Talk:Dragon Skin

Merger proposal

I propose merging Pinnacle Armor into [[Dragon Skin]. Pinnacle Armor is a stub about the defunct company that produced Dragon Armor. I have already added the content from that page into the Dragon Skin page as a section. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Dragon Skinm. Pizzarush (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Future Weapons?

nothing said on Future Weapons should be taken as fact EVER; it is an infomercial and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.145.129 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

pleast remove the statement that it can withstand grenade blasts

That was shown on Future weapons, which is as reliable as a study about climate change made by Haliburton, so that "test" that demonstrated that capability should not be stated as a fact or at least have the fact that Future Weapons is not the slightest bit reliable noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.212.171 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User "Proof"

Where is the source of the statement, "Currently, Dragon Skin is being worn by some civilian contractors in Iraq, some elite special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, some SWAT teams, 9 generals in Afghanistan and Iraq". Where is the source, Pinnacle? If true, Generals wearing Body Armor that their troops can't get is disgraceful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onguo2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 May 2007

Yes, I have changed it back to what it should be. NSA, CIA, Secret Service, Generals, and elite troops all wear this armor. Sources have been provided. There are probably some troops wearing this despite army "ban", but as of now there are no solid evidence to indicate that. If you view the actual page itself and click on the numbers in the parentheses above each claim, then you will see the proof. I see you're new here. Have fun, and do good research!

edit: I have now corrected an error. there is no solid proof that generals in iraq have worn dragon skin, though it is likely. Their bodyguards, however, have worn Dragon Skin (in iraq). The source is an MSNBC report that aired on may 17. It has been provided and the article has been updated. By the way, can we please remove Evolution Armor? It's just a direct competitor to Pinnacle Armor who claims to have their own flexible rifle-defeating system and right now they're trying to leapfrog over Pinnacle due to the controversy with the military to advertise their own product. Their website is poorly made and they don't seem like a reliable and authentic company to me. I think we have to wait for a while. But, I do believe that Evolution Armor has no place on this page. I'm going to remove their link. Argue with me if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.165.60 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 May 2007

The Air Force approved the Dragonskin SOV-2000 (not the SOV-3000) for Executive Protection, meaning for use by rear echelon personnel in noncombat situations ONLY. This decision was primarily made on the basis that the SOV-2000 is the lightest and most comfortable Level III body armor currently available on the market. Since ExecProt armor is not used in combat, the Air Force felt that military grade torture testing (the kind of tests that the SOV-3000 failed) was not necessary; civilian grade testing performed by the NIJ was sufficient. The Air Force subsequently found out that Pinnacle had lied about SOV-2000 being NIJ certified, and withdrew the contract -- they claimed it was NIJ certified and it was in fact not certified at all, although the president of Pinnacle now claims he had verbal permission from the NIJ to say it was certified in advance of actual official certification. --PhoenixVTam 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it in perspective

It's just an article about body armor. Whether the Wikipedia article puts it in a positive, negative, or neutral POV will not have any effect outside of Wikipedia and those who read it. So, the hostility and tempers are really pointless (and why would you feel so strongly about it unless you were part of Pinnacle, one of its competitors, or a potential user; all of which would disqualify you from being objective). If you feel strongly on this issue, I'd advise you to stick to posting verifiable facts, not claims, conclusions, or opinions. Be civil. Thanks! Bahamut0013 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a potential user would in no way 'disqualify you from being objective'. I use oxygen daily, but am fairly comfortable with my ability to discuss it objectively. 74.101.174.18 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it sad that the army puts saving money over saving lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they have done so. Body armor is upgraded about once a decade, which is relatively frequent, given testing and development times. I've worn the Vietnam era nylon, the PASGT, the IBA and the new modular armor in 24 years of service. However, body armor is also not the only consideration for logistics. Given a choice between marginally better body armor (if Dragonskin is, which is unproven), and (for example) more reliable vehicles to avoid close combat in the first place, the smart commander will take the improved vehicles. In such case, the improved armor would be justified only for specific troops engaging in close combat on a regular basis--door kickers, not drivers or support troops. Dragonskin costs about 5X the unit cost of IBA, but failed many of the tests IBA passed. So even if it worked better on single hits, that would be inadequate for the door kickers, and hideously wasteful for the rest of the service, to the tune of about $5 billion. $5 billion will buy a LOT of training ammo, MRAPs, fuel, intel assets, etc.Mzmadmike (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image needed

Aside from the general POV / COI issues which are abundantly clear just from looking at the page, the lack of an image or two is a glaring omission. Are there any appropriately-licensed images which could be added? Chris Cunningham 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Level V - here is the wisdom

a "Level V" variant, which does not correspond to any body armor standard

This statement in the article is not true. The mere existance of Level V has been officially announced, it protects against the latest development in armour-piercing ammunitions, including tests for multi-shot protection (Level IV had single shot stopping requirement only). The exact caliber and muzzle speed of AP bullets used in Level V certification remains a military state secret of the USA, however, because the big brass do not want give free hints to the jihadists on what rifle to buy to defeat Level V body armour. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like something you pulled out of your a** in an attempt to sound like an expert. The body armor levels are CIVILIAN standards published by the Department of Justice; military body armour is designed to custom specifications specified by the military -- as a general rule, military vests are vastly more rugged (but also substantially heavier) than civilian counterparts due to the need to withstand extended use in extreme field conditions. PhoenixVTam (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. First, military armour follows a different standard, NATO one (which does include more powerful threats than the ones mentioned). NIJ is for police. Second, standards are never classified, that's the whole point of them. Third, there are no "secret bullets" used for testing; armour is always tested against existing ones. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Level IV is in the latest NIJ standard; "Level V" is not. Level IV is roughly equivalent to US DoD ESAPI plates, so it is assumed that "Level V" would be equivalent to XSAPI plates, whcih have a classified protection level. NATO protection levels are also classified and are not available to the general public. There ARE secret bullets. Tell me what the M993 is and then I'll report you to the DoD. Secret does not mean imaginary. Armor is tested against existing, Classified and Unclassified threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.90.2 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

M993 is 7.62mm NATO armor-piercing ball. Report to the DoD that you're an officious ass with no subject matter expertise. M993's been common public knowledge for at least a dozen years now, and if it was classified --- which of course it never was --- YOU would be the one violating classified defense data regulations and federal law, by running you suck-hole about its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the XSAPI purchase description document, which demonstrates that the "X-Threat" velocity is identical to M993, and given the context can reasonably assumed to be M993. Berlioz AAPM (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

see this: https://ciehub.info/spec/PD/FQ-PD-07-03D.pdf

Questions on Testings

"vest stopped all the bullets fired during a test" and lines like this, are all over the article, suggesting the tests STOP the bullets and ignore the actual impact damage. Do any of the documents talk about the impact and damage caused BEHIND the armour? Simply stopping a bullet isn't nearly good enough, as while you might stop the bullet you can still kill the wearer with the blunt force through the armour itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talroth (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NIJ standards have a deformation requirement in ballistic clay. (40mm I believe in US, 20mm in Germany) that corresponds to the amount and distribution of force to the wearer of the armor. A bullet is not considered 'stopped' if the armor deforms too much, even if the bullet itself fails to penetrate the body. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Says you. ::chukles:: I know of about 4 that you have no clue of. USAF SGT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.72.40 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Odd Phrase: "Pointed Steel Ammunition"

Under "History Channel and Discovery Channel tests" there is a reference to "pointed steel ammunition." This seems ambiguous. Are the bullets in question steel-jacketed? Did they have a steel penetrator? The phrase "pointed steel ammunition" makes it sound like solid steel projectiles with a sharp point in front, which I seriously doubt is what was meant. 0x539 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Most of this article reads like an advertisement for Dragon Skin. dougmc (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats because it is so good all you can do is advertise it!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.110.99 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

the armor that is twice the weight of interceptor and failed all tests is that good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.145.129 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

hi

one thing that u r wrong on is that there is testing with secret ammuntions that only the millitary conduct against ammor not just body but tanks and thus forth i live near a testing place for the millitary and they test everything even bullets well more like projectiles that we probly wont seen untill were all old and senile and some kid in like 2050 would be reading this laughing. the millitary base i live close to is in tn and they mostly test top secret millitary project for aero space and flight but they do an test on ballestics too its call AEDC. well any who theres ur bit of info for the day and no i cannot tell u wat there are test cus its all hush hush all i know is that they to the testing there. and for most of the nut jobs that read this yes i may have miss spelled somthings on here but owell i have better things to do with my time besides try to tell someone how to spell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.204.32 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell did you just say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.191.51 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He said "I am an idiot pulling nonsense out of my butt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on hold on, I took mentally challenged speak as an elective for four years, I think I can communicate with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.221.210 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Penetration

I know this might be a wee bit off topic however, despite the bullet not penetrating the ceramic plate; Has it been tested on a simulated human body? I'm thinking that the bullet when it hits, would feel like somebody just poked you incredibly hard, and possibly deal more 'concussive' damage then when your hit with Interceptor on you. Thoughts? If it proves true It would be a good thing to add to the topic. --66.37.173.201 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'd read the above section entitled "Questions on Testings"(sic), you'd see that NIJ testing does take into account kinetic energy transfer to the body using a clay backing. The amount of permanent deformation of the clay gives an excellent indication of how hard the impact is even when the projectile is stopped by the armor. There is a firm threshold for the amount of deformation allowed to certify that the armor passed the test. I'm sure that the US Army tests (as well as those of NATO and other certifying authorities) have similar protocols. This issue has long been established as a factor in flexible body armor performance.--SEWalk (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with testing against a backing material that is much denser and less elastic than a human body is the penetration or other damage to the armor will always be worse due to the inability of the armor to move. Impacts that would not penetrate a Kevlar vest on a human may penetrate against clay because much of the method by which it works, deformation, is negated by the dense clay. The Dragon Skin armor combines the rigid protection of ballistic plates with the flexibility of a Kevlar cloth only vest. Testing it against clay removes most of the flexible protection function. Likewise, testing body armor hanging freely will work the opposite way, making it appear to be better than it is when worn. Much of the impact energy is dissipated because the armor can move freely.

One cheap way to illustrate this is with a BB gun and some tin cans. At a distance where the BB will only dent or partially penetrate an empty, unsealed can, the same BBs fired from the same gun will easily penetrate one or both sides of the same can when it's filled with water. I used to muzzle load alfalfa pellets in my Red Ryder BB "rifle" and fire them at aluminum soda cans. (The older, thicker ones with the large tops.) Empty, the pellets would merely cave in the side, sometimes partially penetrating. When I filled the cans with water, the pellets would almost always punch completely through and shoot water out the top. I never shot holes in sealed cans of soda because that would've been a waste of the beverage, plus it would've made a sticky mess.

Testing any body armor against clay or hanging free and claiming it's a pass/fail test is utter BS. Only testing armor backed by a material analogous to the density and flexibility of a human torso is truly relevant to the level of protection it provides. Bizzybody (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I Beleve it was tested on a silicone stand-in with actual bone structure. They do that these days you know. Now I don't know about the results because I wasn't high enough rank to know I guess. And as for the actual kineticforce. The amount of inward travel do to Kenetic force is 2in into the cavity, where as the lethal inward travel for a protective vest is 4in into the cavity. Meaning that it actually reaches internal organs and can cause catastrofic failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.72.40 (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy...

Jathtech (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC): I was the original writer of this section, and I tried to be as neutral as possible when I wrote it. I seem to have failed in that. the section had been deleted several times before the current iteration had been written. I appreciate whoever has adjusted it to its current state, because it says everything that I was trying to say, minus the bias. Good jobs, and thanks for not simply deleting it again.

Is there any proof as to the claim (not in the wiki-article) that those with power to "fail or pass" the dragonskin actually owned (stock) a part of the company that makes the current issue Interceptor vests? That would make for a nice little lawsuit.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.12.93 (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that Natick Research Center's scientists would own stock in a company that produced body armor. It would also be very easy to document if they did. Dragonskin's MO seems to be to insist that Interceptor doesn't do what it was designed to do (It does) and Dragonskin does it better (Debatable), and this is because of some conspiracy ("citation needed"). In at least one instance, Dragonskin was offered the opportunity to submit vests for a test, but refused, claiming a pre-existing bias would find against them. Given the potential contract would be in the billions of dollars, this combination of circumstances raises a lot of questions. Testing bias CAN happen, and has, but to refuse to even commence testing seems more PR oriented than anything. When the Army simply bought Dragonskin and tested it, IIRC, no single vest survived the first round of testing, while competing brands did.Mzmadmike (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the article not state that the Dragonskin 're-test' was conducted under the auspices of Karl Masters who was at the same time the Product Manager for the Interceptor Body Armor - the direct competitor to Dragon Skin and the product the Army went with?? Whilst not the same as the above mentioned 'Stock Options' claim it does bring up questions about impropriety none the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.139.218 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at how the US Army attempted to sabotage tests of the M-16 rifle... replacing pins with pieces of nails, loosening parts, mis-adjusting the sights and more. The initial problems the M-16 had in service were caused by the government's refusal to buy them with chromed chambers as recommended by the designers. The company insisted the rifle was "self cleaning" and therefore didn't need a cleaning kit issued, saving several dollars per rifle. That was almost true *if* the chamber was chromed. The government buyers created extra savings by nixing the chrome and accepting the 'no cleaning' pitch. Other military procurement processes have been tainted by biased government testing, either for or against an item. Bizzybody (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hostile Witness?

Karl Masters was quoated as writing:

"I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain. I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Skin—don't. I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120 F. I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..."

I would hope that someone who works in the armour industry is awair that a level IV vest is not intended to stop armour peircing full power rifle cartriges (7.62x54R AP)... The ability to do so is what qualifies as the minimum entry into level V so he is denouncing the vests quality for something it is not intended to do anyway. Perhaps a note should be made on page identifying him as a hostile source having a vested interest in the Interceptor system?

sorry, no account on this wiki. - anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.42.39 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Heck, spelling armor with a "u" is evidence that you don't likely work in the *US* armor industry. More to the point, 7.62x54R AP has similar penetrating power to 0.30cal APM2 (7.62x63, hard steel core) which is the standard Level IV threat.

NIJ Level IV armor will stop a 0.30 caliber (7.62x63) APM2 bullet. I know this because I've read NIJ Standard 0101.06 "Ballistic Resistance of Body Amor" plenty of times.

Also, the US Military issues two types of plate to its troops with the Interceptor system: ESAPI and XSAPI. XSAPI's protection level is classified, but ESAPI protects against 0.30cal APM2 as well. I know that because I've read the Purchase Description for ESAPI plates, and because the ESAPI plates in my office have "7.62 mm APM2 Protection" printed right on them.

In other words, Interceptor DOES protect against 7.62x54R AP in the areas where there are hard plates, so should any competing military armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.90.2 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the article based upon what we find the reliable sources provide us. It is not a chat forum. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragon Skin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624215501/https://peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/bodyarmor.asp to https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/bodyarmor.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon Skin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/14358966.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927044456/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213104804/http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/18536329.html to http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/18536329.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222044959/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080504%2FNEWS%2F805040344 to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080504%2FNEWS%2F805040344

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)