Search Results
7/16/2025, 12:22:07 AM
>>63989047
To add onto this with the infographic and some other notes:
>2007-2008: Highcom, a highly reputable armor manufacturer, releases the 4SAS4, a single-curve full cut NIJ 0101.04-certified plate.
>This standard does not require the conditioning tests of 0101.06.
>2009-2010: The 4SAS4 is replaced by the 4SAS7, which cements Highcom's reputation as an exceedingly reliable armor manufacturer.
>2022: Highcom makes a bunch of excess aluminum oxide strike faces for some contract and puts them into storage.
>Mid-2024: Highcom releases the "4SAS4", a multi-curve shooters / SAPI-cut plate. Their distributors are Apex, Tacshit, Titan, Chase Tactical, and others. Using those old strike faces.
>$100. This plate quickly gains traction with everyone, including Buffman - who recommends it highly.
>Buffman tests the plate around October-November and it fails badly. The plate he dropped more arguably did better.
>Buffman reports his findings on arfcom and FNforum, on the latter even calling the plate's backer trash.
>RMA conveniently puts the 1155 on a big sale.
>Huge blowup online. People demand refunds.
>Tacticalshit refuses em. Escalates to Chase Tactical, whose customer service alleges Buffman rigged the test on behalf of "other companies" (guess who).
>Story changes and it was the drop test that did them in!
>/gq/ goes whole hog and finds out these plates were advertised to 0101.06, which has a drop test.
>Nope, they're 0101.04. After everyone bought their plates, Highcom stealth-edited the 4SAS4 page to remove 0101.06 entirely. We caught this on the wayback machine.
>They're not even the real 4SAS4. They're a different model bumming an old cert.
>Even the NIJ confirms the cert is no good.
>People get chargebacks on tacshit.
>Chase Tactical threatens Buff with legal action, he KNEELS and vows to restore confidence in Highcom.
>Retest using plates mostly sent in by Chase. Flaunts test reports (6x BZ API!) he can't show.
>All of /gq/ does chargebacks.
>reddit shills!
To add onto this with the infographic and some other notes:
>2007-2008: Highcom, a highly reputable armor manufacturer, releases the 4SAS4, a single-curve full cut NIJ 0101.04-certified plate.
>This standard does not require the conditioning tests of 0101.06.
>2009-2010: The 4SAS4 is replaced by the 4SAS7, which cements Highcom's reputation as an exceedingly reliable armor manufacturer.
>2022: Highcom makes a bunch of excess aluminum oxide strike faces for some contract and puts them into storage.
>Mid-2024: Highcom releases the "4SAS4", a multi-curve shooters / SAPI-cut plate. Their distributors are Apex, Tacshit, Titan, Chase Tactical, and others. Using those old strike faces.
>$100. This plate quickly gains traction with everyone, including Buffman - who recommends it highly.
>Buffman tests the plate around October-November and it fails badly. The plate he dropped more arguably did better.
>Buffman reports his findings on arfcom and FNforum, on the latter even calling the plate's backer trash.
>RMA conveniently puts the 1155 on a big sale.
>Huge blowup online. People demand refunds.
>Tacticalshit refuses em. Escalates to Chase Tactical, whose customer service alleges Buffman rigged the test on behalf of "other companies" (guess who).
>Story changes and it was the drop test that did them in!
>/gq/ goes whole hog and finds out these plates were advertised to 0101.06, which has a drop test.
>Nope, they're 0101.04. After everyone bought their plates, Highcom stealth-edited the 4SAS4 page to remove 0101.06 entirely. We caught this on the wayback machine.
>They're not even the real 4SAS4. They're a different model bumming an old cert.
>Even the NIJ confirms the cert is no good.
>People get chargebacks on tacshit.
>Chase Tactical threatens Buff with legal action, he KNEELS and vows to restore confidence in Highcom.
>Retest using plates mostly sent in by Chase. Flaunts test reports (6x BZ API!) he can't show.
>All of /gq/ does chargebacks.
>reddit shills!
6/22/2025, 9:33:52 PM
>>63880755
I actually kinda want either Hesco or Point Blank to buy Highcom. Where Hesco seems to be dropping the ball lately, now that their strike faces aren't screwing up in the heat treatment department (which is why they got four suspensions), is that their PE backers aren't as strong as they need to be. Highcom's one innovation in the past twenty years has been their XTClave technology behind the 3S14M and 3S15M, but they're piss afraid of using more advanced strike face materials than basic SiC. Highcom only had one B4C plate in the past 25 years and it was frankly terrible.
Hesco's ceramics and Highcom's backers could be the combination needed to make the 3814, 4801, and 4601 not totally mid and compete evenly with LTC / Tencate.
We got too many small fish in this industry that need to join forces. The stagnation is why things have gone practically nowhere since 2000. And yeah, those Highcom threads were great.
I actually kinda want either Hesco or Point Blank to buy Highcom. Where Hesco seems to be dropping the ball lately, now that their strike faces aren't screwing up in the heat treatment department (which is why they got four suspensions), is that their PE backers aren't as strong as they need to be. Highcom's one innovation in the past twenty years has been their XTClave technology behind the 3S14M and 3S15M, but they're piss afraid of using more advanced strike face materials than basic SiC. Highcom only had one B4C plate in the past 25 years and it was frankly terrible.
Hesco's ceramics and Highcom's backers could be the combination needed to make the 3814, 4801, and 4601 not totally mid and compete evenly with LTC / Tencate.
We got too many small fish in this industry that need to join forces. The stagnation is why things have gone practically nowhere since 2000. And yeah, those Highcom threads were great.
Page 1