Talk:Bulletproof vest

message: Body armor in other countries can sometimes exceed the NIJ scale. 
Currently, almost everyone believes the NIJ scale to be the end all be all. Russia for example uses GOST, which exceeds NIJ's system significantly. VPAM is much more encompassing.
In addition, there are unofficial levels such as NIJ 5, which is the XSAPI threat, 3 M993 hits. There are also lesser known armor such as LIBA and the SARVIP. 
The NIJ section could probably use a trim. It's quite long.
--SkynetPR (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Other armors

message: Hi. I am just learning about body armor and am new to Wikipedia, but I have a question regarding DSM's Dyneema vs. Honeywell's Spectra. They are different, but I am not sure of all the technical differences. I tried adding a Spectra page, but it was taken down for some reason. Anyways, Dyneema is not the same as Spectra. They are both brand names referring to UHMWPE technology.
:I'm the one that redirected that page to Dyneema. (Don't worry, the text still exists if it needs to be reinstated.) I was under the impression that they are the same or very nearly the same material. Since neither Spectra-the-brand nor Dyneema-the-brand are really notable enough to have articles about the brand, that they are different brands doesn't really matter. However, the material is notable, so the technical difference if any does matter. In other words, if they are the same material, than we need only one article (which is what we have now). If they are different material, then we need two articles. I don't know which is the case, but that's what needs to be determined. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dyneema vs. Spectra

message: Not sure, but I think this guy is wearing a ballistic vest.Randroide 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Withdraw - Support - "Bulletproof Vest" is a misnomer - many injured law enforcement and military personnel can attest to this fact. Furthermore "Bulletproof Vest" is POV because it implies invincibility. "Ballistic vest" is a more accurate term, as per  alternative suggestion below - WeniWidiWiki 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Withdraw - Support - "Bulletproof Vest" is a misnomer - many injured law enforcement and military personnel can attest to this fact. Furthermore "Bulletproof Vest" is POV because it implies invincibility. "Ballistic vest" is a more accurate term, as per  alternative suggestion below - WeniWidiWiki 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: #Oppose. A google              reveals that bulletproof vest is more clear. To me body armour is much broader and could refer to bulletproofvests, but also a medieval armour which is also body armour.Rex 11:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: I propose to move from the totally incorrect Bulletproof vest (there´s not such a thing on the face of earth, as any .50 BMG shooter can attest) to Ballistic vest, which is, AFAIK, the correct name for the item.
*"Body armour" is also incorrect, because it could mean a lot of things besides a vest, including medieval protective pieces, contemporary riot police shin gards and even, arguably, contemporary motorcycle body protective pieces.
*I suggest also the creation of Stab resistant vest, which is a different but related piece of equipment, and Flak vest, a now obsolete but historically important term.
*"Bulletproof vest" should be a brief page explaining why the term is wrong, with a redirection to Ballistic vest.
Moreover: There is an article called Armor, and Body armor should be redirected there. See Vehicle armour, where you can read: "For body armour see armour"
To sum up, I suggest to move from "Bulletproof vest" to Ballistic vest.Randroide 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To WLD: There would be a page titled "Bulletproof vest", explaining the origin of the term (cuirasses were "proofed" firing a musket bullet) and why is incorrect applied to modern Ballistic vests. "Bulletproff vest" would not be deleted, as is a common denomination that should be explained.Randroide 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any credible sources to say why the term "Bulletproof vest" is inaccurate?--Huaiwei 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested alternative

message: # Randroide 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative - Support votes

message: #Oppose Bulletproof vest is the commonly understood term, and should be the name of the article.  More technically correct terms should be explained inthe body of the article itself. WLDtalk|edits 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To WLD: There would be a page titled "Bulletproof vest", explaining the origin of the term (cuirasses were "proofed" firing a musket bullet) and why is incorrect applied to modern Ballistic vests. "Bulletproff vest" would not be deleted, as is a common denomination that should be explained.Randroide 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any credible sources to say why the term "Bulletproof vest" is inaccurate?--Huaiwei 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative - Oppose votes

message: Parts of the section " History", and possibly other parts of this article, references facts from the United States without explicitly stating that this does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. An example of this is "(…)an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of police patrol officers wore concealable vests daily." --Alf 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize/USA 

message: According to the website for Dragon Skin Body Armor, it provides level V protection, can someone add some information to the protection table? 72.83.117.107N
:But what IS Level V? 59.167.212.216 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just looked up the Dragon Skin body armor page and found that the stuff only offers Level III and IV protection, not Level V. 59.167.212.216 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level V Protection 

message: Body armour is a superset here. In reality it's really just a modern suit of armour. By repurposing this article to be specifically about bulletproof vests we avoid the terminology problem. I'm redirecting body armor to point at armor#Modern personal armour, which needs expanded by moving stuff from here. Chris Cunningham 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The simple solution: split the article up 

message: I have put a globalize tag as the article is far too heavy on the US. There are other parts of the world you know! And don't forget the first use of ceramic armour was by the the Germans in WWI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.223.93 (talk) 
:Unbelievable that there was no mention of MRC armour, which was actually issued in some numbers by the British in the Second World War.139.48.25.61 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. You could well start editing the article, so to improve it. This is the whole point of Wikipedia, anyone can edit! Asteriontalk 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US bias

message: A version of Dragon Skin apparently is being classified as level 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKnfHhRl7U0&feature=related Malamockq (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If and when NIJ rates it, it should be included.  However, Pinnacle has had a lot of trouble with its claims vs tests.Mzmadmike (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reorganized these referances. The level 5 does not have an NIJ referance and it would need this to be valid, I dont know of a level 5. Youtube does not a standard make. As a more general comment I think that the Dragon Skin body armor article is the place for bulk of this material. I have grouped Pinnacle where they would natually go in the sections related to the ballistic vest article. Bodyarmor (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly add mention of level 5 category 

message: How is it relevant to mention arrows? And to be honest, a kevlar vest will most likely stop any sort of arrow you throw at it. I shot my PASGT vest with my 150 lb. crossbow with a target point, and it stopped it cold. (My vest is of Unicor manufacture and was produced in 1981)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.52.112 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is relevant. This article is about armor after all. It's interesting to know how well it stands up to other kinds of weapons. As long as the information is accurate and factual, I see no reason not to include. Malamockq (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't tried that with any of mine.  Could I get you try it again if I send you a bodkin point?  Using a longbow?  I'm curious to see how an anti-armor arrow works against modern armor.Mzmadmike (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Arrows

message: Speaking in very layman terms, I "believe" I understand that NIJ ratings up to IIIA aren't comprised of ceramic/steel plates, while III and IV are only as steel/ceramic plates? Is that correct, or am I mistaken? Either way, the article should try to add that detail - that a Level II vest isn't comprised of a steel plate, while a level IV is - etc. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plates vs Weaves

message: This section has pretty much been copied and pasted word for word from here: http://www.army-surplus.org.uk.
LewisVincent (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through pages from that site, I'd assume that the copying has happened in the other direction. It is something that should be looked into either way. --Onorem♠Dil 03:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality section copyright 

message: I've removed the term 'tissue simulant' in the reference to modelling clay such as Plastilina.   Modelling clay, unlike ballistic gelatine, doesn't simulate tissue and is used in NIJ and HOSDB tests simply beacuse, being fully plastic, it doesn't recover elastically and so allows the maximum depth of blunt trauma to be measured after the test.RDT2 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tissue simulant 

message: I was told that body armour is not legal in Ireland, is this true?  JackorKnave (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ordered a bullet-proof vest from the UK when I living in Ireland and the company didn't have any problems shipping it to me, nor did customs say anything about it, so I certainly don't think so. Freikorp (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not legal in Ireland

message: Some part of the article needs updating. The latest NIJ standard is version 6. The "Armor Level" table needs to be updated especially.
Kerina yin (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not up to date 

message: It seemed to me that not only was this section a grammatical nightmare, it was based mostly on urban legends and ignorance of politicians rather than fact. It stated that the 7.62x39mm M43 round had a steel core. While this is true on some variants, not every one was armor-piercing. In fact, the steel core does NOT add to armor-piercing ability, it is just that steel was cheapest to put as a filler material instead of lead or other things. The politics part is about a blanket ban on such ammunition because it had a steel core, and was therefore assumed to be armor-piercing. If anyone is willing to rewrite it, please. I do not have enough ability in this field, and I am unwilling to make a mistake like the original post. In my opinion, we need some sort of trained professional in this field. FlashHawk4 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed some of the grammar I think. I don't know how accurate all of the information is in this section, because of poor sourcing. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will be able to fix that.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 6.1

message: The law cited to make the claim that body armour is illegal in Australia was a) a law from a single state, and not country wide and b) made absolutely no mention at all of body armour, so i've removed the claim that it's illegal to own body armour in that country  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.151.8 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia Legality 

message: If you count the number of pictures in this page, you'd notice that 8/15 Pictures features American examples. This wouldn't call for an outroar, but I would like to see a bit more diversity in regards to the examples shown. Some armors that would be nice to be mentioned would include the Osprey Body Armor as employed by the British Armed forces, the 6B12-1 and 6B13 as employed by the Russian Ground Forces. This is more of a superficial advice than anything else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory in Germany (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not too much American, as all the American information is helpful.  But the article would be improved by adding more info from other nations' armor. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many American examples? 

message: What is the reason for the restrictions on the possession of ballistic vests in some countries? Ballistic vests are no destructive device, they do not pose any danger to others. Are the restrictions due to security classification (i.e. vests produced for military of police use in unauthorized hands could be analyzed for their weakest points etc.)? Or is physical vulnerability of the citizens with respect to police firearms legally required by some (even western) countries?--SiriusB (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A criminal with both guns and bullet-proof armor would be too deadly, so either guns or bullet proof armor would need to go. Apparently guns are less bulky and easier to carry, while no one wants to bake in a thick, heavy, suit of armor so... DontClickMeName talkcontributions 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have read this statement twice without properly understanding what you are saying. My question was, for what reason body armor could/should be prohibited, not why they might be uncomfortable to wear. In my opinion everyone has an inalienable right to protect his/her body against injury. Unless the act of protection poses danger/injury to other people (as it is the case for using firearms in self-defense) I cannot see any moral/ethical basis to restrict such protection measures. Doing so is equivalent to reserving the police a guaranteed access or "backdoor" to everyones physical integrity (i.e. a "civic duty" not to prevent a police bullet from entering your body) which would surely contradict the Western idea of human rights. For this reason, there is need for some explanation of the issue in the article, otherwise it simply looks weird.--SiriusB (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  National restrictions - reason? 

message: I think this is a very good compilation of information; but someone could improve it by adding in neglected nations' armor, like Russian.  (EnochBethany (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neglected USSR / Russian Body Armor

message: Using Google search
Felon About 9,420,000 results
Convict About 21,500,000 results
It would appear that Convict is the more commonly used term. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convict vs Felon 

message: There is no source for this I can see. I think it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.10.23 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferdinand and the bullet proof vest 

message: Shouldn't this article be called "Ballistic vest" or "Bullet-resistant vest" instead of bulletproof vest? Nothing is bullet proof the things we call bulletproof are just more resistant to bullets than other things. Just my opinion though but I do think that Bulletproof vest isn't the correct term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakedbaconbread (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bulletproof vest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220090137/http://societyoftheoldwest.ning.com/forum/topics/dr-george-goodfellow to http://societyoftheoldwest.ning.com/forum/topics/dr-george-goodfellow
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bulletproof vest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.assassinology.org/id20.html
*Added  tag to http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD688122
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612221418/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3971072.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3971072.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828154814/http://www.sculpturehouse.com/detail.aspx?ID=4 to http://www.sculpturehouse.com/detail.aspx?ID=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612221429/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5565264/description.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5565264/description.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602082320/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-annual-report-0405/annrep2005-0-complete to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-annual-report-0405/annrep2005-0-complete
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313133139/http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=9357 to http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=9357
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412185246/http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133189/schedule_1_prohibited_weapons.pdf to http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133189/schedule_1_prohibited_weapons.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As an armed security officer, I can say that we--as well as police officers--most definitely wear plate armor. At my place of employ, it's about 75% of us who wear armor, and of those who do, about half have plates.
I also find that a lot of police officers wear plates. Almost every LEO I've talked to is wearing some sort of plate.
Making such a broad statement about the purpose of hard vs soft armor is misguided. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard vs soft armor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bulletproof vest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713131543/http://tigerflare.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/351-ballistic-vest-review to http://www.tigerflare.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/351-ballistic-vest-review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: "On the other side, some bullets can penetrate the vest, but still deal low damage to its wearer because of speed loss or their small mass/form." - More specific, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Libra Snail for instance In 9x19, they can clear L3 steel armor and L3 Polyethylene. It's pretty impressive. Should these be discussed? SkynetPR (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exotic Ammunition 

message: Found some admittedly badly translated anecondotal sourcing, but it does make sense. Apparently once a dude ran into one of the German personnel who popped out of a dugout, German soldier fired the entire mag, all failed to penetrate, the Soviet hit the German over the head and then took the rest of the dugout hostage. SkynetPR (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of SN-42 eating MP-40 leadcore at point blank 

message: https://drive.google.com/file/d/193cJDWeGfhi7aIWx-vJxbI8hrJM4Q9MC/view?usp=drivesdk
I wish to use this as a source, how?
--SkynetPR (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to upload documents