Tag Archives: body armor

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com DefenseReview readers are well aware that we’ve been following the Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body armor vs. U.S. Army Interceptor Body Armor Program for quite some time, now. As you also know, the Pinnacle Armor vs. U.S. Army situation subsequently resulted in the Departiment of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) pulling (i.e. …

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com November 11, 2007 All photographic images contained in this article were taken by DefenseReview.com, and they are the exclusive property of DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview.com owns the copyright on these photos. All photos were shot with a 7.2-megapixel Sony Cyber-shot digital camera (Model #: DSC-P150). The individual pictured in photos is a TDI company representative. It …

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com November 8, 2007 If DefenseReview is to believe what it’s been reading over the last few weeks in the "mainstream press", body armor and other types of ballistic armor (vehicle armor and bomb-resistant panels, for instance) utilizing carbon nanotubes (CNTs) may be upon us, soon. We’ll see. What we do know is that two …

By Roger Charles DefenseWatch 10-17-2007 UPDATE to following article: Two congressional sources report that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (on the staff of the Secretary of Defense) caught the Army’s attempted exemption of current Interceptor vendors from independent testing, as allowed in the original solicitation. Under pressure from DOT&E, in August the Army issued a modification not listing …

by Roger Charles DefenseWatch October 15, 2007 When NBC News had a German lab conduct side-by-side, comparative tests of Pinnacle Armor’s Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor Body Armor System on May 3 earlier this year, the real surprise was how well the Interceptor ESAPI (Level IV) plates performed. Yes, that’s right. The Army acquisition mafia "got lucky" in Germany, …

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com October, 15, 2007 On August 29, 2007, DefenseReview published an article on U.S.T.L. (United States Test Laboratory), an NIJ-certified lab, validating Pinnacle Armor’s 6-year warranty for Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Level III, per NIJ’s requirements. Pinnacle’s SOV-2000 Dragon Skin passed the U.S.T.L. test, and proved that it will hold up and maintain it’s ability to …

By David Crane defrev (at) gmail (dot) com September 16, 2007 Article updated on 4/07/08. In the world of big business, and big military, money is power. The more money one controls, the more powerful one is. And, in the U.S. military, the bigger the program and sexier the hardware/technology, the more prestige you’ve got, especially if that hardware can …

by Roger Charles August 30, 2007 United States Test Laboratory in Wichita, Kansas, last week (August 20) tested nine separate, serialized Dragon Skin SOV-2000 (Level III) ballistic body armor panels that varied in age from 5 years-9 & 1/2 months to 6 years-8 months. The purpose of this test was to validate Pinnacle Armor’s six-year warranty for Dragon Skin products. …

By Roger Charles August 30, 2007 (originally published on August 17, 2007) The Department of Justice (DOJ) has now joined the Army acquisition mafia in attempting to deny America’s Grunts an honest chance for determining just what is the "best-available" body armor. In a flagrant abuse of discretionary authority, the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs has intervened in an unprecedented …

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com August 1, 2007 Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT) is reporting about an independent test conducted on July 11, 2007 by Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) on two Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin SOV-3000 Level IV body armor panels. As it turns out, the ATC obtained very different results from the U.S. Army’s First Article Test (FAT) …