I did a search, and found a link but it was dead.
I have seen some studies and reports on the web indicating that this is an increasing problem, especially with high velocity projectiles involved.
On the other hand, there are several anecdotal stories about survivors who, even after taking several hits to hard plates by high powered rifles, do not experience any long term effects aside from bruising and pain.
So, is this a valid concern or is it a highly exaggerated issue?
It is NOT generally a problem.
Conpared to the alternative? I’d say yes to highly exaggerated.
Yes, I understand that a projectile penetrating the thoracic cavity is worse.
My question however, is wether or not reports such as this are accurate:
It states in it’s conclusion:
Severe injuries may be caused by non-penetrating
projectiles owing to large deformations in the
protective body armor.
This study only used hard armor, without soft armor backing.
Some other studies publicly available:
http://www.ramcjournal.com/2001/feb01/cannon.pdf
There are many more reports available, but I do not have access.
There is ongoing research on this subject, and the reason I asked is what I stated in the OP. If this is a serious issue, why are there so many reports of people being saved by body armor without any ill effects from blunt force trauma, and not many reports on people dying from complications stemming from projectile impact in body armor?
Injuries I have read about include pulmonary contusions resulting in haemothorax and possibly death. Sternal fractures. Spinal fractures with accompanying damage or destruction of spinal cord tissue in the area hit.
Other injuries possible are listed here:
Possible injuries
bruising and hematoma in underlying skin
contusion to or rupture of the spleen
contusion to or rupture of the liver
contusion to heart
blunt trauma to the spinal cord or peripheral nerve
rupture of distended bowel
contusion to the lung
fracture of underlying bone
contusion or rupture of distended urinary bladder
contusion to the kidney
http://www.mymedal.org/index.php?n=Military.295017
Some of these can cause quite severe complications.
Wow, I didnt know hard plates deformed that much if at all. I wonder if this is more of an issue with ceramic plates than steel plates, since, from what Ive read, ceramic fractures when hit. I always thought .308 and smaller didnt dent ar500 steel at all(except at very close range). isnt that what steel plate armor is?
This is the first I’ve heard of this, although I havent researched much at all into hard armor.
All other things being more or less equal, I’d rather have a vest that exhibits less backface deformation. If it weighs 4 or 5 ounces more, deal with it. Blunt trauma may not be as big of a factor as some suggest, but I’ve seen some pretty gnarly cases of it.
If anything is overhyped, it’s that slightly lighter or thinner vests are that much easier to wear. They all suck, but they suck less than bullet holes. The 3A’s today, weigh less than the level 2’s we wore 20 years ago.
Again, BABC is NOT that big a deal in most cases. For you medical providers–how many of you have seen significant injuries in folks whose armor has stopped a shot? Hint–it is a pretty rare thing.
Now–did anybody actually read the articles posted by Artic1 in the links above?
I was not particularly enamored by the use of cadavers in the Bass paper–cadavers have no air in their lungs, no muscle tone, and are not as elastic as living beings. In addition, take a look at the muzzle position relative to the hard plate. Note also that the hits were aimed directly at the sternum in front and right onto the spine from the rear.
The Cannon paper writes that:
“The ballistic threat against soldiers continues to rise, both in terms of bullet calibre and available energy.”
Last I checked, the bad guys have been pretty much shooting the same 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm stuff for the past 60 years, so I am not sure why the common battlefield ballistic threat has changed much.
Even more interesting, Canon is primarily looking at BABC from 12.7 mm (.50 BMG) and Russian 14.5 mm–no shit there is going to be some BABC.
On the other hand, be sure to look at page 88 of the paper, where it clearly states:
“There was no evidence of significant BABT injury from 5.56 mm military bullets.”
For that matter Cannon reports that BABT from 7.62 mm NATO bullets was “largely dependent on the armour design”…uh, duh.
Arctic1- if your worried about backface deformation go to docs list of approved Lve lll hard armor, and find the one that exhibit’s the least amount of bfd.while still defeating the threats your likely to encounter.(everything is a compromise wen it comes to armor) Then go to doc’s approved soft armor thread, and determine what the best option is for you(again It’s all about compromise) since bfd seems to be a concern of yours, you should go with something Lv lll as It’s obviously going to offer the most protection from both frag and direct pistol fire,and will aid in controlling bfd. If you really want to go all out I suppose you could also add trauma plates as well. But that is extreme over kill in MHO. I REALLY DON’T think you will have a problem if you are running quality,modern armor. Side not- if you are using a Lv 4SA/Lv 5SA plate, I would still suggest using a Lvlll plate backer/spear-balcs soft armor just for the added piece of mind.(all things man made can and will fail)
P.s I’m as far from am expert as you can get. So if I’m wrong on any point, please, tell me to piss off:help: then set it strait and remind me to read more post less:D
Megademic- I am not positive on the bfd on steel plates,as I have never really looked into them as an option. But I will say that from all the testing I have seen of steel plates, the lightweight high velocity 556 for example xm193, m855,as well as some of the lighter 45gr land warfare rounds. And generally anything with a velocity greater the 3200fps. will punch right through steel, as well as the underlying soft armor(depending on the underlying soft armor’s Level and composition,ie weather its a 100% pure woven aramid,or a laminated armor like dyneema)
No, it’s not a concern for me. I have not been shot myself, but I know of people who have taken hits to their vests, and also read accounts of people being shot in the vest, and many returned to full function within seconds, with no apparent ill effect apart for pain and bruising.
I was asking if this was as valid an issue as some reports make it out to be, considering the accounts I am familiar with say the opposite.
Thanks for the insight.
Okay well in that case disregard my post. I do not think it is as bad, or as wide spread as the internet/ the media make out to be. They love to milk story’s about military/Leo being wounded. Or try to twist it into a, "our military men and women don’t have sufficient armor. (Witch at the start of the war we didn’t)
At any rate I would not be concerned with bfd with quality modern armor. Unless your going up against a .50 or even a 338. In witch case you will be screwed.