Custom Armor Technologies Failures

[Fail-Safe]

http://www.kpho.com/story/16961446/p...st-failed-test

I read this story today about possible deficient body armor and thought I'd bring it to the attention of Dr Roberts and others.

[TehLlama]

"when a bullet pierced through the bottom edge"

Depending on placement, this may be complete media ignorance of how soft armor works. Close enough to the edge, nothing is going to stop a round.

[DocGKR]

The DBT/CAT level IIIa QVA3A is quite likely the most tested and proven soft armor package of the past decade (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=31279).

In addition to passing the NIJ testing, the QVA3A also passed the demanding FBI soft body armor protocol, as well as numerous agency specific tests—including stopping multiple closely spaced hits of 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP Ranger Talon and HST fired from 10 feet, defeating contact shots with .44 mag 240 gr JHP (Federal 44A) fired from a 5” barrel, and successfully absorbing 32 hits of 9 mm Win RA9T fired into a 3” circle at a range of 10 feet prior to finally being penetrated on the 33 shot.

Please carefully look at the incident in Phoenix.

From the publicly available reports so far, on 26 Nov 2011, Officer Anthony Daley was shot and wounded when a .40 caliber JHP bullet fired from a criminal at a distance of about 15 feet reportedly hit 3/8” from the bottom edge of Daley’s vest, penetrated through, and caused a serious lower left abdominal injury.

Hard armor can be expected to stop orthogonal hits out to the edge of the plate. Soft armor is different, in that it is made up of multiple layers of ballistic fabric resting on top of each other—like a stack of paper. As the edge of the armor is approached, those layers can shift and become thinned out. For this reason, NIJ traditionally only counted hits to soft armor that were 3 inches or further from the edge of the vest as being valid; obviously this is a somewhat extreme overly wide safety margin. More realistically, as hits begin to get 1” and closer to the edge of the panel a decrease in soft armor effectiveness can occur. Likewise the obliquity of a hit can effect how the armor works, particularly on hits near the panel edge.

In this specific case—was Daley’s vest penetrated 3/8” from the bottom edge of the vest carrier or of the actual armor panel? If from the carrier edge, it is possible that the actual armor panel was not even hit. If in fact it is referring to the actual armor, then 3/8” is very close to the edge and it is not totally unexpected to get a penetration in that location. Also what was the angle of the hit on Daley's vest in relation to the panel layers?

Out of concern for the safety of their member officers, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association has reported that they contracted with Oregon Ballistic Laboratories to conduct a test on another QVA3A vest from the same lot number and 12 May 2008 manufacture date as the armor Officer Daley was wearing. It is reported that this identical armor failed a standard NIJ Protocol test when the first .44 Magnum shot fired from 16.5 feet fully penetrated the center of the armor, although the test round was lost and not recovered. It is also reported that the armor failed a BFD assessment with 2 other shots, although accounts conflict as to whether these were from .44 Mag (http://www.policemag.com/Chann...-Police-Testing.aspx) or from .40 caliber (http://www.azplea.com/index.ph...tid=2:news&Itemid=47).

So…readers want to know, was it .40 or .44 caliber that caused the OBL BFD failure—not that anyone should care much about BFD, especially in clay. On the .44 projectile that penetrated in OBL testing, what specific .44 mag load was used? What was the velocity? How could a test projectile be lost on the first test shot into a NIJ clay backing??? What specific NIJ protocol was used--the 0101.05 that was in effect when the vest was made or the current 0101.06? Most importantly, what was the provenance, history, and condition of the single 5 year old QVA3A vest that failed testing by OBL?

PLEA wrote that: “a .40 caliber round penetrated the full thickness of the Kevlar material”; if this is a true statement, then is the penetrated vest actually a true level IIIA QVA3A vest, since all the QVA3A ever tested here contained no Kevlar, instead being made using 19 layers of woven Twaron on top of 21 layers of Dyneema polyethelene laminate? Has anyone actually disassembled the armor in question and done a check to make sure it is actually QVA3A and to assess the condition of the various layers of material in the panels?

In all the testing done by multiple agencies over the past few years, QVA3A has always performed very well—both when new and during post-use spot checks on older, worn armor. The information presented so far in the Phoenix incident appears incomplete and highly atypical for QVA3A.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. This is certainly a tragic event, but folks, it is NOT necessarily a vest failure. Before getting worried and particularly prior to making any knee jerk expensive changes in equipment, be patient, gather all the salient evidence, and carefully review the actual facts.

As always, never trust ANY armor vendor nor the media to tell the truth!

[C-grunt]

This happened at my agency and I made a thread after asking some questions. The dept sent out an email asking anyone with these vests to let a supervisor know and I think they are going to replace them. From the information the dept gave us, the tested vests didnt stop the 44 mag but did stop all the 40 rounds.

ETA. I wouldnt trust anything PLEA says. They have really isolated themselves from the officers in the last couple years and people are starting to leave like its a sinking ship.

[DocGKR]

DBT has just released this: http://www.diamondbacktactical.com/w...ICE_022212.pdf.

[Jake'sDad]

It's extremely frustrating when the media gets involved in armor issues, since they could care less about facts, and concentrate on hysteria. Placing doubt in cops minds, along with giving the public constant exposure to the concealable armor worn, will likely do more to get cops hurt than any potential problem will.

[rchen404]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but DBT has a further response, where they test a vest from the same lot as the failed one in accordance with NIJ 0101.04:

http://www.diamondbacktactical.com/w...ATE-073112.pdf

Has there been anymore news that would answer Dr. Roberts unanswered questions (did the .40 hit the carrier or the actual panel, details on bullet that penetrated on the OBL test, etc)?

DocGKR, what do you make of the conflicting reports where OBL had a penetration, but HP White says the vest stopped a .44 cal? Both are NIJ certified labs right?

Perhaps there was an issue with maintenance? One vest was left in the car under the hot AZ sun, while the other was properly maintained? In your opinion, would something like this cause the divergent test results?

thanks

[DocGKR]

ADVISORY NOTICE – Diamondback Tactical Responds to Initial Testing of Lot-Specific Armor Vests
July 31, 2012

Product Style: Custom Armor Technologies
Product Model: QVA-3A-1
Lot Number: 400010122119 – 1000076399
Date of Manufacture: May 2008

The purpose of this advisory notice is to update users of Custom Armor Technologies (CAT) QVA3A ballistic vests regarding the results of tests conducted on a lot-specific CAT vest by an independent laboratory and witnessed by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), on behalf of Diamondback Tactical, LLLP. Diamondback Tactical is the owner of the CAT brand.

On February 17, 2012, Diamondback Tactical was informed of a test related to the ballistic performance of a CAT QVA sold to a member of the Phoenix Police Department in 2008. On February 21, 2012, Diamondback Tactical received information from the Phoenix Police Department, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), and Oregon Ballistics Laboratory (OBL) about the test, which was conducted by OBL.

To ensure the performance integrity of CAT QVA vests manufactured in the same lot as the vest purchased by the Phoenix police officer, Diamondback Tactical conducted a series of independent tests on CAT QVA vests from the same manufacturing lot. Each vest was subjected to new, unused testing by the HP White Laboratory in accordance with its original certification based on the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Standard-0101.04. HP White Laboratory is the same ballistic laboratory that performed the original NIJ 0101.04 Level IIIA certification testing for the new, unused armor.

Diamondback Tactical in conjunction with a representative from NLECTC witnessed the ballistic testing of the used vests at HP White in accordance with NIJ 0101.04. The 9mm used V50 test performed at a velocity of 1800 fps, as compared to the original (new) 9mm V50 test velocity of 1835 fps. The test results indicate that the CAT QVA vests performed as expected and were well within acceptable standard deviation range.

While the NIJ Standard-0101.04 did not reference requirements for V50 testing against a .44 Magnum round at the time of its release (Sept. 2000), HP White Laboratory performed velocity testing on the used CAT QVA vest with a .44 Magnum round. The used CAT QVA vest significantly exceeded the required performance threshold against the .44 Magnum with an average V50 of 1,665 fps, which is 205 fps more than the upper V0 reference velocity of 1460 fps. Lastly, the .44 Magnum V0 reference velocity P-BFS test was performed with all 12 shots (6-front/ 6-Back), and all were stopped by the CAT QVA vest with an average backface deformation of 41mm.

Independent tests of the lot-specific used vests that were the subject of this testing conclusively support the Level IIIA performance of the CAT QVA vest as originally certified in accordance with the NIJ Standard-0101.04. Additionally, independent tests support the extended performance of the QVA-3A-1 beyond its new state.

In concurrence with the NIJ, the Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), and a number of professional law enforcement associations, Diamondback Tactical encourages all users to perform frequent inspections of their body armor, to ensure panels and carriers are in good condition.