Reading is fundamental. And you guys say I don't need to highlight!
https://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-body-armor/level-iii-body-armor.html
Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
- Status
Reading is fundamental. And you guys say I don't need to highlight!
https://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-body-armor/level-iii-body-armor.html
I am not confused. You do not understand the NIJ rating levels.
I posted a link for you.
Now, if you have had friends shot in the chest with various Levels of body armor, you would know that Level III may stop the bullet from penetrating because it is hard armor but it may deform causing blunt trama which can incapacitate or even be lethal to the wearer.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml
Simply and plainly....
-A denotes soft body armor or is designed to offer a level of blunt force protection.
can we have some link to these studies or point us in the direction of these studies.
I also didn’t see any information in the articles about the new proposed weapons and ammunition that concerns Close quarters, it mentions a lot about increasing effective range and dealing with the advancement of body armor.
stagpanther
New member
LOL, good one.
Physics are physics, as they say. The 5.56 is a highly effective cartridge for what it is, when you look at the total performance package of cartridge size, velocity impact force, weight to quantity ratio etc. The notion that battlefield technologies have evolved to the point where something better is needed is easy for me to understand. The notion that something newer that operates at substantially higher performance levels--is a multi-role weapon and is ready for prime-time deployment in just a couple of years--is hard to swallow. I have heard from one industry "insider" that some kind staged partially self-propelled cartridge technology already exists and has been successfully tested that does render conventional brass case cartridge performance "obsolete" but he was short on details so it's hard to say if that was just "smoke and mirrors."
Been thinking about this revolutionary cartridge design, when developed and successful, could easily be adapted to smaller aerial drones and lighter ground based drones (I don’t like calling them robots).
Hope it gets done for the combat troops sooner rather than later. I still have doubts about this meeting such a short deadline.
Hope it gets done for the combat troops sooner rather than later. I still have doubts about this meeting such a short deadline.
I'm interested in the specific claim you made as follows:
"...we averaged 8 rounds the first tour with green tip in the house to put a target not wearing body armor down."
You also provided additional information that the statistic was sourced by:
"...going into buildings with bad guys and shooting them until they are no longer a threat."
So, in your first tour your group averaged 8 rounds to put a target not wearing body armor down.
In order to interpret that statistic properly, more information is required. Was 8 rounds the average number of hits (or perhaps COM hits) achieved per non-body armored target down? Was that simply the total number of rounds fired for an entire mission divided by the number of targets down? Were the rounds typically fired full auto, semi-auto, or burst?
These are straightforward and simple questions and the reasons that the answers are important is self-evident.
You quoted the statistic as support for your argument and I agree that kind of information is very interesting and applicable to the discussion. But without the additional information required to properly interpret the statistic, the value is obviously quite limited.
If you want to be taken seriously, follow the rules of polite debate. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. It is unreasonable and impolite to make a claim and then basically tell people to "go fish" when they ask about the claim and the supporting evidence for it.
Especially in a case like this when the claim is apparently based on personal experience (i.e. "we averaged"), it shouldn't be nearly so difficult to provide simple answers to simple questions.
The quote you are responding to is very specifically about: "Level III Lightweight UHMWPE Body Armor"
You responded with a comment and a link about: "Level III steel body armor"
Furthermore, your link contains the following statement:
"Our Level III steel body armor provides industry leading protection against "penetrator" rounds such as the 5.56 M855/SS109 - which are capable of defeating UHMWPE type level III body armor options."
1. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor (the PE stands for polyethylene) is not the same thing as steel body armor.
2. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor will be defeated by M855/SS109.
Had you read all the material provided by the source you linked, or the information provided in the links Bartholomew Roberts provided, the following paragraph would be unnecessary.
The standard for Level III armor does not include protection against the 5.56 penetrator rounds like M855, M855A1 or SS109. Some manufacturers (like the one you quoted who claims their Level III+ steel armor is "industry leading") DO make Level III armor that they claim goes beyond the official standard for Level III armor and is, in fact, tested to defeat some 5.56 penetrator rounds. That doesn't change/redefine the official standard for Level III, it just means that some manufacturers are going above and beyond the minimum that the standard requires.
2damnold4this
New member
That is spot on, John. In addition, the level III steel plates AR500 sells are not rated to stop M193 5.56.
It seems to me that David isn't the expert Bart is on the subject of armor.
WE does not mean GROUP.
There is not but neither are we idiots either. That is your own misconception and misinterpretation of what I said.
I have a degree in Aeronautical Sciences with a minor in Business. I speak 3 languages fluently and functional in two others. Yeah, you have to be intelligent to be an Operator. There is much more to it than shooting a weapon well.
I say that not to "toot my own horn" but to merely to point out I was AVERAGE in the community. The difference between the top of my class and bottom of my class in ANOC was .5%.....
My experience is my own. That experience mirrored others AND in turn mirrored the US Army's.
You want me to post the thread and you can see these boards version of "polite debate". Don't make me laugh.
Last edited:
Just exactly what does "WE" mean in your world??
You disparage the reading comprehension of others but saying crap like "WE does not mean GROUP." makes me question your comprehension of basic English grammar.
"We" is a plural pronoun. Plural means more than one individual. This is the definition of a group.
Studies have been done, they're out there, go look them up!
stagpanther
New member
This is turning into a "who swings the biggest pair-fest" if I were admin it would be closed by now. : ) David should go hang at the sniper's hide--that's full of firefights and insults. LOL
The question was asked in the context of my Military Service and answered in the context of my Military Service.
Obviously it is not something that falls in the context of your military service.
Group refers to a very large element in my Military Experience. It is a level above Squadron or Battalion.
They have been which is why 5.56mm is being replaced.
Stag, nobody is looking to insult anyone but at the same time expect to receive a helping of what you dish out.
Not Actuarial enough for you?
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
SIG’s winning NGSW entry:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/03/sig-sauer-ngsw-prototype/
Though the hybrid 6.8 brass/steel case is loaded with a BTHP projectile and not the specified Army EPR projectile.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/03/sig-sauer-ngsw-prototype/
Though the hybrid 6.8 brass/steel case is loaded with a BTHP projectile and not the specified Army EPR projectile.
stagpanther
New member
Shiver me timbers--that sig binary case looks suspiciously similar to shell shocks binary cases which have been out for quite a while. I ran one of Shell Shocks 9mm cases up to around 45,000 psi before it blew apart, 40,000 with no issues, though there's still a bit of stretch in the primer cup (I've never heard of the military reloading though).
BTW--I find it a bit odd, and concerning, that the weapon system bidder is also going to be the sole ammunition supplier. Anyone else see potential weakness in this scheme?
BTW--I find it a bit odd, and concerning, that the weapon system bidder is also going to be the sole ammunition supplier. Anyone else see potential weakness in this scheme?
Last edited:
I think that's only during the development phase of the program. By doing it that way, the manufacturer of the weapon system retains control over the design and development of the ammo for their weapon.
I've also read where a new plant is being built at Lake City to produce the ammo for the cartridge selected in the NGSW program.
- Status