D-Rmor Gear Now On Instagram!

Well, we decided to join the 21st century, and can now be found on Instagram! Follow us for news, updates, special deals, and announcements @drmorgear.

The future is good!

Current (And Future) Rifle Threats, and NIJ Level IV: Recommendations

Over the 40 plus years the NIJ has been certifying body armor, much has changed. Back in the late 60’s, through the 70’s and early 80’s, handgun threats on the streets escalated from .38 SPL RNL and .22 LR out of short barrels to hot 9mm FMJ and .44 Magnum JSP. The level I rating virtually disappeared as a result (though it is still better than nothing, see my shoot tests with Level I panels).

But perhaps the biggest changes have been in the area of rifle threats, specifically AP (Armor Piercing). At the outset, NIJ level IV was rated to stop arguably the most potent threat that could be regularly encountered (and all comparable but lesser threats), the .30-06 M2 AP 163gr. At 2750 FPS, this round was (and still is) formidable. Having a high molybdenum and vanadium tool steel core hardened to around 59-61 Rockwell C hardness, it can punch through 8mm of RHA at 100M. Comparable Soviet and ComBloc rounds do slightly worse.

But fast forward more than three decades, and the threat profile has changed. WC (tungsten carbide) core rounds are no longer a rarity, and their penetration profile is far better than the M2. The American military has recently introduced a second generation WC projectile as a replacement for the first generation M993. Called the ADVAP (Advanced Armor Piercing) round, it is essentially the same design as the M80A1 projectile, with a hardened WC “arrowhead” swaged to a copper alloy base/driver. At $13 -per round- it is designed to cope with advanced emerging armors.

Which means the threats are not unilateral. Advanced Russian and Chinese designs must be assumed to be at least comparable to the M993 (7.62), M995, and AP4 (5.56) rounds. Which is why the NIJ is strongly encouraged to drop the M2 AP as the baseline round for the highest rated rifle plates, and begin using the M993 (as sourcing the newest Russian rounds for testing is virtually impossible at this time).

Testing by Buffman, of BuffmanRange has shown that there are plates that are (barely) capable of stopping the M993 round (and by extension, the M995 and AP4), but it is a crap-shoot. They are neither designed, nor rated for WC threats, which necessitates a completely different design philosophy.

The second problem is that of fragility. The current NIJ IV rating specifies a SINGLE M2 AP round must be stopped, in order to meet the standard. The NIJ III is not much better, specifying 6 rounds of M80 ball in a 6″ circle. In nearly every case, the plate is reduced to rubble, with the entire strike face compromised after a single round. A more reasonable standard is to require 8 rounds in a 6″ circle, for both levels of plate. More difficult? Absolutely. But in keeping up with advancing threats, absolutely necessary.

Here at D-Rmor Gear, we are not satisfied to rest on our laurels, and have been working on these problems tirelessly over many years. As a result, we will have a major announcement by the end of the month. Stay tuned.

Why The NIJ Armor Standard Is Changing

From the inception of modern soft armor in the late 60’s to early 70’s, body armor has been tested and rated by the National Institute of Justice, a private organization that took it upon itself to issue standards and testing protocols for body and vehicular armor.

In retrospect, the NIJ rating system was a perfect example of “making it up as you go along.” For example, the use of Roma Plastalina #1 modeling clay as a witness backing material was simply the result of one of the NIJ’s employees grabbing his kid’s modeling clay off his kitchen table.

Over the years, the NIJ Standard has been taken as gospel when it comes to rating and testing armor, but certain high-profile failures over the years were the results of failures of the testing and evaluation of armor.

Chief among those failures were the Zylon fiasco, and the continued use of UHMWPE materials in soft armor.

Zylon, a new “super fabric” of the 90’s, began to see use in soft armor. Touted as the next big leap in body armor technology, it looked good on paper, and performed well- until it didn’t. The the original manufacturer of the fabric, Toyobo of Japan, had never envisioned the fabric being used as soft armor. But with the push for lighter, thinner, and softer vests, several manufacturers immediately jumped on the Zylon bandwagon.

Unfortunately, Zylon had a fatal flaw- because of the manufacturing process, the final step of cleaning the filaments left traces of acid on the fibers. Combined with moisture (such as perspiration), this initiated a chemical reaction that led to degradation and a massive loss of strength in the Zylon fabric. To the extent that it was no longer bullet resistant. This lead to the completely unnecessary and tragic deaths of several peace officers, including Tony Zapatilla, who was killed after receiving shots to his vest that would have been stopped by a non-Zylon armor.

Because the NIJ did not have any kind of environmental conditioning requirements in place, the utter unsuitability of Zylon for use in soft armor was never detected, until it led to deaths and injuries. Two of the earliest crusaders for more accountability in soft armor rating and testing were Kevin McClung, and Gary Roberts, DDS. Kevin also brought to light a key vulnerability of another commonly used material, UHMWPE. UHMWPE is another material that looks good on paper, performs well in its narrow range of suitability, but has several key flaws.

First, because it is essentially the same basic chemical structure as milk jug plastic, it will denature above 180 degrees Farenheit. Back in the late 80’s vests were being constructed with a woven version of UHMWPE, and there were several instances where a hot cup of coffee had been spilled on concealed vests. Hot coffee can easily exceed 180 degrees F, and because of the nature of the woven fabric, it was much more vulnerable to heat-degradation.

This lead to a “retirement” of woven UHMWPE, and a laminated version became standard (the idea being that laminated plies are more resistant to heat transfer, especially from liquids, which is valid). However, the trunk of a vehicle in a hot environment can also exceed the temperature threshold for de-naturation, and so to this day, UHMWPE soft armor is, in my and several other’s opinions, unsafe.

UHMWPE has another flaw, related to the temperature vulnerability: contact shots. Because muzzle blast from most pistols can exceed 900 F, UHMWPE armor can, and has been shown to be susceptible to penetration by contact shots. More importantly, these shots were from rounds that would normally have been easily stopped otherwise.

To their credit, the NIJ listened, and like most good companies, realized they needed to change.

Next year will see a complete restructuring of the standards and ratings.

The Roman numeral levels will be discarded, and instead, a more intuitive rating system will be unveiled. For example, for handgun threats, there will be HG1 and HG2. For rifles, RF1, RF2, and RF3. In our opinion, this will go a long way towards updating and improving armor’s effectiveness.

Some things that will be essential would include:

-More stringent environmental testing, including high temperature conditioning of both hard and soft armor @ 200 F.

-More focus on contact and high-angle-of-incedence impacts

-Specialized testing for female armor

-And perhaps most importantly, the updating of the Rifle threats, to make the M993 and M994 the standard threat projectiles in the higher levels, since the M2 AP is an 80 year old round.

Our hats are off to the NIJ for listening to their customers, and look forward to seeing how the new standards stack up.

Body Armor The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: A Comparison of Armor Ceramics

Modern armor leans rather heavily on a class of materials known as ceramics. Man has been developing and using ceramics since antiquity, and they still play a vital role (some would say even more so now) in the 21st century.

But instead of amphorae to hold wine, olive oil, or other bulk trade goods, ceramics are used in more demanding applications, where extreme heat, pressure, abrasion, and corrosion resistance are critical.

For applications in body armor, ceramics must exhibit several seemingly contradictory attributes, of which four are absolutely critical. They are:

Bulk Density: This translates into how heavy a ceramic is for a given volume. The lower the number, the better.

Hardness: This is a ceramic’s resistance to indentation. Harder is better, especially when facing tungsten carbide core threat projectiles.

Fracture Toughness: How resistant to crack formation and propagation a ceramic is. The higher the number, the more suitable as armor.

Modulus of Elasticity (Also known as Young’s Modulus): This describes how stiff a material is  (elastic deformation). The higher the number, the stiffer it is.

There is also another vital attribute to consider, which is cost. There are several ceramics that would be considered “ideal,” but are disqualified due to prohibitive cost. I have provided the attributes below, as well as a numerical rating from 1 to 3 (1 being least efficient, 3 being most efficient). Below a usable threshold will result in a 0. This will allow us to see how each ceramic stacks up.

The three primary technical ceramics that account for 95% of the ceramic armor currently used (personnel and vehicular) are:

Aluminum Oxide (AKA Alumina, Al2O3)

Silicon Carbide (AKA Carborundum, SiC)

Boron Carbide (AKA Black Diamond, B4C)

The traits and attributes are as follows:

Al2O3-

Bulk Density (99.5% grade): 3.90 g/cm3 (1, heavy)

Hardness: ~1400-2000 Knoop (Kg/mm2) (2, low-medium hardness)

Fracture toughness: 4.5 (2.5, very good)

Elastic Modulus: 393 (1.5, low)

Cost: $ (affordable)

Overall rating: 1.9 out of 3

SiC-

Bulk Density (Sintered): 3.21 g/cm3 (2.5, medium weight)

Hardness: 2800  Knoop (Kg/mm2) (2.5 high hardness)

Fracture Toughness: 4 (2, good)

Elastic Modulus: 475 (2.5 medium-high)

Cost: $$ (expensive)

Overall rating: 2.3 out of 3

B4C-

Bulk Density (Hot Pressed): 2.51 g/cm3 (3,extremely light)

Hardness: 3500 Knoop (Kg/mm2) (3,extremely hard)

Fracture Toughness: 2.6 (1,low)*

Elastic Modulus: 675 (3,extremely high)

Cost: $$$ (extremely expensive)

Overall rating: 2.2 out of 3

So, as can be seen, there are numerous factors involved. While Boron Carbide is the hardest of the commonly used ballistic ceramics, it is not the best overall. Silicon Carbide takes the honors, having the best combination of factors. If weight is paramount, B4C is the leader.

By comparison, the following are the attributes for Silicon Nitride, an “ideal” ceramic for ballistic applications:

SiN-

Bulk Density: 3.31 g/cm3 (2.3, medium heavy)

Hardness: 2200 Knoop (Kg/mm2) (2.3, medium hardness)

Fracture Toughness: 7 (3, extremely high)

Elastic Modulus: 317 (1.5, low)

Cost: $$$$ (prohibitively expensive)

Overall rating: 1.82

And the attributes for fused silica (SiO2, glass)-

Bulk Density: 2.2gm/cm3 (3, very light)

Hardness: 600 Knoop (Kg/mm2) (0, below usable threshold)

Fracture Toughness: 1 (0, below usable threshold)

Elastic Modulus: 73 (0, below usable threshold)

Cost: $ (very inexpensive)

Overall rating: 1.2

So, as can be seen, multiple factors are in play when selecting optimal ceramics for ballistic use. Looking at just one, or even two will not give a complete picture.

Which is why most ceramic armor for rifle and larger caliber applications is either Alumina (most effective ceramic for the money), or Silicon Carbide (best performer for the money).

And until revolutionary advances are made in the field of nanotechnology and technical ceramics, the three main materials listed above will be soldiering on for the forseeable future.

*Special note about Boron Carbide- B4C undergoes what is known as “amorphization” under impact loading. In layman’s terms, the crystalline structure of the Boron Carbide is converted to a glassy (amorphous) structure when impacted at high speed. This causes a tremendous loss of strength. The reasons for this impact-loading loss of strength is still not fully understood, and ongoing research is attempting to remedy it. Neither Al2O3 nor SiC undergoes this transition.