It can be vital to remember that any unusual kind of ammunition or different special state of affairs can defeat body armor. It would be tragic if the GAO, after practically two years of investigation, and having been frustrated in its efforts to supervise the testing of all body armor techniques, failed to benefit from the huge volume of information gathered by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner Service with respect to the efficiency of Interceptor body armor within the field.
Faced with the imminent publication of this story, the results of an eight-month investigation by Marine Corps Times, the Marine Corps on May four issued a Corpswide message recalling 5,277 Interceptor vests from 11 heaps that failed authorities ballistic efficiency tests — slightly more than half the full vests issued to Marines from questionable tons.
Most armor is merely bullet resistant, in that the bullet will harm you (it would be like being hit with a baseball bat, some mentioned), which will provide you with a very bad bruise, but you’ll be alive, and possibly firing back to defend yourself thus providing you with the chance to survive a state of affairs that you may not have survived in any other case.
Armor Holdings, the navy’s largest supplier of the non-public body armor system often known as Interceptor, recently agreed to pay $30 million as a part of a settlement by which Armor Holdings – now owned by British defense behemoth BAE Systems – admitted having knowingly offered defective physique armor to varied governmental businesses, and agreed to cooperate with federal regulation enforcement in its ongoing investigation of such exercise.
Problems with the Point Blank vest design used by the Marine Corps hold cropping up. For example, as a part of the competitors for an Army vest contract late last year, that very same model of Point Blank’s Interceptor vest failed ballistic checks that simulate shrapnel hits, in response to Karl Masters, the lead engineer for the Army’s Interceptor physique armor program.