posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:51 PM
In a recent review of test data, Dragonskin Body armor was shown to be superior to the US Army standard issue Interceptor Body armor. This comes less
than a month after the US. Army banned privately purchased body armor. Dragonskin was shown to be more durable, lighter, and had the best ergonomic
There's simply no way anyone who has seen the data that we saw could come to any other conclusion other than Dragon Skin is vastly superior to
Interceptor Body Armor. It's not even close.
The data proves that in Level III/III+ (SOV-2000) and Level IV (SOV-3000) versions, Dragon skin surpases SAPI and ESAPI performance levels in 9
different areas, by huge margins
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
About month ago, I told you about my good friend’s father being killed in Iraq. He was shot through a gap in the side of his standard Issue body
armor. Being a man with a mortgage and a family to care for, he could not afford more protection than what was given to him.
The army told us that its Armor was the best, and Dragonskin was a waste of money and "substandard stuff"
More and more of our young men( and women) die, just so the elite can line there pockets. This is not new
M-16- Conscripts were better off using early versions of this rifle as a stick than a gun
Bradley fighting vehicle- initial versions (that almost saw service) were underpowered, under armed, had dangerous armor (the effect of heating the
armor via the friction from a rifle round produced toxic smoke inside the vehicle)
[edit on 25-4-2006 by uuhelpus]