Body Armor: ridiculous or prudent?

[fallout mike]

Sgt r, again I agree with you. But in the op he is talking about putting one on every time he grabs his pistol when something goes bump in the night.

 

[Sgt_R]

I suppose that'd depend on the severity of the "bump." I don't go to full scale red alert every time I hear a strange noise, but if I did hear something that warranted investigation with a firearm in hand (the situation presented in the OP), then it only costs me a few extra seconds to put on a plate carrier before I leave the relative safety of my bedroom.

That's not to suggest that investigating a bump in the night is always the best decision. Given the option, I'd prefer to hole up in my bedroom with a rifle and a telephone, but there again, body armor would be nice to have.

R

 

[Sam1911]

then it only costs me a few extra seconds to put on a plate carrier before I leave the relative safety of my bedroom.

Some of the answers seem like they might be self-evident on the one hand, or impossible to answer before the moment, on the other.

If the "bump" is someone beating in your bedroom door, obviously the vest isn't the first thing you reach for. (Actually...that's for all practical purposes an unwinnable sitaution which could only be prevented, not likely solved in the moment.)

If the "bump" is someone trying to break in your main entry door downstairs, you've got some amount of time to prepare a response. Probably enough time to put on a vest as you're grabbing your shotgun and verifying your loved ones' positions.

(Unless you don't own a vest. FWIW, I don't. And it isn't the first thing I'll buy to improve my home defense plan when finances allow me to take the next steps. But, I do recognize the possible value in many home defense settings.)

 

[Sgt_R]

If... you've got some amount of time to prepare a response.

I think this gets to the heart of the thing. If you have time to prepare a response, then body armor would seem to be a reasonable and prudent component of that response.

Unless you don't own a vest. FWIW, I don't. And it isn't the first thing I'll buy to improve my home defense plan when finances allow me to take the next steps. But, I do recognize the possible value in many home defense settings.

Yeah, me too. It's on the list of things I'd like to have, but it's nowhere near the top.

R

 

[Double Naught Spy]

JustinJ: The point is that the risk of being shot in one's home is too remote to justify buying one just to try and fumble it on in the middle of the night.

I can never get over this sort of logic. Having a gun is considered prudent, forward thinking, well thought, and generally a smart thing. Having body armor isn't needed because there is no real risk to homeowners and as such it is ridiculous or paranoid to have it. I have always thought that they two things were rather reversed, not that I consider having a gun to be paranoid, but between the two, the vest is what does and can do no harm to anybody and it provides a passive form of protection to the wearer for a variety of insults. Most typical ballstic soft body armor isn't rated for knives, but is still excellent protection against slashing by a knife (compared to a shirt or bare skin). It helps to disperse the force of impacts over a wider area. It will stop most pistol ammo. The wearer need not even know that s/he under attack for the body armor to do its job. A gun, on the other hand, has to be used actively. Oh sure, if you carrying a holster the gun does provide a limited amount of passive protection of the body under the gun, but otherwise, it doesn't do much unless it is being directly manipulated by the user.

We always talk about stopping the threat which usually refers to stopping a person, but why not have protection that stops a lot of the dangers unleashed by the threat such as bullets?

Got pulled over for speeding while coming back from the gun range. It was a cold day and I had left on my vest. As the officer approached my car and saw that I was wearing a vest, he retreated to the rear corner of my car with his hand on his gun. Apparently, ballistic vests are very scary to see. I held out my ID and CHL that he retrieved and I explained that I was armed. He asked why I was wearing a vest and I said because I had been to a gun range and don't have a lot of trust in the skills and safety of all the people there. He asked why I would go to a range where I thought I needed to wear a vest and I countered with asking if he wore a vest when he went to the police range. He said he did, but that he was a cop. So I said something like "So you don't trust the skills and safety of your fellow officers either?"

I got the ticket.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
JustinJ: The point is that the risk of being shot in one's home is too remote to justify buying one just to try and fumble it on in the middle of the night.

Let's try that another way (and mathematically at about the same level of probability):

"The point is that the risk of being shot in one's home is too remote to justify buying a gun just to try and fumble it to hand in the middle of the night."

As i mentioned earlier there are countless incidents in which people have succesfully utilized a firearm in the home for defense. The same can't be said of body armor. I've already posted a link in which one can easily read hundreds, if not thousands, of actual accounts.

You obviously feel that armor is too much. Having seen my share of people killed violently, I can assure you that when the time comes, too much ain't enough.

Let's clarify. For average home defense i feel armor is an unwarranted investment. For a war zone it is critical equipment.

If somebody is sleeping in a war zone and expects to be attacked at any time their reaction to being awoken will obviosly be far different from waking in their bed at home because they might have heard a burglar.

JustinJ,
You're still attempting to equate a situation where something may happen to a situation where something is happening.

As i said in post #32 when you buy your armor it will probably not be while something is happening so it is a proactive step. Also, as others have said if you hear a bump in the night you do NOT know something is happening unless you have a security camera monitor station next to the bed putting on armor is still actually a response to something that may be happening just as you may get shot at in public.

When you go in your backyard to light off fireworks or have a campfire, do you bring water or a fire extinguisher? Do you bring one any time you go outside for any amount of time?

The two questions are obviously not the same. In one, you are bringing a fire extinguisher along for a limited amount of time because you are in a situation where the risk of needing it to put out a fire is heightened, so even though bringing the fire extinguisher is extra work, you deem it worth the effort in this one instance. You don't bring the fire extinguisher along every day you go outside because you don't want to carry it all the time when, even though there is still a possibility of encountering fire, the need is lessened.

When you are responding to a noise at night, you are in a situation where it's need is heightened as opposed to your normal day. You also do not have to have it on for nearly as long. This is a rather obvious difference between the two situations, and attempting to draw a comparison is a rather poor strawman argument.

If my campfire could possibly spread then i bring something reasonable like a bucket of water but i don't bring along a full fire suit just as you probably don't sleep with one by your bed. That is actually a pretty good point because i would guess many more people die from smoke and fire in their homes than from being shot by home invaders.

Also, people in public do in fact get shot while I don't know of many who have been killed by bottle rockets in the grocery store. Regardless, i am not arguing for wearing body armor at home or while out. I am simply trying to point out that just because something is possible does not mean preparation for it is reasonable.

 

[Chindo18Z]

fallout mike: I guess I've injected too much ".mil history" into the discussion.

I've been simply trying to point out that a vest is actually a very clean and simple option to employ.

Pick it up.

Raise it over your head.

Drop it over your shoulders.

Fasten (usually) a single Velcro strap.

Done.

You'd be pleasantly surprised at how easy the whole donning sequence is. If you ever get the chance, try on a soft vest at a Surplus Store, gun show, Cop/Fire/EMS Uniform Shop, or gun shop that sells them.

I certainly don't don a vest and grab a long gun to go check every random noise in my house. But (as Sgt_R mentioned), if I'm actually alarmed enough to grab that handgun, and I have a few seconds, I think it's prudent to put on the vest instead of letting it gather dust. My red line is the one where I find myself with a racing heart, rapid breathing, and a need to put a gun in my hand. If I'm not at that threshold...I don't even think about armor.

I own multiple firearms and tend to accumulate them. It's an enjoyable hobby. But, if I didn't already own a soft vest, I'd consider forgoing my next toy purchase in order to buy a modest vest for less than the price of a used Glock.

BTW: A front opening military surplus PASGT vest provides NIJ equivalent Level II/IIA protection against common handgun and shotgun loads. They can be purchased off of e-bay or Craigslist for anywhere from $80 - $150.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Chindo is right. I think a lot of people are overstating how much time and effort it takes to put body armor on. Possibly because they haven't done it before.

Do you own a life jacket or vest(the clothing kind)? Set it next to your bed and then put it on. That's how long it takes to put body armor on. If you've ever woken up in the middle of the night and put a shirt or robe on, you've taken longer to do that that it takes to put armor on.

 

[baylorattorney]

I'd distinguish war-zone armor (flak jackets) from personal defense armor we are discussing here. While they are quite similar, there are distinct differences. Or are we talking armor in general? They both stop bullets, true.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I think war zone armor was brought into the discussion because several million veterans of Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan have worn military issued armored rigs that were/are significantly heavier and bulkier than soft armor that might be chosen for home defense. A lot of those people post in this discussion.

The point being that if they could successfully don that stuff quickly (and function), using a much lighter-in-weight soft vest would be an order of magnitude easier to do.


To avoid confusion of terms:

Flak Jackets (M69 & M1955) are the old Vietnam/Korea era, front opening, OD green, ballistic nylon jackets, designed to protect from shrapnel, fragments, and blast.

PASGT vests replaced them (in the US Military) during the mid 80's, offering improved protection against fragments & shrapnel with the added feature of being able to handle many low to mid velocity pistol, SMG, or shotgun loads.

Plate/soft armor rigs used by the military since around the early 2000's [OTV, IOTV, Interceptor (IBA), RBA, etc.] offer even greater fragmentation protection and at least the same level of protection as a police Level IIIA vest against shotgun, some sub-machine gun, some carbine loads, and almost all common handgun loads (including 124 grain, 1400 fps 9mm). With the addition of hard plates to the soft armor, these vests/rigs will stop military rifle and machine gun fire, to include various armor piercing loads.

Vietnam Era Flak Jacket = No Go for home defense; it might stop a low velocity pistol round, but you'd be lucky. Available on Craigs List, E-Bay, and Surplus stores for ~$60 - $80...but why bother?

PASGT vest = economical defense against many common low-to-mid velocity handgun calibers (.25, .32, .380, mid-velocity 9mm, .38 Special, .45 ACP, etc.) and even shotgun loads; effectively NIJ Level IIA to Level II. Available on Craigs List, E-Bay, and Surplus stores used but serviceable for $80 - $150.

Commercial Soft Vest = NIJ rated for whatever level of protection you paid for. Available on Craigs List, E-Bay, Fire/EMS/LEO Supply Stores, Body Armor Vendors, and Military Surplus stores used $150 - $300. New $300 - $500. http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

Plate Carrier = Protection via hard armor plates against all pistol, shotgun, SMG, and most rifle rounds...but only across the ~ 11" x 14" max area of the largest typical plate. Zero fragmentation protection for the torso unless the fragment happens to strikes the plate. No soft armor included. Primarily for chest/back protection from rifle fire where you expect little threat of explosive driven fragments. You can throw this over a soft armor vest to up the protection ante. ~$80 - $200 depending upon carrier...plus the price of the plates...which could run you $300 and up.

Hybrid: Combined Soft Armor Vest w/ Plates = Heavy Bugger, but The Force Is With You. Wrap around protection from fragments, pistol, SMG, & shotgun as well as rifle fire hitting a plate protected area. If you are going to go this route, you would be advised to wear a ballistic helmet as well. This is the All In combo that military combatants wear today. Modular in concept with the ability to add additional side plate protection as well as soft/plate groin guard, shoulder/upper arm soft panels, & soft collar panel for neck. $750 for something basic...to several thousand dollars depending upon rig, soft armor package, and plates chosen.

 

[fallout mike]

Thanks chindo for that info.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Great post chindo.

Vests such as the IBA can be slipped on as easily as a clothing vest. Plate carriers, which is what I use since I have the plates, can be dropped over the head in about a second. Obviously a military vest such as the IOTV takes some more time to be put on securley, but even if slipped over the head, it offers some protection.

The point is, putting on armor takes far less time than you might think. I know there is a preconception that armor is complicated, and if you've seen photos of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan and all the straps and webbing on them, you might have that idea backed up. But not all armor is like that. The kind of armor you could buy online for less than the cost of a pistol can be very streamlined and easy to put on. It really is like putting on a shirt or robe. If that's something you already do anyways when you wake up at night, you won't be doing anything more complicated if you put some armor on instead. Except bathrobes can't stop bullets.

 

[Chindo18Z]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5_1315934617

Richard Davis, founder of Second Chance Body Armor, shoots an armor wearing associate with a 7.62 FAL Battle Rifle...way back in the early days.

And back when he used to shoot himself with magnum revolvers to demonstrate his vests, followed by his demonstrating that he could immediately move and return fire against bowling pins...the origin of bowling pin shoots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhyETXW1u0

 

[nccavediver]

Because of this thread I have moved my armor from my bondsman bag in my spare bedroom to the nightstand next to my bed. I always know in advance when it's time to put it on for bonding so why not just put it next to the bed? It does only take a few seconds to put it on.

I think a lot of people just try to come up with an excuse not to have to buy another expensive thing.

 

[Sgt_R]

To avoid confusion of terms:

That was an excellent write-up Chindo, thank you. I've worn half of that stuff before, and I still didn't know what all the differences were.

R

 

[baylorattorney]

excellent summary Chindo18z!

I remember that Nam flak jacket's collar meant you couldnt wear your helmet at the same time. Not that I served in Nam, I was just studying flak jackets when eBay was popular round here. Bought them up and shot them. They all stopped more than they said they would. Amazing really.

Kevlar has saved many lives, but only if you put it on.

 

[kozak6]

Armor strikes me as a bit paranoid.

I'm not in Iraq. I'm not in Afghanistan. I'm not a cop. I don't live in the ghetto. If things were so bad I were afraid of getting shot every day, I'd move somewhere else.

If you are really that concerned about saving your life, a physical and a gym membership or some defensive driving classes would probably be a better investment for the money.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Kozak, do you own a gun? Have you ever trained or practiced to use that gun to defend yourself?

 

[Chindo18Z]

If you are really that concerned about saving your life, a physical and a gym membership or some defensive driving classes would probably be a better investment for the money.

You are correct. From a statistical point of view, all of those things are much more likely to save your life in the long term.

Arguably, the very act of keeping a firearm for self defense could be considered paranoid as well.

Choices. We all make them.

 

[Sam1911]

You are correct. From a statistical point of view, all of those things are much more likely to save your life in the long term.

Arguably, the very act of keeping a firearm for self defense could be considered paranoid as well.

Choices. We all make them.

Very well put! If you're parsing out the money in dribs and drabs (as I am currently ) you spend it where you HAVE to first, and in the unlikely even that there's any left over, you make the most effective use of it you can. For many of us, the statistics would say that should be spent on treatments to help stop smoking, or on a gym membership, or on a car with better safety features.

When it comes to firearms and self-defense, you need a gun that works. That's really "need number one" because you cannot STOP an attack with a bulletproof vest. And because that gun can be versatile and protect you in many situations.

But if you have A gun that works, the next wisest use of resources is not another gun, but rather training and a practice regimen that promotes your ability to use it as needed.

Once you've got those bases covered -- if you have the resources left to work with -- there are plenty of next level choices. CC video systems are cheap these days. That's almost better than a dog at figuring out who's there and where and what they're doing. Better locks and doors and a security system, plantings, lighting, etc, etc, to dissuade their ability to intrude in the first place. And a vest you can throw on quickly to improve your ability to survive and defend.

Is it likely that any one of us will ever need ANY of these things? No. Is it "paranoid" to avail ourselves of them? Not really. Paranoid means not that you bought something you might not need or are preparing for something that might not happen, but that you're doing so to a harmful degree. If your family isn't eating regular nutritious meals because you have to buy Level IV armor, well...that's probably harmfully paranoid. If $300 or so is money you have on hand (uh...maybe because you gave up the smokes this year? ) then there is no harm, and really, no paranoia in improving your chances another notch.

 

[USAF_Vet]

This is always on of those conundrums. Does rushing to your daughter's room put both of you at more risk because you are unarmored and hence the bad guy may put a bullet into you first and hence leave your daughter as easy pickings or do you don the armor on the way and preserve your ability to protect both of you?

The conundrum is common in emergency services. Do you rush in now with limited resources or wait until you have more resources to better accomplish the job?

I am certainly not picking on you, USAF Vet, but you have expressed a seeming common opinion about being very optimistic about the outcome when not using a vest.

I know a lot of folks who have limited experience with vests and are of the opinion that they take a long time to put on and they don't if you have them set up properly. I always left one waist/chest cinch strap open on my concealment vest such that it could be thrown over my head as fast as a t-shirt, cinchng the last strap en route, or not. I now have a front opening vest and it goes on about as quick as me putting on a 5.11 vest.

Since I can get from my bedroom to hers in less time than it takes to don body armor (which isn't even that long), I'm willing to take that risk. How would I be able to live with myself if she was getting her throat slit open while I was taking the time to prepare? Odds are astronomically against any of that ever happening, but I, as would most any parent, would willingly trade my life for that of my kids if it came down to it.

In any case, for someone to get inside a bedroom without tripping any other security systems is again, astronomically rare, so I tend to consider it a moot point. If the bump in the night is at my front door, i have time to throw on my armor, take account of where everyone is, and get prepared. If that bump in the night is in the hallway leading to the three bedrooms, things have gone catastrophically wrong and I'm grabbing my gun and leaving the body armor for the time being. It's a calculated risk. YMMV.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Everything Sam1911 just said.

As long as your wallet can comfortably absorb the strain, why shouldn't you avail yourself of useful tools and preparations?

As I've gotten older, I've gotten not necessarily wiser, but my wellspring of life experience has gotten broader and deeper. Certain once hypothetical situations have already come to pass. Unlikely threats that were once merely theoretical improbabilities...showed themselves as hard realities.

If you see a diver with a bang stick, he might be paranoid. On the other hand, he might know a thing or two about reef sharks.

A person owning a tornado shelter can likely tell you a few things about extreme weather.

Most folks that own body armor are not "out there". They have a considered frame of reference for choosing to so equip themselves. Often backed up by live fire experience.

Healthy paranoia (and a bit of life experience) is a good thing. It's the difference between ending life as a Spike Buck or living to become an Old Buck.

USAF_Vet: In any case, for someone to get inside a bedroom without tripping any other security systems is again, astronomically rare, so I tend to consider it a moot point. If the bump in the night is at my front door, i have time to throw on my armor, take account of where everyone is, and get prepared. If that bump in the night is in the hallway leading to the three bedrooms, things have gone catastrophically wrong and I'm grabbing my gun and leaving the body armor for the time being. It's a calculated risk. YMMV.

Exactly.

 

[baylorattorney]

I look at it like all defensive issues: better to have IT and not need it, than to NEED IT and not have it. Again, it only works if you wear it.

All armor I've bought and resold kept its value, so no money was lost.

 

[george29]

George how did you ever make it to this point?

Sometimes God and the Devil argue over who reposses the soul, sometimes neither want it, I guess I belong to the latter.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As i mentioned earlier there are countless incidents in which people have succesfully utilized a firearm in the home for defense. The same can't be said of body armor.

And it is no wonder since so few people own body armor. However, if you think about all the folks shot in their homes by bad guys, then the usefulness of body armor really becomes quite clear.

Richard Davis, founder of Second Chance Body Armor, shoots an armor wearing associate with a 7.62 FAL Battle Rifle...way back in the early days.

And back when he used to shoot himself with magnum revolvers to demonstrate his vests, followed by his demonstrating that he could immediately move and return fire against bowling pins...the origin of bowling pin shoots:

While Davis' demonstrations showed how people could respond after being shot, they were actually very misrepresentative of the shootee's condtion after being shot. Davis packed things like phone books or a stack of magazines under his vest to help further spread the blunt force trauma. While usually not life threatening, the blunt force trauma has managed to temporarily stun wearers and delaying their response by up to several seconds. This was never reflected in Davis' demos.

Of course in many of the other cases, people were shot in the vests and did not know it until later, did not know that they had been shot multiple times, or did not feel any pain until well after the incident was over.