Police armor rifle threat?

[zachkuby87]

U post one incedent where some guys were working at 1am I may add where a vest saved there life and act like that means we should all wear them. but ok I'm going to do this one more time if you work in a hazardous area in the middle of the night or work a job where people would like to rob and/or shoot you then a vest is worth consideration but for most civilians its just rediculous! And if your paranoid enough to think you need avest yes u should seek mental help. and the op isn't speaking of thin consealable armor he's asking if used police vest is going to stop high powered rifle rounds. When was the last time you heard of a gangbanger shooting a high powered rifle? Prolly never they're not smart enough to use the right weapon for what there trying to accomplish they would rather look tough and run up to you with a 9mm or .22 maybe a .45 and shoot you in most cases there aim is so <poor> they'll miss any vital organs anyway.
Bottom line
Leo,military real deal body armor is required
cashiers of sorts,ganbanger,prostitutes and people that work late nights in bad nieghborhoods might wanna invest in some LIGHT body armor
Average joe aka me and you.. never its useless when's the last time you got shot at even? Never in most cases.
But I'm guessing your al just gonna argue this with me all day u have it your way invest your money in it when it will never be used its not my money do wht you please with it. And I just remembered the guy who says armor is defensive and guns are offensive that is complete bs unless you are the aggresor the gun is a defensive tool. U use it to keep the bg from harming you or whoever you don't use it to take the offensive and start shooting ppl in that case you become the agressor and therefore the bad guy...

[Jager1]

Al Franken?

When was the last time you heard of a gang banger shooting a high powered rifle?

Lots of them around here using assault rifles. Some of them courtesy of the BATFE! Home invasions are on the rise, also.

If it's legal, why not?

but for most civilians

I'm a CITIZEN. Civilians are designated as non-combatants in war-zones.

its not my money

Exactly.

[armsmaster270]

So carrying a gun to protect yourself is OK, but wearing a vest is stupid? I don't think so. Armored car guards wear it too. If you feel you need to carry a firearm to protect yourself why not have a vest to stop the rounds coming your way while you are drawing your gun.

[PawPaw]

Originally Posted by Jager1

Civilians are designated as non-combatants in war-zones.

Actually, I believe that civilians are those persons who are not subject to the UCMJ. But, I get your point and I generally agree with it. All civil LEOs are civilians, unless they're called to active duty and are subject to the UCMJ.

Originally Posted by BarryLee

It is my understanding that all vests are required to have an expiration date and are supposed to be replaced after that date.

Every one that I've ever seen had an expiration date, generally about five years. I'm told that Kevlar degrades over time and that after the expiration date, the manufacturer won't warranty them to stop the bullets they're designed to stop. I'm on my third vest now, and I'm supposed to be measured for my fourth sometime next month.

[MadHatter1]

The reason I'm asking this question, is because I might have an opportunity to purchase police armor (bullet proof vest) soon. Will a .223 pierce what police wear? What rounds will it stop? Thanks!

If its used, its most likely being sold because its near the end of its service life.
For more information on different levels and types of armor, look at the sites for the various manufacturers. There is tons of information on various materials, and how effective they are. They will list the NIJ ratings for the matiral, and explain the NIJ rating system
The reason I refer you to the manufactures is that about half of the responses to this thread so far contain inaccurate or blatently false information.

[lcpiper]

If I am not mistaken, I am old and times change .....

Just in case no one else mentioned this, commiting a crime while wearing body armor is an additional charge all on it's own in some states. So if you have to defend yourself and come out on the loosing side in court you could also face a slam dunk charge of wearing body armor while in the commission of a crime.

You really need to decide if all the costs and hassles of getting and wearing body armor are worth the protection. After wearing what the Army had me wearing in Iraq, I'd never wear it. Even something like a second chance vest would be uncomfortable as hell as every day wear.

[Rangefinder]

Since we're talking about body armor capabilities.....

This is a 40 S&W 165gr FMJ stopped in a Kevlar test pack rating in the neighborhood of a Level-III vest fired from about 5 feet away. I've caught as many as 12-15 bullets in one small pack like this before it's just too bloated and puffed up to hit anymore. But that's about what it takes to start getting it weakened enough in one spot to possibly get one through.



You'll notice after pushing the "dent" back out how little the bullet actually penetrated--if memory serves, the thing was caught by the third layer. To pass completely through it would have had to penetrate about twenty more layers after the first two.


It forms a nice little pocket around the nose of the bullet where the fibers stretched around it and that's about all the farther it can go. NOW, take notice of all the little "dimples" in the center of the pack... Those are entries of a slightly smaller caliber.

Here's the back side with all the exits...


Any guesses what bullet smaller than a 40S&W defeated Level-III armor so easily? A 17HMR at 100 yards. It doesn't even slow down going through something that will stop a 230gr. 44Mag SWC at PBR.

I guess the point here is that if you're trying to stop a handgun, it's pretty easy to do within a budget. If you're trying to stop a rifle, you'd be better off staying behind the sandbags. Rifles are an animal you don't want to get in front of. Even the tiny ones are not easy to stop. Once you step up the ladder, they get down-right near impossible to stop with a body armor you could wear and not be too weighed down to move.

[highvel]

Just for comparison have you every shot a .204 or .22-250 at a steel plate at under 50 yd?
The plate will barely twitch and the hole looks like a torch made it!
I would say BA against a rifle is useless, with handguns you shoot center mass until you realize they have armor, with a rifle you shoot em anywhere ya want doesn't matter!

[Derek Scammon]

zachkuby87 has been well-versed in the standard gun-grabber propaganda; i.e. anyone who wants to carry/wear a gun/body armor is either a criminal lowlife, a quivering pansy, or the wannabe reincarnation of John Wayne. Bravo, Handgun Control, Inc!

[Brasscatcher84]

In my experience, when someone is as adamant as Zach is about an issue that really boils down to personal preference, it is because that individual wants desperately to be seen as more of an authority than they actually are, and it's best to ignore that person's advice on just about everything.

[Brasscatcher84]

Your average body armor is for unexpected firearms confrontations, where you may or may not be dealing with someone who has a gun. With few exceptions, the .223 is not a pistol cartidge, and if someone is carrying a weapon that fires it, you will know about it in plenty of time to seek cover, run away, or (desperate situations) fire preemptively. If I know for a fact that I will be confronting someone with an assault rifle, I'm not strapping on kevlar, I'm staying home. However, if I have business that takes me into an area or situation that MAY turn to a self defense situation, I have no problem strapping on a soft vest.

[ljaycox]

"In my experience, when someone is as adamant as Zach is about an issue that really boils down to personal preference, it is because that individual wants desperately to be seen as more of an authority than they actually are, and it's best to ignore that person's advice on just about everything."

Not to mention the fact that the "authority" is nearly illiterate.

The events in London makes me think that there may be a need for some protection if/when that level of social disruption finds its way here.

[Eghad]

Why do you need a gun to carry anywhere to defend yourself? If you feel you need to carry a gun for self defense then what is wrong with somebody wanting body armor?