Posted: 8/25/2012 1:16:11 PM EDT
|
I had the chance to see a Kevlar groin protector shot at last night with a couple of different handgun loads and two 5.56 rifle rounds.
The groin protector was supplied by a relative. It was about 10 years old. I believe he said it was rated at Level III-A (after shooting we found it consisted of 36 layers of Kevlar mesh). The Kevlar panel was contained in a camo pouch or sleeve, with two hanger straps. We stapled it by the straps to a 1/4" thick plywood target backer. First the rifle rounds (because the results were not surprising or interesting): Silver Bear 55 gr (a little under 2700 fps from an 11.5" SBR) and M855 (3000 fps from a 16" carbine) both penetrated easily. So easily that the protector didn't even flinch when hit. Next was the "blue tip" 5.7x28mm. We chrono'd that load at a disappointing 1750 fps from a Five-Seven pistol. When hit, the groin protector "bounced" off the backing and flipped up. This load did not penetrate. It made it through about 7 layers of Kevlar and fragmented. After that was .45 ACP (230 gr FMJ). This load caused the entire protector to jump up and tear free from the staples. It also punched a roughly 2x2" square through the plywood backing! However, it did not penetrate even the first layer of Kevlar. The FMJ bullet was found mushroomed inside the cloth sleeve. We finished with a 115 gr 9mm FMJ (Brown Bear), This load also caused the entire protector to jump up and flop over the back of the target stand. It made about a 1/2" deep protrusion into the plywood backer. Surprisingly, an "autopsy" revealed that the 9mm penetrated more Kevlar layers than the 5.7 - about a dozen plies. Like the .45 it was mushroomed. Regrettably it was getting dark and we had to be packed and off the range premises before the sun went down, so we didn't have time for pics. I know my relative kept the projectiles, and may have kept the kevlar. If so I'll see if I can get some pics up. I am also hoping he kept it so that we can test it against a hotter 9mm defensive load and a .40 HST. It was an interesting demonstration in the wake of all the uproar over the Colorado shooter allegedly having body armor. Even with Kevlar, a bad guy would not enjoy being hit with a 9mm or .45. The 9mm (not a particularly hot load either) had enough momentum to break the plywood backer, leaving a noticeable dent. I don't doubt it would potentially knock the wind out of someone and cause really painful deep bruising. Depending on how thickly muscled (or fat) a bad guy was, a .45 would do at least that much, and possibly even crack ribs? It made a clean 2" square hole in the plywood after being stopped by the Kevlar. I would imagine being hit wearing kevlar would be about as much fun as getting hit with the tip of a well-swung baseball bat. Several rapid hits would have to be seriously physically distracting if nothing else.... |
| It's great that you got a chance to do those tests. I have fired several different rounds into a level 2 armor vest. The results were very similar. .40 cal pistol rounds stopped in the armor. 7.62x39 and .223 zipped right through. A 12 gauge slug caused massive trauma to the plywood backing but did not penetrate. A 7.62x25 round fired from a cz52 pistol did penetrate the front panel and lodged in the rear panel. You are right, incoming fire would cause damage to the wearer. A shot to the chest could break ribs. |
| I think its important that CCW holders know this stuff. After the Aurora incident the media painted that ass clown to be a tank on legs who could shrug off gunfire without slowing down, making an armed response by a civilian futile. I think that is decidedly not the case. A handful of shots to his chest, Kevlar or not, would have made an impression - literally. Given the lack of fight he displayed when the police showed up, you have to think that in that case at least, a CCW could have made a positive difference despite the perp having body armor. |
|
This just in.......... Getting shot in the crotch with a groin protector HURTS! Film at 11.
Just as with torsal body armor, getting shot with a bullet in the old cod piece is going to leave a mark. Body armor protects from bullet penetration, not blunt force trauma. I can't imagine getting shot in the family jewels even with body armor. Now please excuse me as I go put on my steel underwear. |
|
Don't make too many assumptions about how someone is going to act when shot while wearing body armor.
Industry standards for testing body armor consist of placing the armor on a manequin torso with the chest cavity replaced with a block of clay. I don't know what kind of clay, dimensions or anything else, but I have witnessed a couple of body armor demos conducted by body armor salesmen. Industry standards mainly consist of how much backface deformation the shot causes, which is measured by measuring the cavity the shot causes in the clay, and whether or not the bullet penetrates. There are other standards, particularly if you are talking armor that can withstand multiple shots, but those are the main ones. When the salesmen conducted the demos, typical carry type handgun rounds caused cavities somewhere in the 2-3" range. According to the salesmen (I know, I know, they're salesmen, but it's the only yardstick I have to measure this by), deformation of this type can cause some blunt trauma and could break some ribs, but against a motivated, drunk or drugged person, the salesmen said that it may (emphasize MAY) make them stop. It will hurt, but may or may not incapacitate them. If they are sufficiently motivated (read REALLY pissed off or heavily drugged), they may or may not even notice. To verify this, I have seen several shootout videos (and several are available on sites like YouTube) where cops wearing armor have been shot and continue to function. Several said it hurt, some were incapacitated due to blunt trauma or broken ribs, but many keep going. In the last demo I saw, the salesman shot an armored torso with full-house .44 Mag ammo and, while backface deformation was substantial (something like 5-6", IIRC), it didn't penetrate and was survivable and the salesman said (again, not the best source, but all I had) that, unless the person shot had been shot directly over the heart and the deformation and trauma damaged the heart, the person could (stress could) keep up with what they were doing. They'd be hurting and possibly immobilized, but still possibly capable of shooting. Who CCWs a .44 Mag, anyway? All the service-type guns he shot (9mm, .40 and .45) performed more or less the same, with more or less the same amount of deformation, again proving that they are, more or less, equal. On a side note, the salesman in the last test also shot the torso with 12ga 00Buck and slugs. They didn't penetrate, but did cause MASSIVE deformation, to the point that a good, solid torso hit would more than likely incapacitate an armored person, if not kill them because of the blunt force trauma. The deformation wasn't able to be measured because it caused the entire block of clay to "splash" out of the cavity under the armor, but it was MASSIVE! He didn't shoot the armor with any rifles, but rifles typically completely penetrate soft armor, anyways, so there was no point. Like Old Painless says, handguns are handguns and rifles are rifles. Bottom line: don't count on immobilizing a person wearing armor with your typical CCW handgun. Practice failure drills (2 to the chest, 1 to the head), which work even if the person isn't wearing body armor but is drunk, drugged or so motivated that they don't immediately notice being shot. You might luck out against someone who isn't motivated or drugged, but if your luck runs anything like mine, do you really want to take that chance? Bub75 ETA: Another case in point. Remember the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout? The two perps were armored and, despite MULTIPLE hits with 9mm and .38, continued their actions for quite a long period of time. They were HIGHLY motivated and weren't incapacitated by MULTIPLE hits to their armor. Admittedly a pretty low likelihood of any of us running into this, but a perfect example of the absolute worst case scenario where your CCW gun wouldn't be worth warm spit. |
|
Bub: You are of course correct that one should never assume or take anything for granted in a shooting situation. That rule applies regardless of whether the bad guy is wearing armor, and regardless of what kind of weapon you have. The point of my post was simply to remind readers that soft body armor does not make bad guys totally immune to gunfire. They are going to suffer serious physicsl consequences if hit, even in an armored area. Those consequences will affect different bad guys in different ways (the same is true of unarmored opponents), but it's still worth taking a shot at defending yourself of others, even if you know the bad guy is armored.
About the North HW shoot out: I am pretty sure those guys had hard plates woven into their clothing, which I would imagine is much better at preventing immediate injury than soft Kevlar. |
|
Quoted: . Next was the "blue tip" 5.7x28mm. We chrono'd that load at a disappointing 1750 fps from a Five-Seven pistol. When hit, the groin protector "bounced" off the backing and flipped up. This load did not penetrate. It made it through about 7 layers of Kevlar and fragmented. That's the advertised velocity of the SS197SR load from the FSN.. |
|
Quoted:
First thing that came to mind when reading the post http://crabapplenyc.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/super-troopers-thumb.jpg In my day the rookie wore the cup............. And we used blanks. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First thing that came to mind when reading the post http://crabapplenyc.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/super-troopers-thumb.jpg In my day the rookie wore the cup............. And we used blanks. Lulz. 
Yes, the CO shooter just had a tac vest, i.e. no armor. I've never been shot with or without a vest, but I'll tell you this: even a cracked rib will slow one down considerably, and I can tolerate a lot of pain. |
|
Quoted:
Bub: You are of course correct that one should never assume or take anything for granted in a shooting situation. That rule applies regardless of whether the bad guy is wearing armor, and regardless of what kind of weapon you have. The point of my post was simply to remind readers that soft body armor does not make bad guys totally immune to gunfire. They are going to suffer serious physicsl consequences if hit, even in an armored area. Those consequences will affect different bad guys in different ways (the same is true of unarmored opponents), but it's still worth taking a shot at defending yourself of others, even if you know the bad guy is armored. About the North HW shoot out: I am pretty sure those guys had hard plates woven into their clothing, which I would imagine is much better at preventing immediate injury than soft Kevlar. You are, of course, absolutely correct in that you should take the shot anyway. And you are also correct in that soft armor doesn't make you TOTALLY immune. However, I will again point out that there are many, many cases of people getting shot in what turned out to be fatal areas, even without armor, that continued their actions for quite some time. The FBI shootout in Miami in the '80's comes to mind. Either Platt or Maddox, I can't remember which, was fatally shot early in the gun battle (autopsy revealed that a bullet hit his aorta coming right out of his heart, IIRC), but was so motivated that he continued his assault, leading to the deaths of several FBI agents (notwithstanding their very poor tactics). I have also read about cases where bad guys without armor soaked up incredible amounts of fire because they were drunk, drugged or else so pumped up on adrenaline that they, literally, didn't feel or react to what turned out to be fatal shots and continued with what they were doing. Another shootout comes to mind where a BG soaked up something like 20-30 9mm bullets and 1 shotgun slug, the majority hitting his torso, before the second slug finally put him down. IIRCm he was really hopped up on PCP, which meant that he probably wouldn't have felt the hits, or even someone sawing his head off, but it illustrates what can happen. This was an unarmored BG, too. Imagine what he could have done if he'd been wearing armor? Shot placement really comes into play, too, but being shot that many times without going down? Boggles the mind. Also, again IIRC, the North Hollywood shooters did not have hard armor, but they had fashioned full suits of soft armor out of several soft vests, with double the coverage in some places (akin to wearing two vests, one on top of the other) than soft armor normally provides. I'm sure that double thicknesses of armor really softened the impact of pistol bullets, but they showed literally no reaction to repeated bullet impacts other than a little jerking when hit, then spraying full auto fire in the direction of the shots. Just be aware that, even with soft armor, bad guys don't always react the way you think they should or the way that people normally would when shot. You posted some good info, and it's always good to be aware of what is out there and what a BG might have, but always prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. I always try to play the devil's advocate here when someone posts something like this because, at the PD I work for, we have had people hurt (not bad, luckily) because they expected things like pepper spray to totally incapacitate someone and, when it doesn't, they freeze up because they don't see what they expect to see and then have to go hand to hand, which has lead to some minor injuries. NO weapon, be it pepper spray, Taser, handgun, rifle, shotgun, whatever, will ALWAYS be effective 100% of the time and we need to remember this and be prepared when it is our turn in the barrel and our weapons don't work as expected. Bub75 |
| Bub: I don't think we disagree on anything. All I was trying to say was: even if you think the bad guy is wearing armor, take the shot. It "may" have more effectiveness than the media would lead you to believe. Of course the opposite is also true - shooting an unarmored hostile very often has much LESS effectiveness than the media would lead you to believe. Either way, the drill should be to keep fighting until the other guy can't. The point of the post was simply that Kevlar body armor is not an immunizing magic shield against handgun bullets. |
| Yeah that really pissed me off how the media made it seem like he was an unstoppable Juggernaut with an unsighted in m&p15, c-beta mag and some condor tactical vest and helmet. If CCW was not illegal in that theater and even a few people were carrying then this could have ended differently . |
|
A couple of years ago I took an R&D job where I help design and test soft and hard armor. It's awesome putting together a new plate or panel and shooting the crap out of it to see if it works. Here's the setup and clay fixture that we used in our old range. It's a couple hundred pound block of modeling clay. The last pic shows the backface deformation that everyone talks about. A 44mm depth is allowable to get NIJ certification. Those look to be low 30mm.    CHRIS |
|
Blunt force trauma is why plates are used for rifle protection.
It is possible to stack enough Kevlar to stop a rifle round, the problem is the blunt force trauma at the impact point (and possibly transmitted around inside the body as a pressure wave). The plate spreads the force over a large enough area to greatly reduce the issue, while also not producing rear face spalling. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody have any info on what the CO shooter was wearing? Have never read what he was wearing beyond "body armor" and a "helmet". Anybody seen any pictures or have solid info? iirc it was just a tac vest So you mean he just had on a nylon vest....no kevlar at all? |