Dragon Skin: Difference between revisions

{{use mdy dates|date=January 2012}}[[File:PEO soldier Dragonskin.jpg|thumb|X-ray of Dragon Skin Body Armor]]

'''Dragon Skin''' is a type of [[ballistic vest]] first-produced by [[Norththe America|Northnow-defunct American]]company DevelopmentPinnacle Group LLC in [[MissoulaArmor, Montana]]. Itand was formerlysubsequently manufactured by theNorth now-defunctAmerican companyDevelopment [[PinnacleGroup Armor]]LLC.<ref>{{cite Theweb vest|title=Entrepreneur hasbringing twohigh-inchtech widemanufacturing circularof discs,body composedarmor ofto [[siliconMissoula carbide]]|url=https://missoulian.com/news/local/entrepreneur-bringing-high-tech-manufacturing-of-body-armor-to-missoula/article_91ba4c7c-ce34-11e1-bc23-001a4bcf887a.html [[ceramic]]|access-date=2022-06-03 matrices|website=missoulian.com and|date=July [[laminate]]s15, that2012 overlap like [[scale armour|scalelanguage=en}}</ref> armor]],The creatingvest amanufacturer flexibleclaimed vestthat intendedit tocould absorb a high number of hitsbullets because of its unique design involving circular discs that overlapped, similar to [[Scale armour|scale armor.]]<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.defensereview.com/dragon-skin-armor-passes-more-tests-dr-gary-roberts-and-test-lab-video/| title=Dragon Skin Armor Passes More Tests: Dr. Gary Roberts and 'Test Lab' Video|date=October 9, 2006|first=David|last=Crane}}</ref>

The [[Armour|armor]]United wasStates c.Department 2007of availableJustice|Department inof oneJustice basic(DOJ)]], protection[[Office level:of DragonJustice SkinPrograms|Office Extremeof (formerlyJustice SOV-2000Programs (OJP),]] whichannounced untilin 2007 wasthat certifiedthe toarmor did not comply with the OJP's [[National Institute of Justice|National Institute of Justice (NIJ)]] 2005 Interim Requirements as a Level III [[American system of manufacturing|armor system]].<ref name="DOJ">{{cite web |title=PinnacleDepartment Armor,of Incjustice v.announces Unitedfindings Stateson |url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/26/08-16209.pdfdragon |website=Unitedskin Statesbody Courtsarmor |access-date=17 June 2020 |ref=PinnacleVUnitedStates}}</ref><ref name="DOJ">{{cite web | publisher = Department of Justice| url = http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm| title = Department of justice announces findings on dragon skin body armor| access-date = 2007-08-07 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071014013721/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm |archive-date = 2007-10-14 |access-date=2007-08-07 |publisher=Department of Justice}}</ref><ref name="Defense Review">{{cite web |title=Pinnacle workArmor, =Inc Defensev. ReviewUnited States | url = http://wwwcdn.defensereviewca9.comuscourts.gov/modulesdatastore/opinions/2011/05/26/08-16209.php?pdf |access-date=17 June 2020 |website=United States Courts |ref=PinnacleVUnitedStates}}</ref><ref name=News&file"Defense Review">{{cite web |last=article&sidCrane |first=925David |date=2006-10-24 |title = Dragon Skin Body Armor (SOV-2000) Passes all NIJ Level III Tests at USTL | access-date = 2006-09-28 }}</ref> Dragon Skin has been worn by civilian contractors in [[Iraq]], [[Special forces|special operations forces]] in Iraq and [[Afghanistan|Afghanistan,]]<ref name=M927>{{cite web|url=http://www.militarydefensereview.com/opinion/0,15202,78927,00modules.html |title=Getting America's Bestphp? |publishername=Military.com |access-dateNews&file=2012-01-06}}</ref>article&sid=925 select [[SWAT]] teams,<ref>{{cite web|url-status=http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2006-meetings/20060901/Docs/15_OP_6646.pdfdead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2007062815552520070927004635/httphttps://www.cidefensereview.minneapolis.mn.uscom/council/2006-meetings/20060901/Docs/15_OP_6646modules.pdf |url-statusphp?name=deadNews&file=article&sid=925 |archive-date=2007-0609-2827 |title=Microsoft Word access- 08-23 OP 6646.doc |publisher=ci.minneapolis.mn.us |date=2006-09-0128 |access-datework=2018-02-18Defense Review}}</ref> nineThis generalsfailure into Afghanistan,<refcomply name=M927/>with safety standards and additional testing<ref name=MSNBC550>{{cite web |title=Army: Dragon Skin armor failed battery of tests |url=httphttps://www.nbcnews.com/id/18720550wbna18790506 |titleaccess-date=Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor? 2022- NBC News Investigates06-03|date=2007-05-21 |workwebsite=NBC News |datelanguage= 2007-05-20|access-date=2012-01-06en}}</ref> bodyguards tasked with protecting generals,<ref name=MSNBC550":0" /> andled to the [[United States SecretArmed ServiceForces|U.S. Secret ServiceMilitary]] personnel.<refto name=M927/>ban Theit [[Centralfrom Intelligenceactive Agency]] (CIA) has also purchased Dragon Skinuse.<ref name=MSNBC550/ban>{{cite Asweb of|title=USATODAY.com 2020,- thereArmy arebans nouse knownof usersprivately of thebought armor and one of the creators has gone on to create a new company, Stealth Armor Systems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://stealtharmorsystemsusatoday30.usatoday.com/|title=We'venews/washington/2006-03-30-bodyarmor_x.htm Got Your Number, and that number is ZERO! Go to our FAQ's to see why|lastaccess-date=Systems|first=Stealth Armor|website=Stealth Armor Systems|language=en2022-US06-03|access-date=20202006-03-30|website=usatoday30.usatoday.com}}</ref>

== StructurePinnacle Armor ==

=== Television and internet ===

In a test for the [[History (U.S. TV channel)|History Channel]]'s military show, ''[[MailFuture CallWeapons]]'', the vest repelled nine rounds of steel-core ammunition from an [[AK-47]] full automatic and 35 rounds of [[9×19mm Parabellum|9×19mm]] from a [[Heckler & Koch MP5|Heckler & Koch MP5A3]]A3, all fired into a {{convert|10-|by-|12-inch|in|abbr=on}} area on the vest. On ''[[Test Lab]]'', also on the [[History (U.S. TV channel)|History Channel]], the vest withstood 120 rounds fired from a [[Type 56]] ([[7.62×39mm]]) rifle and [[Heckler & Koch MP5]] (9×19mm). In another demonstration on the [[Discovery Channel]] series ''[[Future Weapons]]'', a Dragon Skin vest withstood numerous rounds (including steel core rounds) from an [[AK-47]], a [[Heckler & Koch MP5|Heckler & Koch MP5SD]]SD, an [[M4 carbine]] ([[5.56×45mm NATO|5.56×45mm]]), and a point-blank detonation of an [[M67 grenade]]. While the vest was heavily damaged (mainly by the grenade), there was no penetration of the armor.{{Citation needed|date=June 2022}}

In 2007, [[NBC News]] had independent ballistics testing conducted ofcomparing Dragon Skin versusagainst [[Interceptor body armor]]. Retired four-star general [[Wayne A. Downing]] observed the tests and concluded that although the number of trials performed was limited, the Dragon Skin armor performed significantly better than Interceptor.<ref name=MSNBC550/> It was also featured on ''[[Time Warp (TV series)|Time Warp]]'' on the Discovery Channel.{{Citation needed|date=June 2022}}

NBC also interviewed retired USMC Colonel [[James Magee]], who was onea developer of the Army’sArmy's then-current Interceptor body armor, Interceptor.stated "Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases, it’sit's two steps ahead of anything I’veI've ever seen."<ref>{{Citecite web|url=httphttps://www.nbcnews.com/id/18720550/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams-nbc_news_investigates/t/are-us-soldiers-wearing-best-body-armor/wbna18720550|title = Are U.S. Soldiers wearing the best body armor?|website = [[NBC News]]|last1=Ciralsky|first1=Adam|last2=Myers|first2=Lisa|date=2007-05-17}}</ref>

In [[Fresno, California]], a police department commissioned the purchase of Dragon Skin for its officers after a vest stopped all the bullets fired during a test, including .308 rounds from a rifle and 30 rounds from a 9mm MP5 fired from five feet away. The armor also stopped 40 rounds of PS-M1943 mild steel-core bullets from an AK-47 along with 200 9mm [[full metal jacket bullet]]s fired from a submachine gun.<ref name="Fresno Bee Newspaper">{{cite web | work = [[The Fresno Bee]] | url = http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/12110759p-12860958c.html | title = Army ban puts Dragon Skin in the line of fire | access-date = 2006-05-15 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060504203223/http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/12110759p-12860958c.html |archive-date = 2006-05-04}}</ref>

Dragon Skin became the subject of controversy with the [[United States Army|U.S. Army]]<ref>{{cite web | publisher = TheState.com | url = http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/14358966.htm | title = Dispute ties up body armor plan | access-date = 2006-05-15 }}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> over testing it against its Interceptor body armor. The Army claimed Pinnacle's body armor was not proven to be effective. In test runs for the [[United States Air Force|Air Force]] there were multiple failures to meet the claimed level of protection. This coupled with poor quality control (over 200 of the 380 vests delivered to USAF OSI were recalled due to improperly manufactured armor disks) and accusations of fraudulent claims of official NIJ rating which (Pinnacle had not actually obtained the rating at the time of purchase) led to the termination of the USAF contract. Pinnacle attempted to appeal this decision, but courts found in favor of the USAF.<ref>{{cite web | publisher = Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals | url=http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2009/55831.pdf | title=Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 55831, Appeal of Pinnacle Armor, Inc. | date=16 July 2009 | access-date = 2014-08-09 }}</ref>

Dragon Skin armor did not meet military standards when subjected to various environmental conductionsconditions, including: high (+{{convert|150'|F|abbr=on}}) and low (-{{convert|60'|F|abbr=on}})) temperature, diesel fuel, oil, and saltwater immersion, and a 14 hour temperature cycle from {{convert|-25'F |to +|120'|F|abbr=on}}). Military testing revealed that the epoxy glue that held its disc plates together would come undone when subjected toat high temperatures, causing the discs to delaminate and accumulate in the lower portion of the armor panel. This exposed significant portions of the armor, resulting in Dragon Skin vests suffering 13 first or second shot complete penetrations. <ref>{{cite web | publisher = Department of Defense (Archive) | url=https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf | title=Project Manager Soldier Equipment Briefing on the May 2006 Evaluation of Pinnacle Armor SOV 3000 "Dragon Skin" | date=May 2006 | access-date = 2021-02-02|url-status=dead|archive-date=2016-12-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222212514/https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf}}</ref>

On March 30, 2006 the Army banned all privately purchased commercial body armor in theater. Army officials said the ban order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies.<ref>{{cite web|urlname=http:ban//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189763,00.html |title=U.S. Army Bans Use of Privately Purchased Body Armor by Troops |publisher=FoxNews.com |date=2006-03-30 |access-date=2012-01-06}}</ref> The Army ban refers specifically to Pinnacle's Dragon Skin armor saying that the company advertising implies that Dragon Skin "is superior in performance" to the [[Interceptor Body Armor]] the military issues to soldiers.<ref>{{cite news|urlname=https:ban//www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-30-bodyarmor_x.htm |title=Army bans use of privately bought armor|work= [[USA Today]]|agency=[[Associated Press|AP]]|date=March 30, 2006}}</ref> The [[United States Marine Corps]] has not issued a similar directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards." [[NBC News]] learned that well after the Army ban, select elite forces assigned to protect generals and VIPs in Iraq and Afghanistan wore Dragon Skin.<ref name=MSNBC550/> General [[Peter W. Chiarelli]] made a statement that, "he never wore Dragon Skin but that some members of his staff did wear a lighter version of the banned armor on certain limited occasions, despite the Army ban."<ref name=MSNBC550/>

H.P. White Labs conducted tests on Dragon Skin in May 2006. Even under normal external and atmospheric conditions, model SOV 3000 Dragon Skin failed to stop the second impact of M2AP. Then when the other tests were run, SOV 3000 failed multiple times, with the exception of the Salt Water test.<ref name=":0">{{Citecite web |title=DoD, HP White Labs test of Dragon Skin Ballistic Armor. |url=https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf |titleurl-status=DoD,dead HP|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222212514/https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf White|archive-date=2016-12-22 Labs test of Dragon Skin Ballistic Armor|website=Defense.gov}}</ref>

In an interview with [[KSEE|KSEE 24 News]], an NBC affiliate, on November 14 and 16, 2006, Pinnacle Armor detailed the five-year process that the NIJ and Pinnacle Armor went through to establish a test protocol and procedure for flexible rifle defeating armor, which it passed and then passreceived itcertification.<ref>{{cite forweb| thepublisher certification= [[KSEE|KSEE 24 News]] / Special Assignment| url = http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5672| title = Dragon Skin Part I| access-date = December 13, 2006| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070513154947/http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5672| archive-date = May 13, 2007| url-status = dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5678| title = Dragon Skin Part II| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070513154912/http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5678| archive-date = May 13, 2007| url-status = dead|access-date=2006-11-18}}</ref>

On December 20, 2006, Pinnacle Armor said that they received the official letter from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) stating that they had passed the Level III tests, and that Dragon Skin SOV-2000 was now certified for Level III protection.<ref>{{cite web| title = NIJ Certification

The Air Force, which ordered the Dragon Skin vests partially based on claims they were NIJ certified at a time when they were not, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm Pinnacle Armor over allegations that it had fraudulently placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been. Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, claimed that he was given verbal authorization by the NIJ to label the vests although he did not have written authorization.<ref name="Govexec">{{cite web|url = http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128| title = Government Executive: Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims| access-date = 2007-06-10|publisher=Government Executive|last=Scully|first=Megan|date=2007-06-07|url-status=dead|archive-date=2007-06-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070627195847/http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128}}</ref>

On August 3, 2007, the Department of Justice announced that the NIJ had reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and had determined that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model would maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period. Because of this, Dragon Skin was found to not be in compliance with the NIJ's testing program and has been removed from the NIJ's list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements.<ref name="DOJ" /> Pinnacle CEO Murray Neal responded that this move was unprecedented, political, and not about the quality of the vests, because theythe NIJ were not sayingclaiming theyfailure have failedof any ballistics tests. HeNeal stated itthat isthe aboutfinding awas disputemotivated withby thea paperwork to dealdispute withregarding a warranty issue instead, in which the warranty period of Dragon Skin is longer than that of most other commercial vests.

On August 20, 2007, at the United States Test Laboratory in [[Wichita, Kansas]], nine Dragon Skin SOV-2000 (Level III) body armor panels were retested, for the purpose of validating Pinnacle Armor's six-year warranty. The panels tested were between 5.7 years old and 6.8 years old. All items met the NIJ Level III ballistic protection, confirming Pinnacle Armor's six-year warranty for full ballistic protection.<ref>[{{cite web|url=http://www.defensereview.com/dragon-skin-passes-again-nij-certified-lab-test-validates-6-year-warranty/ "|title=Dragon Skin Passes Again: NIJ-Certified Lab Test Validates 6-Year Warranty"]. ''|last=Charles|first=Roger|date=2007-08-30|publisher=Defense Review''.|access-date=2022-08-25}}</ref> Pinnacle resubmitted the SOV-2000 vest to the NIJ for certification based on this successful testing, but this application was rejected because the test had not been properly documented. In November 2007, Pinnacle sued to force the NIJ to recertify the SOV-2000 vest; their case was found to be without merit and summarily dismissed in November 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020131105500.xml/PINNACLE%20ARMOR,%20INC.%20v.%20U.S |title=PINNACLE ARMOR, INC. v. U.S.|publisher=Leagle|date=2013-11-04 |accessdate=2022-08-12}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}