H.R. 5344 - Bill Banning Enhanced Body Armor

Most of those cases mentioned above it seems to me the unaffected armors would be sufficient, some of them even preferable.

Honestly, the best argument for level III armor I can think of is one nobody seems willing to make: Hunting accidents frequently involve shotguns, sometimes at very close range, and while I can't find much information on what kinds of body armors are effective with shotguns, I would imagine concealability isn't a concern but maximum protection is. I know it's a long way from the narrative gun rights groups want, but that kind of drunken stupidity does happen. A lot. Consider a particular vice president who showed an epic disregard for the 10 o'clock rule and muzzle sweep discipline, and imagine if the same mistake had been made hunting deer instead of birds.
Shotgun shot is not armour piercing, the lower level protection vests would suffice. From far enough away a heavy parka would stop shotgun pellets.
 
Shotgun shot is not armour piercing, the lower level protection vests would suffice. From far enough away a heavy parka would stop shotgun pellets.
The level 3 armor offers higher blunt force protection. So even though shot is likely not to penetrate even at close range. It still might offer the wearer less blunt injury and thus time to take cover or escape. It might not matter but it could mean the difference between getting the wind knocked out of you or not.
 
The level 3 armor offers higher blunt force protection. So even though shot is likely not to penetrate even at close range. It still might offer the wearer less blunt injury and thus time to take cover or escape. It might not matter but it could mean the difference between getting the wind knocked out of you or not.
Are we expecting hunters to walk over to deliver a coup d'grace?
 
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.



This is type IIIA armor. Two shots, neither penetrates, but the first one deformed the jacket significantly and you can see the wood isn't giving way yet - a person would likely have broken ribs but I doubt it would be life threatening. The second shattered the wood it was hanging on, but with a second shot we're not talking about an accident anymore.
 
Last edited:
I note Hevach mentions Cheney's faux pas. IIRC the guy got shot in the face. First of all a vest wouldn't have saved him from a face shot, and second, it was small shot so he survived.
 
Are we expecting hunters to walk over to deliver a coup d'grace?
No, but an active shooter wearing such protection could potentially continue the fight because of the added blunt force protection. That is the argument being made for passing this bill, active shooters and stopping them easier.
 
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.
Wouldn't it have to still be pretty close range for a shotgun to do that? Are we expected to accept that military level protection against your hunting buddy climbing over a fence behind you, shotgun in hand is sufficient reason to stop this bill?
 
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.
Yeah, at some point the range is just too close for a shotgun blast to not do internal damage. The protection would probably need to be steal plate and be too heavy to wear effectively.
 
Wouldn't it have to still be pretty close range for a shotgun to do that? Are we expected to accept that military level protection against your hunting buddy climbing over a fence behind you, shotgun in hand is sufficient reason to stop this bill?
I never said it was. I just pointed out that every scenario in which defenders have said the armor is useful doesn't call for type III armor, but it's kind of amusing that yet again the one situation in which it would save a life that unaffected armors would not is the one that (despite statistics to the contrary) they frequently insist doesn't happen.
 
No, but an active shooter wearing such protection could potentially continue the fight because of the added blunt force protection. That is the argument being made for passing this bill, active shooters and stopping them easier.
Most of those cases mentioned above it seems to me the unaffected armors would be sufficient, some of them even preferable.

Honestly, the best argument for level III armor I can think of is one nobody seems willing to make: Hunting accidents frequently involve shotguns, sometimes at very close range, and while I can't find much information on what kinds of body armors are effective with shotguns, I would imagine concealability isn't a concern but maximum protection is. I know it's a long way from the narrative gun rights groups want, but that kind of drunken stupidity does happen. A lot. Consider a particular vice president who showed an epic disregard for the 10 o'clock rule and muzzle sweep discipline, and imagine if the same mistake had been made hunting deer instead of birds.
This^^^ was the hunting scenario I was responding to. Conflating that to an active shooter scenario is a bit odd.

Keeping level III armour available also means its as likely, or greater, that the active shooter also has it.
 
This^^^ was the hunting scenario I was responding to. Conflating that to an active shooter scenario is a bit odd.

Keeping level III armour available also means its as likely, or greater, that the active shooter also has it.
If pointing out facts is conflating things then I'm not sure how to respond.
 
I never said it was. I just pointed out that every scenario in which defenders have said the armor is useful doesn't call for type III armor, but it's kind of amusing that yet again the one situation in which it would save a life that unaffected armors would not is the one that (despite statistics to the contrary) they frequently insist doesn't happen.
OK, the irony that the NRA says hunters are safe when in fact its the scenario best applied to wearing a vest.
 
If pointing out facts is conflating things then I'm not sure how to respond.
Just that I was responding to one scenario and you responded speaking to a different one.

Seems a text only communications interactions got in the way of understanding.
 
Just that I was responding to one scenario and you responded speaking to a different one.

Seems a text only communications interactions got in the way of understanding.
I was keeping with the topic of the thread. The hunting accident seems a bit OT. It's just a random passing comment someone made.
 
I was keeping with the topic of the thread. The hunting accident seems a bit OT. It's just a random passing comment someone made.
Understood now.

How often would such a scenario come up? The list of scenarios in post 26 would be pretty highly escalated if this shooter is going for the kill. Would that really apply to a car jacker or a hold up man in the store parking lot?
 
Understood now.

How often would such a scenario come up? The list of scenarios in post 26 would be pretty highly escalated if this shooter is going for the kill. Would that really apply to a car jacker or a hold up man in the store parking lot?
What's the point of coming up with all these scenarios?
 
http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/02/22/10-reasons-civilian-consider-buying-body-armor/

1 – Dangerous Neighborhood
If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, you could be putting your life at risk every time you step out of your house. Someone may attempt to rob you while you are going to and from your car. It can be a great way to protect yourself and not have to worry about anyone knowing that you are wearing the body armor at all.

2 – Taking Money to the Bank
If you have a job that requires you to deposit money in the bank for a business, you want to be sure that you are safe and protected. The vests are lightweight so that you can easily move around while wearing it, but ensure that even if someone were to try to take the money from you that your chances of survival after a shot will be high.

3 – Receiving Threats from an Ex
When an ex feels as though they have been hurt, they may act out in a crazy way. The body armor will protect you, if he or she attempts to shoot you out of anger.

4 – Intruders Enter Your Home
If an intruder breaks into your home, the body armor will protect you, if they attempt to shoot you. It will also help you to have the confidence that you need to be able to get to your phone and call the police.

5 – Work at a School
If you work as an officer or even as a teacher at a school, body armor may be an investment you want to make. In the past, there have been many teachers that have been killed while on the job by individuals attacking the school. No students will be able to tell that you are wearing the vest during your workday.

6 – Work at a Bank
Working at a bank can be dangerous. The body armor is not illegal for you to wear to work and will not be detectable by a potential bank robber.

7 – Work Late at a Restaurant or Business
The body armor can be essential when you are working late at night as that is when most robberies occur. The vest will better your chances of being able to make it through the ordeal.

8 – Delivery Driver
If you work as a delivery driver, body armor can help protect you, while you are making your deliveries. There are people who get desperate and may try to take the items that you are trying to deliver.

9 – Courthouse Worker
If you work at a courthouse, you may have to deal with people that are not happy with the sentences that they received. If someone decides to attack the courthouse, you will be glad that you invested in body armor.

10 – Work at the Post Office
The post office can be very stressful and there are times when someone may snap. When this happens, it can cause them to go on a rampage and wearing the body armor will increase your chances of walking out of the post office alive after a rampage occurs.
Content from External Source

Ask the preppers who came up with the list.
 
Ask the peppers who came up with the list of reasons to keep it legal.
This isn't a place to argue for or against it though. The debunk is that all body armor is said to be banned.

If there is a claim of evidence with a scenario then I say start a new thread on it.
 


Some people perhaps have played a bit too much Call of Duty....

I got shot in the lower chest in 1996, and whilst my body armour saved me, it put me on my arse and that was the end of activities for me for that day.... North Hollywood was the exception and it was in an era when the LA cops only had pistols and shotguns. I doubt they could get away with remaining upstanding these days.

The type of body armour described is the type used in this video. It is heavy, and usually has complex velcro and clips holding it together, so the idea that one might pause to calmly put it on while someone else is crowbarring your window open is a bit of a stretch....

But, as much as I find the NRA, 'Preppers' and the 2nd amend fan club etc obnoxious, paranoid and massively overstating the necessity to own huge amounts of weaponry, body-armour is essentially safety equipment, and though debunked, I cannot think of a single reason to ban safety equipment.
 
Just to clarify...there is a large difference between types IIIA and III. Sort of counterintuitive, but IIIA is the lower level of protection (.357 SIG and .44 Mag) where III is tested against 7.62 NATO rifle rounds. III requires hard armor or plates (ceramic is the choice now, I believe). There's a huge difference in protection between III and IIIA. Just as there is no reason for sale of armor piercing ammunition, I see no legitimate use for type III for any civilian.

None of the prepper scenarios justify it and the hunting protection thing is just kinda silly. People try to save ounces on what they carry when they hunt with rifles...do you really think anyone would wear a 30 lb vest? Heck, some won't even wear orange.

I won't pretend to know for sure, but as I understand, even military vests rated as type III are very carefully designed to ONLY protect the vital zones from specific directions. Sure, you could get shot in the armpit and go through vital areas, but if you dress them up like knights of old...they can barely move, let alone run and shoot back.
 
Just to clarify...there is a large difference between types IIIA and III. Sort of counterintuitive, but IIIA is the lower level of protection (.357 SIG and .44 Mag) where III is tested against 7.62 NATO rifle rounds. III requires hard armor or plates (ceramic is the choice now, I believe). There's a huge difference in protection between III and IIIA. Just as there is no reason for sale of armor piercing ammunition, I see no legitimate use for type III for any civilian.

None of the prepper scenarios justify it and the hunting protection thing is just kinda silly. People try to save ounces on what they carry when they hunt with rifles...do you really think anyone would wear a 30 lb vest? Heck, some won't even wear orange.

I won't pretend to know for sure, but as I understand, even military vests rated as type III are very carefully designed to ONLY protect the vital zones from specific directions. Sure, you could get shot in the armpit and go through vital areas, but if you dress them up like knights of old...they can barely move, let alone run and shoot back.


When fully kitted up now, I can hardly move.... but thats also because I'm getting on and someone needs to design a special body-armour for the over-40s....;)

The UK Osprey claims to be 'the best in the world', which is a claim that may have some merit, considering how heavy it is.

osprey_prod_1.jpg

Your comparisons to Knights of Old is not an inaccurate one, as one no longer runs, we plod along wearing this. I have been told that the front an back plates were designed to absorb up to three armour piercing 7.62mm rounds before failure, but this is a test I'd not like to discover - Iv been shot once already and didn't like it much the first time....
 
During my Navy years, we had old flak vests for issue to gunners and the ships security forces. Probably the Vietnam era M69 I imagine. Even those, which offered no real protection against bullets, were heavy uncomfortable things. And they were hot! Must of had the sweat of 100 people before me in them as well.
 
During my Navy years, we had old flak vests for issue to gunners and the ships security forces. Probably the Vietnam era M69 I imagine. Even those, which offered no real protection against bullets, were heavy uncomfortable things. And they were hot! Must of had the sweat of 100 people before me in them as well.
Were they the ones with the nylon cover and heavy metal zip which would jam up with molten nylon if there was a fire...?
 
Yep...I guess the velcro flap over the zipper was supposed to help with that? Never had to test it thank (whatever) god. It did make me feel a bit safer in Somalia and some of the other African ports we visited though.
 
Yep...I guess the velcro flap over the zipper was supposed to help with that? Never had to test it thank (whatever) god. It did make me feel a bit safer in Somalia and some of the other African ports we visited though.

Also, no quick release if you fell overboard....
 
I agree, but I still can't think of a reason to ban it...
Strictly speaking from an LEO point of view, I can fully understand the reason to want to limit the ability of an active shooter or similar to be able to walk about with heavy protection from first responders who may only be carrying a sidearm limited in range and penetrative capability. It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.
 
Strictly speaking from an LEO point of view, I can fully understand the reason to want to limit the ability of an active shooter or similar to be able to walk about with heavy protection from first responders who may only be carrying a sidearm limited in range and penetrative capability. It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.

I agree its very difficult to make any of your rounds go where you would prefer when its coming back the other way, but I might also opine that the type of person that buys the top-end ceramic body-armour against 'tyranny' and against the imminent, yet never quite arriving 'economic collapse' will also probably out-gun you in every other aspect as well...!

I understand the rationale behind such a bill, but I'm no policeman and do you think such a ban would improve the situation much?
 
I agree its very difficult to make any of your rounds go where you would prefer when its coming back the other way, but I might also opine that the type of person that buys the top-end ceramic body-armour against 'tyranny' and against the imminent, yet never quite arriving 'economic collapse' will also probably out-gun you in every other aspect as well...!

I understand the rationale behind such a bill, but I'm no policeman and do you think such a ban would improve the situation much?

Yeah, fair call - your average paranoid anti-gov types aren't going to be coming at you with a slingshot. Also Im in Australia, so there's quite a difference in reasoning and justification re gun ownership (which I dare not comment on, that's sure to devolve into something else!)

I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future.

So I'd have to say anything that gives the good guys an upper hand, if only slight, has to be a good thing. I realise that then opens up a can of worms in regards to rights to self protection and freedoms etc..
 
It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.

I appreciate this perspective, from someone who has actual training.

Earlier (I think up-thread) I may have pointed out that a Human who turned his/her torso to the side presents a profile that is....well, not much more than a head or Thigh/Leg profile. I know that the "shooting range" galleries always show a torso....front (or 'back') on.

Any comments on this, from your experience/perspective?
 
The likeliness of this bill getting passed is very slim, and just by bringing a bill like this to the floor to be voted on will have a negative effect like it did when congress was trying to limit certain types of weapons and ammo. People will inevitably go out now and purchase IIIA body armour because they fear the government is trying to ban it. Not too mention the wackos out there that didn't even think about wearing body armour, now a light bulb went off in their head(s)...
 
I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future.

The one that most people remember was the North Hollywood bank shooting, but don't really remember any others.

Would it also be reasonable to say that mass shootings of the type that make the news are usually committed by people that do not actually expect to survive the event anyway?
 
People will inevitably go out now and purchase IIIA body armour because they fear the government is trying to ban it. Not too mention the wackos out there that didn't even think about wearing body armour, now a light bulb went off in their head(s)...

Perhaps the government should announce they are about to ban trigger guard locks and gun-safes...
 
I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future
I posted an article from slate that discussed;
How many gun-toting criminals are wearing body armor? A Slate investigation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._how_many_felons_wear_bulletproof_vests_.html
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/h-r-5344-bill-banning-enhanced-body-armor.4133/#post-120887
 
Back
Top