Department Of Justice Announces Findings On Dragon Skin Body Armor

[JDZ]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.
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 (http://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.
Information about the DOJ Body Armor Safety Initiative can be found at http://vests.ojp.gov (http://vests.ojp.gov/).
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), headed by Assistant Attorney General Regina B. Schofield, provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist victims. OJP has five component bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime. Additionally, OJP has two program offices: the Community Capacity Development Office, which incorporates the Weed and Seed strategy, and the *** Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office. More information can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm

rofl

[MEGR]

What's so funny?

[JDZ]

It's so funny because it's so f****d up. No one would care that the vest doesn't hold up 6 years. But with all that media coverage...

[MEGR]

Ok, read some more into it. Don't think it's all that funny, but yeah, Pinnacle is in big trouble.

[Bulletproof]

Argh! So confusing... When I saw the presentation during an episode of Future Weapons, the Dragon Skin looked like the best **** in the world, but the Army is saying this vest is a big failure. Now this....

[MichaelF]

The Air Force has opened a criminal case against Pinnacle, for selling them vests, saying they were NIJ III cert'd, when they were not.

Combine all this with the fact that Pinnacle has truly pissed off the Army...

...Don't expect to see them around much longer.

[Sabre]

It's so funny because it's so f****d up. No one would care that the vest doesn't hold up 6 years. But with all that media coverage...

I would care. Do you know how old some of our CBA is that is on issue for Iraq and Afghan? If it can't last 6 years of normal wear and tear (the armour that is, covers are easily replaced) then I most certainly don't want to test it against a fast-moving metal object.

[Jippo]

I would care. Do you know how old some of our CBA is that is on issue for Iraq and Afghan? If it can't last 6 years of normal wear and tear (the armour that is, covers are easily replaced) then I most certainly don't want to test it against a fast-moving metal object.

On top of that, considering that the unit cost is several thousand $ I would rather invest my money to something that will last longer rather than pissing my money in the wind...

[Laconian]

How long a vest lasts is a huge factor. Overall costs, plus replacement costs are a big factor, not just for big agencies (Fed, state or local) but for smaller agencies and some individuals that have to buy their own stuff.

I hope that the AF OSI/IG case goes well.

[WarriorMonk]

wait a second...

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1036

Pinnacle Armor Level IV Dragon Skin Passes ESAPI-FAT Test at Aberdeen
by David Crane
defrev at gmail.com

August 1, 2007

Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT) is reporting about an independent test conducted on July 11, 2007 by Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) on two Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin SOV-3000 Level IV body armor panels. As it turns out, the ATC obtained very different results from the U.S. Army's First Article Test (FAT) results obtained in May 2006. Earlier this year, the U.S. Army testified to the U.S. Congress House Armed Services Committee that Dragon Skin failed that May 2006 U.S. Army-conducted ESAPI-FAT test.

The ATC test was reportedly conducted precisely to the ESAPI-FAT protocol for extreme high temperature. The two Level IV Dragon Skin panels defeated four and five ESAPI-FAT specification shots, respectively, after undergoing high temperature exposure/conditioning, as directed under the ESAPI FAT protocol. In other words, Dragon Skin passed.

The following is a copy of SFTT's full report on Dragon Skin passing ATC's ESAPI-FAT ballistic testing, which was written by Roger Charles:...

"08-01-2007

CORRECTED VERSION: Two Dragon Skin Level IV Panels (Slightly Larger than the Standard ESAPI Plate) Took Four & Five ESAPI-FAT Specification Shots Respectively, After High Temperature Exposure/Conditioning, and Defeated Every Shot

By Roger Charles

DefenseWatch has obtained results of an yet another independent technical assessment that directly refutes specious claims made at the June 6 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee that Dragon Skin failed to meet Army specifications for personal body armor at "high temperatures."

This is great news for America's Grunts, and some bad news for the Army's acquisition mafia -- Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin passed a recent "High Temperature" test at the Aberdeen Test Center that followed precisely the ESAPI First Article Test (FAT) protocol for extreme high temperature.

Before getting into specifics, here's the final result:

Two Dragon Skin Level IV panels (slightly larger than the standard ESAPI plate) took four & five ESAPI-FAT specification shots respectively, after high temperature exposure/conditioning, and defeated every shot.

Now for some technical details.

WHERE: Aberdeen Test Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland
WHEN: July 11, 2007
WHAT: High Temperature Conditioning Test

1. Two Dragon Skin panels were subjected to this test "conditioning" protocol:

a. Each test panel was placed in a temperature controlled space ("oven") pre-heated to 160 degrees (F), and held there for 6 hours in a vertical position. (It's important to note that the vests were NOT laid flat. Gravity was encouraged to do its work and to produce any "de-laminations" such as the ones falsely portrayed by the Army acquisition mafia to the HASC at the June 6 hearing.)

b. Each Dragon Skin panel was removed from the oven, and the first test shot fired within 5 minutes of the vest having been taken out of the oven. (One panel was subjected to four test rounds fired within 7 minutes; the other panel received 5 test rounds within 10 minutes.)

2. Four Level IV rounds were fired in one panel, and five Level IV rounds were fired into the second panel.

a. The rounds were level IV, 7.62mm AP rounds as defined in the ESAPI specifications.

b. One round fired at the second panel was 5 feet per second below the minimum "strike velocity" of 2850 fps as specified for the test. This round was disallowed and was the reason for the added 5th round on this panel. A total of four shoots within the specified range -- 2850 to 2900 fps -- were counted as valid for each vest.

c. Note that the test consisted of four rounds fired at each panel, when the Army's ESAPI (Level IV) specification requires only 2 rounds to be shot without penetration at each plate to be considered a "pass."

d. Note also that the test shot impacts were placed within half the specified distance called for in the ESAPI protocol. These test shots were spaced from 2 5/8 inches to 3 inches from each other shot. (The ESAPI plates are tested with a spacing of 5 inches to 6 inches.)

e. The rounds were placed so as to strike the center of a ceramic disk, the very point that Karl Masters, lead test engineer/Director for PEO-SOLDIER's body armor branch has claimed is Dragon Skin's most vulnerable point. In fact, the Army's latest Request For Proposal confirms this claim by Master's by specifying that, "For FSAPV-E [Flexible Small Arms Protective Vest-E Level] that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the "ballistically weakest point is defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile."

See: Paragraph 4.2.3 on page 8 of Attachment 15 - here

The only part of a Dragon Skin disk that does not overlap with another disk is the center of each disk, so the Army has thus defined the "ballistically weakest point" for Dragon Skin disks as the center of the disk. It was precisely this "ballistically weakest point" that defeated all four rounds. (Note: to those of us spatially challenged, I discovered it easier to visualize the geometry involved by getting a hand full of coins and analyzing the geometrical arrangement that demonstrates this fact.)

f. Dragon Skin defeated all shots. There were ZERO penetrations.

g. Dragon Skin averaged the following back face deformation (BFD), measured in millimeters. Please note that for ESAPI plates the Army-specified standard is 48mm. For the Level III SAPI plates, the standard is 44mm, but that's another story.):

(1) First panel: Average BFD = 24.05mm. (This is 50% below the ESAPI standard.) (2) Second panel: Average BFD = 27.80mm. (This is 42% below the ESAPI standard.)

Editor's Note: For the current RFP for Level IV protection, the Army acquisition mafia has specified a BFD for the FSAPF-E, i.e., Dragon Skin, of 43mm -- even less than that required for the SAPI plates (Level III)??? Sure hope someone in the Congress or GAO asks the Army to explain this inverted logic. If the Level IV rigid plates have a BFD standard of 48mm, one would have expected the flexible disks to have been held to the "same standard," this phrase having been Brig.Gen. Mark Brown's mantra at the June 6 HASC hearing.

WHY: To test Dragon Skin Level IV vests against the ESAPI Level IV FAT protocol for high temperature extreme.

DefenseWatch contacted Murray Neal, President and CEO of Pinnacle Armor to discuss the above results.

Murray said that the test items and data were archived at his facility, and that he would gladly provide the panels and data from this July 2007 ATC high temperature test for a side-by-side forensic examination/ comparison with the Dragon Skin vests from the May 2006 tests conducted for PEO-SOLDIER to prove that the armor has not changed. It was the x-rays of the 2006 tested vests which were blatantly misrepresented to the HASC on June 6. Murray mentioned the FBI forensic laboratory as one possible independent and credible laboratory that might conduct the side-by-side forensic tests for the two sets of Dragon Skin should the Army try to claim that there must have been some improvements to the Dragon Skin ballistic protection that make the July 2007 panels different from the vests tested in May 2006.

Don't think there's much chance of Pinnacle Armor's challenge to PEO-SOLDIER being accepted, but I'm eager to be surprised.

[AlphaOneSix]

The original article is in regard to the SOV 2000 armor, while the new tests by Aberdeen are with the SOV 3000.

[James]

wait a second...

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1036

Pinnacle Armor Level IV Dragon Skin Passes ESAPI-FAT Test at Aberdeen
by David Crane
defrev at gmail.com

Wow! Pinnacle has now produced a product that passes the same tests as the gear our soldiers have had for a almost a decade... Good job!

:cantbeli:

I think Pinnacle has dug themselves a into a hole that it will be very hard to get out of.

[Robbee]

Pinnacle's response.


Unprecedented Withdrawal of Certification by NIJ

On August 3, 2007 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) took the unprecedented action of withdrawing certification of the Level 3 SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01 also know as Dragon Skin® This action was based solely on warranty documentation issues. Pinnacle offers one of the longest body armor warranties in the industry - 6 years.

Please be advised that the Level 3 SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01 has passed all NIJ testing under the 2005 Interim Standard. This standard was developed in direct response to the new technology in ballistic protection developed by Pinnacle Armor.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ON DUTY PERFORMANCE FAILURE OF THE SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01.

NO OTHER VEST OFFERS THE FLEXIBILITY AND LEVEL OF PROTECTION AFFORDED BY DRAGON SKIN.

Pinnacle is working with the NIJ to provide further documentation related to our warranty. Pinnacle continues to offer a full 6 year warranty on the SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01. You will be notified immediately when the documentation issue is resolved. In the interim, continue to wear your SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01 vest and know that it has been tested to and exceeded applicable NIJ standards.

Dragon Skin® has been serving flawlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan and all corners of the globe with contractors, military, and civilian law enforcement with NO REPORTED longevity issues for well over the term of our warranty period. It is at our option and peril that we offer a better than industry standard warranty. We stand behind every vest that we manufacture!

SOURCE (http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/in-the-news.php)

Can someone explain to me what a "warranty documentation issue" is?

[Argyll]

It really doesn't matter anymore.........Murray Neal will never again be taken seriously, and his vests will never be used by the USGOV.

There is a good thread about this at lightfighter.

[velvet-cream]

Perhaps Pinnacle should focus on getting a large foreign government contract. And if it works well there, it would shame the US govt to seriously look at it again. Unfortunately this may mean a delay on getting the best equipment to the troops.

Another point to note. If different types of armour have their advantages, why not make a hybrid? Say, hard plates for the front and back, and dragon skin discs for coverage of the areas that need more flexibility (sides, shoulders etc)

[James]

Perhaps Pinnacle should focus on getting a large foreign government contract. And if it works well there, it would shame the US govt to seriously look at it again. Unfortunately this may mean a delay on getting the best equipment to the troops.

Another point to note. If different types of armour have their advantages, why not make a hybrid? Say, hard plates for the front and back, and dragon skin discs for coverage of the areas that need more flexibility (sides, shoulders etc)

Pinnacle lied about their armor's certification, and earlier versions repeatedly failed tests with the USAF, USA, and USMC that more "primitive" armors (like the Interceptor) did not. Why should they be given another chance? Even if they hadn't LIED about their product, they can't drive the DOD's testing program. "Ok, so we failed the last test, but we altered our product. Can we try again next week?" "NO!"

The notion that Dragonskin is the best equipment for the troops is a farce. Even if it worked as advertised, it is much heavier and bulkier than existing platforms that already meet and/or exceed government requirements.

[....]

Pinnacle lied about their armor's certification, and earlier versions repeatedly failed tests with the USAF, USA, and USMC that more "primitive" armors (like the Interceptor) did not. Why should they be given another chance? Even if they hadn't LIED about their product, they can't drive the DOD's testing program. "Ok, so we failed the last test, but we altered our product. Can we try again next week?" "NO!"

The notion that Dragonskin is the best equipment for the troops is a farce. Even if it worked as advertised, it is much heavier and bulkier than existing platforms that already meet and/or exceed government requirements.

Government requirements= lowest bidder.

[szr]

Perhaps Pinnacle should focus on getting a large foreign government contract. And if it works well there, it would shame the US govt to seriously look at it again. Unfortunately this may mean a delay on getting the best equipment to the troops.
The only shame would be those foreign governments who fall for the hype and outfit their sons and daughters in a faulty product that is really only "the very best" in a very limited cross-section of circumstances.

[JDZ]

I would care. Do you know how old some of our CBA is that is on issue for Iraq and Afghan? If it can't last 6 years of normal wear and tear (the armour that is, covers are easily replaced) then I most certainly don't want to test it against a fast-moving metal object.

You misunderstood me. It's also very relevant in many other ways, but what I ment was that their self created media coverage works against them, because their product is faulty.

[Laconian]

Government requirements= lowest bidder.

That's not necessarily true, it depends on how skilled you are at writing your requirements for a product. Plus you can write requesting a sole-source supplier.