Is soft armor actually worth investing in?
IIIa can't really reliably stop any rifle rounds can it? Or even some pistol rounds out of long barrels.
Does extra armor at least slow down the rounds even if it doesn't stop it so you don't get hurt as badly and being unarmored or is not even worth wearing the armor at all if the enemy's weapons trump your level of protection?
Plus soft armor adds extra weight and cost, it seems like you should just go plate carrier or not go with anything. Is that true?
>>28106321
>IIIa can't really reliably stop any rifle rounds can it? Or even some pistol rounds out of long barrels.
You could've answered this on your own with like 5 minutes of research you lazy fag.
>>28106335
From what I said in the exact part of the post you quoted, I already have read about it, and from what I read that's basically what it said, though I'm not entirely sure about the validity of everything I happen to come across on the Internet.
Now focus on the real point of the thread instead of being a nitpicky asshole.
>>28106321
3A will stop pistol rounds, even out of longer barrels. It is worth investing in if you plan on wearing it everyday.
It seems like you're focused more on tactical outer armor (normally called OTVs or armor carriers) in which case I would advise you do what feels comfortable. You can also buy plate backers which are 3A soft armor panels to be used in conjuction with Level 4 rifle plates.
>>28106321
military style armor carriers have soft armor everywhere mostly to deal with fragmentation, but it should work with most pistol rounds as well. i guess it comes down to are you worried about pistol rounds or shrapnel to your sides/upper arms/groin?
>>28106364
I'm not set of what I'm focused on really I'm more just wondering, it seems like most threats people would be concerned about are stuff not stopped by 3A, rifle rounds and the like, so would having some armor at least lessen the wound sustained or would it be an exercise in futility?
If youre already protected by plates would it actually be worth the extra bulk and weight to use an armor carrier instead of plate carrier?
Why would you want a backer for your plate if it already provides protection greater than what the backer can?
>>28106321
try marching in ceramic + gear and then consider how much more you really want to put on
the military vests have kevlar for frag protection, not small caliber. it's just a ceramic carrier with kevlar attachments
>>28106437
>would having some armor at least lessen the wound sustained or would it be an exercise in futility?
Google "Trauma plates", most people who wear soft armor use those.
>If youre already protected by plates would it actually be worth the extra bulk and weight to use an armor carrier instead of plate carrier?
It's really not that much extra, and it depends on whether you are wearing Standalone plates or not. Standalone means they can stop rifle rounds by themselves due to the material that the last layer is made of.
>Why would you want a backer for your plate if it already provides protection greater than what the backer can?
Some ceramic plates just break the bullet into fragments to be caught by the kevlar (soft armor) backing them. So make sure you know if your plates are Standalone or ICW (In Conjuction With)
slightly off topic, are ESAPIs ICW or standalone?
>>28106476
Standalone,
And you're not off topic.
>>28106487
Thanks mcnig.
>>28106355
>I'm too lazy and/or stupid to fact check
>4chan is supposed to be a nice place that isn't full of autists and I shouldn't get berated for asking a dumb question
>>28106460
Thanks for the help. Don't know if you're still up or not, I went to bed shortly after my last post.
I thought the IOTV the military uses was supposed to be fairly heavy and bulky compared to a plate carrier with plates in it. Is that not the case or is the IOTV just a shitty armor carrier? I remember seeing one guy complaining about how it felt "fluffier" than it needed to be, with the material being thicker than other 3A armor you could purchase from private companies.
Are there good armor carriers other than surplus stuff that civilians can buy?
>>28107410
this stuff is kinda complicated because most of the data you find online is more or less personal preferences. Some military personnel consider the armor carriers "bulky" or "heavy", because they already got plenty of gear on, may have to operate in a hot climate, and the extra layers on top of you do make you feel fat.
In case of military gear, the soft armor is mostly meant to stop fragments of explosives, back up the hard plates, and stop the few potential pistol shots you seldom get fired at you.
I've worn some full armor sets in the army myself, and own a few sets myself, but I don't consider them to be that heavy. Then again, I also prefer to have my skin covered instead of exposed to ballistic threats; I rather sweat a bit and run slow, than get killed by a random stray bullet / frag.
You can get just about anything the militaries have. Every single armor manufacturer tends to make their own carriers. There's also the option of having a separated soft-armor vest and a plate carrier, which allows you to wear one or the other, or both at the same time, depending on your need. I've seen some mercs do this in the middle east.
>>28106321
i have this http://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-urban-go-plate-carrier-w-level-iii-body-armor.html#.VmRJSLjhDIU
but im thinking of getting one of these http://www.ar500armor.com/bae-eclipse-iotv-w-body-armor-blowout.html#.VmRJjbjhDIU
>>28107625
>>28107410
First off, it depends on what size you drew. A medium or so, or larger yes the armor is fairly bulky.
Between the front, kevlar, cummerbund, back, PALS, plates etc it is 1-1.5 inches thick. If you draw a small IOTV and use a larger cummerbund it acts exactly like a small plate carrier.
Also when they are new everything is still tight and compressed, when they get older they become "fluffier"
old moto selfie from a few years back.
>>28107820
>old moto selfie from a few years back.
How can that be a moto pic?
>scrawny as shit arms
>chubby babyface
>boot as fuck
>>28106476
>>28106487
We just got new Gen V plates and they're standalone. I think they've been standalone since gen IV.
>>28107820
I'm the anon who described soft armor as fluffy. When you wear Safariland soft armor, there's no gong back to USGI, not matter how new it is.
You should ask yourself this important question: "What is my threat level?".
If you are a security guard in a low risk position and the opponent is a cultural enricher with a saturday night special then get soft armor. If this is survival in an early happening get plates as religion of peace or cartels bring up rifle class arms, at least 2500 fps which brings the power level up geometrically. If you are in a warzone and they got frag grenades you need soft protection everywhere with hard protection in the center mass area.
What is your threat level? Is it Jamal rapper or Jamal Jihadi?
