The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Gear and Accessories

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 30, 2007, 05:47 PM   #1
Ericmower
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5
Dragon Skin

Is Tactical dragon skin available to the public and what price if so.
Ericmower is offline  
Old August 30, 2007, 07:24 PM   #2
RB047
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Location: Northeast
Posts: 17
Not sure, ive been looking for a while, ever since i saw a show about on t.v. That stuff took a beating and not a single round or grenade shrapnel penetrated it.
RB047 is offline  
Old August 30, 2007, 08:10 PM   #3
VA9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2007
Location: N. VA
Posts: 254
That was insane 40rds of 7.62x39 and 100rds of 9mm. If I were a cop or military I would definitely want that.
__________________
“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly. The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.” Evan Marshall
VA9mm is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 12:01 AM   #4
RB047
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Location: Northeast
Posts: 17
here a link with good info on it:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...agon3,,00.html

It is made by Pinnacle Armor and their website has order forms, no prices and i believe it isn't available to the general public yet.
RB047 is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 07:37 AM   #5
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,343
It has been withdrawn from the NIJ for not meeting NIJ standards for what it was supposed to be rated. Disks slipped out of position (bad adhesive) and disks failed. That is why the military rejected it.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 07:39 AM   #6
SteelCore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2007
Posts: 522
Actually, there've been some problems reported with Dragon Skin failing certain ballistics tests. It's also said to be excessively heavy. I don't have the links handy, but if you do a search on 10-8 Forums there's some discussion of it.

I consider it a good thing that such armor isn't yet ready for prime time, since the moment the police and military have it and ordinary citizens can't get it, the Second Amendment will be largely moot. We're heading rapidly in that direction, though most gun owners sadly think the Second Amendment is only about hunting, target shooting, and defense against common criminals.
__________________
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
SteelCore is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 07:59 AM   #7
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Quote:
It has been withdrawn from the NIJ for not meeting NIJ standards for what it was supposed to be rated. Disks slipped out of position (bad adhesive) and disks failed. That is why the military rejected it.
The official stement from NIJ on Dragon Skin.

Quote:
NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.

Notwithstanding NIJ's determination, DOJ encourages public safety officers to wear their Pinnacle Body Armor, Inc. body armor, model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01 until replacement because research has shown that officers are more likely to suffer a fatal injury when not wearing body armor.

In addition, DOJ strongly recommends that public safety agencies and officers who purchase new bullet-resistant body armor verify, prior to purchase, that the body armor model appears on NIJ's list of models that comply with its most current requirements, the 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor. A list of these models is available at www.justnet.org. DOJ also encourages public safety officers to follow body armor manufacturer "wear and care" instructions, and not to store armor in the trunk of their vehicle or other environments in which armor might be exposed to extreme heat or cold.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 05:19 PM   #8
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,343
Thank you Eghad for nabbing the specifics.

Quote:
It's also said to be excessively heavy. I don't have the links handy, but if you do a search on 10-8 Forums there's some discussion of it.
Interesting given it is supposed to be lighter than the military's Interceptor vest with only plates in the front and back.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 05:26 PM   #9
M14fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 775
Pinnacle Armor

Here is the link for Dragon Skin info. http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php

I have read the Army's statements regarding Dragon skin and find it interesting that the Army rejects it while in passed the Navy's tests and the Marine Corps is re-evaluating it. I really would like for it to be as good as pinnacle says it is. I would buy some for my son (USMC) immediately, even if it does cost as much as a used car. A threat level 4 full wraparound vest is around $6,000.00
__________________
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington
M14fan is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 06:30 PM   #10
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
I am sure any product has problems. We all know that from the forums. I think the Dragon skin Ruckus is significant because it means that there will be more tests to ensure that our folks on the front lines have the best.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 08:33 PM   #11
RB047
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Location: Northeast
Posts: 17
I thought i read, that they were also looking into a liquid or gel type material that hardened upon the bullets impact...or something along that line did anyone hear or have more info on a product of that nature?
RB047 is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 09:18 PM   #12
M14fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 775
I have seen some sort of foam-like 'hard' plates for body armor. I know I still have the magazine with that evaluation in it around here someplace. Oh darn! Now I'll have to read firearms related publications until I find the right one.
__________________
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington
M14fan is offline  
Old August 31, 2007, 09:52 PM   #13
PPGMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Posts: 239
Quote:
I have read the Army's statements regarding Dragon skin and find it interesting that the Army rejects it while in passed the Navy's tests and the Marine Corps is re-evaluating it.
Each service has different testing protocols and requirements. For example a vest that strips very easily is very important to the Navy, and the Corps to a limited extent.

Anyways the Army reported the same problems with their Level 4 vest as the NIJ is reporting at the level 3 vests. It's nearly twice as expensive as the level 4 interceptor, and it weighs 20lbs more.
PPGMD is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 01:24 AM   #14
RB047
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Location: Northeast
Posts: 17
here is a very interesting dateline clip looking into the rejection of dragon skin

http://www.videosift.com/video/Datel...y-Armor-Report

also this is a brief article on "liquid armor" google it for more info

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...042104.00.html
RB047 is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 10:20 AM   #15
PPGMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Posts: 239
I would take anything on the news with a very large grain of salt.
PPGMD is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 02:59 PM   #16
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
I have read the Army's statements regarding Dragon skin and find it interesting that the Army rejects it while in passed the Navy's tests and the Marine Corps is re-evaluating it. I really would like for it to be as good as pinnacle says it is. I would buy some for my son (USMC) immediately, even if it does cost as much as a used car. A threat level 4 full wraparound vest is around $6,000.00
The Marine Corps specifically prohibits its wear. I think it is an item that needs more work prior to being fielded.
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
STLRN is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 04:51 PM   #17
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,343
Right. So the Army rejected it and the Marines are re-evaluating it which means it did not do well the first time through for them either. So out of three branches of the military, the vest was not accepted the first time through in 2/3 of them. That sounds significant to me.

The concept sounds like a very good one. The problem is that the armor simply isn't holding together properly. It sounds like something they could work out with a bit more R&D.

I was bothered by Pinnacle's response that the Army didn't know how to test their vest. Geez, you gotta hate folks that raise the bar and demand performance.

Quote:
That was insane 40rds of 7.62x39 and 100rds of 9mm. If I were a cop or military I would definitely want that.
I saw this on Future Weapons as well. While I was impressed that it stopped the 7.62x39, I was not impressed that it stopped the 9mm. The shot order bothered me. They hit it with the big stuff first. I would have been a lot more impressed to see if the vest stopped the 7.62x39 AFTER being pelted by the 9mm.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old September 6, 2007, 04:12 PM   #18
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,407
Quote:
So out of three branches of the military, the vest was not accepted the first time through in 2/3 of them. That sounds significant to me.
I'm not too sure about that. The 1911 and the Garand were both rejected for further development their first times out, too IIRC.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old September 6, 2007, 10:10 PM   #19
PPGMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Posts: 239
Quote:
I'm not too sure about that. The 1911 and the Garand were both rejected for further development their first times out, too IIRC.
So was the AR, what it shows that it needs work. Perhaps when they fix the issues they will get accepted by the military.
PPGMD is offline  
Old September 6, 2007, 10:31 PM   #20
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,343
I think you may be mistaken on the 1911. It was not rejected for further development. It was selected after an extensive review process where it was found superior to its competitors. There were changes/additions made after the selection and before the gun went into production, but no rejection.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old September 6, 2007, 10:42 PM   #21
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Another thing with the Dragon is that it is difficult to inspect for damage. The plates and vests of the current armor system are easy to check for damage and replace if needed. How are you going to check every disk in the DS armor without an X-ray machine?
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old September 7, 2007, 10:27 AM   #22
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
The fact that the disc have a 'lay' to them may change the resistance as a function of impact angle.
While I have not reviewed allthe test protocols lately, shooting at only perpendicular to a design with a lay may not be very indicative of the total perfromence.
Unless we have a to restrict angle of incidence relative to the equipment you are wearing.
brickeyee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11644 seconds with 7 queries