lady just fine.  

Based on my own very unscientific tests, I'd say the current issue USGI PASGT Kevlar vests are about a NIJ Level IIA equivalent.  I say this for two reasons:

1. The Kevlar PASGT vests' ballistic panels are made of 13 layers of Kevlar 29.  Currently made bullet resistant vests rated at level IIA have 14-16 layers of Kevlar 29/129, so these are very close.

2. I got my hands on a used PASGT Kevlar vest and helmet to "test" myself.  At 5 yards, neither the 9mm 124gr FMJ/JHP rounds nor the .40 S&W 180gr FMJ/155gr JHP rounds penetrated a ballistic panel of the vest.  I was especially impressed by this because the 9mm 124gr NATO FMJ round is supposedly one of the more difficult rounds to stop due to its higher velocity and "pointed" shape.

I do agree that this armor is designed to prevent/lessen injuries from fragmenting munitions on the battlefield, but they do obviously work fairly well against lower velocity handgun projectiles.

The PASGT Kevlar helmet stopped all rounds fired at it quite easily.  I've read that these helmets are now rated at level II or so, and I'd believe that.

(Edited for spelling)

I really appreciate everyone's feedback on the topic....Keep it coming.

btt

I personally tested 2 military current issue PASGT Vests.  It was placed around a water filled barrel and was fired at with the following handgun rounds which ALL failed to penetrate either vest.  .40, .45ACP, .9mm, 10mm, .38+p, .22LR, .22Mag, .357SIG, .44.  I also shot at it with 12Gauge 00, #1, #4 and all failed to penetrate.  this was at a distance of about 30 Feet.

One more thing I found is, although the vest stopped the 9mm and .40 rounds I fired at it, I did stab a pick through it pretty easily.  So they would definitely NOT protect against pointed object/stab wounds.

I don't know how many of you guys have seen the movie "Three Kings" but in reality, Mark Walberg's PASGT Kevlar vest would not likely have stopped that 7.62x39mm AK-47 round he caught in the chest.

At what range will the USGI Flak Jacket and Kevlar stop rounds in 7.62x39, 5.56, and 5.45? Anyone have this info?

Hi Guys,

Ok, I'll out the official data.  The standard PASGT has been independantly tested to handle [i]shrapnel[/i] at 1650 fps.  Shrapnel is [b]NOT[/b] the same as a bullet.  PASGT vests carry [b]no NIJ rating[/b].  This means they are [b]not designed or rated to protect against gunfire[/b].  They can be had with higher performance kevlar fiber, but these are not standard issue.

I sure wouldn't put my life in the "Joe-Bob went out to the range and shot it with his SKS" type of tests.  That's just nonsense.  The vests are not designed to stop 7.62 and 5.56 rounds.  Just because they do when Joe-Bob shoots one at the range, does [b]not[/b] mean it will all (or even most) the time.

If you just [i]have[/i] to have body armor, get something that has been [i]thoroughly tested and certified[/i].  Personally, I like my hide un-perforated and I'll entrust my innards to something made by RBR or Pint Blank.

-SARguy

Death_By_AR15 -

I'd say that any of these rounds would defeat the PASGT Kevlar frag vest at least out to 400 yards.  According to ballistic charts, the 5.56mm 55gr FMJ is still traveling about 1550 FPS at 400 yards and the 7.62x39mm 123gr FMJ is still about 1350 FPS.  Given the small cross-section and pointed FMJ profile of these bullets, I'd say these velocities are still enough to punch through the 13 layers of Kevlar.  Interestingly, the .223 69gr BT round is still moving at about 1980 FPS at 400 yards.  That is probably enough to make it through a IIIA vest (28-32 layers of Kevlar), let alone a PASGT vest (only 13).

So while I don't have any data to estimate maximum range, it has to be 400+ yards.

The PASGT helmet is a different story however.  Don't quote me on this but I've been told that the USGI "K-Pot" helmets will stop a 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm FMJ at 200 meters.  I'm not sure if that's true or not though (my guess is no).  I already threw away the one I shot up or else I'd try it at 200-250 yards with my AR-15 to see for myself.

If anyone knows differently, feel free to correct the above. [:)]

BMANSAR15,

If you watch "Three Kings" again closely, you will see that the character in question is also wearing the big chicken plate over his PASGT vest--y'know, the trauma plate that will stop a .308 round?

For those of you doing your range tests, bear in mind that to scientifically study these vests and helmets, you would have to shoot maybe a couple hundred of each under various different conditions and then perform at least a basic statistical analysis after collecting your data to arrive at anything close to a valid conclusion about their effectiveness.  

As I recall, the reasoning behind frag helmets and vests is that more troops are injured and killed by artillery, mortar, spalling (inside armored vehicles) and other types of indirect fire.  Maybe not front-line infantry, but on an overall basis I'm saying.  The gear was designed with those issues in mind. I'm sure the DOD has tons and tons of data on this topic and didn't just go with vest A because it was the cheapest.  They probably found that units could suffer 10-15% fewer fatalities or casualties if everyone wears it.

It probably doesn't make sense for survivalists and SHTF types to own this kind of equipment.  But to each his own.    

I think it is "back to top"
on another forum I frequent we say "bump"
It's just a reply to move the thread back up the list on the first page so others can see it

I’m a bit off the original topic, but I think I can add to some of the posts made.  Unfortunately, my knowledge is limited to law enforcement usage.  This is a bit rambling:

1 – Soft body armor that has been fired into is no longer serviceable and should not be used.  It has been weakened in the area where shot and additional rounds in the same area may go through.  (A firearm, esp. a sub gun, can eat its way through a vest.)

2 – Kevlar loses up to 20% of its effectiveness when wet.  Often Kevlar is given a waterproof coating (making it a little stiffer) or is put in a plastic bag to prevent this.  The NIJ tests body armor both wet and dry before giving a rating.  When the Kevlar dries out, it regains its full effectiveness.  

3 – The Kevlar type (29, 129, etc.) and the number of fabric layers are not the only factors in bullet resistance.  Other issues include thread count (the finer the weave, the stronger the material) and to what degree, if any, the layers are cross-stitched together (cross-stitching makes the material stronger but stiffer).

4 – Kevlar doesn’t do a good job of stopping edged weapons, though it’s certainly better than nothing.  Prison guards often wear vests of different materials, which sometimes offer no firearms protection at all.  

5 – Strangely, Kevlar is strongest when a bullet hits it straight on.  An angled shot is more likely to penetrate since it tends to tear the material.  If you’re serious about seeing what a Kevlar vest will stop, you should shoot it at an angle.  The NIJ added angled shots to its testing protocol in 1985.

6 – It was once thought that Kevlar vests degraded with age.  At one time, Dupont (maker of Kevlar) recommended that vests be replaced every five years.  It now appears that degradation occurs with use (and misuse), not age.  Misuse can include exposure to ultraviolet light and laundry bleach.  Misuse MAY include folding the material since it is commonly thought that a hard fold of the material can pull the fibers apart slightly, weakening the material.

7 – Individuals testing vests have been injured by bullets bouncing back at them.  This is a particular danger when someone tries to evaluate backface deformation during testing by putting the vest in front of a material like wet newspapers.  The springiness of the material can send the bullet back.  (Backface deformation measures the blunt trauma against an individual’s body caused by the strike of the bullet - the NIJ uses clay to test backface deformation.)

8 – Body armor is not bulletproof.  Since it’s adoption by U.S. law enforcement agencies, at least nine LEO’s have been killed when rifle rounds penetrated their vests.  Thus, a unit of body armor should NEVER be referred to as a “bulletproof vest”, because it isn’t!    

trickshot -

Hmmmm....wearing a chicken plate, eh?  I didn't catch that.  I'll have to watch it again.  I know he tore the velcro open on the desert camo cover but I though it was just the forest camo PASGT vest underneath.  The chicken plate would certainly have stopped the rifle round as you point out.


199 and SARguy -

You are correct, any testing I've done is completely unscientific and should be viewed as such.  I still always say that the PASGT armor system is designed and intended for fragmentation protection only.  Stopping small arms fire is not its intended purpose.  It's just incidental that it will to some extent.

Thanks. [:)]