This post made me laugh because I was thinking about all the armor options suggested in considering the possible weight of all of that and out the majority of people are not capable of sustaining or remotely being able to be effective moving in that type of gear considering the weight of such.I am genuinely curious here. At what point should one start in terms of acquiring armor? How much and where should protection be optimized?
I mean, lets look at it this way... we can wear as much armor as we want to.. or we can focus on being as mobile as we need to be, with localized armor protection.
Helmet (K pot, ACH, MICH, etc)
Two armor plates (front and rear)
4 armor plates (same as above, plus sides)
6 armor plates ( same as above add groin and deltoid, or add shoulders)
8 armor plates (all of the above)
10 maybe ( add thigh armor?)
EOD blast suit. (Everything)
And thats not considering add ons like soft armor vests plus plates, or soft plates plus hard trauma/shock plates...
I see a lot of sites are advocating going to Level IV+ armor for the two main plates, I do wonder if this presumes drawn out, heavy gunfights with tactical support and majority rifle fire as opposed to ambushes with pistol caliber weapons (mobs and gangs)?
Some people are advocating going full battle rattle, even if just civilians; complete with 12+ magazines for rifle and 4+ pistols and a bug out bag thats larger than a FILBE...
But realistically? Are people seriously expecting to have to go full war fighting mode in case of emergencies? I seriously have questions about the likelihood of being "drafted" into a militia/defense unit right off the bat in disasters and the such... I do understand the principle of "better to have and not need, than to need and not have", and I do think concealable armor is a good start point... but to reject Level 2, 3A, 3 armor as being too light of protection?
What about using say a 6x6, 6x8, 9x9 Level 3 "side plate" on top of a Level 3A soft armor, concealed under a jacket? Would that make more sense, with the hard armor protecting a specific vital zone, and the soft armor being for all other threats? Or layering say a Level 3 hard armor over level 2 soft vest /carrier somehow?
I think the main consensus is simply that if you are investing in firearms with the idea that you will defend yourself in your home with them then the idea of not being taken out by a single shot to the torso isn’t such a bad idea considering armor options to stop those are relatively cheap.
Armor Protection level generally depends on how much weight a person wants to carry or bulk for that matter because if it’s very light and still has a high rating that means it will be much thicker for someone who only ever plans or anticipates in countering pistol threats then a level IIIa soft armor Panel that weighs about a pound would do. Hence why people who work in security tend to have those level vests. I’d say many people find front and back plates to be enough, some include side plates, the number who get into groin, shoulder, and helmet is significantly less.
Mind you there is still a large amount of “body” exposed, but a PC covers the thorassic cavity which apart from the brain, is the most vital area to protect
Going back to my original intent of this post though the main point being that you can own $10,000 worth of guns and be taken out by a $.10 bullet that could have easily been stopped by a $200 set up of plates.