DKX floating body armor field test against 308 @ 20 yards Vid

[erudne]

I have soft BA IIIA or IV, I think. It's near 10 pounds.
In mid winter it keeps me nice and warm as long as I'm moving.
The big draw back is that due to my bad back it really reduces my time in the field. Add a 35 pound basic load out w/water and I'm a turtle. The new Spandex like LBE material along with the DKX plates would really lighten-up that load and if I was to buy again that's the way I would fly.

 

[chemist]

I'm concerned about the city folk, so a concealable, comfortable Level II is a more practical solution. The NIJ standard only adds two threats in going from II to IIIA: .357Sig flatnose and .44Mag JHP, neither of which is a likely suspect in da hood. From there it's one huge step up to Level III rifle plates.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yea, screw rifle vests. If you see someone with ill intent with a rifle, take cover/run or shoot him in the head. well, same with handguns but not that many people carry around a rifle.. unless it's a "special" occasion. lol

 

[CamoDeafie]

if I go with armor, it would be a level IIIA soft concealed, with a hard Plate carrier on my LBE.

 

[Riot]

Yea, screw rifle vests. If you see someone with ill intent with a rifle, take cover/run or shoot him in the head. well, same with handguns but not that many people carry around a rifle.. unless it's a "special" occasion. lol

Shrapnel will kill you just as quick as a bullet.

Example: Man with rifle shoots at you, you take cover behind a car and get hit from metal, concrete and glass from him unloading at you...

Did you get hit from a bullet? Nope, but you are still out of the fight. Even still, a pistol vest may stop a rifle bullet if the bullet has ricocheted off of something or gone through a couple layers of cover.

Don't just take all vests out of the mix with your preps...you can die from other things besides bullets. Just because a level IIA won't stop a rifle round doesn't mean you shouldn't wear one either. And if that is all you have, nothing is saying you can't throw in a couple small plates in there either.


My suggestion is that if money is tight, try to get yourself a used vest and make yourself some plates. Something is better than nothing in this game and every layer helps.

 

[CamoDeafie]

to use an analogy from the nautical sail warfare times; its not the cannonballs you have to worry about, its the splinters!

 

[Stomper]

Almost lost my nose and skullcap from RPG schrapnel 20 meters away... A few mike-mikes difference and I wouldn't be NEARLY as gorgeous as I am today... or fertilizer.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Hit three times by 7.62X39. Felt like the strongest man in the world hit me as hard as he could with the world's heaviest sledge hammer.

 

[Rick4070]

The flippin' shockwave alone from a .50BMG round will rip parts off of your body if it zips by close enough.

Intresting.

If that's true, why does a .50 cal. BMG bullet just poke a nice hole through a flimsy paper target, and not rip the target to shreds?

You would think that if the bullet would rip off body parts from merely passing close to you, it would also turn the paper into confetti.

On that lame TV show Mythbusters, they shot a .50 bullet in between two pretty fragile glasses, that were only an inch or so from the passing bullet, and they didn't even wiggle, let alone break.

Also, I read about a guy who shot at a small bird down range, with a .50 cal., barely missed it, and the bird just sat there, unruffled.

Any real evidence to prove that the "shockwave" will rip parts off of your body without hitting you?

I believe that I first heard the "rip off body parts" thing a few years ago when some military instructors were telling trainees that, and I also remember that the instructors were disiplined for teaching misinformation.

I would really like to see someone here with a .50 cal. do some definitive testing, heck, just put a dead chicken down range, shoot close to it, and see what happens.

I don't own a .50 cal., or I'd do it.

 

[Burt Gummer]

I believe he was being sarcastic. Of course a miss is a miss.

 

[Rick4070]

I believe he was being sarcastic. Of course a miss is a miss.

I would hope he was posting tongue in cheek, is there a sarcasm smiley???

That might have helped...

 

[simon99]

Intresting.

If that's true, why does a .50 cal. BMG bullet just poke a nice hole through a flimsy paper target, and not rip the target to shreds?

You would think that if the bullet would rip off body parts from merely passing close to you, it would also turn the paper into confetti.

On that lame TV show Mythbusters, they shot a .50 bullet in between two pretty fragile glasses, that were only an inch or so from the passing bullet, and they didn't even wiggle, let alone break.

Also, I read about a guy who shot at a small bird down range, with a .50 cal., barely missed it, and the bird just sat there, unruffled.

Any real evidence to prove that the "shockwave" will rip parts off of your body without hitting you?

I believe that I first heard the "rip off body parts" thing a few years ago when some military instructors were telling trainees that, and I also remember that the instructors were disiplined for teaching misinformation.

I would really like to see someone here with a .50 cal. do some definitive testing, heck, just put a dead chicken down range, shoot close to it, and see what happens.

I don't own a .50 cal., or I'd do it.

Just to offer my personal insight, that getting hit with a 7.62 round at 600 yards is just like being shot point blank with a 357. So imagine putting a 357 at your head and pulling the trigger, large hole or small? As a bullet travels farther downrange it builds energy. When it hits soft tissue at a longer distance the results are devastating. I've seen the aftereffects of a man hit upper COM with a 50 BMG round at 1000 yards...lets just say there isn't a whole lot left.

 

[Stomper]

Intresting.

If that's true, why does a .50 cal. BMG bullet just poke a nice hole through a flimsy paper target, and not rip the target to shreds?

You would think that if the bullet would rip off body parts from merely passing close to you, it would also turn the paper into confetti.

On that lame TV show Mythbusters, they shot a .50 bullet in between two pretty fragile glasses, that were only an inch or so from the passing bullet, and they didn't even wiggle, let alone break.

Also, I read about a guy who shot at a small bird down range, with a .50 cal., barely missed it, and the bird just sat there, unruffled.

Any real evidence to prove that the "shockwave" will rip parts off of your body without hitting you?

I believe that I first heard the "rip off body parts" thing a few years ago when some military instructors were telling trainees that, and I also remember that the instructors were disiplined for teaching misinformation.

I would really like to see someone here with a .50 cal. do some definitive testing, heck, just put a dead chicken down range, shoot close to it, and see what happens.

I don't own a .50 cal., or I'd do it.

I believe he was being sarcastic. Of course a miss is a miss.

I would hope he was posting tongue in cheek, is there a sarcasm smiley???

That might have helped...

OK, so are you going to stand by the "Myth Busters" and argue with me that if a .50BMG round passes 6" below your head that you aren't going to get a body part (or two) ripped off from the shockwave?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just to offer my personal insight, that getting hit with a 7.62 round at 600 yards is just like being shot point blank with a 357. So imagine putting a 357 at your head and pulling the trigger, large hole or small? As a bullet travels farther downrange it builds energy. When it hits soft tissue at a longer distance the results are devastating. I've seen the aftereffects of a man hit upper COM with a 50 BMG round at 1000 yards...lets just say there isn't a whole lot left.

that flies in the face of known physics!
if energy built up the farther a known mass go in air; then it would stand to say that velocity should increase..but it doesn't. because of air drag, gravity, and momentum, energy is actually decreasing the longer a projectile stays in the air.
that's why a .357 magnum at point blank makes a huge hole versus a neat hole at 100 yards... (also, pushing a barrel to the object, the blast has to GO somewhere....)
laws of thermodynamics.... what you're saying is counter to it, to my knowledge.

ok; 1,000 yards is not terribly long for a .50cal BMG sniper round, due to it's massive powder charge and mass,.... it was used in aircraft where ranges could be 2,000 to 3,000 yards with clear visible arcs from tracers... and thinner air; less drag...higher up...less likely to hit the dirt so longer trajectories due to less air drag and due to having more air between projectile and earth.

but the same thing to a man size object at point blank range....from a .50 cal...there's even less left I would say, due to the muzzle blast and powder charge's expanding gases.
there's a reason the gun blasts always decrease the further one is from the muzzle, most if not all the energy needed to send the projectile downrange occurs at the muzzle, from a build up in an enclosed space. (that is where energy could build up, due to having to push a projectile down a sealed barrel...) but energy building up all the way to the target without anything to constrain the energy? NOPE. it dissipates at the muzzle point. that's why you see huge fireballs at the muzzles instead of at the target, unless the target explodes..

 

[simon99]

that flies in the face of known physics!
if energy built up the farther a known mass go in air; then it would stand to say that velocity should increase..but it doesn't. because of air drag, gravity, and momentum, energy is actually decreasing the longer a projectile stays in the air.
that's why a .357 magnum at point blank makes a huge hole versus a neat hole at 100 yards... (also, pushing a barrel to the object, the blast has to GO somewhere....)
laws of thermodynamics.... what you're saying is counter to it, to my knowledge.

ok; 1,000 yards is not terribly long for a .50cal BMG sniper round, due to it's massive powder charge and mass,.... it was used in aircraft where ranges could be 2,000 to 3,000 yards with clear visible arcs from tracers... and thinner air; less drag...higher up...less likely to hit the dirt so longer trajectories due to less air drag and due to having more air between projectile and earth.

but the same thing to a man size object at point blank range....from a .50 cal...there's even less left I would say, due to the muzzle blast and powder charge's expanding gases.
there's a reason the gun blasts always decrease the further one is from the muzzle, most if not all the energy needed to send the projectile downrange occurs at the muzzle, from a build up in an enclosed space. (that is where energy could build up, due to having to push a projectile down a sealed barrel...) but energy building up all the way to the target without anything to constrain the energy? NOPE. it dissipates at the muzzle point. that's why you see huge fireballs at the muzzles instead of at the target, unless the target explodes..

I'm not a scientist dude....I'm just referring to what I was taught as well as what saw with my own eyes. In the real world, I have never seen a bullet from a rifle make a "neat little hole" at long distance....I suggest you do some research on crush and tear factor regarding ballistics. Here's a good place to start -

<broken link removed>

 

[CamoDeafie]

I can't open that document :/ don't have the proper program apparently? does it come in .pdf format?

as to crush and tear; is that a function of the shock wave from the turbulent air from where the mass is going through? as to the reference to neat little holes; paper on board and steel targets don't get turned into confetti/explode.... I don't know about wound ballistics, but often I have seen similarly neat entry holes in animals, often with a nasty exit wound.... again, due to the shock wave of the air after being punched by the round; not due to the round's mass alone.... I've never fired a .50BMG, or hit a person with a bullet..so I can't really comment on what I don't see.... your assertion that a .50bmg builds up energy while its going..it doesn't make sense if it does not produce energy itself... the effect of the powder charge propelling it is what gives it the initial energy, and that energy bleeds off due to drag and gravity...however, what that does to the AIR...well. granted, a turbulent shock wave is likely going to be serious from the mass; although... maybe not as massive as what happens to a near-miss from an artillery shell; which uses the same basic theories, and is due to the massive amount of turbulently moving air in the shock wave... I still stand on my statement that put a person at the muzzle of a .50 cal, he's exploding into far more little pieces than if he was standing a thousand yards away.

 

[Rick4070]

"So imagine putting a 357 at your head and pulling the trigger, large hole or small?"

Well, I think the efflux of high pressure gas has a lot to do with a close or contact wound, after several feet the gas is gone.

"As a bullet travels farther downrange it builds energy."

And here all the time I figured that a bullet is going to have its maximum energy as soon as it reaches its max velocity, which is within a very short distance of the muzzle.

"When it hits soft tissue at a longer distance the results are devastating. I've seen the aftereffects of a man hit upper COM with a 50 BMG round at 1000 yards...lets just say there isn't a whole lot left."

Interesting, because a bullet at longer ranges "has a tendency to go to sleep", making it less likely to yaw not to say you are wrong, but unless a Raufoss round was used, the expansion (if any,) of a .50 cal. bullet doesn't even start until the bullet is pretty much out of the torso.
Heck, a .338 Win Mag shooting soft points doesn't tear a deer into pieces, why should a .50 cal.?

On another forum I use to frequent, the subject came up, one of the members was/is, an army nurse, IIRC a Major, and he said that he had treated many .50 cal. bullet wounds, and he said he had never seen a .50 cal. wound that had ever caused a person to come apart, nor even lose a limb completely, (messed up enough to require amputation, but not completely "blown off.")

After several years of reading his posts, I'm going to give him more credence than you, just from the info he posted about that, and other things.



Sadly, that board is gone forever.

 

[Rick4070]

OK, so are you going to stand by the "Myth Busters" and argue with me that if a .50BMG round passes 6" below your head that you aren't going to get a body part (or two) ripped off from the shockwave?

Well, that wouldn't be a MISS would it?

What was said:"The flippin' shockwave alone from a .50BMG round will rip parts off of your body if it zips by close enough."

Key words: " zip by", in my book, that means miss.

And, I doubt that even a magic .50 cal. bullet would completely remove your head, if you were struck in the neck...

Heck, if there was any danger from a "shock wave" people wouldn't be allowed to stand in target butts scoring targets with bullets passing overhead only a short distance away.

And, no, it isn't the "shock wave" from the bullet passing through the air that does the damage.

 

[simon99]

I can't open that document :/ don't have the proper program apparently? does it come in .pdf format?

as to crush and tear; is that a function of the shock wave from the turbulent air from where the mass is going through? as to the reference to neat little holes; paper on board and steel targets don't get turned into confetti/explode.... I don't know about wound ballistics, but often I have seen similarly neat entry holes in animals, often with a nasty exit wound.... again, due to the shock wave of the air after being punched by the round; not due to the round's mass alone.... I've never fired a .50BMG, or hit a person with a bullet..so I can't really comment on what I don't see.... your assertion that a .50bmg builds up energy while its going..it doesn't make sense if it does not produce energy itself... the effect of the powder charge propelling it is what gives it the initial energy, and that energy bleeds off due to drag and gravity...however, what that does to the AIR...well. granted, a turbulent shock wave is likely going to be serious from the mass; although... maybe not as massive as what happens to a near-miss from an artillery shell; which uses the same basic theories, and is due to the massive amount of turbulently moving air in the shock wave... I still stand on my statement that put a person at the muzzle of a .50 cal, he's exploding into far more little pieces than if he was standing a thousand yards away.

Sorry you can't open it, its a Word.doc.....if you cut and paste that to Google you'll find it.

You're stretching my memory, but I'll attempt. Crush and tear factor is what happens when a bullet is traveling and hits soft tissue. At 100 yards or so, its going ( a 7.62 round) to zip[ right through with a small wound cavity. The bad guy might actually live a short time....the tissue is torn. On the other hand, when a round has been traveling for 500 yard+ and hits a mans body, it enters one side and everything inside the cavity is totally crushed and blows out the back . Its pretty much game over within a minute even if you fail to hit a vital organ. You take a 50 BMG round and the effects are way worse. Again, I can only relate to what I've actually seen...

 

[Rick4070]

I'll concede that a bullet at extreme range, if it still has retained enough energy to penetrate through and through, it MIGHT destabilize enough to start tumbling and cause a worse wound than it would at a medium range.

I haven't seen any real difference between bullet wounds in deer at a longer range, compared to closer range, I know bullets expand less at longer range, due to less velocity.l

Soft targets are different that hard targets, but on hard targets, bullets penetrate deeper at long range than the do at short range due to them "going to sleep" at the longer ranges, and being more stable.

For the life of me, I can't see why this would not be true for soft targets too.