Jump to content

Talk:Bulletproof vest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SkynetPR (talk | contribs) at 08:58, 25 November 2019 (→Other armors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Other armors

Body armor in other countries cam 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)[reply]

Dyneema vs. Spectra

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)[reply]


Picture

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

If I am correct that is the M69 Flagmentation Vest. Uber555 03:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fragmentation"? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as in designed to stop fragments of shrapnel but not bullets...Freikorp (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to body armor

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was - No move to body armor, no consensus to Ballistic vest. When an additional proposal pops in in the middle of the debate, the things often (not always, but this time) get messy. While there is perhaps a technical majority for the Ballistic vest below, compelling arguments were put forward for keeping it as-is per WP:NC(CN). No prejudice against re-running the RM. Duja► 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof vest → Body armor — The term "bulletproof vest" is a misnomer. The article name should reflect the correct name of the item. To give a related example of how bad this is, calling body armor a "bulletproof vest" is like calling a magazine a "clip". 207.67.146.243 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Support. What is worn is neither bulletproof or a vest so that title is not correct. While it may be slang on the internet or a common term, it should not be used in this case since it does not accuately define the subject. We have a better name so lets use it. Vegaswikian 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Yath 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Alf 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per that nice little pic someone plopped below. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Oppose votes

  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Oppose. It both is a vest and is made to be bullet-proof (against certain classes of bullets for each variety of vest). The term is in common use and more technical alternate "body armor" may be ambiguous. Rmhermen 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Stongly oppose. One of the tenets of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English rules is to avoid squabbling about body armour vs. body armor when they are unnecessary. The current title is in common use and quite appropriate. Gene Nygaard 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongly oppose as per Gene Nygaard. I agree with an alternative move to Ballistic vest as suggested below. Asteriontalk 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose because of overlap with "flak jackets", motorcycle armor, medieval armor, etc. etc. --GunnarRene 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: A ballistic vest is a special kind of body armour. But a helmet or a shield is "Body armour" too Randroide 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongly oppose as per Gene Nygaard. Any move is, in my opinion, unneccessary.WLDtalk|edits 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as bulletproof vest, although technically inaccurate, is the term used in newspaper articles and in the popular press. Yaf 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Gene Nygaard. Also, renaming a commonly used term for being "technically inaccurate" is not a convincing rationale to me. My watch says it is "water resistant", but only to a depth of 50 metres. Most "shock proof" laptops cant survive a drop from a 50-floor building. Washing detergents cant successfully wash away every stain. Plenty of items are called or labelled by qualities which are not universally tenable in all conditions, but that dosent stop them from being called as such.--Huaiwei 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested alternative

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)[reply]


Alternative - Support votes

  1. Randroide 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WeniWidiWiki 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GraemeLeggett 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Asteriontalk 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GassyGuy 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vegaswikian 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - Oppose votes

  1. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are there any credible sources to say why the term "Bulletproof vest" is inaccurate?--Huaiwei 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per WLD. Technical term is not well known, and well known usage is encouraged per WP:NC. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The shinguards that this policeman is wearing ARE "body armor", BUT are NOT a "bulletproof vest". It´s not the same thing. Randroide 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sure. A description about shinguards can go into armour, and not bulletproof vest.--Huaiwei 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A seemingly obvious move request, but I wonder if this will dublicate information already in Armour.--Huaiwei 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's a problem here. "Body armor" is only equated to anti-firearm gear (primarily vests) because that's what's currently issued; but, historically, the term is more applicable to all types of armor (e.g. chainmail, cuirasses, etc.). Something like modern body armor might be better, with body armor being redirected instead to armour. Kirill Lokshin 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Personal body armor? Modern is not specific. What was used in the middle ages was modern for the time. Vegaswikian 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ballistic vest is the way to go. Personal body armor would also include a Ballistic shield Randroide 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Body armor is redirected to armour. Wherever Bulletproof vest ends up it can be mentioned or even {{main}} under armour#modern personal armour. As a side note a fair number of links to "armor" ought to be to vehicle armour. GraemeLeggett 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why I think this is a bad idea: Ballistic vest gets 44000 ghits, Bulletproof vest: 370000, body armor: 1.26 million. The term Ballistic Vest, in other words is 30 times less common than the last, and 9 times less common than the first. This is a horrible idea. We are simply creating a new word for the sake of it being technically correct: despite the fact that the other word exists in common language. That is the exact opposite of what we want to do: WP:NC says no neologisms. -Patstuarttalk|edits 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalize/USA

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)[reply]

Body armor

a compromis i think should be armor vest. as i personly think it acuratly defines what were talking about and does not say it is bullet proof which implies no bullet could ever defeat it

Level V Protection

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You must have looked wrong the current 2000 soming version is lv 3 and their testing 3000 somthing version which they call lv 4 & 5 it is however not and official level and should'nt be added. Uber555 03:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and behold, level 5, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKnfHhRl7U0&feature=related Malamockq (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a body armor test engineer for 20 years and there is no NIJ level 5 armor standard. There are provisions for an armor to be tested against special threats not in the level 4 requirement. We need to get this level 5 materials out of this as it perpetuates a mythBodyarmor (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution: split the article up

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)[reply]

US bias

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It might be more constructive to go get sources and edit yourself if you want to "globalize" this article, rather than lecturing everyone on how jingoistic we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.195.115 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly add mention of level 5 category

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relevance of Arrows

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You know, penetration depends on both momentum and kinetic energy, and man powered and melee weapons rely on momentum mostly. Try again and this time immobilizes the vest by putting it on a tree trunk or something like that and shoot a denser and sharper arrow (you may need to build it yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.165.213 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

150 lb crossbow? You must be Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.9.155 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's your funeral, but isn't deliberately damaging your vest by using it to experiment with different weapons putting yourself in danger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.106 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plates vs Weaves

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tissue simulant

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)[reply]

In armor testing we combine Roma clay#1,Other oil/clay mixes, 10% 20% gelatin, 00015 foam+rubber and silicon gel materials as "tissue simulants". You point out quite correctly that Roma clay/oil materials are plastic and have a specific gravity of >2. This material is a very poor simulant for tissue. However we group all these test backing materials as tissue simulants becasue there is some military testing that does not use any backing in the test. Most frag testing is done without any backing. So the original reference is to testing with backing or "tissue simulant" vs. no backing.

NIJ and the other standards are using oil/clay materials to simulate back face trauma to tissue spite of the fact that oil/clay is not a good tissue simulant.

Decisions by standards developers on test backing have a very large impact on armor performance. For example the change from Roma to gelatin in spike testing enabled the successful use of textile materials over metals.

Perhaps the best approach is to add a section in test methods on backing materials to clear up all these issues? Bodyarmor (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that body armour is not legal in Ireland, is this true? JackorKnave (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article not up to date

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)[reply]

Section 6.1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Australia Legality

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)[reply]

Too many American examples?

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) Victory in Germany (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then add your own pictures and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.165.244 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

U.S. Civil War Vest

aka "The Soldiers' Bullet Proof Vest" is missing in this article http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/index.php/tour-by-region/oceania/americas/arms-and-armour-americas-42 U.S. Civil War Vest in: Pitt Rivers Museum

National restrictions - reason?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neglected USSR / Russian Body Armor

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))[reply]

Russian armor uses GOST. Will add the pre 2014 scale. Germany uses VPAM. SkynetPR (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convict vs Felon

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)[reply]

Ferdinand and the bullet proof vest

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)[reply]

The title.

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)[reply]

Many people have expressed similar sentiments, as is seen above. --MisterCrazy8 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard vs soft armor

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) Morgan Phoenix (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

Untitled

"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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulletproof_vest&oldid=927871521"