Search Results
6/22/2025, 10:35:02 PM
>>63881081
Yeah, it's a steel-faced composite allegedly using a rather soft steel - hence the need for IIIA soft armor behind it.
The annoying bit is that with ICW plates, the round is actually allowed to penetrate the plate as long as it stops in the soft armor and resulting BFD is sub-44mm. When the NIJ certifies ICW plates, the plates are tested with a specific soft armor package as specified by the mfg. If you don't use that soft armor or something objectively superior... tough shit. Good news is that this will likely neutralize the fragmentation versus other steel plates (same way the titanium-PE Adept Mantis doesn't have "spall" - because rounds perforate the titanium and are caught in the PE backer), but also means you need to be damn sure your soft armor is up to par. The end result is that you need good, expensive soft armor - likely from Highcom since that's probably what was tested - and that defeats the value for this plate entirely. It's also, with soft armor, probably 8lb flat for a 10x12".
A much better alternative would be the steel-PE composite AMI TAC3S. https://www.armoredmobility.com/productdetail.aspx?pid=65
Standalone, III+, possibly the origin of Gecko45's .338 lapua requirement. Stops M193, M855, even super light varmint 5.56, 7.5lb and I think about $500.
This is obviously non-competitive with the LTC 19513, which is cheaper, lighter, and able to stop M855A1, but it would certainly beat the 19513 on shot spacing against lesser threats.
Remember. In accordance with 0101.06 section 7.6.2, the minimum shot-to-shot distance for fair hits is two inches. If, say, any Level III ceramic is struck by two rounds WITHIN two inches, that is an unfair hit and it is not technically required to stop the second round. That's where the AMI TAC3S made its bones back in 2010 I think, along with some of the older crack arresting ceramics from now-defunct Cercom. The TAC3S is old and has been supplanted by lighter versions. I think the latest is 6.5lb flat.
Yeah, it's a steel-faced composite allegedly using a rather soft steel - hence the need for IIIA soft armor behind it.
The annoying bit is that with ICW plates, the round is actually allowed to penetrate the plate as long as it stops in the soft armor and resulting BFD is sub-44mm. When the NIJ certifies ICW plates, the plates are tested with a specific soft armor package as specified by the mfg. If you don't use that soft armor or something objectively superior... tough shit. Good news is that this will likely neutralize the fragmentation versus other steel plates (same way the titanium-PE Adept Mantis doesn't have "spall" - because rounds perforate the titanium and are caught in the PE backer), but also means you need to be damn sure your soft armor is up to par. The end result is that you need good, expensive soft armor - likely from Highcom since that's probably what was tested - and that defeats the value for this plate entirely. It's also, with soft armor, probably 8lb flat for a 10x12".
A much better alternative would be the steel-PE composite AMI TAC3S. https://www.armoredmobility.com/productdetail.aspx?pid=65
Standalone, III+, possibly the origin of Gecko45's .338 lapua requirement. Stops M193, M855, even super light varmint 5.56, 7.5lb and I think about $500.
This is obviously non-competitive with the LTC 19513, which is cheaper, lighter, and able to stop M855A1, but it would certainly beat the 19513 on shot spacing against lesser threats.
Remember. In accordance with 0101.06 section 7.6.2, the minimum shot-to-shot distance for fair hits is two inches. If, say, any Level III ceramic is struck by two rounds WITHIN two inches, that is an unfair hit and it is not technically required to stop the second round. That's where the AMI TAC3S made its bones back in 2010 I think, along with some of the older crack arresting ceramics from now-defunct Cercom. The TAC3S is old and has been supplanted by lighter versions. I think the latest is 6.5lb flat.
Page 1