Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title:
Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions: Findings from a National Survey Heath Grant, Ph.D., Bruce Kubu, Bruce Taylor, Ph.D., Jack Roberts, Ph.D., Megan Collins, Daniel J. Woods, Ph.D. 240222 November 2012 2009-SQ-B9-K112
Author:
Document No.: Date Received: Award Number:
This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies.
Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions: Findings from a National Survey*
Authors:
HeathGrant,Ph.D.** BruceKubu** BruceTaylor,Ph.D.*** JackRoberts,Ph.D.**** MeganCollins** DanielJ.Woods,Ph.D.**
SubmittedtotheNationalInstituteofJustice November1,2012
*ThisprojectwassupportedbyGrantNo.2009SQB9K112awardedbytheNationalInstituteof Justice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.Pointsofviewinthisdocumentare thoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionorpoliciesoftheU.S. DepartmentofJusticeoranyotherorganization. **PoliceExecutiveResearchForum:1120ConnecticutAvenueNW,Suite930,Washington,DC20036 ***NORCattheUniversityofChicago:4350EastWestHighway,Bethesda,MD20814 ****AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineers(ASME)Fellow,IndependentConsultant

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLEOFCONTENTS ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................iii . Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 ReviewofRelevantLiterature...............................................................................................5 ResearchMethods.....................................................................................................................17 PhaseOne:TheNationalBodyArmorSurvey...............................................17 Participants(StudySample)...................................................................17 Measures..........................................................................................................23 Procedures......................................................................................................26 PhaseTwo:TestingBodyArmorDegradationbyPhysicaland ExperientialFactors..................................................................................................27 Participants(VestStudySample).........................................................28 Measures..........................................................................................................32 Procedures......................................................................................................35 Results............................................................................................................................................40 TheNationalBodyArmorSurvey.......................................................................40 RespondentDemographics......................................................................40 OfficerBehavior:BodyArmorUsage..................................................42 OfficerBehavior:CareandMaintenanceofBodyArmor...........45 AgencyBodyArmorPolicy......................................................................48 BodyArmorSelection/Acquisition......................................................52 BodyArmorTraining.................................................................................57 OfficerKnowledgeofProperBodyArmorCare andUsageFactors........................................................................................59 TestingBodyArmorDegradationbyPhysicalandExperiential Factors.............................................................................................................................60 RecapofProjectMethods.........................................................................60 Testing..............................................................................................................61 BallisticPerformanceParameterResults.........................................62 . SummaryofKeyFindings........................................................................71 Discussion....................................................................................................................................74 . PrevalenceofWrittenBodyArmorPoliciesNationallyandTheir Enforcement.................................................................................................................74 OfficerUseofBodyArmoronDuty....................................................................77 OfficerCareandMaintenanceofTheirBodyArmor...................................79 ComfortNeedsTheNextGenerationofBodyArmor..............................80 BodyArmorTestinginRealLifeSettings........................................................81 TheFuture:SuggestionsforFutureResearch...............................................82 . References....................................................................................................................................84 Appendices...................................................................................................................................88
i
Table1:StudyStratificationVariables............................................................................20 Table2:OfficerSampleSizeSelectionbyAgencySize.............................................22 Table3:DistributionofBodyArmorStudySample...................................................31 Table4:RespondentsCurrentRank................................................................................41 Table5:ReasonsforWearingBodyArmor...................................................................43 Table6:SituationsinwhichBodyArmorhasProtectedRespondents.............44 Table7:StorageofBodyArmorafterUsage.................................................................46 Table8:AgencyBodyWearPolicies.................................................................................50 Table9:ExpectationsofConsequencesforFailingtoComplywithPolicy......50 Table10:RespondentsEstimateofthePercentageofTheirPlatoon MembersWhoAdheretoBodyArmorPolicy................................................51 Table11:BodyArmorInspection/FrequencyandInspectors.............................52 Table12:WhoAcquiresOfficersBodyArmor............................................................54 Table13:MostImportantBodyArmorSelectionFactors......................................54 Table14:DesiredChangesfortheNextGenerationofBodyArmor..................55 Table15:TypeofBodyArmorFitting.............................................................................56 Table16:AvailabilityofBodyArmorforImmediateReplacement....................57 Table17:BodyArmorTrainingFormats.......................................................................58 Table18:BodyArmorStatementsBelievedtobeTruebyOfficers...................59 LISTOFFIGURESINMAINTEXT Figure1:Diagramoftheappearanceofthefibersonthemountedcards.......38 Figure2:V50limitforLevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftarmorvestsasafunction ofnumberofpliesinthevestfornewvestsand5yearoldvests testedinaccordancewithNIJ0101.04.............................................................64 Figure3:V50limitforLevelIIsoftarmorvestsasafunctionofthe numberofpliesfornewand5yearoldveststestedinaccordance withNIJ0101.04.........................................................................................................65 Figure4:V50limitforLevelIIIAnewcomparedto5yearoldsoftarmor veststhathavebeensubjectedtodifferentlevelsoftemperature andhumiditytestedinaccordancewithNIJ0101.04................................66 Figure5:V50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldLevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftbody armorforhybridandwovenfabricarmorpanelstestedinaccordance withNIJ0101.04.........................................................................................................67 Figure6:V50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldlevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftbody armorthathadbeensoakedinwaterorsweatversusthosethat hadnotbeensoakedtestedinaccordancewithNIJ0101.04.................67 Figure7:ComparisonofFieldReturnV50stoNewArmorV50s........................69 Figure8:Specificstrainenergyvs.soundvelocityofKevlarfibersfromthe 5yearoldsoftarmorvests.Thesolidlineisforotherhighperformance fibers,aswellas,Kevlar29and49fromMcDonough,etal.(2010)and forKevlarfromnewvestsand5yearoldvestsinthecurrentstudy..71
LISTOFTABLESINMAINTEXT
ii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ThisreportdescribesresearchconductedbythePoliceExecutiveResearch
Forum(PERF)fortheNationalInstituteofJustice(NIJ)regardinglawenforcement officersuseofbodyarmor,oftenreferredtoasbulletresistantvests;andstateand locallawenforcementagenciespoliciesontheuseofbodyarmor.Thisstudyalso includedlimited,exploratoryresearchontheperformancecharacteristicsofbody armorthathasbeenusedinthefieldforfiveyears,incomparisontonewbody armor. ThecurrentresearchbuildsonpreviousworkconductedbyPERFin
conjunctionwithU.S.DepartmentofJusticeregardingbodyarmor.In2005,PERF andtheBureauofJusticeAssistance(BJA)surveyedthenations100largestlaw enforcementagenciesregardingtheiruseofbodyarmorcontainingZylon followingreportsthatZylonbasedarmorwasvulnerabletoperformance degradation.(Thatstudyrevealedthatmorethanonethirdoftheagencieswere stillusingarmorcontainingZylonyarns,butnearlyallofthoseagencieswere planningtoreplacethosevests.) Andin2009,PERFandBJAcompletedthefirstnationallyrepresentative
surveyoflawenforcementagenciesonbodyarmorpoliciesandpractices.This surveyrevealedthat99percentofrespondingagenciesusedbodyarmortosome extent,butonly59percentofagenciesrequireduseofbodyarmoratleastsomeof thetime,andlessthanhalfoftheagenciesthatmandatedthatbodyarmorbeworn hadawrittenpolicyonthisissue,makingenforcementofthepolicymorecomplex.

iii
Becauseitappearedin2009thatformalpoliciesonbodyarmorinlaw
enforcementagencieswerelaggingbehindtheactualuseofbodyarmorbyofficers, PERFandNIJagreedthatthecurrentbodyarmorstudyshouldbeconductedfrom theperspectiveofindividualofficers,notagencies.Inthisway,wecouldproduce findingsaboutthecuttingedgeofbodyarmorpractices(actualuseandofficers attitudesaboutbodyarmor),notmerelythelaggingindicators(writtenpolicies). Specifically,themajorelementofthisstudyisasurveyofanationalsample
ofswornofficersfromrandomlyselectedagencies,weightedtoreflecta representativesampleofagencysizes,agencytypes(policedepartments,sheriffs departments,andstatepolicedepartments),andregionsofthecountry.Thesurvey wasconductedfromOctober2010toMay2011. Followingarethemajorfindings,policyimplications,andrecommendations
fromthisstudy: 1. UseofArmor:Policiesrequiringuseofbodyarmorappeartobe
increasinglyprevalent.Largemajoritiesofofficersreportthattheyobeythose policies.Andakeyfactorinhighcomplianceratesappearstobethefactthat largemajoritiesofofficersunderstandthatarmorisvitaltotheirsafety. Asmentionedabove,thesurveyconductedforthisprojectisnotdirectly
comparabletothePERF/BJAsurveyof2009,becauseitwasdesignedtobea representativesampleoflawenforcementofficers,asopposedtothe2009surveyof lawenforcementagencies.However,thenewsurveydoesappeartoofferstrong evidencethatmandatorywearpoliciesarebecomingmoreprevalent.

iv
Specifically,thenewsurveyofmorethan1,000officersfromallranks,
chosentoreflectanationallyrepresentativesampleofmunicipal,county,andstate agencies,foundthatmorethan92percentofofficersreportedthattheyare requiredtowearbodyarmor,eitheratalltimeswhenonduty(57%)oratmost timeswhenonduty(35.3%). Bycontrast,thesurveycompletedin2009foundthatonly59percentofthe
respondingagenciesrequiredtheirofficerstowearbodyarmoratleastsomeofthe timetheywereonduty. Similarly,thenewsurveyfoundthat77.9percentofofficersreportedthat
theiragencyhasawrittenbodyarmorpolicy.Bycontrast,the2009surveyfound thatonly45percentoftherespondingagenciesindicatedthattheyhadawritten policyrequiringtheirofficerstowearbodyarmor. Thesefindings,showingincreasesinmandatorywearrequirements
andinwrittenpolicies,areperhapsthemostsignificantinformationobtained throughthenewsurvey,becauserequiringofficerstowearbodyarmorhas directimplicationsforofficerssafety.Asithappened,thePERFsurvey describedinthisreportwasconductedshortlyafterAttorneyGeneralEric HolderannouncedthattheJusticeDepartmentsBureauofJusticeAssistance (BJA)wouldbeginrequiringjurisdictionstohaveawrittenmandatorywear policyineffectiftheywishedtoobtainfederalfundingforbodyarmor throughBJAsBulletproofVestPartnership(BVP)program.1TheJustice
1TheAttorneyGeneralfirstannouncedthenewrequirements,whichappliedtoFY2011BVPgrants,
inOctober2010.Detailsareavailableat http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/docs/FAQsBVPMandatoryWearPolicy.pdfand
v
Departmentcitedanincreaseinofficerdeathsinfirearmsrelatedincidentsin adoptingthisnewrequirement. Itisencouragingtonotethatfatalshootingsofofficersdeclinedsharply
in2012.2AccordingtotheNationalLawEnforcementOfficersMemorialFund (NLEOMF),whichkeepsdetailedstatisticsonofficerswhoarekilledintheline ofduty,therewere49fatalshootingsofofficersin2009,59fatalshootingsin 2010,and70fatalshootingsin2011.3ButasofOctober30,2012,therewere 36fatalshootingsin2012,whichisa37percentdecreasecomparedtothe57 fatalshootingsforthesameJanuary1October30periodin2011.4 Becausethenew(2011)surveyfocusedonindividualofficers,italso
produceddataonofficerscompliancewith,andattitudesabout,bodyarmor policies.Thesefindingswereencouraging:nearlyallofficersreportedthatthey wearbodyarmorwhenrequiredtodoso,obeyingthepolicieseitherallofthetime (87.9%)ormostofthetime(11.4%). Andeventhough73percentofrespondingofficerssaidtheyhadneverbeen
shotatorinvolvedinothersituationsinwhichtheirbodyarmorprotectedthem frompossibleinjuries,officersoverwhelminglyunderstandtheneedtowearbody armor;90percentsaidthatonereasontheywearbodyarmoristhatitiscriticalfor safety.Inaddition,49.2percentofrespondingofficersidentifiedagencypolicy
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/.PERFbegansendingthesurveytorespondentsinOctober 2010,anddatacollectioncontinueduntilMay2011. 2WhethertheBVPsmandatorywearrequirementisacausalfactorinthereductioninofficer deathswarrantsfurtherinquiry. 3http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officerfatalitiesdata/causes.html 4http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officerfatalitiesdata/

vi
requiresitasareasonwhytheywearbodyarmor,and14.3percentcitedfamily pressureasafactorintheirdecisiontoweartheprotectivegear. PolicyImplicationsandRecommendations:Thesurveyrevealedthat
largemajoritiesofofficersworkatagenciesthatrequireuseofbodyarmor,andthat approximatelyhalfoftheofficerscitethosepoliciesasareasonforwearingarmor. Thatsuggeststhatthepoliciesareeffectiveandshouldbemaintainedbyagencies thathavethem,strengthenedinagenciesthatcurrentlyhaveweakpolicies,and consideredbyagenciesthatlackthem.Itshouldbenotedthat22.1percentof officersreportedthattheiragencydoesnothaveawrittenbodyarmorpolicy,which mayhampermanagersenforcementefforts. Thefindingthat90percentofofficerssaidtheyweararmorbecausethey
believeittobecriticaltotheirsafetyissignificant.Inadditiontoensuringthatbody armorpoliciesarestrong,policeagencyexecutivesshouldmakeapriorityof maintainingthishighrateofunderstandingthrougheducationalandtraining initiatives.Ifofficersbelievethattheirsafetydependsonwearingbodyarmor,they maybemorelikelytowearitregardlessofwhethertheiruseofarmorisbeing monitoredinagivensituation. Officerswereaskedaboutenforcementactionsintheiragenciesregarding
bodyarmorpolicies.Fewerthanonepercentofofficersreportedthattheyhadever receiveddisciplineforabodyarmorviolation,somosthadtospeculateabout enforcementorbasetheirresponsesonknowledgeofotherofficerswhowere disciplined.Mostofficers(58.3%)saidtheybelievedthattheconsequenceforafirst offenseinfailingtowearbodyarmorwouldbeaverbalreprimand,andthe

vii
consequenceofasecondoffensewouldbeawrittenreprimand.Only20.3percent saidthattheybelievedthatasecondoffensewouldresultinasuspension. Despitethefactthatofficersdidnotbelievethatfailingtowearbodyarmor,
evenrepeatedly,wouldresultinparticularlysevereformsofdiscipline,when officerswereaskedtoestimatehowmanyoftheofficersontheirshiftorstandard dutyassignmentadheretobodyarmorpolicy,morethantwothirds(68.7%)said theybelievecompliancetobe100percent,followedbyanother27.9percentwho estimatedcomplianceat76to99percent.Again,itappearsthattoaverylarge extent,officershaveselfdisciplineaboutwearingtheirbodyarmor,perhaps becausetheyhavethehighlevelofunderstandingthatitisintheirowninterestto protecttheirsafety. Itshouldbenotedthatwhenofficerswereaskedwhichfeaturestheywould
liketoseeinthenextgenerationofbodyarmor,themostcommonresponsewas improvedcomfort(84.8%),followedbyimprovedfit(72.6%)andreduced weight(63.9%).Thissuggeststhatformostofficers,themostsignificantobstacle toregularuseofbodyarmoristhatitcanbebulky,heavy,anduncomfortableto wear.Thisfindingshouldbeconsideredwhenpoliceagenciesarechoosingamong variousbrandsandtypesofbodyarmortopurchaseforofficers.Whendifferent brandsofarmoroffercomparablelevelsofprotection,itmaybeadvisabletoinvolve officerstoasignificantextentinmakingjudgmentsaboutwhicharmorismost comfortable.
viii
2.
MaintenanceandCare:Mostofficersappeartobeknowledgeable
aboutmanybodyarmorcareandmaintenancepractices.However,significant numbersofofficersdonotunderstandcertainaspectsofrecommended procedures.Furthermore,officersdonotalwaysadheretorecommended practicesevenwhentheydounderstandthem. Thesurveyincludedaseriesoftruefalsequestionsdesignedtotestofficers
knowledgeoffactspertainingtobodyarmordesignandmaintenanceprocedures. Thesurveyrevealedthatlargemajoritiesofofficersbetween89percentand99 percentunderstandthatbodyarmorisnotdesignedtolastindefinitely,thatit cannotbereliedupontostopriflebullets5,thatitshouldbereplacedifitis penetratedbyabullet,thatitshouldnotbelaunderedwithstandarddetergentina washingmachine,andthatitshouldnotbestoredinthetrunkofacar.Nearlytwo thirdsofofficersdidnotknowthatmoisturecanreducetheballisticprotectionof bodyarmor. Furthermore,thesurveyrevealedthatasubstantialnumberofofficersmay
notbecaringforandmaintainingtheirarmorintheoptimalmanner,as recommendedbymanymanufacturers.Forexample,57.1percentofofficers reportedthattheirmostcommonmethodofstoringtheirarmorwastohangitona regularclotheshanger,despitethefactthatthisisoftennottheoptimalmethodfor bodyarmorstoragerecommendedbythemanufacturer.Althoughthespecific
5Itispossiblethatarespondentsperceptionofwhetherornottheirarmorisdesignedtostoprifle
bulletscouldvarybytheirownbodyarmorprotectionlevel.Forincreasedprecision,theresearch teamperformedcrosstabanalysesofrespondentarmorlevelbyperceptionthathisorherbody armorcanstopriflebullets.Themajorityofrespondents,asmentionedinthefulltechnicalreport, understoodthattheirarmorcouldnotstopriflebulletsirrespectiveoflevel.Further,noonewiththe highestbodyarmorlevelsreportedabeliefthattheirbodyarmorcouldstopriflebullets.Allofthose whoreportedthisperceptionusedLevelIIIAorlowerwhichdonothavethiscapacity. ix

impactsofusingaregularhangerforstoragehavenotbeenmeasured,some manufacturerswarnthatimproperhangingofvestscanwearoutthestrapsthat comedownonenclosures,allowingtheballisticmaterialtomovearoundduringthe lifetimeofthevest,andpossiblyleavingcertainareasofthebodyatrisk.Forthis reason,manymanufacturersanddepartmentpoliciessuggestlayingthearmorflat forstorageand/oruseofspeciallydesignedhangersthatcanholdtheweightofthe armor.6 PolicyImplicationsandRecommendations:Thesefindingspointtoa
needforfurthertrainingandeducationofofficersregardingcertainpointsofbody armormaintenanceandcare.Onthequestionofhangingbodyarmoronstandard clotheshangers,thislessoptimalmethodofstoragewasfoundmoreofteninurban lawenforcementagencies.(Whenaskedwheretheystoredtheirarmorwhileitis notinuse,55.9percentofrespondentssaidtheykepttheirvestsintheirlocker.) Thus,policeexecutivesshouldnotonlyinstructofficersaboutthe
potentialbenefitsofstoringbodyarmorflat,butalsoshouldensurethatthe departmentsphysicalfacilitieshavethecapacitytoallowforthisstorage
6Severalmanufacturerwebsitesindicatedthatstorageonastandardclotheshangerwasnotthe
optimalmethodofstorage.Forexample: http://www.safariland.com/bodyarmor/BodyArmorCare.aspx http://www.marsec4.com/2010/03/practicalandaffordablebodyarmorstorageoption/ http://militarybodyarmor.blogspot.com/2011/12/howtoretainballisticperformanceof.html Further,PERFconductedabriefsurveyof10leadingbodyarmormanufacturers.Thissurvey revealedthatsevenofthe10manufacturersindicatedthatbodyarmoroptimallyshouldbestored lyingflat.Forexample,theSt.LouisPDpolicystates,Careshouldbetakentostorebodyarmorflat, eitheronashelforotherflatsurface.Whenthisisnotpractical,suspendedonaclotheshangeristhe nextbestmethod.Bodyarmorshouldneverbefoldedorstoodonitsedge.Thisimproperstorage willcreatewrinklesinthebodyarmorandmaycausecurlingattheedges.Similarly,the MontgomeryCountyMDPDexplicitlystates,Neverhangthebodyarmoronacoathanger.Always laythevestflatwhennotwearing. x
method.Newconfigurationsoflockersorotherstoragefacilitiesmaybe required.Itissuggestedthatlawenforcementexecutivescontacttheir individualbodyarmormanufacturerstodeterminetheoptimalmethodof storage,sincethiscouldvary(e.g.,onebodyarmormanufacturerstatedthatitis besttostorearmoronaspeciallydesignedhanger). Additionally,51percentofofficersstatedthatbodyarmorisnotavailablefor
immediatereplacement,shouldtheirsbedamagedorlost.Thisfindingsuggestsa needfordepartmentstomaintainalimitedinventoryofbodyarmorinvarious sizes,ratherthanrequiringofficerstowaitforlongperiodsoftimewithoutarmor. Departmentsmayalsoexaminedevelopingalternativeorbackupplanswith manufacturerstospeedupreplacementtimeorhavetemporaryvestsavailable duringtheorderprocessingtime. 3. Ballisticstestingofvestsusedinthefieldsuggestssomelossofarmor
performanceovertime,underonemethodofmeasurement. Inadditiontoconductingthesurveyoflawenforcementofficersregarding
theiruseofbodyarmor,PERFconductedlimitedexploratoryworktoevaluatethe possibleeffectsofenvironmentalfactorsandofficercareandmaintenancepatterns ontheperformancedegradationoftheirvests.Inordertoassessoverall degradationtobodyarmor,whiletakingintoconsiderationfactorssuchasbody armorage,ambientclimate,traumatothearmor,anditsmaintenance,PERF obtainedasampleof30usedvestsfromofficersworkinginfourpartsofthe countrywithdifferentclimatezones,andanadditional15newvestsfor

xi
comparison.Alloftheusedvestswerebetweenfourandfiveyearsoldwith sufficientfieldexperience.ThevestswereallprotectionlevelIIorIIIA,designed formaleofficers,andeitherwovenaramidorhybridfiberdesign.Performance qualitywasmeasuredbyassessingarmordegradationfollowingaseriesofballistic experimentsincludingV50testing(anindustrystandardballistictestforbody armorthatidentifiesthevelocityatwhich50percentofbulletspenetratethearmor, and50percentarestoppedbythearmor)andbackfacedeformation7measures. BallisticPerformanceParameterswerealsocalculated,usingmeasuressuchas ultimatetensilestrength,elasticity,density,andstrainofthefibers.Thesetests resultswerecomparedwiththehumiditylevelsintheregionthevestscamefrom, aswellaswithofficersrecollections(throughfocusedinterviewswiththeofficers) ofsituationstheyexperiencedwiththearmor,andtheirgeneralcareand maintenancepractices. BallisticstestingidentifiedareductioninV50performanceoftheusedLevel IIandIIIAbodyarmorofapproximately10percent,whencomparedtonewarmor. Thisreductiondidnotdifferbyregion.Backfacedeformationandfibertestingdid notrevealsignificantdifferencesbetweentheusedandunusedvests.Thenoted differencesbetweentheoldandnewarmormightbeattributabletovaryingofficer experiences,aswellasbodyarmorcareandmaintenancehabits.Giventhefactthat, bynecessity8theresearchdesignhadtorelyontheuseofvestcomparisonsof
armor.
7Backfacedeformationreferstothedepthofdepressionofroundsthatpartiallypenetratethe 8Newvestsofthesamemakeandmodelwereunavailable.Themanufacturersthatwerecontacted
wereunwilling(duetoorderingsuchasmallnumber)and/orunable(someofthematerialsutilized tomakethe04vestswerenolongerinproduction)todoso.Facedwiththisreality,theresearch team,includingfederalrepresentativesandbodyarmorexperts,madethedecisiontomake xii

differentmakesandmodels,thereadershouldbecautionedagainstgeneralizing fromthefinding;theapparentreductioninV50seeninthecurrentballistictests betweennewandusedarmormayonlybearesultofthemodeltomodelvariations seenwithineacharmorlevel.Whilethecurrentsamplesizewassufficientfor identifyingbroadtrends,itwaslimitedinitsabilitytodetectsubtle relationshipsthatalargerstudycouldexplore. NextSteps Thisstudydemonstratesthatmuchprogresshasbeenmadeinthelast decadeintermsoflawenforcementagenciesprovidingbodyarmortoofficers, developingpoliciestorequirethatofficersusethearmor,andeducatingofficers aboutwhytheyneedbodyarmortoprotectthemselves,andabouthowtocarefor andmaintaintheirbodyarmor. Thisstudyidentifiedseveralareasforimprovementinofficers understandingofandadherencetoproperbodyarmorcareandmaintenance procedures.Lawenforcementagenciesshouldconsidertheimplicationsofthese findingsandadoptappropriatemeasures. Finally,thisstudyprovidedpreliminaryballisticsresearchindicatingthat bodyarmor,asitisusedinthefield,maydegradesomewhatovertime,although additional,morerobustresearchisnecessarytoverifythisduetothesmallsample sizeandinabilitytoacquireidenticalcomparisonarmor.Additionalworkisalso neededtoproducestrongguidancetopoliceexecutivesaboutthepotentiallossof
comparisonsbetweentheavailablevests.This,ofcourse,impactsresearchprecision,andhence,the needforcautionininterpretingtheresults.
xiii
bodyarmoreffectiveness,andabouthowfrequentlyagenciesshouldroutinely replacebodyarmor.Livesmaydependonaccuratedatadefininganappropriate shelflifeforbodyarmor. Thisadditionalresearchshouldbeconductedprospectively,toallowforreal timecollectionofdataaboutenvironmentalandexperientialfactorsthatmay impactthestrengthofbodyarmor,ratherthanofficersrecallofsuchfactorsata laterdate.
xiv
INTRODUCTION Policeofficerfatalitiesduetoshootingsrose20percentbetween2009and 2010,from49to59,andinJanuary2011,thenationreeledwhen11officerswere shotinone24hourperiod(NationalLawEnforcementMemorialFund,Law EnforcementFatalities2011).ByMarch,thecontinuedriseoffirearmsrelated policefatalitiesledAttorneyGeneralEricHoldertocallameetingofpolicechiefs fromacrossthecountryforguidance(McKelway,2011),andtheDepartmentof Justicemandatedthatall13,000jurisdictionsparticipatinginthefederalBulletproof VestPartnership(BVP)institutemandatorywearpolicies. Manyfactorshavebeencitedaspossiblycontributingtospikesinshootings ofpoliceofficers,suchasthedecliningeconomy,increasingcontactswith emotionallydisturbedoffenders,andtheprevalenceofdruguseamongoffenders. Somepoliceofficialshavespokenofaperceptionthatyouthsareincreasingly willingtoshootatpolice,andmorespecifically,totargettheheadsandnecksof officersratherthantheirmoreprotectedtorsos.Between2002and2011,shootings caused37percentofallofficerdeaths,followedbyautoaccidents(30%),andjob relatedillnesses(11%)(NationalLawEnforcementOfficersMemorialFund,2011 Final). Bodyarmorisconsideredoneofthemostimportantsafetydevicesavailable toprotectofficersagainstcriminalsintenttoharmthem(NationalLaw EnforcementOfficersMemorialFund,Preliminary2011).Bodyarmoris principallydesignedtoprotectwearersfromtheimpactofbulletsfiredfrom handgunsorlongguns,ortheshrapnelfragmentsresultingfromexplosions.When
1
combinedwithtightlywovenfiberlayers,laminatedmaterials,ormetallicelements, italsocanprovidesomelevelofprotectiontothewearerfromknifeattacksand otherformsofinjuries(e.g.blunttraumafromtrafficaccidents). Oneofthefirstdocumentedcasesofbodyarmorbeingdemonstratedforlaw
enforcementuseoccurredinApril1931whenitwaspresentedtotheWashington, D.C.MetropolitanPoliceDepartment.9Sincethattime,bodyarmorhasevolvedto meetthesafetyneedsofmilitaryandlawenforcementpersonnel.Thishasledtothe developmentoflightweightarmorthatcanprotectagainsthandgunassaults,while stillbeingcomfortableenough(intermsofweight,flexibility,andtemperature)to bewornbytheaverageofficerconductinghisorherdailydetailsonthestreet.Body armorhasbeenwidelyavailableandusedbylawenforcementofficersoverthelast 30years,savinganestimated3,000livesinshootingincidentsandbluntforce traumasituations(DuPont/InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice/DuPont KevlarSurvivorsClub,2011).Moreover,arecentstudybytheRANDCorporation (LaTouerrette,2010)foundthatanaverageof8.5liveswouldbesavedeachyearif allpolicewereequippedwithbodyarmor,basedonafindingthatarmormorethan triplesanofficerschancesofsurvivingashootingtothetorso.10 Fewwouldchallengethecriticalbenefitsofbodyarmorforofficersafety.As
willbediscussedinthecurrentstudysresults,todayasignificantmajorityof departmentsnationallyrequirethatthattheirpoliceofficerswearbodyarmoratall timesoratmosttimeswhenofficersareonduty.Thisrepresentsamajorchange
9DescribedintheApril2,1931editionoftheWashingtonDCEveningStar.
10Otherstudieshaveindicatedthatofficersnotwearingbodyarmorare14timesmorelikelyto
sufferafatalinjurythantheirsuitedupcounterparts(Tompkins,2006). 2
fromthe2009BJAPERFBodyArmorStudy,whichfoundthat59percentof agenciesrequiretheirofficerstowearbodyarmorwhenonduty(althoughmany officerschosetoweararmoranyway). However,thissamestudyshowedlimitationsinthedegreetowhichagencies
ensuredthepropercareandmaintenanceofthearmorwornbytheirforce.Thisis trueeventhoughsignificantdataandpracticalexperiencehavedemonstratedthe potentialforenvironmentalandothermaintenancefactorstodegradebodyarmor performanceinthefield. Despiteitswidespreaduseandrecognizedimportance,todate,norigorous
studieshaveexaminedtherelationshipbetweenofficercareandmaintenance behaviors(storage,fitting,frequencyofwear,etc.),environmentalfactors(e.g. regionalvarianceinhumidityandtemperature),andthedegradationofbody armorsabilitytoprotectagainstbulletpenetrationorbluntforcetrauma(backface deformation11). Thisstudymarksthefirstexploratorystudyofthisnature.First,replicating
themethodologyutilizedbyWeisburdetal.(2001)tostudyanationally representativesampleofpoliceofficersonuseofforce12,thecurrentstudysurveys arandomselectionofmorethan1,000individualofficersnationally13about
11Backfacedeformations(orbackfacesignatures)referstothesizeoftheindentationinthe
backingmaterialcausedbyashotthatdidnotperforatethebodyarmor(NIJStandard0101.06). Althoughthearmorisnotperforated,theseshotsmayresultinBehindArmorBluntTrauma(BABT), whichmayalsorequiremedicalattention(Biretal.,2011). 12Amorecomprehensivereviewofthisstudyanditsrelationshiptothecurrentmethodologywillbe detailedbelowintheliteraturereview. 13Drawnfromarandomselectionoflawenforcementagenciesnationally. 3

patternsinarmorcare,maintenance,andoverallperformance.Second,29officers14 wereinterviewedaboutthesesameconsiderationstodocumentthecomplete historyoftheirbodyarmorsinceoriginallybeingfittedforservice.Thissamebody armorwasthensubjectedtorigorousballisticstestingandfiberanalysistoseeif maintenanceandenvironmentalfactorsmayhavehadanegativeeffectonits overallsustainedperformance(ascomparedtobrandnewarmor). Thisnationalsurveyprovidesthefieldwiththefirststudyofofficerself
reportedbodyarmorusagebehaviors.Whilethesamplesizesweresmall,the combinedofficerinterviews(N=29)andbodyarmortesting(N=30usedand15 unused)representanimportantexploratoryeffortthatwillhaveimplicationsfor thefieldandfuturereplicationstudies.
14Thirtyofficersprovidedusedbodyarmorfortestingandinitiallyagreedtoparticipateinthe
officerinterview;oneofficerlaterdeclinedtobeinterviewed. 4
REVIEWOFRELEVANTLITERATURE In1973,OfficerRonJagielskibecamethefirstlawenforcementofficialwhose lifewasdocumentedtohavebeensavedbyaconcealableballisticvest(Department ofJustice,2001).Sincethen,extensivefundingandresearchhavebeenexpendedon thefurtherdevelopmentofbodyarmorthatiscosteffective,suitablefordailyuse, concealable,andeffective. Thefirstrecordedfirearmsrelateddeathofapoliceofficerwasin1791. Sincethenmorethan19,000policeofficershavebeenkilledinfirearmsrelated incidentsintheUnitedStates(1,626inthelastdecadealone).Itisestimatedthatat least30percentofthesedeathssince1980couldhavebeenpreventedbytheuseof lightweightbodyarmor,ifithadbeenavailabletoofficers(Sucharmordidnot becomereadilyavailableuntil1987.)(Biretal.,2011). Theneedforreliableprotectionsystemsforofficerscanbeunderscoredby recognizingthatmorethan58,000lawenforcementofficersareassaultedeachyear, resultinginapproximately16,000injuries(NLEOMF,2011). HowArmorWorksinPracticeTheEvolutionofaStandard Asdiscussedabove,bodyarmorisdesignedtolessenthepotentialharm
causedbybulletsorshrapnel.Seriousorfatalinjurytotheofficercanbetheresult ofpenetrationand/ortheimpactagainsthisorherbody.15
15IntheUnitedKingdomandotherEuropeancountries,multithreatarmorsarespecifically
designedtoofferbothfirearmsandknifeprotection,butthesearelesspopularintheUnitedStates, becausethemetallicarrayandchainmailnecessarytoprotectagainstknivesofferslittleballistics performance. 5

Tomitigateagainstthis,wovenlightweightballisticresistantfabric,suchas paraaramid,absorbstheimpactofabulletbycatchingitinawebofexceptionally strongfibersthatdeformthebulletanddissipateitsenergyasheat.16Thearmor consistsofmultiplelayersofthebulletresistantmaterialwhichabsorbenergyas thebulletpushesagainstthevestandbodywall(CarrollandSoderstrom,1978).As thefibersabsorbanddispersetheenergy,thebulletdeformsormushrooms (GlobalSecurity.org,2011).Metal(steelortitanium),polyethylene,orceramic platescanbeusedwithasoftvesttoprotectthewearerfromrifleshotsaswellas handguns,shotguns,andshrapnel(SecurityResources,2009). Importantly,ofthebodyarmormodelssubmittedtotheComplianceTesting ProgramoftheNationalInstituteofJustice(NIJ),53.3percentwereclassifiedas uniquepassedmaterials.Thisleft43.1percentthatwereconsideredfailed modelsaccordingtoNIJStandard0101.06,BallisticResistanceofPersonalBody Armor(Sundstrom,2010).17Thiscurrentstandardrequiresrigoroustestingofbody armorafterithasgonethroughanenvironmentalconditioningprotocol,including conditionsofhightemperature,humidity,andmechanicalwearbeforeballistic testing.Thecurrentstandardasofthiswritingalsoincludestestingbodyarmor againstupdatedballisticthreats,whichreflectthefirepowerthatofficersfaceonthe streetstoday(Sundstrom,2010).
16Todatetherearemorethan100bodyarmormanufacturersproducingbodyarmorthathave
chosentoparticipateintheNIJsvoluntaryComplianceTestingProgram(see www.justnet.org/Pages/bodyarmor.aspx).Someofthemostcommonnamesinballisticresistant materialsare:DuPontsKevlar;HoneywellsSpectra;TwaronProductsTwaron;andToyobos Zylon. 17Thisstandardsupersedestheprevious05and04standardsforbodyarmor.NIJestablishedits firstballisticbodyarmorstandardin1972,whichhasbeenrevisedseveraltimes. 6

Ballisticsbodyarmortestingagainststandardsisdoneacrossthetwo principalconsiderationsforofficersafetydiscussedabove:theabilityofthebulletto penetratethearmor,andthedegreetowhichanindividualmightbeharmedby backfacedeformationevenifthebulletdoesnotgoallthewaythroughthearmor.18 TheabilityofthebullettopenetratethearmorismeasuredwithV50testing. Thisisaballistictestusedtoidentifythevelocityatwhich50percentofthebullets penetratethearmor,and50percentarestoppedbythearmor.Becauseacritical elementofthesuccessofthearmorisitsabilitytocatchthebulletinitsfibersand diffuseitsenergyasheat,fibertestingisalsoacriticalmeasure.Tensilestrengthis themaximumweightthatagivenmaterialcanholdwithoutfracturingwhenbeing stretched,perareaofthematerial.19 Backfacedeformations(orbackfacesignatures)refertothesizeofthe indentationinthebackingmaterialcausedbyastoppedshot(NIJStandard 0101.06).Asmentionedabove,althoughthearmorisnotperforated,theseshots mayresultinBehindArmorBluntTrauma(BABT),whichcanalsoleadtoserious injurytotheofficerrequiringmedicalattention(Biretal.,2011).Backface deformationsaremeasuredbyshootingvestsmountedinfrontofabacking material,usuallymodelingclayatacontrolledtemperature.Aftertestbulletsare shot,thedepthoftheindentationintotheclayismeasured. Thereremainsaneedfornondestructivemethodsforevaluatingwhethera particularpieceofsoftbodyarmorretainsitsprotectivecapacity,without destroyingthearmor.Thiswouldallowlabstoidentifyarmorthatmaybe
18Separatestandardsandtestsexistforstabprotection,suchastheicepicktest. 19ThisisoftenreferredtoasPSIorpoundspersquareinch.
7
dangerouslydegradedduetoenvironmentalandcare/usefactors,withoutrequiring agenciestosacrificepotentiallyusablearmor(NationalInstituteofJustice,2011). Thesemethodsmightidentifychangesinstructure(chemistry,mechanical properties,etc.)thatinfluencearmorperformance. BodyArmorPerformanceinRealWorldConditions OnthenightofJune23,2003aForestHills,Pennsylvaniapoliceofficer,
EdwardLimbacher,emergedfromanunmarkedvehicletoapprehendadrug suspect.ThesuspectimmediatelyfireduponLimbacher,strikinghiminhisbody armorwith.40caliberbullets.Despitethefactthathewaswearingbodyarmor,and thearmorwasdesignedtodefeat.40caliberbullets,hesustainedsevere(though nonfatal)injuriesfromabulletpenetratingtohisabdomen.Thiswasthefirst reportedcaseinwhichbodyarmorthatmettheNIJstandardfailedtostopabullet thatitwasdesignedtodefeat(Tompkins,2006). NIJlaterdeterminedthatthearmorfailedduetodegradationresultingfrom
environmentalexposureoftheZylonfibers,inastudyof103usedvestsprovided bypolicedepartmentsfromacrosstheUnitedStates.Theultimatetensilestrength oftheindividualyarnsremovedfromtherearpaneloftheofficersarmorwasupto 30percentlowerthanthatofyarnsfromnewarmorsuppliedbythe manufacturer.Overhalfofthevests(58%)werepenetratedbyatleastoneround duringasixshottestseries.Additionally,91percenthadbackfacedeformations exceedingtheNIJstandardfornewarmor(NationalInstituteofJustice,2007).Most
8
disturbingwasthefactthatonlyfourofthe103usedZyloncontainingarmorsmet allperformancecriteriaexpectedundertheNIJstandardfornewarmorcompliance. Nocorrelationwasfoundbetweenthelevelofvisibleweartothebodyarmor panelsandtheirballisticperformance.Thismeantthattherewasnoeasywayfor wearersortheirsupervisorstoeasilyrecognizethattheirarmorhadlostits protectivecapacity.Thegovernmentsuedthemanufacturersforconspiringtohide evidencethatZylonvestsfailedtoholdtheirstrengthwellbeforetheirstandard fiveyearwarrantyexpired(whilethebodyarmorappearedtobeingood condition). OnAugust3,2007,theDepartmentofJusticeannouncedthatonemodelof
DragonSkinarmor,producedbyPinnacleArmor,Inc.,alsodidnotmeetthe requirementsofNIJsvoluntarycompliancetesting.Evidencewasinsufficientto demonstratethatthemodelinquestion(SOV2000.1/MIL3AF01)wouldmaintain itsballisticperformanceoverits6yearwarrantyperiod(DepartmentofJustice OfficeofJusticePrograms,2007).In2010,Pinnaclefiledforbankruptcyprotection (PinnacleArmor,Inc.FilesForChapter11,2010),althoughthecompanycontinues toofferavarietyofbodyarmorandconcealabletacticalveststhatitclaimsdefeat NIJLevelIhandgunrounds(PinnacleArmor,2011). Mostrecently,theDepartmentofJusticesuedHoneywellInternationalInc.
forallegedlyknowinglysellingdefectivematerialforbulletproofvestsusedbylaw enforcementagencies.HoneywellsoldZylonShieldmaterialdespiteevidence thatitdeterioratedunderhotandhumidconditions.Onceagain,thegovernment claimedthatthevestswouldnotremaineffectiveforthefiveyearwarrantyperiod.

9
BodyArmorUseStudies Thedegradationofsomebodyarmorunderrealworldconditionshasledto
modificationsinthetestingstandards.NIJs2005InterimRequirementsforBullet ResistantBodyArmor,issuedinAugust2005,takeintoaccountthepossibilityof ballisticdegradationovertime.Theseinterimrequirementswerecreatedtohelp ensurethatofficersareprotectedbybodyarmorthatmaintainsitsballistics performanceduringitsentirewarrantyperiod. Thishighlightstheneedformoreextensivetestingontheenvironmentaland
maintenancefactorsleadingtoperformancedeterioration(discussedinthenext sectionandinkeyelementsofthecurrentstudy).Despitethesechallenges,there remainslittledoubtoftheessentialroleplayedbybodyarmorinreducingdeaths andinjuriestopoliceofficers. Asaresult,theInternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice(IACP)has implementedinitiativessuchasSafeShield,VestsSaveLives,andtheIACP/DuPont KevlarSurvivorsClub,toinformofficersabouttheimportanceofwearingprotective vestswhileonduty(TheInternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice,2011).The DepartmentofJusticeencourageslawenforcementagenciestoprovidebodyarmor forofficers.Since1999,morethan13,000jurisdictionshaveparticipatedintheDOJ BulletproofVestPartnership(BVP)program.Approximately$277millioninfederal fundshavebeencommittedtosupportthepurchaseof800,000vests(Department ofJusticeOfficeofJusticePrograms,2012).Intotal,thecostofissuingbodyarmor tothe236,000officerswhodonotcurrentlyutilizeit($26million)islessthanthe
10
economiccosts20ofnotdoingso($51million)(LaTourette,2010).Asmentionedin theintroductiontothisreport,followingameetinginMarch2011between AttorneyGeneralEricHolderandagroupofpolicechiefsinwhichtheydiscussedan increaseinfirearmsrelatedpolicefatalities,theDepartmentofJusticemandated thatall13,000jurisdictionsparticipatinginthefederalBulletproofVestPartnership (BVP)institutemandatorywearpolicies. In2005,PERFandtheBureauofJusticeAssistance(BJA)surveyedthe100
largestlawenforcementagenciesontheiruseofZylonbasedbodyarmor(86% responserate)(PERF,2005).Almostalloftherespondingagenciesreportedthat theywereawareofNIJsBodyArmorStandardAdvisoryNoticeaboutZylonbased vests.However,morethanonethirdoftheagenciessurveyedindicatedthatthey stillusedbodyarmorcomposedpartlyorentirelyofZylon,thoughnearlyall (N=27)oftheseagenciesplannedtoreplacethevests.Oftheagenciesthatdidnot currentlyusebodyarmorcomposedofZylon,almostonequarterhadused Zylonbasedbodyarmorinthepast.Mostoftheagenciesthatceasedusingthis typeofbodyarmordidsoduetogeneraluncertaintywiththeproduct,reportsthat highlightedfailuresofthesevests,and/ortheNIJAdvisoryNotice. Morerecently,in2009PERFandBJAcompletedthefirstnationally
representativesurveyoflawenforcementagenciesfocusedonbodyarmorpolicies andpractices(PERF,2009).Theinstrumentcollecteddataonthebodyarmor policiesofindividualagencies,whethertheyprovideofficerswitharmor,aswellas outcomesofbodyarmoruseandofficersafety.Theoverwhelmingmajority(99%)

20Thisstudyincludedsuchfactorsasmedicalexpensesandlossofofficerproductivityinthe
economiccostsofnotutilizingbodyarmor. 11
ofrespondingagencies21indicatedthattheofficersusedbodyarmor,althoughonly 59percentrequireditsuseatleastsomeofthetime.Ofthoseagenciesrequiringthe useofbodyarmor,only45percentreportedhavingawrittenpolicytothateffect. Thevastmajority(87%)ofrespondentsindicatedthattheiragencywasresponsible forpurchasingbodyarmorforitsofficers. Inordertoeducatelawenforcementagenciesandtheirofficersaboutsafety
relatedissues,particularlywithregardtobodyarmor,IACPiscurrently spearheadinganumberofinitiativesfocusedonthebenefitsofwearingvests,and encouragingtheiruseandpropermaintenance.In2002,IACPsDivisionofState AssociationsofChiefsofPolice(SACOP)establishedSafeShield,apolicyinitiative encouragingchiefstorejectthephilosophythataccidentsandinjuriesareareality ofthejob,andinsteadtoembraceacultureofsafety.SafeShieldpromotesthe identificationofsafetythreatsandsolutionstoimprovepolicy,training,and equipment.SACOPcontendsthatchiefscancontroloutcomesofpolicingsituations throughtheuseofprotectiveequipment.In2011,IACPissuedaMandatoryVest UsebyPoliceOfficersresolution,whichencouragespoliceexecutivestodevelop andimposemandatorybodyarmorpoliciesfortheirdepartments(The InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice,2011). Thecurrentstudyrevisitssomeoftheabovetrendsinbodyarmorutilization
fromtheperspectiveofswornofficerswithinrandomlyselectedagenciesfroma nationalsample.Consequently,thestudyisabletolookcloselyatofficercompliance
21Theinitialsamplesizewas990agencies.Thesurveyyieldedan80percentresponserate,
providingafinalsamplesizeof782participatingagencies(PERF,2008). 12
withorganizationalpoliciesrelatedtothecareandmaintenanceoftheirbodyarmor inawaythathasnotbeenpreviouslydone. KeyVariablesAffectingBodyArmorDegradation Asdiscussedabove,aseriesoftragicincidentsexposedthedangerous
possibilityofbodyarmordegradationduetoenvironmentalfactors(e.g.exposureto heatandmoisture)andmaintenancefactors(e.g.storageandcare). TheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTraining(NIST)oftheDepartmentof CommerceprovidesongoingtechnicalconsultationandresearchinsupportofNIJs bodyarmorprogram.22NISTcurrentlyhasanumberofprojectsfocusedoncritically examiningtheperformanceofballisticmaterialsinthefieldtoidentifyanypotential problemsthatmaybedeveloping;improvingbodyarmorperformance;increasing thequalitydemandsplaceduponarmormanufacturers;andrefiningbodyarmor testmethodologies.Forexample,NISThasmadeeffortstoestablishconditioning protocolsforsoftbodyarmorthatcanbeusedtopreconditionbodyarmorbefore ballisticcertificationtesting.23 Despitetheseriousnessoftheissue,todatetherehasonlybeenalimited amountofresearchinthepublishedliteratureontheeffectsofdegradation,storage, maintenance,hoursworn,andtheusersphysicalactivityonbodyarmor.Partofthe
compliancetestingprogram,conductingandoverseeingresearchleadingtoimprovementsinthe standards,participatingintechnicalandpractitionercommunities,establishingcollaborationswith othercontributors,addressingemergingarmorissues,andrecommendingimprovementstothe standardsandassociatedcertificationprograms. 23NIST.(September24,2009)DevelopmentofSoftArmorConditioningProtocolsforNIJ Standard0101.06:AnalyticalResults.Retrievedfrom: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902601 13

22NISTsroleincludesprovidingstandardsdevelopmentservicesandtechnicalsupporttotheNIJ
explanationforthisisthelackofnondestructivemethodsforevaluatingbody armorperformance,particularlyasitrelatestothereallifedailyconditionsof swornofficersinthefield.Thecurrentstudywillbeaninnovativeexploratoryeffort inthisarea. Manyfactorsarethoughttocontributetobodyarmordegradation,including: heat,moisture,ultravioletandvisiblelight,detergents,friction,andstretching.24 Prudentmanufacturersdesignarmorandsupplycareinstructionstominimizethe riskandlikelihoodofexposuretodegradingproperties,suchaslightandmoisture. Thereisadditionalevidencethatparaaramidfibers,alsoknownaspolyp phenyleneterephthalamide(PPT),aresusceptibletoultravioletandhydrolytic degradation,compromisingtheoverallstructure(NationalAeronauticsandSpace Administration,1995).Thesesusceptibilitieshavebeenknownformanyyears,and bodyarmordesignscanprotectagainstthesefactorsforbodyarmorapplications. ExposuretoMoisture Asnotedearlier,NIJfindingshavesuggestedthattheballisticperformance degradationinbodyarmorcontainingZyloniscloselyrelatedtochemical changesinthechemicalbaseofPBO,oneofitsmainelements.Preliminaryanalyses indicatethatthisismostlikelycausedbyexposuretoexternalmoisture (DepartmentofJustice,2007).Whentherewasnopotentialforexternalmoistureto
24NIJ(May2,2011).CurrentandFutureResearchonBodyArmor.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/bodyarmor/research.htm 14
contactZylonyarns,therewasnosignificantchangeinthetensilestrength.25That said,someanalysesofPBOatthemolecularlevelhaverevealedcontradictory resultswithregardtomoistureandheatexposure,whileultravioletdegradationis generallysupportedasacauseofdegradation(Holmesetal,2006). Importantly,otherstudieshavefoundthatartificialperspirationhadthe sameeffectonbodyarmoraswateralone.Similarly,outofallcleaningchemicals, onlychlorinebleachhadanegativeeffectonyarnproperty;allothercleaningagents testedhadthesameeffectaswater(Chinet.al,2009). CareandMaintenanceofBodyArmor Holmesetal.(2010)performedacontrolledstudyduringwhichPBOfabric wasrepeatedlyfoldedinamannerthatwouldsimulatetheproposedlifespanof actualvests.Thestudyfoundasignificantreductioninthetensilestrengthand strainofthefibersinthefoldedfabrics,andanoverallchangeofthefiberstructure. WhereDoWeGoFromHere?AntecedentstotheCurrentStudyMethods Forpracticalreasons,mostofthepreviousstudiesonthisissuehave
primarilyinvestigatedspecificpoliceagenciesorlocal/statejurisdictions.Aswillbe discussedinthemethodssection,thisstudysoughttoexamineindividualofficers bodyarmorcareandexperiencewiththeirbodyarmor,usinganationally representativesample.
25NIJ(2007,October24)BodyArmorResearchandEvaluationResults.Retrievedat
https://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/technology/bodyarmor/results.htm. 15
Toachievethis,theresearchmethodsutilizedwereinspiredbyWeisburds
(2001)studyoftheuseofforce.Weisburdusedamultistageorclusteredsampling methodtoarriveathisselectedsurveyrespondentsofswornofficers.Inhisstudy, 5,042policedepartmentswereinthesamplingframeforpossibleinclusion.26The authorsselected121agenciesbaseduponsizeandregion(113agreedto participate). Eachoftheparticipatingagenciessubmittedtheirrostersofallfulltime
personnel,withtheirpersonalinformationandcontactinformation.Fromthese,the authorsdrewaweightedsampleof1,060officers;925oftheseofficerstookthe survey.Thestudysamplecharacteristicsincludedaweightedcorrectionduetothe stratifiedandclusteredsamplingproceduresused.27 Inthenextsection,wedetailthespecificapplicationofthesemethodstothe
currentstudyofbodyarmorutilizationandmaintenancetrends.
26Inclusioninthesamplingframerequired:primaryresponsibilityforprovidingpoliceservicestoa residentialpopulation;minimumof10fulltimeswornofficers;andbeingeitheramunicipalor countypoliceagency. 27Weightingwasappliedtoeachdepartmentandofficeraccordingtotheactualpopulationof Americanpoliceofficerstheyrepresented.
16
RESEARCHMETHODS Thecurrentstudyisthefirstmajorefforttostudybodyarmorutilizationand
maintenancefactorsfromtheperspectiveofswornofficers.Asdiscussedabove,this studyhadtworelated,butindependentphases:1)astratifiednationally representativesurveyofswornofficersinmunicipal,county,andstatelaw enforcementagencies;and2)exploratoryballisticandfibertestingofusedandnew bodyarmortoanalyzeperformancedifferentialsbyclimatezone(temperatureand humidity),protectionlevel,age,andmaintenance/experiencefactorsinthelife courseofthearmor(asrecollectedbywearerinterviews). PHASEONE:THENATIONALBODYARMORSURVEY Participants(StudySample) PERFrandomlyselectedasampleof1,378officerstoparticipateinthe nationalsurveyofbodyarmorutilizationandmaintenance.Ofthese,1,080(or 78.4%)completedthesurvey. Nationalsurveysofswornofficersusingprobabilitysamplingapproaches
arerareinthepolicingfield,giventhecomplexitiesinvolvedingettingavalid samplingframeofswornofficersfromwhichtodrawthesample.However,given thepotentialregionaldifferencesinvolvedinbodyarmoruseandmaintenance, PERFwantedtobesurethatthesurveyrespondentsadequatelyrepresentedthe trueuniverseofmunicipal,county,andstatelawenforcementagenciesnationally. Toaccomplishthisintheabsenceofalistofallswornofficersacrossthe
country,PERFdecidedtoreplicatetheinnovativemethodsusedbyWeisburd
17
(2001)inhisstudyofuseofforce.Thisinvolvesatwostagesamplingschemein whichastratifiedrandomsampleofagenciesisfirstselected,andthenarandom sampleofswornpatrolofficersisdrawnfromrostersprovidedbytheparticipating agencies. a) BuildingtheSwornPatrolOfficerSamplingFramesEstablishinga StratifiedNationalSampleofLawEnforcementAgencies The2009NationalDirectoryofLawEnforcementAgencies(NDLEA) databasewasusedtodrawanationallyrepresentativesampleofmunicipal,county, andstatelawenforcementagencies(stratifiedbyregion,typeofLEA,andthe numberofswornofficers).28Byusingstratificationtogroupsimilarunitstogether, variabilitybetweengroupswasreduced(reducingsamplingerrorandallowinga weightedmeantobeproducedthathaslessvariabilitythanthearithmeticmeanof asimplerandomsampleofthepopulation).Italsoallowedfortheidentificationof differencesbetweengroups.29 Apoweranalysisdeterminedthatasamplesizeofatleast782officerswas neededtobeabletoestimateproportionstowithin3.43percentwitha95percent confidencelevel(Beta=.80)andadequatelyrepresentthepopulation.30Toensure
28TheNDLEAdatabasecontainsinformationon15,763lawenforcementagenciesfromaroundthe
U.S.Inadditiontothenameandaddressofthecurrentchiefexecutive,informationintheNDLEA databaseincludesthepopulationservedbytheLEA,thenumberofofficersintheLEAandtheregion inwhichtheLEAislocated. 29Forexample,LEAsofsimilarsizescouldbeexpectedtohavesimilarresponses. 30PASS2008software(Hintze,2008)wasusedtoconductthepoweranalysis. 18

thatthisnumberofswornofficerswasattained,96agencieswereselected,as discussedbelow.31Ofthese,92(95.8%)agreedtoparticipate. DefiningtheStrata.Giventhatthevastmajorityoflawenforcement
agenciesintheUnitedStatesemploy20orfewerswornofficers,adisproportionate stratifiedsamplingapproachwasused(alsoknownasoversampling)inwhichlarge agencieswereoversampledrelativetosmalleronestoensurethattheresearch teamhadenoughlargeagenciestoanalyze.32Largeagencies(withover100sworn officers)aremuchfewerinthetotalpopulationofU.S.agenciesthanthosewithless than20officers,andthuswouldbelostiftheywerenotoversampled.Overall, therewereatotalof15,41333agenciesavailableforsamplingacrossthestrata.34 Table1providesasummaryoftheoperationaldefinitionsforthethreestrataused inthisstudy. Toobtainunbiasedestimatesforthedisproportionatestratifiedsampleand
reduceanybiasduetosamplingerrorand/ornonresponseeffects,theresearch teamutilizedposthocstratificationtoweightthesurveyestimatesandallowthe analysistobetterrepresentthepopulation.35Thecalculationoftheweightwas fairlystraightforward:itissimplytheinverseofthesamplingfractionusedinthe stratum.So,inastratumwherethesamplingfractionis1in10,allcasesreceiveda

31Thisestimationwasbaseduponareviewofthenumberofswornofficersavailableineachagency
tobepotentiallysampled.Asthestudymethodsrequiredcrosstabulationanalyses,itwasnecessary thatthefinalsampleofrespondentsincludedatleasttwoofficerstoacell. 32Thus,thesamplingfractionwasdifferentforthedepartmentsizestrataofourstratifiedsample. 33Therewereatotalof15,413agencieswithswornofficerinformation.Theremaining350agencies weremissingswornofficerinformationandwerethereforenotincludedinthesampleframe. 34Therewere350lawenforcementagenciesthatdidnothavedepartmentsizeavailablethatwere thusdroppedfromthesample,However,thiswasdonebasedontheassumptionthattheseagencies werenotsignificantlydifferentfromtheagenciesthatwereselected. 35Posthocstratificationisaweightingmethodthatadjustsforanydifferencesbetweenthesurvey dataandthepopulationintermsofafewkeypopulationvariables. 19
weightof10;andinastratumwherethesamplingfractionis1in22,allcases receivedaweightof22. Table1.StudyStratificationVariables

STRATA Region OPERATIONALDEFINITION Region1(Northeast)36:Connecticut, Massachusetts,Maine,NewHampshire,New Jersey,NewYork,Pennsylvania,RhodeIsland, Vermont Region2(Midwest):Iowa,Illinois,Indiana, Kansas,Michigan,Minnesota,Missouri,North Dakota,Nebraska,Ohio,SouthDakota,Wisconsin Region3(South):Alabama,Arkansas,Delaware, Florida,Georgia,Kentucky,Louisiana,Maryland, Mississippi,NorthCarolina,Oklahoma,South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas,Virginia,West Virginia,Washington,DC Region4(West):Alaska,Arizona,California, Colorado,Hawaii,Idaho,Montana,NewMexico, Nevada,Oregon,Utah,Washington,Wyoming Verysmall:1to24swornofficers Small:25to49swornofficers Medium:50to99swornofficers Large:100to499swornofficers VeryLarge:500ormoreofficers PoliceDepartments:12,642availablemunicipal policeand42availablecountypolice departments StatePoliceDepartments:50availablelaw enforcementagencieslistedasStatePoliceand highwaypatrols SheriffsDepartments:24available IndependentCitySheriffDepartmentsand3,005 CountySheriffDepartments
DepartmentSize DepartmentType
AgencyLevelSampleSelection.Basedupontheabovestratificationcriteria, asufficientnumberofagenciestoensureadequaterepresentationtothepopulation wererandomlyselectedforpossiblestudyparticipation.Inselectingthesample,

36TheU.SCensusBureaudefinitionswereusedtocarveoutthefourmainregionsusedinthis
study.Importantly,theUniformCrimeReportingProgram(UCR)Programusesthisgeographic organizationwhencompilingnationalcrimedata.
20
TailoredStatisticalSolutions37(TS2)includedtwoagenciesfromeachstratum.38 DuetothepotentialforLEAstorefuseparticipation,therewereanadditionalthree agenciesselectedforeachstratumtoreplaceanyrefusalsthatwerereceived. Theagencieswereapproachedandaskedtoparticipateintheorderin whichtheywereselected.Inotherwords,thefirsttwoLEAsforeachstratumwere askedtoparticipate.Ifoneofthosedeclined,thenthenextagencyinthelistforthat stratumwascontactedandsolicitedforparticipation.Ifthatagencydeclined,then thenextoneinthelistwasutilizeduntilasuitablenumberofagencieshadagreedto participateinthestudy. b) ArrivingattheRespondentLevelofDataCollectionRandom SelectionofSwornPatrolOfficersfromParticipatingAgencies Onceanagencyelectedtoparticipate,alistofthepatrolofficersforthat agencywasprovidedtoPERFandTS2.Fromeachagencyspatrolofficerrosters, officerswereselectedusingeitherastratifiedrandomsamplebasedonofficer gender,rank,andshiftworkedorasimplerandomselectionmethodiftheagency wasunableorunwillingtoprovidegender,rank,and/orshiftinformation.
37PERFutilizedTailoredStatisticalSolutions(TS2)toselectthesamplesandweighttheassociated
data.TS2isabusinesslocatedintheDayton/Beavercreek,Ohioarea.TS2hasawellestablished workingrelationshipwithPERF,havingprovidedstatisticalandsamplingexpertiseonmultiple federallyandprivatelyfundednationalprojects.TS2hasconductedresearchinotherareas,aswell, includingoccupationalsafety,humanbodymodeling,education,healthcare,andjustice. 38Thereweretwoagenciesperstratumwithexceptions.FortheStatePolice,noneofthe departmentshavesizeslessthan100swornofficers.Thereforetherearenotfivedepartmentsizes foranyoftheregionswhereDepartmentTypeisStatePolice.InfactinRegion3(South),thereareno StatePoliceDepartmentsotherthanVeryLarge(500ormoreofficers).ThusTSSincludedtwo agenciesfromeachof47stratapresentinthepopulation;(1)40strata=4regionstimes5 departmentsizesforthePoliceDepartmentsandSheriffs'Departments;(2)6strata=3regions times2departmentsizesforStatePoliceDepartments;and(3)1stratum=Region3(South)with1 departmentsizeforStatePoliceDepartments. 21
Thenumberofpatrolofficersselectedtoparticipateinthestudywas dependentonthesizeoftheagencyitself(seeTable2).Forexample,LEAswith onlyoneofficerhadasamplesizeofone;LEAswithbetweentwoandnineofficers hadasamplesizeoftwo,etc.Again,thismethodologywassimilartothatemployed byWeisburdetal.(2001). Table2.OfficerSampleSizeSelectionbyAgencySize AgencySizebyNumber NumberofOfficers ofSwornOfficers Requestedto Participate 1 1 29 2 1025 5 2650 7 5199 10 100250 15 251499 20 500+ 25 c) FinalSampleWeights Tocorrectlycalculatetheweightstobeappliedtothesurveyresponse,the
populationcountsmustbeknown.Asstatedearlier,thetotalnumberofagenciesin theNDLEAwas15,763,buttherewere350agenciesthatneededtoberemoved becausethelistingslackedinformationaboutnumbersofswornofficers.Population countsforweightingwerereducedby349forPoliceDepartmentsandby1for SheriffsDepartments,yieldingnewpopulationcountsof: PoliceDepartments:12,335LEAscomprisedof12,293MunicipalPolice Departmentsand42CountyPoliceDepartments;and SheriffsDepartments:3,028LEAscomprisedof24IndependentCitySheriff Departmentsand3,004CountySheriffDepartments.
22
AppendixAshowsthepopulationcountsandtherespondentcountsforthe surveysattheagencylevel,aswellastherespondentcountsattheofficerlevel.39 Duringthecourseofthesurvey,someagencieswerefoundtohaveswornofficer countsthathadfluctuatedeitherthroughlayoffsoradditionalhiring,causingthe agenciestochangestrata.Theseagenciesareshownaspartoftherespondentand populationcountsunderthenew,currentdepartmentsize. Thefinalweightsforthesamplewerecalculatedonaperagencybasis.Since therespondentlevelwastheofficers,eachagencysweightdependson(1)the numberofofficersattheagency,(2)thenumberofrespondentsfromthatagency, (3)thenumberofagencieswithinthestratum,(4)thenumberofrespondent agencieswithinthestratum,and(5)thetotalnumberofrespondentsinthesample. Theweightswerestandardizedtomaintaintheoverallsamplesizeof1,080officers. Sincetherewere92agenciesthatparticipatedinthestudy,therewere92different weights. Measures IncollaborationwithNIJ,PERFdevelopeda34iteminstrumentcontaining bothopenandclosedendedquestionsfortheNIJBodyArmornationalsurvey.The surveyinstrumentisincludedinAppendixB.Whererelevant,spacewasprovided toallowrespondentstoprovidemoredetailthanthecloseendeditemsallowed,
39Samplecountsarenotshownsincethereweretwoagenciesselectedfromeachstratum.
23
suchasfollowingaresponseofotherorasafollowuptoaresponsewhere additionalqualitativeinformationwouldbehelpful.40 a) DescriptionoftheSurveyInstrument Thesurveyinstrumentwasdividedintosevenessentialcategoriesfor understandingpatternsandtrendsrelatedtobodyarmorutilizationand maintenance: Demographicsage;gender;rank;yearsontheforce;population served;andstructure/timingofshiftschedule; Bodyarmorcareandusagereasonsforwearingbodyarmor; experienceswherebodyarmorhasservedasneededprotection;and howtherespondentstoresandcleansthebodyarmorafteruse; Agencybodyarmorpolicytypeofformalbodyarmorpolicy; respondentselfreportedcompliancewithpolicy;perceptionsofthe likelihoodofdisciplinaryactionsforviolationofbodyarmorusage policy;andperceptionsofgeneralbodyarmoruseinthedepartment; Selection/Acquisitionwhethertheagencyortheofficerpurchases thebodyarmor;reasonsforselectingbodyarmor;placeandtimingof bodyarmorfitting;andoverallsatisfactionwithcurrentbodyarmor fit;
bodyarmorbeforeitsmanufacturewarrantyexpirationdate?Afollowupopenendedquestionwas IfYES,forwhatreasonwasyourbodyarmorreplacedpriortoitsexpirationdate? 24
40Forexample,ifarespondentrespondedyestothequestionHaveyoueverhadtoreplaceyour
Protection/ProtectiveCapabilitieslevelofbodyarmorworn; respondentknowledgeabouttheprotectivecapacitiesofthebody armor(true/falsequestions);respondentuseofadditionalprotective measures(trauma/ballisticplates);andwhetherornotthebody armoriswornunderorovertheuniformshirt;
Maintenance,Training,andInspectionsourceofeducationabout thecareandmaintenanceofbodyarmor;frequencyandtypeofbody armorinspections;andreplacementpractices;
NextGenerationofBodyArmorcoversrespondent recommendationsforthenextgenerationofbodyarmor.
b) ReviewofInstrumentContent ThePERFresearchteamconductedtwofocusgroupswithlinelevel personnel,supervisoryandcommandstaff,andindustryrepresentativestoensure thatthesurveywouldexplorethelatestdevelopmentsandnationaltrendsinbody armor,whileatthesametimeassuringitslocalapplicabilityandpracticalrelevance. PERFalsorelieduponthecollectiveexperienceofitsstaff,whichismadeupof academicresearchersandformerlawenforcementpractitioners,toreviewthe contentvalidityofthedraftinstrument,beforeitspilotinginthefieldwithallpatrol personnelinamidsizeEasternpolicedepartment.Finally,thesurveywasalso reviewedbyNIJrepresentatives. Sincethesurveywasanonymous,PERFwasnotabletoconductcognitive interviewswithindividualpilotsurveyparticipants.Instead,theparticipantswere
25
askedtocompletethesurveyandprovidefeedbackontheinstrument.PERFstaff alsocontactedotheragencyrepresentativesforadditionalfeedback.Particular attentionwaspaidtodeterminingwhethersurveyquestionswereperceivedbythe respondentsasintendedbytheprojectteam.Commentswerealsosolicitedonthe surveytoensurethatonlymodestamountsoftimewouldbeneededtocompleteit, thatthecontentwouldbeadequate,andthatitcouldbecompletedeasily. Thesurveywasrevisedbaseduponfeedbackreceivedfromtheabove processesandwasapprovedbyPERFsInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB). Procedures Toachieveagoodofficerresponserate,PERFusedaprovensurvey distributionplan41thatconsistedof(1)threewavesofsurveys42and(2)reminder phonecallstotheagencycontactperson.Duringthereminderphonecalls,the agencycontactswereremindedofthepurposeandimportanceofthesurvey.They weresentanothercopyofthesurveyiftheyneededone,andwereaskedtoreturn thesurveywithin10days.PERFstaffmadesubsequentphonecallsuntilmultiple surveyswerereceivedfromaparticularagencyoruntilthechiefexecutiveofanon
41ThesurveydisseminationmethodutilizedbyPERFonthisprojectwasamodifiedversionofthe 42Multiplewavesofsurveysweredisseminatedwithallofficersselectedfromeachagencyuntilat
Dillmanapproachtoachievinghighsurveyresponserates(Dillmanetal.2009).
least60%ofthesurveyswerereceivedfromagivenagency.Officerswereinstructedtodisregardthe subsequentsurveywavesiftheyhadalreadysubmittedacompletedsurvey.Thiswasnecessary sincethesurveywasanonymousandtherewasnowaytodeterminewhichspecificofficershad respondedandwhichhadnot. 26
respondingdepartmentconveyedaclearrefusaltocooperate.Thisdissemination strategyhasyieldedhighresponseratesinprevioussurveyresearch.43 Inanefforttoguaranteethatthedataisofthehighestquality,normallyall surveyswouldhavebeenrevieweduponreceipt.Anymissingorquestionable informationwouldbeflaggedforfollowupandatrainedPERFresearchassistant wouldcalleachrespondenttoclarifythesedatapoints.Sincethiswasan anonymoussurvey,thiswasnotpossible.However,thedataoverallwerevery completeandaccurate. Datacleaningbeganuponreceiptofeachsurveyinvolvingathoroughitem byitemreviewtomakesurethatallitemshadbeencompletedandwerewithin reasonableparameters.Thedatawerealsosubjectedtorigorousautomateddata cleaningproceduresinSPSS. PHASETWO:TESTINGBODYARMORDEGRADATIONBYPHYSICALAND EXPERIENTIALFACTORS PhaseTwoofthisresearchbuildsontheresultsofthenationalsurveyin
PhaseOnebyevaluatingtheeffectsoftheage,climate,experience,andmaintenance factorsontheoveralldegradationofbodyarmor.Althoughtheunitofanalysisin thisstudywastheactualbodyarmor,eacharmorunitwaslinkedtoanindividual
BJAfunded2005BodyArmorSurveyofthe100LargestLawEnforcementAgencies,BJSfunded 2003SampleSurveyofLawEnforcementAgencies,theCDCfunded2003WorkplaceViolence survey,andtheBJSfunded2002CensusofLawEnforcementTrainingAcademiesandachieved responseratesof93%(93surveysreceived/100surveyssent),90.1%(2841/3154),75.9% (120/158),and75%(515/687),respectively.

43PERFhasconsistentlyachievedhighresponseratesinthepast.PERFpreviouslyconductedthe
27
user(asdescribedbelow),sothatthemeasuresrelatedtoexperienceand maintenancecouldbecollected.44 Participants(VestStudySample) a) SampleSelectionCriteria Forthisexploratorystudy,theresearcherscollectedasampleof30used vestsfromagencies45distributedacrossthefourclimatezonesofthecountry,to allowforsufficientnumbersineachcellforbetweengroupcomparisonsandto controlfortemperatureandhumidity46.Acomparisonsampleof15newvestswas alsoacquired.Theclimatezoneswere: Hightemperature/highhumidity:theSoutheast Hightemperature/lowhumidity:themidAtlanticandSouthernPlains Lowtemperature/highhumidity:thePacificNorthwest Lowtemperature/lowhumidity:theNorthernPlainsandUpperNortheast Duetothesignificantvariationsinbodyarmormakeandtypeinthefield, primaryfibercompositionwasidentifiedasthemainfactortodriveselection:all bodyarmorusedinthestudyhadtobeeitherprimarilycomprisedofwovenaramid
44Itwasacentralstudyrequirementthatallagenciessubmittingvestswereabletolinkthemtothe
respectiveofficerswhoworethemduringtheirlifecourseinthefield.Thiswassometimes problematicasmanyagenciesstoptrackingvestswhentheyaredecommissioned.Insuchcases,the agenciesleavetheoldvestsunmarkedinastorageclosetuntildisposal. 45TheselectedagenciesforthePhaseIIstudywerenotnecessarilythesameasthosethat participatedinthenationalbodyarmorsurvey(only15ofthe30vestscamefromagenciesthat participatedinPhaseI).TherewasnomethodologicalreasonforrequiringthatthePhaseIIvests camefromPhaseIstudyparticipantsasitwouldbestatisticallyunlikelythatthesameofficerwould beselectedforbothstudies(evenwhereanagencywasparticipatinginbothphases).Instead,the researchersweremostconcernedwithensuringthatasufficientnumberofvestscamefromwithin eachofthefourclimateareastomeetstatisticalassumptions. 46Althoughresearchliteraturesuggeststhatmoistureisthekeycomponentaffectingperformance degradationratherthantemperaturealone(seeChinetal,2007),theresearcherschosethisregional distributionbycensuscategoriesasameanstoreexaminethisissueintheexploratorystudy. 28
orahybriddesign(madeupofacombinationoflayersofwovenaramid,laminated aramid,and/orlaminatedpolyethylene).Allhybridvestsincludedinthestudyhad tocontainatleastonelayerofwovenaramidtoallowforthefiberextraction requiredfordegradationanalysis(describedbelow).47 Inadditiontothefibercompositionrequirement,alloftheusedvestshadto bewithintherangeof4to5yearsold.Thestudyrequiredthatthevestshave sufficientfieldexperience,sonewervestswereexcluded.Forthesakeof consistency,onlyveststhatwereprotectionlevelIIorIIIAwereincludedinthe study. Theresearcherschosetoonlystudyvestsdesignedformaleofficersfortwo
reasons.First,earlydatacollectioneffortsresultedinonlyonefemalevestoutof 30beingofferedfortesting,sotheresearchteambecameconcernedaboutthe practicalitiesofobtainingasufficientnumberoffemaleveststobeabletoconduct eventhemostrudimentarycrossregionorclimatecomparison.Thesecondreason wasstatistical:eveniftheteamwasabletofind15femalevests(halfofthe30that weretested),therewouldhavebeensomeclimatezoneswithonlyonevestinthem, andthustherewouldnthavebeenanywaytomakeanystatisticalcomparisons betweeneithermaleorfemalevests.48Whileweacknowledgethelimitedstatistical
47Duringtheprocessthatcreateslaminatedlayersofeitheraramidorpolyethylene,thevestfibers areboundtogethersotightlythatitisimpossibletoextractfibersamplesfordegradationanalysis. 48Inotherwords,withonlyonevestinacell,therewouldbenowaytosayanythingaboutthatvest sincetherewouldbenocomparisonavailabletoexaminevariability.Inmaintainingthesufficiencyof powerinordertotestthefactorsabouttheviabilityofprotection,weneededtomakesurethatwe hadsufficientnumbersofvests.Ifweneededtoaddfemalevests,wewouldhaveneededto supplementthemalevests,notreplacethem,whichwouldhaveexpandedthescopeofthisproject. Withthesamplesizeof30vests,thereisonlyenoughpowertotesttheitemsthataretherewithout addinganotherfactor(gender).Inordertodeterminedifferences,therewouldneedtobemultiple
29
powerofourmalevestsample,wehaveenoughunitstohavemorethanonefrom eachclimatezonerepresented,andcanexploregeneraldifferences. b) SampleSelectionProcess The30usedvestsobtainedforthestudywereaconveniencesamplefrom
lawenforcementagenciesthathadveststhatmetthedeterminedselectioncriteria andwerewillingtoparticipate.Inthebeginningofthestudy,agenciesagreeingto participateinthePhaseInationalsurveywerealsoaskediftheywouldsubmita vestfortesting.Followingareviewoftheinitialvestsamplereceived,specific agenciesweretargetedintheclimatezonesthatwerenotadequatelyrepresented, regardlessoftheirparticipationinPhaseIornot.Oncethe30vestswereidentified fortesting,theresearchersofferedtopurchasereplacementvestsforanyagency thathadntalreadyretiredthevest.PreaddressedFedExslipswereprovidedto eachagencytoshiptheirvest(s)directlytotheteamconductingtheballistics componentofthedegradationanalyses(H.P.WhiteLaboratories). DistributionofMainSampleCharacteristics.Acriticalrequirementofthe
samplingprocesswasthatitproducedasamplewithsufficientnumbersinthetwo maincategoriesbeingexaminedforbetweengroupdifferences:climatezoneand primaryfibercomposition.49Importantly,thisoutcomewasachieved(seeTable3).

vestswithineachcellorelsethereisnostandarddeviationorvariancetobecalculated.Statistical testingrequiresvariabilityinordertohavedegreesoffreedomtoconductatest.
maintainequalnumbersineachcategory,prioritywasplacedonclimatezoneandprimaryfiber composition. 30
49AllvestswerealsorequiredtobeeitherprotectionlevelIIorIIIA.Whileeffortsweremadeto
Table3:DistributionofBodyArmorStudySample CLIMATEZONE High/high High/low Low/high Low/low c) AcquiringaComparisonSampleofNewBodyArmor Acquiring15newvestsforcomparisontestingprovedtobemore complicatedthananticipated,becausetheselectedstudyvestsallconformedtothe .04NIJstandard,whereasnewvestsallconformtothe.06NIJstandard.50Thetwo standardsaresufficientlydifferentthatcomparingtestresultsbetweenthe standardswouldbeeffectivelymeaningless.Asaresult,newvestswereneededthat conformedtotheoldstandard.Becauseregularsuppliersdonotcarryveststhat meetanoutdatedstandard,theresearcherscontractedwithBAESystems (Safariland)toproducetheveststostudyspecifications.Inadditiontoconforming tothe.04NIJstandard,thevestshadtoalsomeettheotherrequirementsdefinedby theresearchers:theyhadtobeprimarilycomposedofwovenaramidorahybrid thatcontainedawovenaramidlayer,levelIIorIIIA,andmale.The15vests producedwereshippeddirectlytothelaboratoryforballisticstestingalongsidethe 30oldervestsinthestudy.However,itisrecognizedthatthenewvestsdonot identicallymatchtheusedvests.
50Again,thisisbecauseamainrequirementofthestudywasthateachvestbeoldenoughtohave
PRIMARYFIBERCOMPOSITION 4wovenaramid 4hybrid 3wovenaramid 4hybrid 4wovenaramid 4hybrid 4wovenaramid 3hybrid
PROTECTIONLEVEL 4LevelII 4LevelIIIA 5LevelII 2LevelIIIA 1LevelII 7LevelIIIA 3LevelII 4LevelIIIA
hadenoughexposuretoconditionsandincidentsinthefield(resultingintherequirementthatthey eachbebetween4and5yearsold). 31
Measures Armorperformance/degradation(throughballisticsandfibertesting)was
analyzedacrossphysicalandexperientialvariablesinordertoexplorethe complexitiesofdegradationfactors. a) PhysicalVariables Eachofthefollowingphysicalvariableswasdocumentedatthetimeof samplecollectionaspartoftheresearchteamsdiscussionswiththerespectivelaw enforcementagencyrepresentatives. Agenumberofyearsthebodyarmorhadatthetimeoftesting(hadtobe within4to5years) Primaryfibercompositionwhetherthevestconsistedprimarilyofwoven aramidorwasahybrid ProtectionlevelwhetherthevestwaslevelIIorIIIA Climatezoneidentificationofwhichofthe4regionsthebodyarmorcame from(dividedintermsoflikelyexposuretoheatand/orhumidityfactors thathavebeenshowninpreviousresearchtobelinkedtopossiblearmor degradation). b) ExperientialVariables Theresearchteamdevelopedastructuredinterviewguidetocaptureofficer selfreportedexperienceswiththebodyarmorthroughoutitslifecourse(including maintenance,carepatterns,andothereventsthatcouldhaveimpactedthelong
32
termviabilityofthearmor,suchasexposuretoextrememoistureorheat).This aspectoftheresearchadmittedlymaybesubjecttosomelevelofresponsebias, givenitsretrospectivenature. IncludedinthesequestionsweremanyofthequestionsaskedinthePhaseI survey,51aswellasmoredetailedquestionsonhowtheirvesthadfaredphysically overitslifespan. Experientialvariablescapturedinthestudythroughtheinterviewsinclude: Reportedincidentsinvolvingimpactofanykind(e.g.stabbings, shootings) Vestexposuretoexcessivemoistureorheat Officermaintenanceandcarepracticeswiththevest(e.g.folding, storagelocations) Officertrainingrelatedtouseandcareofthevest. c) PerformanceVariables(ArmorDegradation) Asdescribedabove,overallvestperformancewasmeasuredthroughboth ballisticsandfibertestingprocesses.Subsequentanalysescomparedtheseresults byselectphysicalandexperientialvariables(theperformancedatawaslinkedto theindividualofficerinterviewscorrespondingtoeachtestedvest).
mostimportantsurveyquestionsontheinterviewinstrument.Thedecisionwasmadeinaneffortto reducetheburdenplacedontheofficersinceboththesurveyandinterviewwerevoluntary. 33
51Theprojectteamoptednottosendtheentiresurveytotheinterviewee,butinsteadincludedthe
i)
BallisticsMeasures
Ballisticslimittesting(V50values)Thismeasuresthevelocityatwhich50 percentoftheshotsperforate(i.e.,gothroughthearmor)and50percent partiallypenetrate(i.e.,arestoppedbythearmor)(NationalInstituteof Justice,2008)Theseshotsfromtheperforateandfromthestoppedgroup areusedtocalculateav50velocity.
BackfacedeformationsThisreferstothedepthofdepressionofroundsthat partiallypenetratethearmorinaclaybackingplacedbehindthetestedvest platetorepresenttheplatebeingwornonthetorso.Backfacedeformation measuresareessentialbecauseevenwhereabulletdoesnotpenetratetheplate, significantinjuriestotheofficercanoccurfromtheimpactofthestrike. ii) FiberTestingMeasures
BallisticPerformanceParameter(BPP)theBPPrepresentsacompositeof thefollowingfourkeymeasures: o Ultimatetensilestrength(UTS)measuresthemaximumstressthata materialcanwithstandjustbeforethepointoffailure. o Elasticmodulusofthefibermeasuresthestiffnessofthematerial,i.e., stressdividedbythestrain(e.g.,steelismuchstifferthanKevlar). o Densityofthefiberthemassperunitvolumeofthematerial. o Strainatfailuremeasureshowmuchthematerialhasbeenstrained (stretched)bythestressonitatthepointoffailure.
34
Procedures a) VestOwnerInterviews Phoneinterviewswereconductedwiththe2952officerswhoworetheused vestssuppliedforthestudy.TheinterviewinstrumentwasapprovedbyPERFs InternalReviewBoard(IRB),andallparticipantsprovidedtheirinformedconsent beforebeinginterviewed.Theofficerinterviewinstrumentiscontainedin AppendixC.Resultsoftheinterviewswerekeptstrictlyconfidentialtoencourage officerstobeopenandforthright.Theinterviewstooknomorethan20minutesto complete. b)BallisticTestingProcedures H.P.WhiteLaboratories53conductedballisticlimittestingonclayforthe45 vestassemblies(90panels,whichrepresentstwopanelspervest)inaccordance withtheabbreviatedprovisionsofNIJSTD0101.Eachofthevestpanelswasfixed onseparateclayblocksandtestedusingtheappropriateammunition.Forboth LevelsIIandIIIA,twoammunitionswerespecifiedperthreatlevel,sothefront panelofeachvestassemblywastestedusingoneammunition,andthebackpanelof eachassemblyusingtheotherammunition(seeAppendixDforthedataonboth threatlevels).Eachcartridgewashandloadedtoachievethevelocitiesnecessaryto obtainaV50valueforeacharmorpanel.Ashotbyshotrecordofthetestwas providedtotheresearchteamonadatarecord,includingtheweightandphysical
conductedwiththeremaining29officers. 53H.PWhiteLaboratoriesisanNIJapprovedballisticstestingfacilitybasedinStreet,Maryland.
52Whileweacquiredbodyarmorfrom30officers,onerefusedtoparticipate,sointerviewswere
35
makeupofthearmorpanels(plycounts,descriptionofmaterial,etc.).Backface signatureswerealsosuppliedforallnonpenetratingshots.54 b) FiberTestingProcedures i. GeneralSamplingProcedures Followingtheballistictestingandofficerinterviews,thevestswerereturned
totheresearchteamsofficesinWashington,D.C.There,withtheassistanceofan expertbodyarmorconsultant,fibersampleswereextractedfromeachofthe45 testedvestsusingKevlar(wovenaramid)scissors.55Usingthebackpanelfor samplingpurposes,fiberswereextractedfromthewovenaramidlayerclosestto thebody,assumingthatitwouldbethemostexposedtosweat.Theresearchstaff cutaroundthebulletholestocreateatleasta2by2inchpieceofwovenaramid fromeachvest.Eachfibersamplewasplacedinasealedplasticbag,andwaslabeled accordingtothevestitcamefrom.All45vestsamplesweremailedtothePhysical TestingLaboratory,CollegeofTextiles,NorthCarolinaStateUniversitytoconduct thefibertesting.56 Themultifilamentyarnswereunraveledfromeachfabricsampleinorderto extractindividualfilamentsformeasurementoffilamentdiameterandtensile properties.Thewarpandfillingdirectionswerenotlabeledinthefabricswatches andcouldnotbedeterminedinthesmallswatchsize.Forthediameterandtensile
54Theresearchteamalsoreceivedafinalcoverletterreportthatsummarizedtheinformationonthe
datarecord. 55Normalscissorsaretoodulltoeffectivelycutthroughthevestmaterial. 56TheCollegeofTextileshasover110yearsofteaching,research,andextensionprograms,andisa nationalleaderinfiberanalysis,beinghometotheNonwovensInstituteandtheTextileProtection andComfortCenter,whichoffersresearchandtestingcapabilitiestotheindustry.

36
measurements,fivefilamentsineachfabricdirectionwererandomlyselected. Becausewarpdirectioncouldnotbedetermined,thefabricdirectionswere designatedasDirection1andDirection2.Forbothdiameterandtensile measurements,thefirstfivespecimensreportedforeachsamplerepresent Direction1,andspecimens6through10representDirection2. ii. DiameterMeasurement Todeterminediameter,fivefibersamplesineachfabricdirectionwere randomlyselectedformeasurementbymountingthefibersonaglassslidefor viewingonamicroscopeat400Xmagnification(10Xeyepieceand40Xobjective). ThemicroscopewasaMoticB3compoundmicroscopewithMoticImagesPlus Version2.0digitalimagingsoftware.Propercalibrationofthesoftwareallowed directonscreenmeasurementoffiberdiameters.Atotaloftendiameterreadings weretakenforeachsample:fivefromDirection1fibersandfivefromDirection2 fibers.Theoverallaverageofthetenreadingswasreportedforeachsampleand usedforsubsequenttensilepropertycalculations.Forthissample,thecoefficientof variability(CV)(i.e.,theratioofthestandarddeviationtothemean)providesan indicationofhowconsistentthefibersamplediameterswere.TheCVswere calculatedforeachofthefivediametersamples.Overall,98percentofthe calculatedCVsfellbelow10percentwhichprovidesgoodindicationthefiber samplediameterswereveryconsistent(seeAppendixG,TableG5).
37
iii. SpecimenPreparationforTensileTesting Individualfiberspecimens(fiverandomlychosenfibersfromeachfabric direction)werepremountedonsmallcardstofacilitatehandlingfortensiletesting. SmallCshapedpieceswerecutfromindexcardsformounting,withtheopening acrosstheCmeasuringexactlyoneinchtocorrespondtothedesiredgaugelength fortesting.Welbondadhesivewasusedtoholdthefiberateachend,makingsure thattheadhesivecoveredthecarduptotheboundaryoftheoneinchspan.The fiberwasplacedacrosstheoneinchopening,takingcarenottoexertstressuponor tostretchthefiberduringmounting.SeeFigure1fortheappearanceofthefibers onthemountedcards.
Figure1.Diagramoftheappearanceofthefibersonthemountedcards.
Theadhesivewasallowedtodryovernightbeforetensiletesting.Oncethe
cardandfiberweremountedintheclampsinthetensiletester,smallscissorswere usedtotrimthecardawaysothatonlythefiberextendedacrosstheopening betweentheclamps.
38
iv. TensileTesting Foreachsample,tenindividualspecimensweretestedingeneralaccordance withASTMD3822,TensilePropertiesofSingleTextileFibers,onaCREtypeMTSQ Test/5tensiletester(CRE=ConstantrateofExtension).Atestspeedof15mm/min wasused.Thegaugelengthwasexactlyoneinch.Thefollowingresultswere reported:tensilestrengthinunitsofmegapascals(MPa),modulusinunitsof gigapascals(Gpa),andstrainatfailureinunitsofpercent.
39
THENATIONALBODYARMORSURVEY
RESULTS
Whatfollowsarethemainanalysesconductedregardingthenationalbody armorsurveyresults,includingdescriptivestatisticsofthesampleandstatistical comparisonsoftheresultsbytheregionandagencysizeoftherespondentshome agencies.Aweightingschemehasbeenappliedtothedatawiththepurposeof makingtheresultsasnationallyrepresentativeaspossible. Inadditiontotheoveralldescriptivedatapresentedbelow,theresearchers
alsoconductedchisquareanalysestoidentifyanydifferencesinallvariablesby populationdensity,region,agencysize,agencytype,andrespondentgender.Forthe sakeofbrevity,onlywherestatisticallyandsubstantivelysignificantdifferences emergedarethesefindingspresentedhere.Thereadercanfindthefullcrosstab distributiontablesinAppendixEforfurtherinformation. RespondentDemographics a) CurrentRankandDutyAssignment Intotal,1,080individualscompletedthesurvey.Ofthese,89.3%weremale,
10.7percentfemale.Thecurrentprofessionalranksoftheserespondentsvaried, althoughthemajorityselfidentifiedasanOfficer/Deputy/Trooper(70.4%), followedbySergeant(13.7%)andotherranks.57(seeTable4).Morethanhalfof respondents(51.0%)hadelevenormoreyearsofswornexperience;29.8percent

57Theresultingdistributionofrespondentranksiswhatwouldbeexpectedinthefield.Withinthese
ranks,76.2percentofrespondingofficersidentifiedthemselvesasbeinglinelevel,whilefewer reportedbeingonthesupervisorylevel(15.9%)orcommandlevel(7.8%).
40
hadsixtotenyearsofexperience;and19.2percentreportedhavingfiveyearsor fewer. Table4:RespondentsCurrentRank Rank Officer/Deputy/Trooper Sergeant LieutenantorAbove Investigator/Detective Corporal Other58 Percent 70.4 13.7 6.9 6.0 2.0 0.9 N=1,080
Importantly,thevastmajorityoftherespondentsreportedacurrentduty
assignmentthatputsthemactivelyinthefield.Seventysixpercentofofficerssaid thattheirjobisperformedprimarilyonthestreet,whereas7.5percentwere primarilyintheoffice,and13.7percentworkedanequalcombinationofthetwo (N=1,055). Mostoftheofficersinthestudysampleworkedadayshift.Apluralityof respondents(44.9%)beginworksometimebetween6:00and11:50a.m.Few respondentsstartedworkbetweenmidnightand6:00a.m.(3.1%).Additionally, 39.5percentofthosesurveyedworkarotatingshiftschedule,while60.5percent reportedthattheydonot(N=1,066).

58OftherespondentswhoidentifiedtheirrankasOther,70percentweredrugtaskforceagents.
41
b)DensityandRegionofRespondentsAgency Slightlymorethanhalfofrespondentsindicatedthattheyserveanurban
area(51.6%);23.0percentofofficerssaidtheyworkinsuburbanareas,and10.5 percentinruralareas.Theremaining6.3percentofresponsesiscomposedof Other(e.g.highwaypatrol,statewidejurisdiction),orhybridareasthatarenot exclusivelyonetypeofregionorthatfluctuateseasonally.
OfficerBehavior:BodyArmorUsage a)PrevalenceofOfficersWearingBodyArmorRegularly Recognitionoftheimportanceofwearingbodyarmorhasbecomealmost universalintheUnitedStatesoverthepastthirtyyears.Nearlyeveryofficer respondingtothesurvey(98.1percent,N=1,051)statedthattheycurrentlywear bodyarmor.Ofthetwentyofficerswhostatedthattheydonotweararmor,the mostcommonexplanationswererank(commandlevel,ordetective),officeduty, maternityduty,orimproper/uncomfortablefit. Theinabilitytopredictthecircumstancesthatcanarisedailyinpolicinghas
ledmanydepartmentstorequireofficerstowearbodyarmoratalltimes(see discussionbelow).Theoverwhelmingmajorityofrespondentsindicatedthatthey typicallywearbodyarmorwhenrequiredtodoso,reportingthattheyfollowpolicy mostofthetime(11.4%),orallofthetime(87.9%).Ofthosewhosaidtheydidnot alwaysfollowpolicy,explanationsincludedsuchthingsastrainingexemptions,high temperatures,andworkingatadesk.
42
Thatsaid,safetyconsiderations,asopposedtopolicymandates,represent
themainreasonthatofficersgiveforwearingbodyarmor.Ninetypercentofthe officersviewedbodyarmorascriticalfor(their)safety(seeTable5).Asignificant numberofofficers(49.2%)alsonotedagencypolicyrequirementsasanimportant factorintheirreasonsforwearingbodyarmor.Amongthereasonsclassifiedas Otherwerehabit,andleadingbyexample.Womenweresignificantly(p<.05)more likelytosaytheyweararmorforsafety(96.5%),comparedtotheirmale counterparts(89.2%). Table5:ReasonsforWearingBodyArmor* ReasonforWearing CriticalforSafety AgencyPolicyRequires It FamilyPressure WorkersCompensation Issues Other *Multipleselectionswere allowed Percent 90.0 49.2 14.3 11.0 2.3 N=1050
Althoughsafetyconsiderationspredominatedinallregions,wearingbody
armorduetoagencypolicywasmorelikelyintheNortheast(49.6%),South (56.0%),andMidwest(47.4%)regions.FewerrespondentsintheWestnotedthis response(41.6%).Officersinthesmallestagencies(25andfewerofficers)andmid sizeagencyrespondents(51to99officers)werealsomorelikelytociteagency policy,withover60percentofofficersinboththosesizeagenciesindicatingthat
43
agencypolicywasareasonforwearingbodyarmor.Roughlyoneinseven respondents(14.3%)indicatedfamilypressureasareasonforwearingbodyarmor. b)SituationsWheretheBodyArmorProvidedProtection Despitethefactthat80.8percentoftherespondentshadmorethan5years ofexperience(withmosthavingmorethan10years),73.1percentofrespondents statedthattheyhadneverbeeninasituationwheretheirbodyarmorwasrequired forprotection(seeTable6).59Whereofficersreportedtheirbodyarmorhaving beenusedinthelineofduty,protectionfrombluntforcetrauma,includingpunches andkicks,occurredwiththegreatestfrequency(19.1%),while8.1percentsaid theirarmorhelpedtoprotecttheminacaraccident,3.2percentofofficers experiencedsituationswheretheywereshotatwhileinbodyarmor,and1.9 percentreportedwearingarmorduringincidentsinwhichtheywereattackedwith knivesorotheredgedweapons. Table6:SituationsinWhichBodyArmorHasProtectedRespondents* Situation NotApplicable(haveneverbeenina situationwherebodyarmorwas requiredforprotection) Protectionfrompunch/kickorother blunttrauma Protectionincaraccident Protectionduringshooting Protectionfromknifeorotheredged weaponassault Other(specify)60 *Multipleselectionswereallowed Percent 73.1 19.1 8.1 3.2 1.9 0.6 N=1,049

motorcycleaccidents.
59Thisistobeexpectedgivenfindingsinotherstudiesrelatedtoofficeruseoftimeanduseofforce. 60MostrespondentswhoselectedOtherwereprotectedbybodyarmorduringbicycleand
44
Asnotedabove,whilethemajorityofrespondentssaidtheyhadnotbeenina dangeroussituationinwhichtheirbodyarmorwasputtothetest,chisquare analysesrevealedsomestatisticallysignificantdifferences(p<.05).Suburban officerswerelesslikelytosaythattheyhadbeeninasituationwheretheirbody armorwasrequiredforprotection(57.0%).Officersinurbandepartments(4.5%) andthoseinthelargestagencies(4.5%)weremorelikelytoreporthavingbeenshot atwhilewearingarmor,whileofficersinruraldepartments(5.7%)weremorelikely toreportbeingprotectedfromaknifethrustbytheirarmor.Protectionfroma punchorkickwasreportedinroughly30percentofofficersfromagencieswith fewerthan500officers,butofficersinthelargestagenciesreportedsuch circumstancesonly10.5percentofthetime. Insum,whilemostofficersreportedwearingtheirvestsbecausetheysaw themascriticaltosafety,relativelyfewhadbeeninasituationwheretheyactually hadtorelyontheirvestforprotectionduringashooting,thesituationinwhich theirbodyarmorwasactuallydesignedtoprotectthem.Ofthesituationswhere bodyarmorprovidedprotectionfromanactualthreatorharm,mostinvolveda punch/kick(19.1%)orprotectioninacaraccident(8.1%)ratherthanashooting (3.2%). OfficerBehavior:CareandMaintenanceofBodyArmor Asdiscussedintheliteraturereview,thereisdatasupportingthecontention
thatexternalfactors(e.g.humidityinconjunctionwithhightemperatures)can possiblyplayaroleinoverallperformancedegradationofbodyarmorwithinfive
45
yearsofuse(Chinetal,2007).Thissectionexaminesofficerpatternsofbodyarmor careandmaintenance. a)BodyArmorStorageAfterUse Participantsweregiventheoptionofindicatingallthewaysthattheystored
theirbodyarmorfollowingashiftbyselectingasmanyanswersasapplied(see Table7).Despitethefactthatmanymanufacturersandpolicedepartmentpolicies recommendthatbodyarmormostoptimallyshouldbestoredflattobestsustain bodyarmorperformanceinthelongrun,themostcommonmethodofstorage reportedbyofficerswastohangtheirarmoronaclotheshanger(57.1%).Forty percent(40.3%)ofrespondentsstoretheirarmorbylayingitflatafteruse.Ten percent(10.1%)ofofficersindicatedthattheyusedanothermethodforstoring theirvestssuchashangingthearmoronthebackofachair,standingitup,or throwingitinsidealocker. Table7:StorageofBodyArmorafterUsage* StorageMethod Hangonclotheshanger(not specificallydesignedforbody armor) Flat Specializeddevice/container Folditup Other(specify) *Multipleselectionswere allowed Whenaskedwheretheystoredtheirarmorwhileitisnotinuse,55.9percent Percent 57.1 40.3 1.4 0.8 10.1 N=1,057
ofrespondentssaidtheirlocker.Fortypercent(40.5%)ofrespondents(whowere
46
allowedtochoosemorethanoneoption,ifapplicable)indicatedthattheykepttheir vestathome.Officersalsosaidtheykeeptheirbodyarmorinavehicletrunk (3.7%),vehicleinterior(3.1%),gearbag(2.0%),and/orOther(2.8%).Themost oftencitedlocationamongthoselistedasOtherwasinanoffice. Somesignificantdifferencesinstoragepracticesexistthatmightbeworth
furtherattentioninfutureresearch.RespondentsfromtheSouthweremorelikely touseanoptimalmethodofbodyarmorstorage(roughly60percent)suchaslying flatorkeepingitinaproperstoragecontainer,comparedtoroughly20percentof respondentsintheNortheast.Nearly70percent(69.7%)ofrespondentsfromthe Northeaststoredtheirbodyarmoronastandardhanger,whereasonly39percent ofrespondentsfromtheSouthdid.SomeofthisdifferencewithSouthernagencies mayberelatedtoagencysize:officersinthesmallestagencies(fewerthan25 officers)andmiddlesizeagencies(between100and499officers)weremorelikely tolieitflatandlesslikelytouseanonspecializedhanger. Notsurprisingly,thispatternholdstruewhenthedataislookedatthrough
thelensofpopulationdensityserved.Urbanrespondentsweremorelikelytoreport hangingtheirarmoronaclotheshangernotdesignedforbodyarmor(64.1%)than respondentsinotherareas.Thepracticeoflayingtheirarmorflatafterusewas morecommonamongsuburbanofficers(52.0%)thanthepopulationofofficersasa whole(40.6%),orinanyoftheotheragencycategoriesindividually. Womenwerealsomorelikelythanmentoreportoptimalstoragepractices.
Theywerefarmorelikelytolietheirarmorflat(61.9percentversus37.6percentof
47
men),andlesslikelytouseaclotheshangernotdesignedforbodyarmor(44.2 percentcomparedto58.7percentofmen)forbodyarmorstorage. b)BodyArmorCarrierCleaningPractices Ballisticprotectionisaffordedbythearmorpanelnotthecarriermaking
mostformsofbodyarmorcarriercareorcleaningunlikelytoaffectbodyarmor performance.61However,asthiswasanexploratorystudyoftherelationship betweenofficerbehaviorandperformancedegradationovertime,theresearchers askedofficersabouthowtheycleantheirbodyarmorcarrierasameansof providingadditionaldescriptiveinformation.Respondentscouldselectmorethan onemethodofcleaning.Morethanhalfofrespondents(51.0%)saidthattheyuse laundrydetergent;thenextmostcommonresponsesweresoapandwater(38.9%), andfabricdeodorizer,suchasFebreze(33.8%).Only3.3percentsaidthattheyhave theircarriersprofessionallycleaned,whilefourpercentcheckedother.Themost commonexplanationbythosewhoselectedotherwasthattheynevercleanedit. AgencyBodyArmorPolicy Thepresenceofaformal,clear,andspecificpolicyhasbeenshowntohavea significantimpactonawiderangeofofficerbehaviors,rangingfromreportwriting andprofessionalcommunicationwithcitizenstouseofforce.Acomponentofsuch policyisenforcementoftheruleswithfairdisciplinaryprocedures.
61AcarrierisdefinedbyonemanufacturerasAcomponentofthearmorsampleorarmorpanel whoseprimarypurposeistoretaintheballisticpanelandprovideameansofsupportingand securingthearmorgarmenttotheuser.Thesecarriersarenotgenerallyballisticresistant.(Body Armor.com,2011)
48
a)ExistenceofFormalBodyArmorPolicy Seventyeightpercent(77.9%)ofofficersreportedthattheiragencydoes haveawrittenbodyarmorpolicy,while22.1percentsaidthattheirsdoesnot.62 Importantly,57.0percentofofficersinanagencywithwrittenbodyarmorpolicy indicatedthatitrequireswearingbodyarmoratalltimeswhenonduty.Slightly morethanonethird(35.3%)ofrespondentsinagenciesthathaveawrittenpolicy saidthattheyarerequiredtowearbodyarmormosttimes(seeTable8).Thus, morethan92percentofrespondingofficersreportedthattheyarerequiredtowear bodyarmor.AmongthepoliciesthatfellintotheOthercategorywere:havingthe vestavailableinthecruiser;notrequiringofficerstowearthearmorwhenthe temperatureisover95degrees;requiringthatbodyarmoronlybewornifitis departmentissued;andhavingtheoptiontosignawaivertonotwearit. Itisinterestingtonotethatalthough57.0percentofrespondentsindicated thattheymustweartheirarmoratalltimeswhileonduty,therearesome differencesaccordingtopopulationdensity.Anatalltimeswhenondutyresponse wasmostoftenthecaseforrural(72.2%)andsuburban(63.1%)respondents,with roughlyhalfofrespondents(50.6%)fromurbanandfortysevenpercent(46.5%)of thoseinotherareasreportingthattheywererequiredtoweararmorallofthe time.63
62Aswillbehighlightedinthediscussionsection,thissuggestsanimportantincreasesincethe2008 BJAPERFsurveyinwhichfewerthanhalf(45%)oftherespondingagenciesindicatedthattheyhada writtenpolicyrequiringtheirofficerstowearbodyarmor.Itshouldbestressed,however,thatthe previoussurveyrepresentedanagencyratherthanindividualofficerlevelsurveysotheresultsare notdirectlycomparable. 63Themuchhighernumberofofficersinagenciesservingurbanareas(51.6%)dragstheoverall meandownsignificantlyfromthenumbersreflectedinthesuburbanandruralsites.
49
Table8:AgencyBodyWearPolicies Policy Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratalltimeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmosttimeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmoratalltimes,exceptin specialcircumstances Other Percent 57.0 35.3 3.7 4.0 N=789
b)PolicyEnforcementandPerceivedComplianceofColleagues Respondentswerealsoaskedwhattheythoughttheconsequencesmightbe
forfailingtocomplywithbodyarmorpolicy(morethanoneresponsecouldbe selected)(seeTable9).Aslessthanonepercentofofficerssaidtheyhadever receiveddisciplineforabodyarmorviolation,mosthadtospeculateorbasetheir responsesonknowledgeofotherofficershavingbeendisciplined.Morethanhalf (58.3%)saidtheyexpectedthatafirstoffensewouldresultinaverbalreprimand, andasecondoffensewouldresultinawrittenreprimand(58.3%). Table9:ExpectationsofConsequencesforFailingtoComplywithPolicy* Discipline Verbalreprimand Senttoretrieveandwearbodyarmor Writtenreprimand Policyisnotenforced Suspension Termination Fine Other64 *Multipleselectionswereallowed Percent 1stOffense 58.3 38.2 31.2 5.7 4.9 0.8 0.2 3.6 N=820 2ndOffense 16.5 21.6 58.3 5.0 20.3 2.1 1.8 1.9 N=814
64ThosewhomarkedOtherindicatedthattheymightlosevacationdays,thattheiruseofarmor hadneverbeencheckedbyasupervisor,orthattheydidnotknowtheconsequencesbecausethey werenotoutlinedinthepolicy.
50
Importantly,only5.7percentofrespondentsbelievedthatthepolicyisnot
enforced.Asaresult,whenaskedtomakeaneducatedguessaboutthecompliance oftheirplatoon,96.6percentofthemrespondedthattheythinkpolicyisfollowed bythreequartersormoreoftheircolleagues(seeTable10).Similarly,93.8percent ofrespondentsindicatedthatthepatrolleadershipwithintheiragencywas supportiveofwearingofbodyarmor.Ofthoseofficerswhoindicatedthattheir patrolleadershipwasunsupportiveorsomewhatsupportiveofwearingbody armor,mostreferredtoalackofchecksorinfrequentcheckingofarmoruseby supervisors,havingtoberefittedontheirowntime,oralackofuniform requirementsforwhohadtowearvests.Amongthosewhosaidtheiragencywas VerySupportiveofwearingvests,alargepercentagementionedinspections, strongencouragementtowear,mandatorypolicy,andhavingarmorprovidedto thembytheiragency. Table10:RespondentsEstimateofthePercentageofTheirPlatoonMembers WhoAdheretoBodyArmorPolicy Compliance 010% 2650% 5175% 7699% 100% Thatsaid,only28.6percentofrespondentssaidthattheiragencyconducts Percent 0.2 0.3 2.9 27.9 68.7 N=778
inspectionstoensurethattheyarewearingbodyarmor,andjust9.3percentcheck forpropermaintenance.Ofthosewhosaidthatarmorwearingisinspected,more thanhalfsaiditoccursmultipletimesperyear(seeTable11).Checksfor

51
maintenancearelessfrequent,andseemmorelikelytooccuronceeachyear.The mostcommonresponsewithregardtowhoconductsinspectionswasfirstline supervisor.AmongthosewhoselectedOther,mostindicatedthatinspectionsfor wearingormaintenanceareconductedbyfirearmsinstructorsorotherrange personnel. Table11:BodyArmorInspectionFrequencyandInspectors Monthlyormore frequently Multipletimesper year,butless frequentlythan monthly Onceperyear Everytwoyears Vestsarerandomly inspected,not necessarilyeveryyear FirstLineSupervisor Commander Chief/Sheriff Other Checkthat Officersare Wearing(%) 33.9 26.7 5.8 0.0 33.6 N=281 88.3 1.5 1.0 9.2 N=267 CheckforProper Maintenance (%) 8.6 21.1 44.7 4.7 21.0 N=90 68.6 2.5 3.0 25.9 N=88
BodyArmorSelection/Acquisition a)WhatAreTheyCurrentlyWearing? Mostoftheofficersbodyarmoriswithintherecommendedfiveyearage windowofmostmanufacturerwarranties.Thevastmajority(93.2%)of respondents(N=940)reportedhavingarmorthathadbeenpurchasedbetween

52
Inspector
InspectionFrequency
2005and2010.Only5.1percentofofficershadvestspredating2005,withthe oldesthavingbeenpurchasedin1980. TheprotectiveratingofbodyarmorrangesfromlevelItolevelIV,withlevel IVbeingthehighestprotectionavailable.Themajorityofrespondents(88.7%) indicatedthattheirbodyarmorislevelIIA,II,orIIIA(seeAppendixDfora descriptionofthevariousbodyarmorprotectionlevels).Only9.7percentofofficers hadlevelIII,andlessthanonepercenthadeitherlevelIorlevelIV.Threequarters ofrespondentsalsoreceiveadditionalprotectionintheformoftrauma/ballistic plateswiththeirarmor.Mostofthosewhousesupplementalplatesonlyutilizea frontpanel(92.2%);7.6percentusebothfrontandbackpanels,while0.2percent onlyusebackpanels. Additionally,90.5percentofofficersuseaninternalbodyarmorcarrier (wornunderashirt),while2.6percentuseexternal(wornoverashirt);6.9percent ofrespondentssaidthattheyusebothtypesofcarriers.Manyofficersexpresseda desiretoswitchfrominternaltoexternalcarriers,forreasonsofcomfort,andthe abilitytoputitonortakeitoffmorequickly. b)AgencyBodyArmorAcquisitionPolicy Indicative of the growing recognition of the importance of body armor to
officer safety by police leaders, nearly all officers surveyed have their body armor
53
issued to them by their agency (see Table 12), with less than ten percent of respondentspurchasingarmorthemselves.65 Table12:WhoAcquiresOfficersBodyArmor? AgencyIssues Armor(%) 1.5 98.5 N=1,025 OfficersPurchase Armor(%) 91.8 8.2 N=681
No Yes
c)BodyArmorSelectionCriteria Fortheofficerswhoareresponsibleforselectingtheirownarmor,
protectionandcomfortappeartobethetwomostimportantcriteria(seeTable 13).Manyofficersalsoconsideredpriceandoverallperformance(abilitytodefeat officerrounds,NIJstandard,brandconfidence)whenselectingtheirbodyarmor. Table13:MostImportantBodyArmorSelectionFactors* Factors ProtectionLevel Comfort Price AbilitytoDefeatRoundsfromOfficersWeapon MeetsNIJStandard ConfidenceinBrand Warranty Referrals Other *Multipleselectionswereallowed Whenaskedwhatchangestheywouldliketoseeinthenextgenerationof bodyarmor,officersrespondedinthefollowingway(seeTable14): Percent 75.0 70.5 27.1 18.5 18.4 17.2 10.1 6.7 24.2 N=52
65Someofficersindicatedboththattheiragencyissuesarmorandthattheyareabletopurchase
theirownarmoriftheychoosetodoso. 54
Table14:DesiredChangesfortheNextGenerationofBodyArmor* ChangestoBodyArmor Improvedcomfort(e.g.,breathability, cooler,etc.) Improvedfit Reducedweight Improvedprotection Improveddurability Integrallocationsonvesttoaffix badge,weapons,policeradio microphone,and/orotherequipment Integraldragstrapforremoving injuredofficers Fireresistantmaterial Modulardesignallowingforaddon protectionwhenneeded(e.g.,neck, shoulders,groin) Improvedaccesstoweaponsand utilitybelt Improvedbreakawaycomponents Other *Multipleselectionswereallowed Themostpopularimprovementsofficerswishtoseeintheirvestsare increasedcomfort,fit,andprotection;thisechoesthequalitiesthatofficerswho providetheirownarmorsaidtheylookforinavest.Whileonly11.8percentof respondentssaidthattheywouldlikeimprovedaccesstoweaponsandtheirutility belt,manywhoselectedOtherindicatedthattheywouldlikeaplaceforabackup weaponinthearmoritself.Additionalchangesofficerswishtoseeinclude: improvedfitforwomen, morecoverageonshoulders,sides,midsection,andunderarms, widerusageofexternalcarriers, Percent 84.8 72.6 63.9 62.4 26.5 20.3 20.1 17.3 15.3 11.8 9.2 9.2 N=996
55
aplacetoleaveinstructionsforEMS,and moredurablecarriersthatstayinplace,and
d)BodyArmorFitting
Thelargemajorityofofficerssurveyedwerefittedfortheirbodyarmor(see
Table15).Most(69.9%)indicatedthattheywerefittedbymanufacturer representativesorpoliceagencyrepresentatives(19.2%).Farfewerrespondents (5.4%)saidthattheywerefittedbyboth.Oftheofficerswhowerefittedforarmor, 96.4percentweresizedatthetimeoftheorder.Onlyonequarterofofficerswere fittedagainwhenthebodyarmorwasdelivered,andofthosewhowererefitted upondelivery,only14.5percenthadtheirsizecheckedonagain. Table15:TypeofBodyArmorFitting FittingType Nofitting;sizeapproximated Fittedbymanufacturer representatives Fittedbypoliceagency representatives Fittedbymanufacturerand agencyrepresentatives Percent 5.6 69.9 19.2 5.4 N=1,027
Morethanhalfofrespondents(58.6%)saidthattheyaresatisfiedwiththefit
oftheircurrentbodyarmor,while29.0percentofofficerssurveyedreportedbeing dissatisfied.
56
e)BodyArmorReplacementRationale Only6.6percentofrespondentssaidthattheyhavehadtoreplacetheirbody
armorpriortothemanufacturewarrantyexpirationdate.Reasonsforpremature replacementincludedbeingshot,motorvehicleaccidents,departmentupgrades, sizingissues,andsubmersioninwater.However,themostfrequentlycitedreason forreplacingarmorwasmanufacturerrecall. Whenanofficersbodyarmoristakenoutofservice,replacementbody armorisnotimmediatelyavailableformorethanhalf(51.0%)ofrespondents(see Table16). Table16:AvailabilityofBodyArmorforImmediateReplacement Availability Notavailable Yes,from agency Yes,from vendor BodyArmorTraining Mostofficersindicatedthatsomesortofbodyarmortrainingwasprovided withregardtoitsbenefitsandlimitations,aswellascareandmaintenance.Slightly morethanhalfofofficersweretrainedinbothareasbyreadingliteratureprovided bythemanufacturer.Theothercommonforumsforbodyarmorinstructioninclude theacademyandfirearmstraining(seeTable17). Percent 51.0 40.3 3.7
57
Table17:BodyArmorTrainingFormats*
Benefitsand limitationsof bodyarmor Bodyarmor careand maintenance
TrainingFormat Manufacturer provided literature/manuals Academy Firearmstraining
53.5 34.5 23.5
58.5 19.7 7.6 27.8 14.4 11.7 7.4 4.8 1.6 1.1
Nonewasprovided 21.5 Manufacturer/ supplier representative 16.2 Department provided literature/manuals 14.8 Supervisorystaff 12.2 Inservice/ specializedtraining 10.4 Rollcall 4.9 Other66 0.6 *Multipleselectionswereallowed
Overall,roughly1in5(21.5%)respondentsdidnotreceiveanytraining
relatedtothebenefitsandlimitationsoftheirbodyarmor.Thisfindingwas relativelyconsistentacrossdifferenttypesofjurisdictions.Regardingcareand maintenance,roughly27percent(27.8%)hadnotreceivedthistraining,withthis beingslightlymorecommoninruralsettings(33.3%)thaninurbanorsuburban agencies.

66TrainingclassifiedasOtherprimarilyconsistedofpersonalresearchconductedbytheofficers.
58
OfficerKnowledgeofProperBodyArmorCareandUsageFactors Oneindicationoftheextenttowhichofficersareadequatelytrainedabout theirbodyarmorisanassessmentoftheiroverallknowledgeofwhattheirbody armordoesanddoesnotprotectthemfrom,aswellaspropercareandmaintenance behaviors.Fortunately,theofficersscoredverywellontheiroverallbodyarmor knowledge,asshowninTable18,withover90percentofofficersscoringcorrectly onmostitems,withoneexception:Manyofficersdonotknowthatmoisturecan reducetheeffectivenessofbodyarmor. Table18:BodyArmorStatementsBelievedtobeTruebyOfficers %ofOfficersWho TrueStatementsaboutBodyArmor BelieveStatement isTrue BodyarmorisNOTdesignedtolast 99.2% indefinitely MybodyarmorcanNOTstoprifle 97.2% bullets67 Bodyarmorshouldbereplacedif 95.4% penetratedbyabullet BodyarmorshouldNOTbecleaned thoroughlywithstandardlaundry 90.9% detergentandwashingmachine ItisNOTacceptabletostorebody 89.3% armorinthetrunkofacar Moisturereducestheballistic 35.5% protectionofbodyarmor N=1,022
67Itispossiblethatarespondentsperceptionofwhetherornottheirarmorisdesignedtostoprifle
bulletscouldvarybytheirownbodyarmorprotectionlevel(sincesomebodyarmorlevelsprotect againstthisthreat).Forincreasedprecision,theresearchteamperformedcrosstabanalysesof respondentarmorlevelbyperceptionthathisorherbodyarmorcanstopriflebullets.The majorityofrespondentsunderstoodthattheirarmorcouldnotstopriflebulletsirrespectiveoflevel. Further,noonewiththehighestbodyarmorlevels(i.e.,LevelIIIandIV)reportedabeliefthattheir bodyarmorcouldstopriflebullets,althoughtheirarmorisdesignedtodefeatsuchrounds.Allof thosewhoreportedthisperceptionusedLevelIIIAorlowerwhichdonothavethiscapacity. 59
Therearenoobviousagencysizedifferencesinbodyarmorknowledge questions. TESTINGBODYARMORDEGRADATIONBYPHYSICALANDEXPERIENTIAL FACTORS Thissectioncoverstheresultsofballistictestingofnewandusedbody armorthathadbeenwornbyofficersindifferentregionsofthecountrytoassess theeffectsofenvironmentalconditions(i.e.,heat,humidityandotherconditionsas reportedbyofficerswhoworethearmor).Thetestingmeasuredeffectsonthe ballisticperformance(V50limit)ofthearmor.Inaddition,fibersfromboththenew andusedarmorweretestedtoseeiftherewasanychangeintheelasticmodulus, tensilestrengthandstraintofailureofthefiber(specificstrainenergyandsound velocityinthefiber)thatcouldaccountforanychangesintheballisticperformance. RecapofProjectMethods Astudywassetuptolookatenvironmentalandhandlingeffectsonthe ballisticperformanceoffiveyearoldsoftbodyarmorwornbypoliceofficers.In ordertoassesstheenvironmentalconditions,thecountrywasdividedintofour differentregionsbasedonlevelsofheatandhumidity.Theregionswere:high temperature/highhumidity,hightemperature/lowhumidity,lowtemperature/high humidityandlowtemperature/lowhumidity.PERFalsoaskedtheofficersinthese regionstoparticipateininterviewsthatweremeanttoseehowtheofficershandled theirvests.Additionally,itwasdecidedtouseatoolforassessingtheballistic
60
performanceoffibersfromtheiryarnpropertiesbasedupontheworkofPhoenix andPorwal(2005),Cunniff(1999)andCunniff,etal.(2002)toseeiftherewasany correlationbetweenthechangeintheV50ofthearmorwithanychangesseenin themechanicalpropertiesoftheindividualfibers.Thisanalysiswillonlyprovidean estimateofpotentialperformancecapabilityofthematerial,becauseitdoesnot includethepackagingofthefabricinlayersandtheintegrationofthefabricintothe outershelltoproducethearmorsystem.Thistooldependsonthespecificstrain energyinthefiberandthespeedofsoundinthefiber:
WeareassigningthetermBallisticPerformanceParameter(BPP)tothe expression ,andisthefiberultimatestrength,isthefiberultimate
tensilestrain,isthefiberdensityandEthelinearelasticfibermodulus.The expression isthefiberspecificstrainenergyandtheexpression isthespeedof
soundinthefiber.TheV50ballisticlimitofthesoftarmorvestsalongwiththe resultsoffibertestingonnewandusedfiberswillbeusedtoassessanychanges seenwhencomparingtheperformanceofnewandfiveyearoldsoftarmorvests. Testing Inordertocomparethefiveyearoldstudyvestswiththenewvests,alltests wereperformedinaccordancewithNIJStandard0101.04.Thesummarydataare showninAppendixF,withTableF1fornewvestsandTableF2forusedvests
61
(shotbyshottestresultsarelocatedinTableF3).Oncetheballistictestinghad beenperformed,fiberswereremovedfromthewovenfabricvestsandsenttoDr. JanetBallardattheNorthCarolinaStateUniversityCollegeofTextilesforindividual fibertesting.Fortyfivesamplesweresuppliedandpulledintensioninaccordance withASTMD3822inMTSQ/test/5atarateof15mm/mintofailure.Tensamples weretakenfromtherearand10samplesfromthebackofeachoftheLevelIIand LevelIIIAvests. Thesummarydatafordensity,tensilemodulus,tensilestrengthandstrainto failureareinAppendixG,showninTablesG1andG2fornewandfiveyearold vests,respectively.Giventhefactthat,bynecessity68theresearchdesignhadtorely ontheuseofvestcomparisonsofdifferentmakesandmodels,thereadershouldbe cautionedagainstgeneralizingfromthefindings.Anyresultsfoundhereinshould onlybeusedtostimulateideasanddirectionsforfutureresearch. BallisticPerformanceParameterResults i. V50BallisticTesting
TheballisticdatawasanalyzedbylookingattheaverageV50limits69and backfacedeformationsfor:eachvestlevel,eachtypeofvest(Hybridorwoven fabric),eachplylevel(thenumberofpliesinthevestsvariedfrom12to34)and eachregionofthecountry.Figure2showstheV50limitfortheLevelIIandIIIAsoft
68Newvestsofthesamemakeandmodelwereunavailable.Themanufacturersthatwerecontacted
wereunwilling(duetoorderingsuchasmallnumber)and/orunable(someofthematerialsutilized tomakethe04vestswerenolongerinproduction)todoso.Facedwiththisreality,theresearch team,includingfederalrepresentativesandbodyarmorexperts,madethedecisiontomake comparisonsbetweentheavailablevests.This,ofcourse,impactsresearchprecision,andhence,the needforcautionininterpretingtheresults. 69AverageV50iscommonlyusedasameasureofballisticsperformanceintheresearchliterature. 62

armorvestsasafunctionofthenumberofplies.FortheLevelIIvestswith1314 plies,thecomparisonbetweenthenewandusedshowsaslightdecreasein performance,from153123feetpersecond(fps)forthenewveststo149218 fpsfortheusedvests.Incomparingthenewvestwith26plieswiththeusedvestsof 24plies,therewasaverydefinitedecreaseintheaverageballisticlimitfrom1701 4fpsto158564fps(approximately7percent).However,theremaybean increaseintheV50oftheusedvestsifwehaddatafor26plies(iftheresultswith theusedLevelIIIAvestswith2934pliesareanyindicator,theremaybeno difference).TheaverageV50fortheLevelIIIAvestsfor2934plieshadadecrease intheV50limitfrom183629fpsto164833fps,orabouta10percentdecrease. Therewasnodifferenceintheaveragingoftheusedvestswith29,31,or34plies (i.e.,theaverageV50limitforthe29plieswasnodifferentthanthatwith34plies, sotheywereallaveragedtogether).Theauthorsofthisstudyhadnocontrolover thenumberofplies,typesofbodyarmororthetypesoffabricwithinthearmorof theusedbodyarmortheywouldreceivefromthefield.Therefore,when comparisonsweremadewithnewbodyarmorthathadbeentestedaccordingtoNIJ 0101.04,onlythemostbasiccomparisonscouldbemade.TheV50ballisticlimit anddeformationinclayweretheonlytwomeasuresthattheauthorswereawareof thatcouldbeusedtocomparetheusedwiththeunusedbodyarmor.
63
Figure2.V50limitforLevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftarmorvestsasafunctionofnumber ofpliesinthevestfornewvestsand5yearoldveststestedinaccordancewithNIJ 0101.04.
WhentheV50ballisticperformancewasexaminedbydifferenttemperature humidityregionsofthecountry,theresultsshowedthesamedecreasefornewand fiveyearoldvests,butgavenoindicationthattemperatureorhumidityhadan effect.Figure3showstheaverageV50ballisticlimitfortheLevelIIvests,forthe high/high(temperature/humidity),high/lowandlow/lowregionsofthecountry. Tothefarleftofthisfigureisacomparisonof14plynewvestswith14plyused vestsfromthehigh/highregion.ThenewvestshadanaverageV50limitof1530 23fps,whilethosevestsastakenfromthehigh/highregionhadanaverageV50 limitof15034.9fps.Therefore,therewasbasicallynotemperature/humidity effectonballisticperformance.However,thenew26plyLevelIIvestshadan
64
averageV50ballisticlimitof17014.3fpsandtheusedvestsfromthehigh/low andlow/lowregionsofthecountry,with24plies,hadV50ballisticlimitsof1543 40fpsand155726fps,respectively.
Figure3.V50limitforLevelIIsoftarmorvestsasafunctionofthenumberofpliesfor newand5yearoldveststestedinaccordancewithNIJ0101.04.
However,aspreviouslymentioned,thisiscomparing26pliesinnewveststo 24pliesinagedvests,soitispossiblethattheV50limitcouldincreasesomeifa comparisoncouldbemadewith26plies.Sotheremaybeadifference,butitdoes notappeartobeatemperature/humiditydifference,becauseitisthesameforboth regionsofthecountry(high/lowandlow/low). Figure4showstheaverageV50ballisticlimitfortheLevelIIIAvestsforthe high/high,high/low,low/highandlow/low(temperaturehumidity)region.For newvests,theaverageballisticlimitwas183629fps,whilethoseofthe high/high,high/low,low/highandlow/lowregionswere163155fps,165928 fps,162550fps,and163920fps,respectively.
65
Figure4.V50limitforLevelIIIAnewcomparedto5yearoldsoftarmorveststhat havebeensubjectedtodifferentlevelsoftemperatureandhumiditytestedin accordancewithNIJ0101.04.
Figure5showstheV50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldLevelIIandLevelIIIA softarmorvestsasafunctionofhybridandwovenfabricvests.TheV50ballistic limitforHybrid14,2024and3139plyvestswere15045,156355and1614 22fps,respectively,whilethatforthewovenfabric24and3034plyvestswas 156733and164126fps,respectively.TheV50forthewovenfabricandhybrid softarmorvestsforlikenumberofplies(i.e.,14,2024,3039)wasapproximately thesame,andtheV50increasesapproximatelythesameforeachmaterialasthe numberofpliesincrease.Theresultsoftheofficerinterviewinstrumentwere reviewedanditwasdeterminedthattheonlyotherfactorthatshouldbeexamined istheeffectofofficerrecollectionofthevestsbeingsoakedinwaterorsweatat somepointintheiruse.Therefore,thosecaseswereseparatedfromtheothersanda comparisoninV50ballisticlimitswasmadeforboththeLevelIIandLevelIIIA vests,asshowninFigure6.
66
Figure5.V50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldLevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftbodyarmorfor hybridandwovenfabricarmorpanelstestedinaccordancewithNIJ0101.04.
LevelII
LevelIIIA
Figure6.V50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldlevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftbodyarmorthat hadbeensoakedinwaterorsweatprevioustotestingversusthosethathadnot beensoakedinwaterorsweatprevioustotestingandtestedinaccordancewithNIJ 0101.04.
67
ThereisclearlynodifferencebetweentheV50ballisticlimitforthevests thathadbeensoakedinwaterorsweatatonepointintimepriortotestingandthe veststhathadnotbeenreportedsoakedinwaterorsweatprevioustotesting.This doesNOTimplythattherewouldbenodifferencebetweenveststhatare testedinawetordrycondition,becausethatisclearlyinaccurate.No correlationcouldbemadebetweentheeffectsofmaintenanceofthevestsandthe ballisticresistanceoftheparaaramidwovenfabricorHybridpara aramid/Polyethylenevests.However,arecentstudydidlookatthedegradationof PBO(Zylon)fiberduetofolding.Thisstudyindicatedthattherewasareductionof upto41percentintheultimatetensilestrengthandstraintofailureofthefibers (Holmesetal.,2010). Thisstudydidnotaddresstheeffectofdifferentmodelsofarmoratagiven protectionlevelagainstoneanother.Ifthemodeltypesweretakenintoaccount, thenamuchbetterpicturecouldbeseeninthedifferenceinV50betweennewand usedvests(seeFigure7).The10percentdifferenceseenbetweennewandused LevelIIvestsinthecurrentstudycouldbetracedtothatofagivenvestmodel(i.e., MONII107121)inFigure7.Anyrealdifferencebetweennewandusedarmor wouldbeseenifthereismorethana100t/sdropintheV50limit.However,this onlyexistsfortwodatapoints,meaningitmaybesignificant.
68
Figure7.ComparisonofFieldReturnV50stoNewArmorV50s.Solidredline indicatesnodifferenceinV50performance.Dottedredlineindicatesadrop of100ft/sinV50performance,whichmaybesignificant.(NIJSpecialReport August2005,www.ojp.usdoj.gov/) Therewasnodifferenceinbackfacedeformationbetweenthenewandfive yearoldvests,probablybecausethereissuchalargevariationinthemeasurements foranyonetest.Therefore,anyanalysishadtobediscontinued. ii. FiberTesting
ThesummarydatainTablesG3andG4(inAppendixG)wereusedto
calculatethespecificstrainenergystoredinthefiberandthewavespeedinthe fiber(therawvestbyvestdataisinTablesG5,G6,andG7).Althoughanattempt
69
wasmadetolookatanydifferencesseeninfibersfromLevelIIorLevelIIIAvests, nonecouldbeseen.Thespecificstrainenergy,wavespeedandBPPforfiber extractedfromthenewvestswere:518.23J/kg,8.540.33m/sand75646 m/s,respectively,whilethoseforfiberextractedfromthefiveyearoldvestswere: 47.56.2J/kg,8.350.375m/sand73337m/s,respectively.Statistically,there isnodifferencebetweentheBPPforfiberextractedfromnewandoldvests,and thereisonlyaverysmallreductioninthemeanoraveragevaluesforthefiber extractedfromtheoldvestsoverfiberextractedfromthenewvests(i.e.,atmostsix percentinthespecificstrainenergy,twopercentinthewavespeedandthree percentintheBPP). AgraphicaltechniqueusedbyMcDonoughet.al.(2010)wasemployedin thisanalysistocomparethespecificstrainenergy,wavespeedandBPPofthenew andfiveyearoldKevlarfiberswithotherhighperformancefibersandKevlar29and 49aspreviouslymeasured.Figure8isaplotofthespecificstrainenergyversusthe wavespeedforthesefibers.Ascanbeseeninthisplot,thefibersinthecurrent studytendtobehigherthanKevlar29and49fiberspreviouslytested.
70
Figure8.Specificstrainenergyvs.soundvelocityofKevlarfibersextractedfromthe fiveyearoldsoftarmorvests.Thesolidlineisforotherhighperformancefibers,as wellas,Kevlar29and49fromMcDonough,etal.(2010)andforKevlarfromnew vestsandfiveyearoldvestsinthecurrentstudy.
SummaryofKeyFindings TheresultsoftheballistictestingrevealedapossiblereductionintheV50 performanceleveloftheusedLevelIIandIIIAbodyarmorofapproximately10 percentwhencomparedtonewarmor.70Putsimply,thevelocityatwhich50 percentofthebulletspenetratethearmorislesswiththeusedarmor.Importantly, thisreductiondidnotvarybyregion.Thevestsperformedequallyregardlessofthe temperature/humidityintheclimateinwhichtheywerereportedwornbythe officer.Thissuggeststhatenvironmentalfactorsdidnotplayaroleinthe performancedifferencesbetweennewandoldvests.
70Asnotedabove,strongconclusionsfromthisdatashouldbeavoidedgiventhattheyinvolved
comparisonsofvestsofdifferentmodels. 71
Backfacedeformationsareanotherimportantdeterminantofarmor performancebecausetheymeasurethesizeoftheindentioninthebackingmaterial causedbyashotthatdidnotcompletelypenetratethebodyarmor.Althoughthe armorisnotfullypenetratedbythebullet,significantharmortraumatotheofficer canresult.Nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenusedandnewvestswith respecttobackfacedeformations. TheresultsofthefibertestingindicatedthattheBallisticPerformance Parameter(functionofelasticstrainenergyandsoundvelocityinthefiber)was relativelyunchangedwhenlookingatfibersfromnewvestsorfiveyearoldvests. Thus,theabilityofthearmortocatchthebulletanddiffuseitsenergyasheatdid notappeartobedifferentbetweenthenewandusedsampledvests. Theofficerinterviewdatadidnotdemonstrateanymeaningfuldifferencesin bodyarmorperformance.Specifically,theveststhatwerereportedsoakedinsweat orwaterdidnotperformdifferentlyonanyofthestudytests(V50,backface deformation,orfiberanalysis).However,oneshouldinterprettheseresultswith cautiongiventheveryexploratorynatureofthestudy,andsmallsamplesizeused71 (30vestsmaynothavebeensufficienttodetectimportantdifferencesbetween officercareandmaintenancepractices,armorexposuretomoistureorothertrauma andoverallbodyarmordegradation).Moreover,thestudyhadtorelyonofficer recollectionoftheirexperienceswiththearmoroverthecourseofitsuse,andthus couldbesubjecttosomeresponsebias.
71Theresearchersrecognizedattheoutsetthatasmallsampleof30vestswouldchallengethe
abilitytodetectimportantstatisticaldifferences;however,thissizewasallthatwaspossiblewithin theestablishedprojectparameters. 72
TheapparentreductioninV50seeninthecurrentballistictestsbetween newandusedarmormayonlybearesultofthemodeltomodelvariationsseen withineacharmorlevel.
73
DISCUSSION Thereisnodisputeabouttheimportanceofbodyarmorinsavingofficer
lives.Andthereisagrowingawarenessinthefieldthatbodyarmorsafetyand performancecanbeimpactedbyacombinationofenvironmentalfactors(e.g., armorexposuretoheatandmoistureovertime),andtheongoingcareand maintenancepracticesoftheofficer(e.g.,notfoldingorstoringonaregularclothes hanger).Despitethis,therehavebeennostudiestodateexaminingofficerself reportedattitudesandbehaviorrelatedtotheuseandcareoftheirbodyarmoror itsconnectiontotheoverallperformancedegradationofthearmor.Thisstudywas designedtobegintheprocessofresearchingthosetopics. Thissectionreviewsourfindingsfrom:1)anationalsurveyofswornofficers
fromrandomlyselectedagenciesabouttheirpracticesinusingandcaringforbody armor,conductedfromOctober2010toMay2011;and2)exploratoryresearchon theimpactofenvironmentalandofficerbodyarmorcareandmaintenanceonbody armorperformance. PrevalenceofWrittenBodyArmorPoliciesNationallyandTheirEnforcement Thesurveyconductedforthisprojectisnotdirectlycomparabletothe
PERF/BJAsurveyof2009,becauseitwasdesignedtobearepresentativesampleof lawenforcementofficers,asopposedtothe2009surveyoflawenforcement agencies.However,thenewsurveydoesappeartoofferstrongevidencethat mandatorywearpoliciesarebecomingmoreprevalent.
74
Specifically,thenewsurveyofmorethan1,000officersfromallranks,
chosentoreflectanationallyrepresentativesampleofmunicipal,county,andstate agencies,foundthatmorethan92percentofofficersreportedthattheyare requiredtowearbodyarmor,eitheratalltimeswhenonduty(57%)oratmost timeswhenonduty(35.3%). Bycontrast,thesurveycompletedin2009foundthatonly59percentofthe
respondingagenciesrequiredtheirofficerstowearbodyarmoratleastsomeofthe timetheywereonduty. Similarly,the2011surveyfoundthat77.9percentofofficersreportedthat
theiragencyhasawrittenbodyarmorpolicy.Bycontrast,the2009surveyfound thatonly45percentoftherespondingagenciesindicatedthattheyhadawritten policyrequiringtheirofficerstowearbodyarmor. Thesefindings,showingincreasesinmandatorywearrequirements
andinwrittenpolicies,areperhapsthemostsignificantinformationobtained throughthenewsurvey,becauserequiringofficerstowearbodyarmorhas directimplicationsforofficerssafety.Asithappened,thePERFsurvey describedinthisreportwasconductedshortlyafterAttorneyGeneralEric HolderannouncedthattheJusticeDepartmentsBureauofJusticeAssistance (BJA)wouldbeginrequiringjurisdictionstohaveawrittenmandatorywear policyineffectiftheywishedtoobtainfederalfundingforbodyarmor throughBJAsBulletproofVestPartnership(BVP)program.72TheJustice
72TheAttorneyGeneralfirstannouncedthenewrequirements,whichappliedtoFY2011BVPgrants,
inOctober2010.Detailsareavailableat http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/docs/FAQsBVPMandatoryWearPolicy.pdfand
75
Departmentcitedanincreaseinofficerdeathsinfirearmsrelatedincidentsin adoptingthisnewrequirement. Itisencouragingtonotethatfatalshootingsofofficersdeclinedsharply
in2012.73AccordingtotheNationalLawEnforcementOfficersMemorialFund (NLEOMF),whichkeepsdetailedstatisticsonofficerswhoarekilledintheline ofduty,therewere49fatalshootingsofofficersin2009,59fatalshootingsin 2010,and70fatalshootingsin2011.74ButasofOctober30,2012,therewere 36fatalshootingsin2012,whichisa37percentdecreasecomparedtothe57 fatalshootingsforthesameJanuary1October30periodin2011.75 Forthemostpart,officersdidnotbelievethatfailuretoweartheirbody
armorwouldresultinsignificantdisciplinarymeasure.Althoughonlyonepercentof officershadeverbeendisciplinedforabodyarmorrelatedviolation,58.3percentof theofficersspeculatedthattheywouldbeverballyreprimandedforsuchafirst violation.Only20percent(20.3%)oftheofficersfeltthatrepeatedviolationswould resultinasuspension. PolicyRecommendations: Moreagenciesneedtoimplementwrittenbodyarmorpolicythatis periodicallyenforcedthroughinspections.Althoughover90percentof officersfeltthatthepatrolleadershipwassupportiveofthewearingofbody armor,only29.6percentofofficerssaidthattheiragencyconducted
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/.PERFbegansendingthesurveytorespondentsinOctober 2010,anddatacollectioncontinueduntilMay2011. 73WhethertheBVPsmandatorywearrequirementisacausalfactorinthereductioninofficer deathswarrantsfurtherinquiry. 74http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officerfatalitiesdata/causes.html 75http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officerfatalitiesdata/
76
inspectionstoensurethattheyarewearingbodyarmor,andjust9.3percent forpropermaintenance.Significantly,conductinginspectionsandthe presenceofwrittenpolicyweremostoftencitedasthereasonswhyofficers believetheiragenciesareverysupportiveofbodyarmoruse. Departmentsneedtoexaminetheirbodyarmorreplacementpolicies andpractices.Departmentsupportforbodyarmoruseisclearinthefact that91.8percentofofficersreportedthattheirbodyarmorwassuppliedto thembytheiragency.However,thissupportdeclinedsignificantlyafter officersreceivetheirbodyarmoriftheyneedtoreplaceitprematurely.Over half(51.0%)oftheofficersstatedthatbodyarmorisnotavailablefor immediatereplacement.Notonlydoesthisraiseofficersafety considerations,itcanimpactofficerperceptionsofthelevelofimportance placedbythedepartmentonbodyarmoruse.Agenciesmightexamineways toworkwithvendorstodevelopatemporaryreplacementprogramand/or speedingreplacementvestsforofficerswhoarewaitingfortheirnewarmor. OfficerUseofBodyArmoronDuty Asanofficerlevelsurvey,importantdataareprovidedrelatedtoofficer
attitudestowardsbodyarmoruse.Hereagain,theresultsarepromising.Almostall officerssurveyed(98.1%)statedthattheycurrentlywearbodyarmor,and87.9 percentsaidtheycomplywithpolicyallofthetime.Whenaskedtoestimatehow manyoftheofficersintheirplatoonalsofollowsbodyarmorpolicy,68.7percent
77
believedthatalloftheircolleaguescomplied.Mostoftheremainingofficers(27.9%) estimatedthatthecomplianceoftheircolleagueswasbetween76and99percent. Thehighprevalenceofofficerbodyarmorusewasmostlyaresultoftheir
recognitionofitscriticalroleintheirsafety.Despitethefactthatonly3.2percentof officersreportedthattheyhadexperiencedshootingsituations,90.0percentof officersindicatedthatsafetywasanimportantconsiderationintheirdecisionto weararmor.Formalwrittenagencypolicywascitedasimportantbyalmosthalfof theofficers. PolicyRecommendations: Educationalandtraininginitiativescouldbehelpfultoensurethat officerscontinuetorecognizetheimportanceofproperbodyarmoruse totheirsafety.Whileitisdifficultforanagencytomonitorofficeruseof bodyarmorallthetime,monitoringseemstobeanimportantfactorin compliance.Oftheminorityofofficersthatreportedregularinspectionsof theirbodyarmoruse,34percent(33.6%)saidthattheyoccurredvery randomly(notnecessarilyannually).Althoughgreaterfrequencyof inspectionsisdesirable,agencieswanttoensurethatofficerscontinueto selfregulatetheirbodyarmoruse,independentlyofthelevelofits monitoring.Combinedwiththefactthatmostofficersreportedthatthey werenotinasituationwheretheirbodyarmorwasrequiredforprotection, agenciesshouldensurethattheirpersonneldonotbecomecomplacent aboutitsuse.Regularreinforcementofitsimportancecouldbehelpful.
78
OfficerCareandMaintenanceofTheirBodyArmor Withrespecttoofficercareandmaintenancepractices,thereisbothgood andbadnews.Mostofficers(between89%and99%)recognizedthatbodyarmoris notdesignedtolastindefinitely,thatitcannotbereliedupontostopriflebullets, thatitshouldnotbelaunderedwithstandardwashingdetergent,andthatitshould notbestoredinthetrunkofacar.However,nearlytwothirdsofofficersdidnot knowthatmoisturecannegativelyimpactbodyarmorperformance. Asnotedpreviously,layingbodyarmorflatisusuallyrecommendedasa
bestpracticeforstoringbodyarmor,topreventfoldingandbunchingupofthe armorplates.Almost58percentreportedstoringtheirarmoronaclotheshanger notspeciallydesignedforbodyarmor.Whilethisissuemayvaryaccordingtothe specificmodelandmanufacturerofthebodyarmor,individualagenciesshould checkwiththeirmanufacturerstomakesuretheirmaintenanceandcare proceduresareinalignmentwiththoserecommendedbythemanufacturers. PolicyRecommendations: Increasedofficertrainingisnecessaryrelatedtoproperbodyarmor careandmaintenancepractices.Althoughmostofficersindicatedthat somesortofbodyarmortrainingwasavailable,ittypicallycameintheform ofmanufacturerprovidedliteratureormaterials.Moreover,21.5percentof officerssaidthattheyhadneverreceivedanytrainingatall.Giventhe importantknowledgegapscited,thisisanareaworthyofsignificant attentioninthefuture.
79
Departmentsneedtoexaminethebodyarmorstorageareasavailable totheirpersonnel.Althoughtheimportanceofbodyarmoriswidely accepted,itisoflessvalueifofficersareforcedtostoreitinlessthanoptimal circumstancesthatmayhaveapotentialofdecreasingitsperformanceinthe future.Officerselfreportsinthissurveysuggestthatthismaybethecase, particularlyinthecrampedstoragelockersthatmaybecommontourban andlargerdepartments.Newconfigurationsoflockersorotherstorage facilitiesmaybenecessary. ComfortNeedsTheNextGenerationofBodyArmor Mostofficerscitedaneedforimprovedcomfort(84.8%),improvedfit (72.6%),andreducedweight(63.9%)indevelopingthenextgenerationofbody armor.Improvedfitofbodyarmorforwomenwascitedasaspecialneed.Itislikely thenthatmanyofficerscontinuetofindtheirbodyarmorbulkyanduncomfortable towear(possiblyrequiringmorecoverageonshoulders,sides,midsection,and underarms),despitetheirrecognitionofitsclearimportancetosafety. PolicyRecommendations: Rankandfileofficersshouldbeinvolvedindecisionsforbodyarmor selectioninfutureupdatesandfeedbacktothemanufacturers,aswell asgreaterattentiontothefittingprocess.Althoughmorethanhalfofthe respondentsweresatisfiedwiththefitoftheircurrentbodyarmor,they weremoresatisfiedwhenboththemanufacturerandpolicyagency representativeswereinvolvedintheprocess.
80
BodyArmorTestinginRealLifeSettings TheresearchteamandNIJrecognizetheexploratorynatureofthebody armordegradationcomponentofthisstudy.Thelimitedsamplesizeusedinthe studyprecludestheabilitytomakesignificantconclusionsfromthedata;however, itmaybeinterestingthattemperatureandhumidityfactorsfoundintheearlier Zylonstudiesdidnotbecomeapparentinthisresearch. Morespecifically,performancedifferenceswerediscoveredbetweennew andusedvests.Thevelocityatwhichthebodyarmorisabletopreventbullet penetration(V50values)declinedapproximately10percentovertime(when comparingnewtooldbodyarmor).Theseresultsdidnotvarysignificantlyby regionofthecountry,whichsuggeststhatenvironmentalconditionssuchas temperatureandhumiditydidnotplayaroleinperformancedegradationinthis sample.Backfacedeformationandfibertestingdidnotrevealsignificantdifferences betweentheusedandunusedvests. Sinceregionaldifferencesdidnotappeartoofferanexplanationforthe performancedegradationovertime,itispossiblethatofficercareandmaintenance practices(orotheruniqueincidents)mightbeplayingarole,butthatwasnot detectedbythecurrentsmallsamplesize.Thesmallnumberofintervieweesand theretrospectivenatureofthestudy(havingofficerstrytorememberallfactors thatcouldpotentiallyhaveimpactedtheirbodyarmorovertime)mayhave impactedourabilitytoidentifyphysicalandexperientialvariablescontributingto thisresult.TheBAEVestCheckprogramisthebestknownexampleofanongoing
81
studytocontinuallytestandreportbodyarmorperformancefromthetimeof introductionthroughthefullwarrantyperiod.
TheFuture:SuggestionsforFutureResearch Thisstudydemonstratesthatimportantprogresshasbeenmadebylaw
enforcementagenciesnationallyrelatedtotheirbodyarmorpractices.Substantially moreagenciesappeartobeimplementingwrittenbodyarmorpolicies,although greaterattentionshouldbepaidtowardstheenforcementofthesepolicies,aswell astheongoingeducationandtrainingofofficersrelatedtotheproper,use,care,and maintenanceoftheirbodyarmor.Thatsaid,itisencouraging,giventheroleofbody armorinpreventingofficerdeaths,thatthisstudyfounditsusetobealmost universalamongthesample(98.1%).Examinationofavailablestoragespacefor armorisacriticalneed,aswellasreducingreplacementtimefornewvests. Withrespecttothenationalsurvey,overthreequartersoftheofficers
selectedtoparticipateintheresearchsubmittedacompletedsurvey.Whilethisisa highresponserate,onehastoconsiderthattherecouldbeadifferencebetweenthe officerswhochoosetocompleteasurveyonbodyarmorandthosewhodonot(e.g., therespondentsinthissurveycouldthemselvesbemorelikelytowearbodyarmor andexhibitgoodcareandmaintenancepractices).Anditispossiblethatofficer responseswerepositivelybiasedtowardsoundbodyarmorpractices,giventhat mostagencieshavemandatorywearpoliciesinplace,althoughtheconfidential natureofthesurveymakesitunlikelythatrespondentswouldfeelaneedtopainta falselypositiveportrayaloftheirbodyarmorusepractices.

82
Onemustinterprettheseresults(includingwherenodifferenceswere
found)withcaution,giventhelimitedsampleof30usedand15newvests.More researchisneededthatincreasesthesamplesizeandprospectivelytracksbody armorexposuretoreallifeeventsandconditionsovertime.Thiswillprovidea greaterunderstandingofofficersafetyconsiderationsassociatedwithofficersuse, careandmaintenanceofbodyarmorthanatotalrelianceuponartificial conditioningstudiesinlaboratoriestodeterminethereasonsforvarying performance.Althoughmorecostly,suchalongitudinalapproachcouldadvanceour understandingofbothbodyarmoruseandperformanceandlargerquestions relatedtoofficersafety.Futureresearchshouldalsohavesamplesizeslargeenough toincludebodyarmoroffemaleofficersinthestudy.
83
Bir,C.,Cecconi,J.,Dennis,A.,McMullen,M.,andSloane,C.(2011).BehindtheBadge: ManagementGuidelinesforImpactstoBodyArmor(AwardNumber2004IJ CXK040).NationalInstituteofJustice.RetrievedJuly22,2011,from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233645.pdf Bodyarmor.com(2009)BodyArmor101:Glossary.RetrievedDecember21,2011. http://www.bodyarmor.com/bodyarmor.html Carroll,A.,andSoderstrom,C.(1978).ANewNonpenetratingBallisticInjury.Annals ofSurgery,188(6)753757. Chin,J.,Forster,A.,Clerici,C.,Sung,L.,Oudina,M,andRice,K.(2007).Temperature andhumidityagingofpoly(pphenylene2,6benzobisoxazole) fibers:Chemicalandphysicalcharacterization.PolymerDegradationand Stability,92,12341246. Chin,J.,Petit,S.,Forster,A.,Riley,M.,andRice,K.(2009).Effectofartificial perspirationandcleaningchemicalsonthemechanicalandchemical propertiesofballisticmaterials.JournalofAppliedPolymerScience,113(1), 567584. Cunniff,P.M.(1999).DimensionalParametersforOptimizationofTextileBased BodyArmorSystems.Proceedingsofthe18thInternationalSymposiumon Ballistics,SanAntonio,Texas:814821. Cunniff,P.M.,Auerbach,M.A.,Vetter,E.,&Sikkema,D.J.HighPerformance(2002) "M5"FiberforBallistics/StructuralComposites.23rdArmyScience Conference,Orlando,Florida. DepartmentofJustice(2001).SelectionandApplicationGuidetoPersonalBody Armor.(NIJGuide1001).Washington,DC:NationalLawEnforcementand CorrectionsTechnologyCenter.RetrievedNovember1,2011,from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189633.pdf DepartmentofJusticeOfficeofJusticePrograms(2007,August3).Departmentof JusticeAnnouncesFindingsonDragonSkinBodyArmor[PressRelease]. RetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2007/NIJ07057.htm DepartmentofJusticeOfficeofJusticePrograms(2012).BulletproofVest Partnership.RetrievedOctober31,2012, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/
84
REFERENCES
Dillman,D.A.,Smyth,J.D.,Christian,L.M.(2009).Internet,mailandmixedmode surveys:Thetailoreddesignmethod,3rdedition.JohnWiley:Hoboken,NJ. DuPont/InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice/DuPontKevlarSurvivorsClub. (2011).RetrievedFebruary28,2011from, http://www2.dupont.com/Kevlar/en_US/uses_apps/protection_vests/survi vors_club.html Fridell,L.,Faggiani,D.,Taylor,B.,Brito,C.S.,andKubu,B.(2009).Theimpactof agencycontext,policiesandpracticesonviolenceagainstpolice.Journalof CriminalJustice,37(6),542552. Fyfe,J.J.1979.AdministrativeInterventiononPoliceShootingDiscretion:An EmpiricalExamination.JournalofCriminalJustice7(4):309323. GlobalSecurity.org(2011).BodyArmor.RetrievedNovember1,2011,at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/bodyarmor.htm Hintze,J.L.(2008).PowerAnalysisandSampleSizeUsersGuide.Kaysville,Utah: NCSS. Holmes,G.,Kim,J.,Ho,D.,andMcDonough,W.(2010).TheRoleofFoldinginthe DegradationofBallisticFibers.PolymerComposites,10,879886. Holmes,G.,Rice,K.,andSnyder,C.(2006).Ballisticfibers:Areviewofthethermal, ultravioletandhydrolyticstabilityofthebensoxazoleringstructure.Journal ofMaterialScience,41,41054116. TheInternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice(2011).SafeShield.Retrieved November1,2011,athttp://www.theiacp.org/tabid/464/Default.aspx JusticeTechnologyInformationNetwork(2011).VoluntaryBallisticResistant ArmorComplianceTestingProgram.RetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.justnet.org/Pages/bodyarmor.aspx LaTourette,T.(2010).Thelifesavingeffectivenessofbodyarmorforpoliceofficers. JournalofOccupationalandEnvironmentalHygiene,7,557562. McDonough,W.G.,Holmes,G.A.,Forster,A.L.,andRice,K.D.(2010).AGraphical ApproachforAssessingHighStrengthFiberPerformance,International SAMPESymposiumandExhibition(Proceedings),May1720,2010. McKelway,D.(2011,March25).JusticeDepartmentAlarmedatRisingNumberof PoliceDeathsFoxNews.RetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/25/justicedepartment alarmedrisingnumberpolicedeaths/
85
NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration.(1995).Developmentandevaluation ofPolybezoxazoleFibrousStructures.(TechnicalMemorandum104814). HoustonTexas:E.Orndoff. NationalInstituteofJustice(2007,October24)BodyArmorResearchand EvaluationResults.RetrievedNovember1,2011,at https://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/technology/bodyarmor/results.htm NationalInstituteofJustice.(2008).BallisticResistanceofBodyArmor:NIJ Standard0101.06RetrievedNovember1,2011,from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf NationalInstituteofJustice(2011,May2).CurrentandFutureResearchonBody Armor).RetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/bodyarmor/research.htm NationalLawEnforcementMemorialFund(2011)Preliminary2011Fatality StatisticsRetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.nleomf.com/facts/officerfatalitiesdata/ NationalLawEnforcementMemorialFund(2011).LawEnforcementFatalities Increase14%infirstHalfof2011;FirearmsrelatedFatalitiesReach20Year High.ResearchBulletin. OfficeofLawEnforcementStandards,NationalInstituteofStandardsand Technology.(2000).BallisticResistanceofPersonalBodyArmor:NIJ Standard0101.04.RetrievedNovember1,2011,from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183651.pdf PinnacleArmor(2011)BodyArmor.RetrievedNovember1,2011,at http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/bodyarmor/ PinnacleArmor,Inc.FilesForChapter11(2010,January6).Chapter11Library. RetrievedFebruary8,2011,from http://www.chapter11blog.com/chapter11/2010/01/pinnaclearmorinc filesforchapter11.html PoliceExecutiveResearchForum(2005).TheBJA/PERFBulletResistantArmor Surveyofthe100LargestLawEnforcementAgencies:Phase1FinalReport. Washington,D.C. PoliceExecutiveResearchForum(2009).TheBJA/PERFBodyArmorNational Survey:ProtectingtheNationsLawEnforcementOfficers:PhaseIIFinal Report.Washington,D.C.
86
Phoenix,S.L.andPorwal,P.K.(2005).ModelingSystemEffectsinBallisticImpact intoMultiLayeredFibrousMaterialsforSoftBodyArmor.International JournalofFracture,135.217249. RANDCorporation(2010).ProvidingBodyArmortoAllU.S.PoliceOfficersIsWorth theCost.RetrievedFebruary28,2011from http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/08/31.html SecurityResources(2009,July10).BallisticVestGeneral.RetrievedDecember21, 2011.http://www.securityresources.co.uk/index.php/resources/ballistic protectionmagazine/ballisticbodyarmorfeaturedarticles/bodyarmor achive/149ballisticvestgeneral.html Sundstrom,A.(2010,May18).ComplianceTestingProgram.2010BodyArmor ComplianceTestingWorkshop[PowerPointPresentation]. Tompkins,D.(2006,July).BodyArmorSafetyInitiative:ToProtectandServeBetter. NationalInstituteofJusticeJournal,254.RetrievedNovember1,2011,from http://www.nij.gov/journals/254/body_armor_print.html Weisburd,D.,Greenspan,R.,Hamilton,E.,Bryant,K.,andWilliams,H.(2001).The AbuseofPoliceAuthority:ANationalStudyofPoliceOfficersAttitudes. PoliceFoundation.
87
StrataandCountsforAgencies
APPENDIXA
88
StrataandCountsforAgencies.
Census Region DepartmentType
Department Size
Population Respondent Count Agency Count 65 1965 411 178 127 13 1 79 33 26 35 3 4 5 161 3519 461 194 98 16 757 144 77 68 6 5 7 108 3180 419 228 190 46 804 244 138 179 26 16 15 835 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 0 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2
Respondent Officer Count 0 3,5 7,7 7,9 13,13 12,22 0 4,4 6,6 6,9 4,12 21 8,15 19,24 0 2,5 6,7 3,8 5,10 12 4,5 5,5 9,10 15,15,24 12 14,17 20,20 0 5,5 6,7,7 5,7,9 14,110 12,21 3,3 1,7 2,9 11 19,19 19,20 0 4,5 89
Northeast PoliceDepartment
SheriffsDepartment
StatePolice Midwest PoliceDepartment
SheriffsDepartment
StatePolice South PoliceDepartment
SheriffsDepartment
West
StatePolice PoliceDepartment
Missing 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore Missing 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 100to499 500ormore Missing 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 100to499 500ormore Missing 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 500or more Missing 1to25
SheriffsDepartment
StatePolice
26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 1to25 26to50 51to99 100to499 500ormore 100to499 500ormore
179 134 122 20 219 81 41 51 17 5 8
2 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2
7,7 9,10,14 15 14,23 2,5 6,7 9 14,15,15 24,30 15 17,23
90
APPENDIXB
BodyArmorSurvey
91
92
93

94

95
96
97

98
99
100

101
APPENDIXC
BodyArmorInterviewInstrument
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

111

112

113
APPENDIXD
ArmorProtectionLevels
114

ArmorLevel Protection
TypeI (.22LR;.380 ACP)
Thisarmorwouldprotectagainst2.6g(40gr).22LongRifleLeadRound Nose(LRLRN)bulletsatavelocityof329m/s(1080ft/s30ft/s)and6.2g (95gr).380ACPFullMetalJacketedRoundNose(FMJRN)bulletsata velocityof322m/s(1055ft/s30ft/s).Itisnolongerpartofthestandard.
TypeIIA (9mm;.40 S&W;.45 ACP)
Thisarmorprotectsagainst9mmFullMetalJacketedRoundNose(FMJRN) bullets,withnominalmassesof8.0g(124gr)impactingataminimum velocityof332m/s(1090ft/s)orless,and40S&WcaliberFullMetal Jacketed(FMJ)bullets,withnominalmassesof11.7g(180gr)impactingat aminimumvelocityof312m/s(1025ft/s)orless.Italsoprovides protectionagainstthethreatsmentionedin[TypeI].
TypeII (9mm;.357 Magnum)
Thisarmorprotectsagainst9mmFullMetalJacketedRoundNose(FMJRN) bullets,withnominalmassesof8.0g(124gr)impactingataminimum velocityof358m/s(1175ft/s)orless,and357MagnumJacketedSoftPoint (JSP)bullets,withnominalmassesof10.2g(158gr)impactingata minimumvelocityof427m/s(1400ft/s)orless.Italsoprovidesprotection againstthethreatsmentionedin[TypesIandIIA].
Thisarmorprotectsagainst7.62mmFullMetalJacketed(FMJ)bullets(U.S. TypeIIIA MilitarydesignationM80),withnominalmassesof9.6g(148gr)impacting (.357SIG;.44 ataminimumvelocityof838m/s(2750ft/s)orless.Italsoprovides Magnum) protectionagainstmosthandgunthreats,aswellasthethreatsmentionedin [TypesI,IIA,andII].
TypeIII (Rifles)
Conditionedarmorprotectsagainst9.6g(148gr)7.62x51mmNATOM80 ballbulletsatavelocityof847m/s9.1m/s(2780ft/s30ft/s).Italso providesprotectionagainstthethreatsmentionedin[TypesI,IIA,II,and IIIA].
TypeIV
Thisarmorprotectsagainst.30caliberarmorpiercing(AP)bullets(U.S.
115
(Armor Piercing Rifle)
MilitarydesignationM2AP),withnominalmassesof10.8g(166gr) impactingataminimumvelocityof869m/s(2850ft/s)orless.Italso providesatleastsinglehitprotectionagainstthethreatsmentionedin [TypesI,IIA,II,IIIA,andIII].
Source:NationalInstituteofJustice."BallisticResistanceofBodyArmorNIJ Standard0101.04"(2000).Page2. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183651.pdf
116
APPENDIXE
CrosstabAnalyses
117
I. PopulationDensity
Q8.Whydoyouwearbody armor? CriticalforSafety** Workerscompensation issues** Agencypolicyrequiresit** FamilyPressure
=.10*=.05**=.01
Other 93% (N=105) 6% (N=104) 54% (N=105) 21% (N=104)
Rural 94% (N=107) 19% (N=106) 53% (N=106) 19% (N=106) Rural 2% (N=107) 5% (N=106) 6% (N=106) 23% (N=107) 1% (N=106) 71% (N=107)
Suburban Urban 95% (N=236) 17% (N=237) 59% (N=237) 15% (N=237) 87% (N=553) 9% (N=554) 45% (N=554) 13% (N=554)
Q9.Inwhichofthefollowing Other situationshasyourbody armoractuallyprotectedyou? Protectionduringshooting 1% (N=105) Protectionincaraccident 11% (N=104) Protectionfromknifeorother 0% edgedweaponassault** (n=104) Protectionfrompunch/kickor 19% otherblunttrauma** (N=105) Other(specify) 1% (N=105) N/A** 71% (N=104)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Suburban Urban 3% (N=237) 11% (N=237) 4% (N=236) 36% (N=237) 0% (N=236) 57% (N=237) 5% (N=554) 7% (N=554) 1% (N=554) 13% (N=554) 1% (N=553) 79% (N=554)
118
Q27.Pleasemarkallofthefollowing thatyoubelieveareTRUEconcerning bodyarmor Canstopriflebullets Moisturereducestheballistic protection* Properwaytostoreisonhanger Isdesignedtolastindefinitely Canstoreinthetrunkofacar* Shouldbereplacedifpenetratedbya bullet Shouldbecleanedthoroughlywith standard**laundry
=.10*=.05**=.01
Other 3% (N=103) 49% (N=103) 29% (N=103) 1% (N=103) 11% (N=103) 98% (N=103) 18% (N=103) Other 37% (N=104) 3% (N=105) 47% (N=105) 0% (N=105) Other 72% (N=103)
Rural 2% (N=105) 37% (N=105) 28% (N=106) 1% (N=105) 14% (N=105) 94% (N=105) 6% (N=105) Rural 47% (N=107) 2% (N=107) 50% (N=106) 1% (N=107) Rural 70% (N=106)
Suburban Urban 5% (N=233) 37% (N=233) 26% (N=232) 0% (N=233) 14% (N=232) 95% (N=233) 6% (N=233) 2% (N=531) 34% (N=531) 31% (N=531) 1% (N=531) 8% (N=531) 95% (N=531) 9% (N=531)
Q10.Howdoyoustoreyourbodyarmor afterusage? Flat** Folditup Hangitonstandardhanger/hook** Specializeddevice/container

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q14a.Doesyouragencyhaveawritten policyrequiringyoutowearbody armor? Yes

=.10*=.05**=.01
Suburban Urban 81% (N=244) 79% (N=551)
119
Q14b.Pleasemarkthestatementthat bestdescribesyouragencysbodyarmor wearpolicy*** Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall timeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmost timeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall times,butIamrequiredtowearitunder special Other Q20.Howoftendoyouwearbody armor? Rarely/sometimes Mostofthetime Allofthetime
=.10*=.05**=.01 =.10*=.05**=.01
Other 46.5% (N=33) 32.4% (N=23) 12.7% (N=9) 8.5% (N=6) Other 0% (N=60) 5% (N=60) 95% (N=60)
Rural 72.2% (N=52) 18.1% (N=13) 6.9% (N=5) 2.8% (N=2) Rural 2% (N=65) 13% (N=65) 85% (N=65) Rural 32% (N=106) 12% (N=106) 56% (N=106)
Suburban Urban 63.1% (N=118) 26.2% (N=49) 3.2% (N=6) 7.5% (N=14) 50.6% (N=212) 45.6% (N=191) 1.9% (N=8) 1.9% (N=8)
Suburban Urban 1% (N=181) 13% (N=181) 86% (N=181) 0% (N=322) 12% (N=322) 88% (N=322)
Q24.Howsatisfiedareyouwiththefitof Other yourbodyarmor?** Dissatisfied 34% (N=103) Neutral 12% (N=103) Satisfied 54% (N=103)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Suburban Urban 28% (N=236) 23% (N=236) 49% (N=236) 27% (N=532) 7% (N=532) 66% (N=532)

120
Q23.Wereyoufittedforyourbody armor? No,Iwasgivenbodyarmorthat approximatesmybodysize Yes,Iwasfittedbyrepresentativesfrom themanufacturer Yes,Iwasfittedbyinternalagency representatives Yes,Iwasfittedbyboththe manufacturerANDagency representatives
=.10*=.05**=.01
Other 5% (N=103) 76% (N=103) 16% (N=103) 3% (N=103)
Rural 8% (N=105) 72% (N=105) 19% (N=105) 1% (N=105)
Q31a.Doesyouragencyconduct inspectionstoensurethatyouare wearingyourbodyarmor? Yes

=.10*=.05**=.01
Other 27% (N=100)
Rural 18% (N=106)
121
Q31b.Doesyouragencyconduct inspectionstoensurethatyourbody armorismaintainedproperly? Yes**

=.10*=.05**=.01
Other 27% (N=100) Other
Rural 7% (N=105) Rural
Q30.Howwereyoueducated/trainedon thebenefitsandlimitationsofwearing bodyarmor,andoncareand maintenance? Manufacturerprovided literature/manualsBenefitsand limitations* Departmentprovided literature/manualsBenefitsand limitations** SupervisorystaffBenefitsand limitations** Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative Benefitsandlimitations Inservice/specializedtrainingBenefits andlimitations** AcademyBenefitsandlimitations* FirearmsTrainingBenefitsand limitations RollCallBenefitsandlimitations Other(specify)Benefitsandlimitations
Suburban Urban
61% (N=102) 30% (N=102) 25% (N=102) 20% (N=102) 22% (N=102) 42% (N=102) 33% (N=102) 7% (N=102) 1% (N=102) 17% (N=102) 66% (N=102)
43% (N=104) 9% (N=105) 10% (N=105) 19% (N=105) 9% (N=105) 40% (N=105) 18% (N=104) 2% (N=104) 2% (N=105) 23% (N=105) 47% (N=105) 10% (N=105) 6% (N=104) 18% (N=105)
53% (N=234) 9% (N=234) 11% (N=234) 17% (N=235) 8% (N=235) 35% (N=234) 24% (N=235) 4% (N=234) 1% (N=234) 22% (N=234) 59% (N=234) 8% (N=234) 7% (N=234) 18% (N=234)
57% (N=526) 14% (N=527) 11% (N=527) 15% (N=526) 10% (N=527) 30% (N=526) 22% (N=527) 6% (N=526) 0% (N=527) 22% (N=526) 61% (N=526) 12% (N=527) 7% (N=526) N=12% (N=527)
NonewasprovidedBenefitsand limitations Manufacturerprovided literature/manualscareand maintenance* Departmentprovided 11% literature/manualscareand (N=102) maintenance Supervisorystaffcareandmaintenance 11% (N=102) Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative 19% careandmaintenance* (N=102)
122
Q30(contd).Howwereyou educated/trainedonthebenefitsand limitationsofwearingbodyarmor,and oncareandmaintenance? Inservice/specializedtrainingcareand maintenance Academycareandmaintenance FirearmsTrainingcareand maintenance** RollCallcareandmaintenance Other(specify)careandmaintenance* Nonewasprovidedcareand maintenance =.10*=.05**=.01
Other
Rural
Suburban Urban
5% (N=103) 17% (N=102) 7% (N=102) 2% (N=102) 4% (N=102) 25% (N=102)
3% (N=105) 23% (N=105) 5% (N=105) 3% (N=105) 1% (N=105) 33% (N=105)
6% (N=234) 19% (N=234) 14% (N=234) 1% (N=235) 1% (N=234) 29% (N=235)
5% (N=527) 18% (N=527) 6% (N=526) 2% (N=526) 0% (N=527) 17% (N=526)
123

II. DepartmentSize(numberofswornofficerscategorized)
85% (N=178) Workerscompensation 16% issues* (N=178) Agencypolicyrequires 65% it** (N=178) FamilyPressure* 12% (N=178)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Q8.Whydoyouwear bodyarmor? CriticalforSafety**
>25
2650 94% (N=69) 16% (N=69) 48% (N=69) 24% (N=68)
5199 97% (N=72) 15% (N=72) 68% (N=72) 22% (N=73)
100499 500+ 95% (N=150) 11% (N=150) 48% (N=150) 14% (N=150) 89% (N=581) 8% (N=580) 43% (N=580) 13% (N=581)
Q9.Inwhichofthe followingsituationshas yourbodyarmoractually protectedyou? Protectionduring shooting* Protectionincar accident* Protectionfromknifeor otheredgedweapon assault Protectionfrom punch/kickorotherblunt trauma** Other(specify)** N/A**
=.10*=.05**=.01
>25
2650
5199
100 499 4% (N=150) 14% (N=150) 3% (N=150)
500+
0% (N=178) 6% (N=178) 4% (N=178)
1% (N=69) 12% (N=68) 1% (N=69)
1% (N=72) 8% (N=73) 0% (N=72) 28% (N=72) 3% (N=73) 70% (N=72)
5% (N=580) 7% (N=580) 1% (N=580)
30% 32% (N=178) (N=69) 1% (N=178) 65% (N=178) 3% (N=69) 59% (N=68)
30% 11% (N=150) (N=580) 0% (N=150) 61% (N=150) 0% (N=580) 81% (N=580)
124
Q27.Pleasemarkallofthefollowing thatyoubelieveareTRUEconcerning bodyarmor Canstopriflebullets Moisturereducestheballistic protection Properwaytostoreisonhanger Isdesignedtolastindefinitely Canstoreinthetrunkofacar** Shouldbereplacedifpenetratedbya bullet Shouldbecleanedthoroughlywith standardlaundry
=.10*=.05**=.01
>25 1% (N=185) 40% (N=185) 35% (N=185) 0% (N=185) 18% (N=185) 94% (N=185) 7% (N=185) >25 57% (N=185) 0% (N=185) 39% (N=186) 7% (N=185) >25 84% (N=186)
2650 5% (N=64) 39% (N=64) 35% (N=63) 0% (N=64) 13% (N=64) 100% (N=63) 11% (N=63) 2650 38% (N=69) 0% (N=69) 59% (N=69) 0% (N=68) 2650 71% (N=70)
5199 0% (N=70) 33% (N=70) 34% (N=71) 1% (N=71) 9% (N=71) 96% (N=70) 11% (N=70) 5199 32% (N=72) 1% (N=73) 63% (N=72) 0% (N=72) 5199 85% (N=72)
100499 5% (N=144) 33% (N=143) 29% (N=143) 1% (N=143) 13% (N=143) 92% (N=143) 15% (N=144) 100499 56% (N=151) 1% (N=151) 44% (N=151) 1% (N=151) 100499 79% (N=150)
500+ 3% (N=558) 35% (N=558) 27% (N=558) 1% (N=559) 8% (N=559) 96% (N=558) 8% (N=559) 500+ 32% (N=580) 1% (N=580) 65% (N=580) 0% (N=580) 500+ 76% (N=577)
Q10.Howdoyoustoreyourbodyarmor afterusage? Flat** Folditup Hangitonstandardhanger/hook** Specializeddevice/container**

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q14a.Doesyouragencyhaveawritten policyrequiringyoutowearbody armor? Yes*

=.10*=.05**=.01
125
Q14b.Pleasemarkthestatementthat bestdescribesyouragencysbodyarmor wearpolicy*** Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall timeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmost timeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall times,butIamrequiredtowearitunder special Other
=.10*=.05**=.01
>25 69.2% (N=99) 24.5% (N=35) 3.5% (N=5) 2.8% (N=4) >25 1% (N=150) 19% (N=150) 81% (N=150) >25 38% (N=185) 20% (N=185) 42% (N=185) >25 7% (N=185) 64% (N=185) 26% (N=185) 3% (N=185)
2650 78.0% (N=39) 20.0% (N=10) 0.0% (N=0) 2.0% (N=0) 2650 0% (N=39) 3% (N=39) 97% (N=39) 2650 29% (N=65) 12% (N=65) 59% (N=65) 2650 6% (N=66) 82% (N=66) 11% (N=66) 2% (N=66)
5199 71.7% (N=43) 20.0% (N=12) 1.7% (N=1) 6.7% (N=4) 5199 0% (N=53) 13% (N=53) 87% (N=53) 5199 26% (N=72) 15% (N=72) 58% (N=72) 5199 11% (N=72) 71% (N=72) 13% (N=72) 6% (N=72)
100499 71.9% (N=82) 16.7% (N=19) 4.4% (N=5) 7.0% (N=8) 100499 2% (N=100) 2% (N=100) 95% (N=100) 100499 17% (N=145) 16% (N=145) 68% (N=145) 100499 4% (N=145) 77% (N=145) 17% (N=145) 20% (N=145)
500+ 44.4% (N=187) 48% (N=202) 4.3% (N=18) 3.3% (N=14) 500+ 0% (N=327) 12% (N=327) 88% (N=327) 500+ 29% (N=559) 9% (N=559) 62% (N=559) 500+ 5% (N=560) 68% (N=560) 20% (N=560) 7% (N=560)
Q20.Howoftendoyouwearbody armor?** Rarely/sometimes Mostofthetime Allofthetime

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q24.Howsatisfiedareyouwiththefitof yourbodyarmor?** Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q23.Wereyoufittedforyourbody armor? No,Iwasgivenbodyarmorthat approximatesmybodysize** Yes,Iwasfittedbyrepresentativesfrom themanufacturer** Yes,Iwasfittedbyinternalagency representatives** Yes,Iwasfittedbyboththe manufacturerANDagency representatives**
=.10*=.05**=.01
126

=.10*=.05**=.01
>25 30% (N=178)
2650 20% (N=66)
5199 21% (N=71)
100499 33% (N=144)
500+ 29% (N=560)
127
Q31b.Doesyouragencyconduct inspectionstoensurethatyourbody armorismaintainedproperly? Yes

=.10*=.05**=.01
>25 4% (N=183) >25
2650 8% (N=65) 2650
5199 10% (N=71) 5199
100499 14% (N=143) 100499
500+ 10% (N=558) 500+
Q30.Howwereyoueducated/trainedon thebenefitsandlimitationsofwearing bodyarmor,andoncareand maintenance? Manufacturerprovided literature/manualsBenefitsand limitations Departmentprovided literature/manualsBenefitsand limitations** SupervisorystaffBenefitsand limitations Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative Benefitsandlimitations Inservice/specializedtrainingBenefits andlimitations** AcademyBenefitsandlimitations* FirearmsTrainingBenefitsand limitations** RollCallBenefitsandlimitations Other(specify)Benefitsand limitations** NonewasprovidedBenefitsand limitations Manufacturerprovided literature/manualscareand maintenance Departmentprovided literature/manualscareand maintenance Supervisorystaffcareandmaintenance Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative careandmaintenance

52% (N=184) 10% (N=185) 11% (N=185) 18% (N=185) 6% (N=185) 42% (N=185) 24% (N=185) 2% (N=185) 0% (N=185) 21% (N=185) 61% (N=184) 12% (N=184) 9% (N=184) 17% (N=185)
49% (N=66) 15% (N=66) 14% (N=65) 21% (N=66) 17% (N=66) 42% (N=65) 34% (N=65) 11% (N=66) 0% (N=66) 21% (N=66) 64% (N=66) 9% (N=66) 3% (N=66) 17% (N=66)
50% (N=70) 9% (N=71) 7% (N=70) 10% (N=70) 3% (N=70) 39% (N=70) 26% (N=70) 3% (N=70) 4% (N=70) 20% (N=70) 51% (N=70) 10% (N=70) 11% (N=70) 13% (N=70)
55% (N=141) 11% (N=141) 15% (N=141) 16% (N=140) 9% (N=141) 31% (N=141) 13% (N=141) 5% (N=140) 1% (N=141) 21% (N=141) 63% (N=141) 8% (N=141) 11% (N=141) 16% (N=141)
55% (N=553) 18% (N=554) 12% (N=554) 16% (N=554) 13% (N=554) 32% (N=554) 35% (N=554) 5% (N=554) 0% (N=554) 22% (N=554) 57% (N=554) 13% (N=553) 6% (N=554) 13% (N=554)
128
Q30(contd).Howwereyou educated/trainedonthebenefitsand limitationsofwearingbodyarmor,and oncareandmaintenance? Inservice/specializedtrainingcareand maintenance Academycareandmaintenance FirearmsTrainingcareand maintenance RollCallcareandmaintenance Other(specify)careandmaintenance* Nonewasprovidedcareand maintenance
=.10*=.05**=.01
>25
2650
5199
100499
500+
3% (N=185) 23% (N=185) 9% (N=184) 0% (N=185) 2% (N=185) 30% (N=184)
6% (N=66) 24% (N=66) 12% (N=65) 3% (N=66) 0% (N=66) 23% (N=66)
3% (N=70) 26% (N=70) 11% (N=70) 4% (N=70) 4% (N=70) 27% (N=70)
6% (N=141) 14% (N=141) 8% (N=141) 2% (N=140) 1% (N=140) 27% (N=141)
5% (N=554) 19% (N=554) 6% (N=554) 1%(N 553) 1% (N=554) 28% (N=554)
129
III.DepartmentType
Q8.Whydoyouwearbody armor? CriticalforSafety** Workerscompensation issues Agencypolicyrequiresit** FamilyPressure**
=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Police Office Department 95%(N=265) 88%(N=723) 9%(N=265) 12%(N=724)
State Police 92% (N=61) 8%(N=61) 32% (N=62) 25% (N=61) State Police 2% (N=61) 16% (N=62) 2% (N=61) 15% (N=62) 2% (N=61) 74% (N=61)
37%(N=266) 55%(N=724) 18%(N=266) 12%(N=723)
Q9.Inwhichofthefollowing situationshasyourbodyarmor actuallyprotectedyou? Protectionduringshooting Protectionincaraccident Protectionfromknifeorother edgedweaponassault Protectionfrompunch/kickor otherblunttrauma Other(specify) N/A
=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Office 3% (N=265) 8% (N=265) 2% (N=265) 23% (N=265) 0% (N=265) 70% (N=266)
Police Department 3%(N=723) 8%(N=724) 2%(N=723) 18%(N=723) 1%(N=724) 74%(N=723)
130
Q27.Pleasemarkallofthefollowing thatyoubelieveareTRUEconcerning bodyarmor Canstopriflebullets** Moisturereducestheballistic protection Properwaytostoreisonhanger Isdesignedtolastindefinitely Canstoreinthetrunkofacar Shouldbereplacedifpenetratedbya bullet Shouldbecleanedthoroughlywith standardlaundry**
=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Office 6%(N=258)
Police Department 2%(N=705)
State Police 7%(N=60) 35% (N=60) 31% (N=59) 2%(N=60) 12% (N=59) 95% (N=59) 8%(N=60)
42%(N=258) 33%(N=704) 33%(N=258) 28%(N=705) 2%(N=257) 0%(N=704) 12%(N=258) 10%(N=705) 98%(N=258) 95%(N=705) 15%(N=257) 7%(N=704)
Q10.Howdoyoustoreyourbody armorafterusage? Flat** Folditup** Hangitonstandardhanger/hook Specializeddevice/container

=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Office 51% (N=265) 3% (N=265) 51% (N=265) 0% (N=256)
State Police 48% (N=61) 2% (N=61) 60% 54% (N=731) (N=61) 2%(N=731) 0% (N=61) Police State Department Police 90% (N=731) 61% (N=61)
Police Department 36% (N=731) 0%(N=731)
Q14a.Doesyouragencyhaveawritten Sheriffs policyrequiringyoutowearbody Office armor? Yes** 49% (N=263)

=.10*=.05**=.01
131
Q14b.Pleasemarkthestatementthat bestdescribesyouragencysbody armorwearpolicy*** Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall timeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmost timeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmorat alltimes,butIamrequiredtowearit underspecial Other
Sheriffs Police State Office Department Police 68.5% (N=87) 18.1% (N=23) 7.1% (N=9) 6.3% (N=8) Sheriffs Office 2% (N=102) 7% (N=102) 91% (N=102) Sheriffs Office 26% (N=258) 12% (N=258) 63% (N=258) Sheriffs Office 6% (N=259) 71% (N=259) 19% (N=259) 5% (N=259) 55.5% (N=347) 39.7% (N=248) 1.4% (N=9) 3.4% (N=21) 43.2% (N=16) 18.9% (N=7) 32.4% (N=12) 5.4 (N=2)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Q20.Howoftendoyouwearbody armor? Rarely/sometimes Mostofthetime Allofthetime

=.10*=.05**=.01
Police State Department Police 1%(N=541) 0% (N=27) 12% 11% (N=541) (N=27) 87% 89% (N=541) (N=27) Police Department 30% (N=708) 13% (N=708) 57% (N=708) State Police 29% (N=59) 10% (N=59) 61% (N=59)
Q24.Howsatisfiedareyouwiththefit ofyourbodyarmor? Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q23.Wereyoufittedforyourbody armor? No,Iwasgivenbodyarmorthat approximatesmybodysize Yes,Iwasfittedbyrepresentatives fromthemanufacturer Yes,Iwasfittedbyinternalagency representatives Yes,Iwasfittedbyboththe manufacturerANDagency representatives
=.10*=.05**=.01
Police State Department Police 6%(N=708) 7% (N=60) 70% 68% (N=708) (N=60) 19% 22% (N=708) (N=60) 6%(N=708) 3% (N=60)
132

=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Office 35% (N=255) Sheriffs Office 16% (N=256) Sheriffs Office 59% (N=253) 17% (N=253) 15% (N=253) 21% (N=253) 13% (N=253) 36% (N=253) 24% (N=253) 5% (N=253) 1% (N=253) 13% (N=253) 61% (N=253) 11% (N=253) 11% (N=253) 18% (N=253)
Police State Department Police 27% (N=703) 25% (N=60)

=.10*=.05**=.01
Police State Department Police 7%(N=707) 14% (N=58) Police StatePolice Department 52% (N=704) 14% (N=703) 11% (N=703) 14% (N=703) 10% (N=704) 34% (N=703) 23% (N=703) 5%(N=703) 46%(N=59) 24%(N=59) 12%(N=59) 21%(N=58) 14%(N=59) 34%(N=59) 22%(N=59) 5%(N=59)
Q30.Howwereyoueducated/trainedonthe benefitsandlimitationsofwearingbody armor,andoncareandmaintenance? Manufacturerprovidedliterature/manuals Benefitsandlimitations Departmentprovidedliterature/manuals Benefitsandlimitations SupervisorystaffBenefitsandlimitations Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative Benefitsandlimitations* Inservice/specializedtrainingBenefitsand limitations AcademyBenefitsandlimitations FirearmsTrainingBenefitsandlimitations RollCallBenefitsandlimitations Other(specify)Benefitsandlimitations NonewasprovidedBenefitsand limitations** Manufacturerprovidedliterature/manuals careandmaintenance Departmentprovidedliterature/manuals careandmaintenance Supervisorystaffcareandmaintenance* Manufacturer/supplierrepresentativecare andmaintenance
0%(N=703) 0%(N=59) 24% (N=704) N=58% (N=703) 12% (N=704) 6%(N=704) 13% (N=703) 22%(N=59) 49%(N=59) 10% (N=10%) 5%(N=59) 20%(N=59)
133
Q30(contd).Howwereyou educated/trainedonthebenefitsand limitationsofwearingbodyarmor,andon careandmaintenance? Inservice/specializedtrainingcareand maintenance Academycareandmaintenance FirearmsTrainingcareandmaintenance RollCallcareandmaintenance Other(specify)careandmaintenance Nonewasprovidedcareandmaintenance
=.10*=.05**=.01
Sheriffs Office 7% (N=254) 20% (N=253) 8% (N=253) 2% (N=253) 1% (N=253) 25% (N=253)
Police StatePolice Department 4%(N=703) 7%(N=58) 19% 24%(N=59) (N=703) 7%(N=703) 10%(N=59) 1%(N=704) 2%(N=58) 1%(N=703) 2%(N=59) 28% (N=703) 31% (N=31%)
134

IV. OfficerGender
Q8.Whydoyouwearbody armor? CriticalforSafety* Workerscompensation issues Agencypolicyrequiresit FamilyPressure**
=.10*=.05**=.01
Female 97% (N=113) 12% (N=113) 48% (N=113) 5% (N=113)
Male 89% (N=933) 11% (N=933) 50% (N=933) 15% (N=933) Male 4% (N=933) 8% (N=933) 2% (N=933) 20% (N=933) 1% (N=933) 72% (N=933)
Q9.Inwhichofthefollowing situationshasyourbodyarmor actuallyprotectedyou? Protectionduringshooting
Female
1% (N=113) Protectionincaraccident 8% (N=113) Protectionfromknifeorotheredged 3% weaponassault (N=113) Protectionfrompunch/kickorother 13% blunttrauma (N=113) Other(specify) 0% (N=113) N/A* 81% (N=113)
=.10*=.05**=.01
135
Q27.Pleasemarkallofthefollowing thatyoubelieveareTRUEconcerning bodyarmor Canstopriflebullets Moisturereducestheballistic protection Properwaytostoreisonhanger Isdesignedtolastindefinitely Canstoreinthetrunkofacar Shouldbereplacedifpenetratedbya bullet** Shouldbecleanedthoroughlywith standardlaundry
=.10*=.05**=.01
Female 4% (N=108) 38% (N=108) 31% (N=108) 2% (N=108) 13% (N=108) 85% (N=108) 11% (N=108) Female 62% (N=113) 1% (N=113) 44% (N=113) 0% (N=113) Female 63% (N=113)
Male 3% (N=910) 35% (N=910) 29% (N=910) 1% (N=910) 10% (N=910) 97% (N=910) 9% (N=910) Male 38% (N=941) 1% (N=941) 59% (N=941) 2% (N=941) Male 80% (N=938)
Q10.Howdoyoustoreyourbodyarmor afterusage? Flat** Folditup Hangitonstandardhanger/hook** Specializeddevice/container

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q14a.Doesyouragencyhaveawritten policyrequiringyoutowearbody armor? Yes**

=.10*=.05**=.01
136
Q14b.Pleasemarkthestatementthat bestdescribesyouragencysbodyarmor wearpolicy Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall timeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmost timeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall times,butIamrequiredtowearitunder special Other
=.10*=.05**=.01
Female 58.8% (N=40) 36.8% (N=25) 1.5% (N=1) 2.9% (N=2)
Male 56.8% (N=409) 35.1% (N=253) 4.0% (N=29) 4.0% (N=29) Male 1% (N=618) 12% (N=618) 87% (N=618) Male 29% (N=914) 12% (N=914) 58% (N=914) Male 6% (N=914) 71% (N=914) 20% (N=914) 4% (N=914)
Q20.Howoftendoyouwearbodyarmor? Female Rarely/sometimes Mostofthetime Allofthetime

=.10*=.05**=.01
0% (N=50) 4% (N=50) 96% (N=50) Female 25% (N=110) 13% (N=110) 62% (N=110) Female 4% (N=108) 64% (N=108) 14% (N=108) 19% (N=108)
Q24.Howsatisfiedareyouwiththefitof yourbodyarmor? Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q23.Wereyoufittedforyourbodyarmor? No,Iwasgivenbodyarmorthat approximatesmybodysize** Yes,Iwasfittedbyrepresentativesfrom themanufacturer** Yes,Iwasfittedbyinternalagency representatives** Yes,Iwasfittedbyboththemanufacturer ANDagencyrepresentatives**

=.10*=.05**=.01
137

=.10*=.05**=.01
Female 28% (N=109) Female 14% (N=108)
Male 29% (N=906) Male 9% (N=909) Female 59% (N=108) 29% (N=108) 17% (N=108) 21% (N=108) 12% (N=108) 29% (N=108) 36% (N=108) 4% (N=108) 1% (N=108) 15% (N=108) 63% (N=108) 25% (N=108) 11% (N=108) 19% (N=108) Male 53% (N=904) 13% (N=904) 12% (N=904) 16% (N=903) 10% (N=903) 35% (N=904) 22% (N=903) 5% (N=904) 1% (N=904) 22% (N=904) 58% (N=904) 10% (N=903) 7% (N=904) 14% (N=904)
138
Q31b.Doesyouragencyconduct inspectionstoensurethatyourbody armorismaintainedproperly? Yes

=.10*=.05**=.01
Q30.Howwereyoueducated/trainedonthebenefitsand limitationsofwearingbodyarmor,andoncareand maintenance? Manufacturerprovidedliterature/manualsBenefitsand limitations Departmentprovidedliterature/manualsBenefitsand limitations** SupervisorystaffBenefitsandlimitations Manufacturer/supplierrepresentativeBenefitsand limitations Inservice/specializedtrainingBenefitsandlimitations AcademyBenefitsandlimitations FirearmsTrainingBenefitsandlimitations** RollCallBenefitsandlimitations Other(specify)Benefitsandlimitations NonewasprovidedBenefitsandlimitations Manufacturerprovidedliterature/manualscareand maintenance Departmentprovidedliterature/manualscareand maintenance** Supervisorystaffcareandmaintenance Manufacturer/supplierrepresentativecareand maintenance
Q30(contd).Howwereyoueducated/trainedonthe Female benefitsandlimitationsofwearingbodyarmor,andoncare andmaintenance? Inservice/specializedtrainingcareandmaintenance 7% (N=108) Academycareandmaintenance 20% (N=108) FirearmsTrainingcareandmaintenance** 20% (N=107) RollCallcareandmaintenance 3% (N=108) Other(specify)careandmaintenance 1% (N=108) Nonewasprovidedcareandmaintenance 22% (N=108)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Male 5% (N=904) 20% (N=904) 6% (N=904) 1% (N=904) 1% (N=903) 28% (N=904)
139

V. Region
Q8.Whydoyouwearbody armor? CriticalforSafety** Workerscompensation issues** Agencypolicyrequiresit* FamilyPressure**
=.10*=.05**=.01
NE 85% (N=406) 7% (N=406) 50% (N=405) 12% (N=406)
SE 94% (N=252) 18% (N=252) 56% (N=252) 25% (N=252) SE 2% (N=252) 12% (N=251) 4% (N=251) 28% (N=251) 0% (N=251) 62% (N=252)
Midwest 88% (N=196) 9% (N=195) 47% (N=196) 11% (N=196)
West 99% (N=197) 14% (N=197) 42% (N=197) 9% (N=197)
Q9.Inwhichofthefollowing NE situationshasyourbodyarmor actuallyprotectedyou? Protectionduringshooting* 4% (N=405) Protectionincaraccident* 5% (N=406) Protectionfromknifeorother 1% edgedweaponassault** (N=405) Protectionfrompunch/kickor 8% otherblunttrauma** (N=405) Other(specify) 1% (N=405) N/A** 84% (N=406)
=.10*=.05**=.01
Midwest West 1% (N=195) 9% (N=195) 1% (N=196) 28% (N=195) 0% (N=195) 28% (N=196) 6% (N=197) 7% (N=197) 3% (N=197) 22% (N=197) 2% (N=197) 69% (N=197)
140
Q27.Pleasemarkallofthefollowing thatyoubelieveareTRUEconcerning bodyarmor Canstopriflebullets* Moisturereducestheballistic protection** Properwaytostoreisonhanger Isdesignedtolastindefinitely Canstoreinthetrunkofacar** Shouldbereplacedifpenetratedbya bullet Shouldbecleanedthoroughlywith standardlaundry* Q10.Howdoyoustoreyourbodyarmor afterusage? Flat** Folditup Hangitonstandardhanger/hook** Specializeddevice/container** Q14a.Doesyouragencyhaveawritten policyrequiringyoutowearbody armor? Yes**
=.10*=.05**=.01 =.10*=.05**=.01 =.10*=.05**=.01
NE 1% (N=390) 30% (N=390) 26% (N=391) 1% (N=390) 8% (N=391) 95% (N=391) 6% (N=391) NE 20% (N=406) 1% (N=406) 70% (N=406) 1% (N=406) NE 90% (N=406)
SE 4% (N=252) 35% (N=252) 33% (N=252) 1% (N=252) 14% (N=252) 97% (N=252) 13% (N=252) SE 58% (N=259) 2% (N=258) 39% (N=259) 4% (N=259) SE 80% (N=260)
Midwest 4% (N=189) 46% (N=189) 28% (N=189) 1% (N=189) 15% (N=189) 93% (N=189) 8% (N=190)
West 4% (N=190) 38% (N=189) 34% (N=189) 0% (N=189) 7% (N=189) 96% (N=190) 11% (N=189)
Midwest West 52% (N=196) 0% (N=195) 54% (N=196) 1% (N=196) 47% (N=197) 1% (N=197) 59% (N=197) 0% (N=197)
Midwest West 68% (N=195) 58% (N=194)
141
Q14b.Pleasemarkthestatementthat bestdescribesyouragencysbodyarmor wearpolicy*** Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall timeswhenonduty Iamrequiredtowearbodyarmoratmost timeswhenonduty Iamnotrequiredtowearbodyarmoratall times,butIamrequiredtowearitunder special Other
=.10*=.05**=.01
NE 45.6% (N=161) 51.8% (N=183) 0.8% (N=3) 1.7% (N=6) NE 0% (N=275) 17% (N=275) 83% (N=275) NE 28% (N=392) 8% (N=392) 64% (N=392) NE 5% (N=392) 70% (N=392) 18% (N=392) 8% (N=392)
SE 65.3% (N=126) 19.7% (N=38) 9.3% (N=18) 5.7% (N=11) SE 1% (N=178) 6% (N=178) 94% (N=178) SE 32% (N=254) 17% (N=254) 52% (N=254) SE 7% (N=256) 67% (N=256) 22% (N=256) 4% (N=256)
Midwest 69.9% (N=93) 23.3% (N=31) 3.0% (N=4) 3.8% (N=5)
West 63.6% (N=70) 23.6% (N=26) 4.5% (N=5) 8.2% (N=9)
Q20.Howoftendoyouwearbody armor?** Rarely/sometimes Mostofthetime Allofthetime

=.10*=.05**=.01
Midwest West 0% (N=116) 11% (N=116) 89% (N=116) 3% (N=99) 7(N=99) 90% (N=99)
Q24.Howsatisfiedareyouwiththefitof yourbodyarmor?** Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

=.10*=.05**=.01
Midwest West 30% (N=190) 17% (N=190) 53% (N=190) 26% (N=190) 12% (N=190) 62% (N=190)
Q23.Wereyoufittedforyourbody armor? No,Iwasgivenbodyarmorthat approximatesmybodysize Yes,Iwasfittedbyrepresentativesfrom themanufacturer Yes,Iwasfittedbyinternalagency representatives Yes,Iwasfittedbyboththe manufacturerANDagency representatives
=.10*=.05**=.01
Midwest West 6% (N=191) 75% (N=191) 16% (N=191) 3% (N=191) 5% (N=189) 68% (N=189) 22% (N=189) 5% (N=189)
142
Q31a.Doesyouragencyconduct inspectionstoensurethatyouare wearingyourbodyarmor? Yes**

=.10*=.05**=.01
NE 22% (N=386) NE 6% (N=391) NE
SE 38% (N=252) SE 16% (N=251) SE 47% (N=250) 12% (N=251) 13% (N=250) 15% (N=250) 10% (N=250) 38% (N=250) 25% (N=250) 6% (N=250) 1% (N=250) 20% (N=250) 60% (N=250) 12% (N=250) 10% (N=250) 13% (N=250)
Midwest West 25% (N=190) 33% (N=189)

=.10*=.05**=.01
Midwest West 5% (N=190) 11% (N=190)
57% (N=390) 18% (N=390) 11% (N=390) Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative 14% Benefitsandlimitations* (N=390) Inservice/specializedtrainingBenefits 10% andlimitations* (N=389) AcademyBenefitsandlimitations 30% (N=390) FirearmsTrainingBenefitsandlimitations 25% (N=390) RollCallBenefitsandlimitations 4% (N=390) Other(specify)Benefitsandlimitations 0% (N=389) NonewasprovidedBenefitsand 26% limitations** (N=389) Manufacturerprovided 57% literature/manualscareandmaintenance (N=389) Departmentprovidedliterature/manuals 14% careandmaintenance** (N=390) Supervisorystaffcareandmaintenance* 5% (N=390) Manufacturer/supplierrepresentative 10% careandmaintenance** (N=389)
Q30.Howwereyoueducated/trainedon thebenefitsandlimitationsofwearing bodyarmor,andoncareandmaintenance? Manufacturerprovidedliterature/manuals Benefitsandlimitations Departmentprovidedliterature/manuals Benefitsandlimitations** SupervisorystaffBenefitsandlimitations
Midwest West 54% (N=190) 9% (N=189) 8% (N=190) 16% (N=190) 6% (N=190) 37% (N=189) 17% (N=190) 5% (N=190) 1% (N=189) 22% (N=190) 58% (N=190) 5% (N=190) 5% (N=189) 19% (N=190) 55% (N=185) 18% (N=185) 17% (N=186) 23% (N=186) 16% (N=186) 37% (N=189) 24% (N=186) 5% (N=185) 0% (N=186) 14% (N=185) 60% (N=186) 14% (N=185) 10% (N=186) 22% (N=186)
143
Q30(contd).Howwereyou educated/trainedonthebenefitsand limitationsofwearingbodyarmor,andon careandmaintenance? Inservice/specializedtrainingcareand maintenance Academycareandmaintenance FirearmsTrainingcareandmaintenance RollCallcareandmaintenance* Other(specify)careandmaintenance Nonewasprovidedcareandmaintenance
=.10*=.05**=.01
NE
SE
Midwest West
5% (N=390) 19% (N=390) 8% (N=389) 1% (N=389) 1% (N=389) 29% (N=389)
4% (N=250) 21% (N=251) 8% (N=250) 2% (N=250) 0% (N=250) 28% (N=250)
3% (N=190) 21% (N=190) 7% (N=190) 2% (N=190) 2% (N=190) 30% (N=190)
6% (N=186) 18% (N=186) 6% (N=185) 4% (N=186) 1% (N=186) 25% (N=186)
144
APPENDIXF
BallisticTestingResults
145

TableF1.V50andBackfaceDeformationforNewLevelIIandLevelIIIaSoftArmorVests.
Code New Number (a) 1.1Front 1.1Back 1.2Front 1.2Back 1.3Front 1.3Back 1.4Front 1.4Back 1.5Front 1.5Back 1.6Front 1.6Back 1.7Front 1.7Back 1.8Front 1.8Back 2.1Front 2.1Back 2.2Front 2.2Back 2.3Front 2.3Back Weight (lb) 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38 1.76 1.76 1.92 2.06 1.92 2.05 1.48 1.57 1.93 2.06 1.93 2.06 1.49 1.56 1.48 1.57 1.38 1.38 Plies 14 14 14 14 12 12 34 34 34 34 26 26 34 34 34 34 26 26 26 26 14 14 Brand Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Safariland Safariland Model SII6.0 SII6.0 SII6.0 SII6.0 SIIIA 6.0 SIIIA 6.0 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329II R01 6040 329II R01 6040 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329IIIA R04 6050 329II R01 6040 329II R01 6040 329II R01 6040 329II R01 6040 SII6.0 SII6.0 Level II II II II IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II II IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II II II II II II Caliber 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger Shots Total (V50) 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/12 12/12 12/8 12/8 12/10 12/10 12/8 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/12 12/10 12/10 12/12 12/10 12/12 12/10 V50 (fps) 1541 1531 1503 1540 1658 1629 1838 1817 1833 1793 1699 1702 1878 1831 1877 1822 1696 1698 1695 1726 1555 1561 High Partial (fps) 1597 1585 1523 1568 1664 1637 1884 1840 1833 1789 1759 1702 1868 1865 1890 1839 1700 1708 1697 1741 1555 1590 Low Complete (fps) 1526 1509 1463 1486 1644 1629 1827 1791 1810 1795 1657 1667 1864 1789 1844 1814 1652 1678 1665 1699 1544 1561 Maximum Deformation (mm) 44 40 46 37 44 39 60 52 45 52 64 56 56 44 65 46 58 59 52 53 41 46 Minimum Deformation (mm) 34 29 29 31 30 30 33 36 34 39 36 46 34 34 38 37 34 42 39 39 31 32
146
2.4Front 2.4Back 2.5Front 2.5Back 2.6Front 2.6Back 2.7Front 2.7Back
1.76 1.77 1.76 1.77 1.38 1.37 1.75 1.76
12 12 12 12 14 14 12 12
Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland Safariland
SIIIA 6.0 SIIIA 6.0 SIIIA 6.0 SIIIA 6.0 SII6.0 SII6.0 SIIIA 6.0 SIIIA 6.0
IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II II IIIA IIIA
9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger
12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/8 12/10
1613 1633 1598 1610 1511 1503 1630 1604
1597 1685 1583 1624 1534 1550 1632 1610
1606 1607 1586 1591 1495 1459 1581 1594
38 40 47 45 46 52 48 40
30 30 32 30 33 33 31 29
147
Climate Zone Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high High/low High/low High/low High/low High/low High/low High/low High/low Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low
TableF2.V50andBackfaceDeformationfor5YearOldLevelIIandLevelIIIaSoftArmorVests. Shots High Low Weight Total V50 Plies Type Brand Model Level Caliber Partial Complete (lb) (V50) (fps) (fps) (fps) (fps) 9mm 1.56 39 Hybrid 12/10 1599 1623 1579 ABA XT3A-2 IIIA Luger 9mm 1.54 39 Hybrid 12/10 1518 1572 1470 ABA XT3A-2 IIIA Luger Woven Second 9mm 1.78 30 12/8 1614 1658 1586 Aramid Chance MON-IIIA IIIA Luger Woven Second 9mm 1.87 30 12/10 1583 1627 1564 Aramid Chance MON-IIIA IIIA Luger Woven Second MON-IIIA 9mm 2.24 34 12/10 1632 1663 1624 Aramid Chance ++305020 IIIA Luger Woven Second MON-IIIA 9mm 2.24 34 12/10 1640 1665 1636 Aramid Chance ++305020 IIIA Luger 1.71 1.66 1.72 1.91 1.48 1.84 2.09 2.13 1.51 1.52 2.28 2.41 1.64 1.44 1.82 1.69 1.92 1.47 1.35 23 23 13 13 23 23 30 30 23 23 30 30 24 24 30 30 30 30 31 Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Hybrid ABA Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance ABA XT3A-2 MON-II 107121 MON-II 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 SUM IIIA R026010 SUM IIIA R026010 XT2-2 IIIA II II IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II XT3A-2 IIIA XT2-2 II XT2-2 II XT3A-2 IIIA XT3A-2 IIIA XT2-2 II XT2-2 II Second Chance Second Chance XT2-2 SII-6.0 SII-6.0 II II II XT2-2 II 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/8 12/8 12/12 12/10 12/10 12/8 12/6 12/12 12/8 12/10 12/12 12/12 12/12 11/10 12/10 1511 1546 1467 1495 1535 1488 1658 1636 1539 1589 1672 1662 1523 1566 1609 1652 1648 1649 1630 1542 1602 1477 1494 1572 1516 1687 1669 1591 1650 1770 1698 1545 1555 1646 1661 1663 1695 1660 1492 1489 1469 1491 1508 1474 1643 1602 1471 1554 1614 1650 1440 1561 1585 1624 1650 1587 1595
Maximum Deformation (mm) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) 44 47 39 42 45 53 41 51 49 59 51 43 52 53 48 44 54 37 55
Minimum Deformation (mm) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) 34 32 31 31 32 34 34 33 18 34 31 30 32 35 35 39 32 34 37
148
Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low Low/low High/high High/high High/high High/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high Low/high High/high High/high High/low High/low High/low High/low High/high High/high High/low High/low High/high High/high High/high High/high High/high High/high High/high
1.42 1.79 1.84 1.79 1.50 2.06 1.98 1.56 1.45 2.07 1.89 2.11 2.11 1.86 1.71 1.84 1.75 2.06 1.59 1.68 1.78 1.68 1.98 1.73 1.90 2.46 2.42 1.75 1.78 1.74 1.80 2.02 1.76 2.08
31 30 30 23 23 30 30 24 24 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 24 24 23 23 24 24 34 34 30 30 30 30 30 30 14
Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid Hybrid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid Hybrid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Woven Aramid Hybrid
ABA ABA ABA ABA ABA Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance PACA PACA Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance PACA PACA Second Chance Second Chance ABA ABA Point Blank Point Blank Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance Second Chance ABA
XT2-2 XT3A-2 XT3A-2 XT2-2 XT2-2 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-II 10721 MON-II 10721 4KGS3A 4KGS3A MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 MON-IIIA 107121 RTGS2 RTGS2 MON-II 107121 MON-II 107121 XT2-2 XT2-2 H17-5 H17-5 MON-IIIA ++305020 MON-IIIA ++305020 Monarch Summit Monarch Summit Monarch Summit Monarch Summit Monarch Summit Monarch Summit SII-6.0
II IIIA IIIA II II IIIA IIIA II II IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II II II II II II II II IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA II
9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger 9mm Luger
12/8 12/8 12/10 12/10 12/4 12/10 12/10 12/8 12/12 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/10 12/12 12/10 12/8 12/8 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/12 12/8 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/10 12/12 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10
1652 1611 1649 1586 1553 1619 1654 1547 1507 1750 1722 1679 1681 1639 1673 1629 1644 1587 1554 1605 1592 1514 1554 1704 1634 1688 1678 1632 1630 1605 1651 1620 1652 1500
1652 1689 1660 1614 1648 1618 1682 1582 1543 1769 1774 1738 1687 1668 1685 1643 1638 1597 1581 1616 1605 1531 1579 1707 1674 1696 1684 1663 1664 1628 1677 1613 1657 1546
1644 1581 1638 1572 1512 1618 1630 1455 1492 1710 1658 1654 1667 1606 1614 1580 1632 1562 1507 1580 1569 1501 1525 1696 1591 1668 1691 1625 1577 1581 1632 1610 1644 1475
58 40 43 56 43 43 55 63 44 46 50 41 44 42 48 48 47 56 58 54 47 52 44 55 67 47 40 48 56 39 46 44 40 37
37 30 33 28 34 35 36 36 36 25 35 35 38 36 33 34 37 36 38 33 36 36 35 35 35 35 33 36 35 35 30 36 32 32
149
High/high
1.98
14
Hybrid
ABA
SII-6.0
II
9mm Luger
12/10
1507
1525
1501
40
32
150
TableF3:Shotbyshotballisticdata
PROTECTION BALLISTIC LIMIT TEST, V50 BL(P) Job No. : 11768-01 Test Date : 3/25/11
TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : Required BL(P). :
AMERICAN BODY ARMOXLS NA NA
R
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
NA 39 NA 1.56 lbs. CODE 1.1 (FRONT)
03/22/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: XT3A-2; SERIAL#: 05097673; DOM: SEP. 2005; OFFICER & ID#: DAVID PEPLOWSKI; 6889
Description : SEE
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle
Temp. : 69 Material : 5.5"
F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.85 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 29% Backing CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : P.PAYNE
AMMUNITION Projectile : 9mm, FMJ, 124 gr. Lot No. : REMINGTON 23558 Powder : ACCURATE NO. 2 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES
H.P. White
(1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 (3) :
LEVEL IIIA (ABBREVIATED) (2) : PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 98.5 F
Laboratory, Inc. POLICE EXEC RESEARCH FORUM
151
H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. POLICE EXEC RESEARCH FORUM

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : Description Required BL(P). : : SEE
AMERICAN BODY ARMOXLS NA NA
R NA 39 NA 1.54
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/22/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 2005; OFFICER & ID#: DAVID PEPLOWSKI; 6889
Heat No. : Weight : lbs. CODE 1.1 Hardness : Plies/Laminates STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) SERIAL#: XT3A-2; : Sample No. :
05097674; DOM: SEP.
(1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
LEVEL IIIA (ABBREVIATED) CLAY TEMP: 97.7 F
152

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY 222216 NA NA
ARMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 07/08/05; OFFICER & ID#: MATT BRADRICK; 6235
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.78 Hardness : lbs. CODE 1.2 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(FRONT) 107121; MON-IIIA Sample No. :
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned :
03/22/11 Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#: AL070573345; DOM:
153

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 07/08/05; OFFICER & ID#: MATT BRADRICK; 6235
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.87 Hardness : lbs. CODE 1.2 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) 107121; MON-IIIA Sample No. :
SERIAL#: AL070573345; DOM:
154

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY A2215/2015 NA NA
RMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 08/05; OFFICER & ID#: FRANK CAUSO; 941511
Heat No. : Weight : NA 34 NA 2.24 Hardness : lbs. CODE 2.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(FRONT) MON-IIIA++ 305020; Sample No. :
03/24/11 Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#: NYPD-13653; DOM:
155

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY A2215/2015 NA NA
RMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 08/05; OFFICER & ID#: FRANK CAUSO; 941511
Heat No. : Weight : NA 34 NA 2.24 Hardness : lbs. CODE 2.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) MON-IIIA++ 305020; Sample No. :
SERIAL#: NYPD-13653; DOM:
156

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR, INC. XLR NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/25/11 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : NA 23 NA 1.71 lbs. Sample No. : CODE
Federal Express Federal Express
4.1 (FRONT) REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: XT2-2; SERIAL#: 05143169; DOM: 12/05; LOT# 1942
Description : SEE
SET-UP Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL

II
Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0
deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY DRY
Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA
Range No. : 2 Temp. : 69 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : CHES BP : RH : 29.85 in. Hg 33%
Recorder : ADAMS
AMMUNITION Projectile : 9mm, FMJ, 124 gr.

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04
LEVEL II (ABBREVIATED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 100.6 F
(3) :
157

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR, INC. XLSL NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/25/11 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : NA 23 NA 1.66 lbs. Sample No. : CODE
4.1 (BACK) REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: XT2-2; SERIAL#: 05143170; DOM: 12/05; LOT# 1942
Description : SEE
SET-UP Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL

II
Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0
deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY DRY
Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA
Range No. : 2 Temp. : 69 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : CHES BP : RH : 29.85 in. Hg 33%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04
LEVEL II (ABBREVIATED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 99.8 F
(3) :
158

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : SAFARILAND Sample No. : CODE
5.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. :

Date Rec'd. : 03/24/11 Via :
LL NA Thicknesses : NA Weight : 1.72 lbs. Avg. Thick. : NA Hardness : NA Required BL(P). : Plies/Laminates : 13 Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 01455522; LOT#: 01906045; DOM: 07/24/06
Federal Express Returned : Federal Express
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft.

PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Panel : Residual Vel. 0 deg. CLAY NA Obliquity : Screens :Residual Vel. Location : NA Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in.
Shot Spacing : Witness
Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 BP : 29.85
in. Hg RH :
34% Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder P.PAYNE
(1) : PER-NIJ-STD(2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
2005 INTERIM LEVEL II (MODIFIED) CLAY TEMP: 98.5 F
159

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : SAFARILAND Sample No. : CODE
5.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. :

Date Rec'd. : 03/24/11 Via :
LXL NA Thicknesses : NA Weight : 1.91 lbs. Avg. Thick. : NA Hardness : NA Required BL(P). : Plies/Laminates : 13 Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 01455529; LOT#: 01906045; DOM: 07/24/06

Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 BP : 29.85
in. Hg RH :
160

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 6.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : LR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.48 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:23 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 06066157; DOM: 06/01/06; LOT# 2343
Manufacturer : Date Rec'd. : 03/25/11 Via :

PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Residual Vel. Screens CLAY NA Obliquity : 0: deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in.
Shot Spacing : Witness Panel :
Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.72
in. Hg RH :
41% Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder L.CHES
LEVEL II (MODIFIED) CLAY TEMP: 98.8 F
161

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 6.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : LRX+3 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.84 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:23 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 06066162; DOM: 06/01/06; LOT# 2343

Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.72
in. Hg RH :
162

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : AMERICAN BODY ARMOR, INC. XXLS NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 04/14/11 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : NA 30 NA 2.09 lbs. Sample No. : CODE 7.1
(FRONT) REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL # XT3A-2; SERIAL#: 06045134; DOM: 04/06
Description : SEE Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA
SET-UP Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04

Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning :
0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY DRY
Range No. : 1 Temp. : 68 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : M.GOMEZ BP : RH : 29.71 in. Hg
45%
Recorder : P.PAYNE

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04
LEVEL IIIA (MODIFIED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 99.5 F
(3) :
163

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : AMERICAN BODY ARMOR, INC. XXLSL NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 04/14/11 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : NA 30 NA 2.13 lbs. Sample No. : CODE 7.1
(BACK) REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL # XT3A-2; SERIAL#: 06045135; DOM: 04/06
Description : SEE Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA
SET-UP Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04

Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning :
0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY DRY
Range No. : 1 Temp. : 69 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : M.GOMEZ BP : RH : 29.71 in. Hg
40%
Recorder : P.PAYNE

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04
LEVEL IIIA (MODIFIED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 98.5 F
(3) :
164

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 8.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : LR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.51 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING Plies/Laminates : 23 MODEL#: XT2-2; SERIAL#: 05106816; DOM: OCT 2005

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.71
in. Hg RH :
165

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 8.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : LRL NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.52 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING Plies/Laminates : 23 MODEL#: XT2-2; SERIAL#: 05106819; DOM: OCT 2005

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.71
in. Hg RH :
166

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 9.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : XXLR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 2.28 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description 3A-XT-FSRequired BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:30 Plies/Laminates : NS; SERIAL#: 05016970; DOM: 02/05; LOT# NONE
Manufacturer : Date Rec'd. : 03/2411 Via :

PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Witness Panel : Residual Vel. Residual CLAY NA Obliquity : 0 deg. Screens : Vel. Location : NA Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in.
Shot Spacing :
Range No. : 2 Temp. :70 BP : 29.59
in. Hg RH :
30% Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Gunner : CHES Recorder CHES
167

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 9.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : XXLRL NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 2.41 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description 3A-XT-FSRequired BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:30 Plies/Laminates : NS; SERIAL#: 05016971; DOM: 02/05; LOT# NONE

PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Witness Panel : Residual Vel. Residual CLAY NA Obliquity : 0 deg. Screens : Vel. Location : NA Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in.
Shot Spacing :
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.59
in. Hg RH :
168

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 10.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : 221715 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.64 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: AL050571381; DOM: 06/16/05; LOT# 1412

PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Panel : Residual Vel. 0 deg. CLAY NA Obliquity : Screens :Residual Vel. Location : NA Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in.
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.62
in. Hg RH :
AMMUNITION Projectile : CAL. .30 AP, M2, 166 gr. Lot No. : REMINGTON 23558 Powder : ACCURATE NO. 2 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES
LEVEL II (ABBREVIATED) CLAY TEMP: 99.1 F
169

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 10.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : 221715 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.44 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: AL050571381; DOM: 06/16/05; LOT# 1412

Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.62
in. Hg RH :
170

TEST PANEL
ARMOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.82 Hardness : lbs. CODE 11.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(FRON MON-IIIA 107121; Sample No. :
T)
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/3111
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 07/08/05; LOT# 1411; OFFICER; GUY FALTINOWSKI
Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#: AL070573349; DOM:
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 70 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.65 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 55% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : P.PAYNE
171

TEST PANEL
ARMOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.69 Hardness : lbs. CODE 11.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) 107121; MON-IIIA Sample No. : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/3111 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 07/08/05; LOT# 1411; OFFICER; GUY FALTINOWSKI
SERIAL#: AL070573349; DOM:
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 70 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.65 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 55% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : P.PAYNE
172

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : SECOND Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. :
CHANCE BODY ARMOR 221214 NA NA

Sample No. : CODE Heat No. : NA Weight : 1.92
12.1 (FRONT)
Date Rec'd. : 04/01/11 Via : Federal Returned : Federal
lbs. Required BL(P). : Hardness : NA Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SUM IIIA R02 6010; Plies/Laminates : 30 SERIAL#: 05060878; DOM: 05/23/06; LOT# 1650/1962
Express Express
SET-UP
Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL Witness Panel : Obliquity : CLAY 0 deg. 5.5" CLAY DRY Backing Material : Conditioning :
IIIA
ft., 11.5 ft. Primary ft. From Muzzle Residual NA Screens :Vel. Location : NA Vel. Residual Range to Target : 16.4 ft.
Vel. Location : 9.0 Target to Wit. : 0.0
Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.65
in. Hg RH :
in.
AMMUNITION Projectile : 9mm, FMJ, 124 gr. Powder : ACCURATE NO. 2 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
173

TEST PANEL
CHANCE BODY ARMOR 221214 NA NA

12.1 (BACK)
Date Rec'd. : 04/01/11 Via : Federal Returned : Federal
lbs. Required BL(P). : Hardness : NA Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SUM IIIA R02 6010; Plies/Laminates : 30 SERIAL#: 05060878; DOM: 05/23/06; LOT# 1650/1962
Express Express
SET-UP
Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL Witness Panel : Obliquity : CLAY 0 deg. 5.5" CLAY DRY Backing Material : Conditioning :
IIIA
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.65
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
174

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 13.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : ML NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.35 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:31 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 05116178; DOM: N/A; LOT# N/A; STYLE: N/A

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.50
in. Hg RH :
49% Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Gunner : TRAUTMAN Recorder GOMEZ
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 98.6 F
175

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 13.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : ML NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.42 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:31 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 05116179; DOM: N/A; LOT# N/A; STYLE: N/A

Range No. : 1 Temp. :71 BP : 29.50
in. Hg RH :
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 97.4 F
176

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARLR NA NA
MOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.79 Hardness : lbs. CODE 14.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(FRON SERIAL#: XT3A-2; No. :
T)
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND OFFICER: FERNANDO ARAGON: ID#: C10-066059
03/30/11 Federal Express Federal Express 05093811; DOM: 09/01/05:
(1) : PER-
(2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA CLAY TEMP: 98.6 F
177

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARLR NA NA
MOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.84 Hardness : lbs. CODE 14.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) SERIAL#: XT3A-2; No. : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/30/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND OFFICER: FERNANDO ARAGON: ID#: C10-066059
05093762; DOM: 09/01/05:
(1) : PER-
(2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL IIIA CLAY TEMP: 98.6 F
178

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 15.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : XLR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.79 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:23 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 06008535; DOM: 01/01/06; LOT# 1957

Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 BP : 29.72
in. Hg RH :
179

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 15.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : XLSR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.50 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:23 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 06008536; DOM: 01/01/06; LOT# 1957

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.71
in. Hg RH :
180

TEST PANEL
ARMOR
T)
03/24/11 Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#:
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND ALII0586079; DOM: 11/09/05; OFFICER: LT.THELEN
F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.80 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 51% Backing CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : SHANK Recorder :
GOMEZ
LEVEL IIIA (MODIFIED) CLAY TEMP: 99.5 F
181

TEST PANEL
ARMOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 30 NA 1.98 Hardness : lbs. CODE 16.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) 107121; MON-IIIA Sample No. : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/24/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND ALII0586079; DOM: 11/09/05; OFFICER: LT.THELEN
SERIAL#:
GOMEZ
182

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 17.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : 201715 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.56 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: AL080578255; DOM: 08/17/05; LOT# 1421

Range No. : 1 Temp. :66 BP : 29.74
in. Hg RH :
AMMUNITION Projectile : 9mm FMJ, 124 gr. Lot No. : REMINGTON 23558 Powder : ACCURATE NO. 2 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES
183

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 17.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : 201715 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.45 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: AL080578255; DOM: 08/17/05; LOT# 1421

Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 BP : 29.71
in. Hg RH :
AMMUNITION Projectile : 9mm FMJ, 124 gr. Lot No. : REMINGTON 23558 Powder : ACCURATE NO. 2 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES
184

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. :
P.A.C.A. BODY ARMOR CNCMD+1+0, CNCMD+1+6 NA NA
Heat No. : Weight : NA
2.07 lbs. Sample No. : CODE 18.1 (FRONT)
Date Rec'd. : 03/31/11 Via :
Description Required BL(P). : : SEE
Hardness : NA REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: 4KGS3A; SERIAL#: Plies/Laminates : 29 RC477277; DOM: 05/06; LOT#; 1840,1005G,0104ST

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.97
in. Hg RH :
2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA CLAY TEMP: 98.6 F
185

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. :
P.A.C.A. BODY ARMOR CNCMD+1+0, CNCMD+1+6 NA NA
Heat No. : Weight : NA
1.89 lbs. Sample No. : CODE 18.1 (BACK)
Date Rec'd. : 03/31/11 Via :
Description Required BL(P). : : SEE
Hardness : NA REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: 4KGS3A; SERIAL#: Plies/Laminates : 29 RC477277; DOM: 05/06; LOT#; 1840,1005G,0104ST

Range No. : 1 Temp. :69 BP : 29.97
in. Hg RH :
2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA CLAY TEMP: 98.0 F
186

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
T)
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND AL120589445; DOM: 12/28/05; OFFICER: LEBLANC
187

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND AL120589445; DOM: 12/28/05; OFFICER: LEBLANC
SERIAL#:
188

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
T)
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND AL080577723; DOM: 08/12/05; LOT#: 1433; OFFICER: TIMMI
189

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND AL080577723; DOM: 08/12/05; LOT#: 1433; OFFICER: TIMMI
SERIAL#:
190

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
T)
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND DOM: 10/27/05; LOT#: 1503; OFFICER: K.HYDE
03/24/11 Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#: AL100584656;
191

TEST PANEL
ARMOR, INC.
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND DOM: 10/27/05; LOT#: 1503; OFFICER: K.HYDE
SERIAL#: AL100584656;
192

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR VINC XLtoto NA NA
T)
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : Heat No. : Weight : NA 20 NA 2.06 Hardness : lbs. CODE 20.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(FRON SERIAL#: RTGS2; No. :
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 02-06; LOT# 51130377 0805g 0106ft; STYLE: N/A
04/07/11 Federal Express Federal Express 465163; DOM:
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft.
From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.53 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 41% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : TRAUTMAN Recorder : GOMEZ
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 98.8 F
193

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR VINC XLtoto NA NA
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 02-06; LOT# 51130377 0805g 0106ft; STYLE: N/A
Heat No. : Weight : NA 20 NA 1.59 Hardness : lbs. CODE 20.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) SERIAL#: RTGS2; No. :
465163; DOM:
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft.
From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.54 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 41% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : TRAUTMAN Recorder : GOMEZ
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 97.5 F
194

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 21.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : 202016 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.68 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 02050069; DOM: N/A; LOT# N/A; STYLE: N/A

Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.59
in. Hg RH :
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 99.2 F
195

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 21.1 (BACK) Size : Heat No. : 202016 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.78 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description MON-II 107121; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:24 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 02050069; DOM: N/A; LOT# N/A; STYLE: N/A

Range No. : 1 Temp. :71 BP : 29.60
in. Hg RH :
(1) : NIJ-STD-0101.04 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
CLAY TEMP: 98.6 F
196

TEST PANEL
AMERICAN BODY ARMOR Sample No. : CODE 22.1 (FRONT) Size : Heat No. : XLR NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.68 lbs. Avg. Thick. : Hardness : NA NA Description XT2-2; Required BL(P). : : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:23 Plies/Laminates : SERIAL#: 05084696; DOM: 08/01/05; LOT# 1431

Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 BP : 29.94
in. Hg RH :
LEVEL II CLAY TEMP: 98.5 F
197

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer :
AMERICAN BODY Sample No. : CODE 22.1 (BACK) ARMOR Size : Heat No. : XLRX+1 NA Thicknesses : Weight : NA 1.98 lbs. Avg. Thick. : NA REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING Hardness : NA Description : SEE MODEL#: XT2-2; SERIAL#: 05084697; DOM: 08/01/05; LOT# 1431
Plies/Laminates :
Date Rec'd. : 03/28/11 Via :
Required BL(P). :
23
Range No. : 1 Temp. :68 Witness Panel : BP : 29.94

Shot Spacing :
in. Hg RH :
LEVEL II CLAY TEMP: 97.8 F
198

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY AR48 NA NA
MOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 24 NA 1.73 Hardness : lbs. CODE 23.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(FRON SERIAL#: H17-5; No. :
T)
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 0601390688; DOM: N/A; LOT# CB7121; STYLE: LEH7D1F
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.59 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 41% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : P.PAYNE
(1) : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 (2) : PRE-TEST (3) :
199

TEST PANEL
POINT BLANK BODY AR48 NA NA
MOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 24 NA 1.90 Hardness : lbs. CODE 23.1 Plies/Laminates : Sample STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) SERIAL#: H17-5; No. : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/23/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND 0601390641; DOM: N/A; LOT# CB7121; STYLE: LEH7D1B
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.59 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 41% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : P.PAYNE
200

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY 22X16 NA NA
ARMOR
T)
Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : Heat No. : Weight : NA 34 NA 2.46 Hardness : lbs. CODE 24.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(FRONIIIA++305020; MON Sample No. :
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND DOM: 09/06: OFFICER: SERGE JEAN-BAPTISTE
04/05/11 Federal Express Federal Express SERIAL#: -NYPD-13484;
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle
GOMEZ
2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA (MODIFIED) CLAY TEMP: 98.9 F
201

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE BODY 20X16 NA NA
ARMOR
Heat No. : Weight : NA 34 NA 2.42 Hardness : lbs. CODE 24.1 Plies/Laminates : STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) MON IIIA++305020; Sample No. : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 04/05/11 Federal Express Federal Express
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND DOM: 09/06: OFFICER: SERGE JEAN-BAPTISTE
SERIAL#: -NYPD-13484;
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 1 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle
GOMEZ
202

TEST PANEL
CHANCE BODY ARMOR, INC. 202014 NA NA

25.1 (FRONT)
Date Rec'd. : 06/03/11 lbs. Via : Federal Express Required BL(P). : . Plies/Laminates : 30 Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL03561072; DOM: 03/23/05; OFFICER: EDDIE CALDWELL; LOT# 1358
SET-UP
Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-0101.04 Witness Panel : Obliquity : CLAY 0 deg. 5.5" Backing Material : CLAY DRY Conditioning :
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.74
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
203

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : SECOND Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : Required BL(P). : . Plies/Laminates : 30 Description : Sample No. CHANCE BODY ARMOR, INC. 202014 NA NA : CODE 25.1 (BACK) Heat No. : NA Date Rec'd. : 06/03/11 Weight : 1.78
lbs. Via : Federal Express Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL03561072; DOM: 03/23/05; OFFICER: EDDIE CALDWELL; LOT# 1358 ft., 11.5 ft. Primary ft. From Muzzle Residual NA Screens :Vel. Location : NA Vel. Residual Range to Target : 16.4 ft.
Vel. Location : 9.0 Target to Wit. : 0.0 Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.74
SET-UP
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
204

TEST PANEL

25.2 (FRONT)
Date Rec'd. : 06/03/11 lbs. Via : Federal Express Required BL(P). : . Plies/Laminates : 30 Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL110585592; DOM: 11/04/05; OFFICER: CHAD LEACH; LOT# 1503
SET-UP
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.74
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
205

TEST PANEL
lbs. Via : Federal Express Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL110585592; DOM: 11/04/05; OFFICER: CHAD LEACH; LOT# 1503 ft., 11.5 ft. Primary ft. From Muzzle Residual NA Screens :Vel. Location : NA Vel. Residual Range to Target : 16.4 ft.
SET-UP
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
206

TEST PANEL

25.3 (FRONT)
Date Rec'd. : 06/03/11 lbs. Via : Federal Express Required BL(P). : . Plies/Laminates : 30 Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express Description : SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL03561074; DOM: 03/23/05; OFFICER: ROBERT BURCHETTE; LOT# 1358
SET-UP
Range No. : 1 Temp. :70 BP : 29.71
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
207

TEST PANEL
lbs. Via : Federal Express Hardness : N/A Returned : Federal Express SEE REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: MON-IIIA 107121; SERIAL#: AL03561074; DOM: 03/23/05; OFFICER: ROBERT BURCHETTE; LOT# 1358 ft., 11.5 ft. Primary ft. From Muzzle Residual NA Screens :Vel. Location : NA Vel. Residual Range to Target : 16.4 ft.
SET-UP
in. Hg RH :
in.
Lot No. :
REMINGTON 23558
208

TEST PANEL
ABA 48 NA NA
T)
NA 14 NA 2.08 lbs. CODE 26.1 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING MODEL#:(FRON SERIAL#: SII-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : 06065071;
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP DOM: 6/06; LOT# 2360; STYLE: II-160-FS-5276-CL
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 2 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.78 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 55% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : GOMEZ Recorder : ADAMS
209

TEST PANEL
ABA 48 NA NA
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : Description Required BL(P). : : SEE Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned : 03/23/11 NA 14 NA 1.98 Federal Express Federal Express lbs. CODE 26.1 Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#:(BACK) SERIAL#: 06065071; SII-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : DOM: 6/06; LOT# 2360; STYLE: II-160-FS-5276-CL
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 2 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD-2005 LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location : 9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 71 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.78 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 55% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : GOMEZ Recorder : ADAMS
210

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA lbs. CODE Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING MODEL#:1.1 (FR SII-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : NA 14 NA 1.37 NEW
ONT )
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP SERIAL#: 11191770; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025535
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 2 Shot Spacing : PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL II Primary Vel. Location :
9.0 ft. From Muzzle Temp. : 68 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.70 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 40% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : SHANK Recorder : ADAMS
211

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SAFARILAND LRRC NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned :
Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : Plies/Laminates : NA 14 NA lbs. Sample No. : CODE NEW 1.1 (BACK) Description : SEE
1.37
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191773; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025535
SET-UP Primary Vel. Location :Shot Spacing : 9.0 ft. From MuzzlePER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL II
Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA Range No. : 2 Temp. : 68 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Gunner : SHANK BP : RH : 29.70 in. Hg
DRY
40%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
2005 INTERIM LEVEL II (MODIFIED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 98.7 F
(3) :
212

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA lbs. CODE Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING MODEL#:1.2 (FR SII-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : NA 14 NA 1.38 NEW
ONT )
213

TEST PANEL
1.38
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191772; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025535
DRY
40%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
214

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA NA 12 NA 1.76 lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING MODEL#:1.3 (FR SIIIA-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
ONT )
SET-UP Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Range No. : 2 Shot Spacing : Primary Vel. Location : Temp. :
PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA 9.0 ft. From Muzzle 68 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.70 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 40% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : SHANK Recorder : ADAMS
215

TEST PANEL
1.76
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191782; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025597
SET-UP Primary Vel. Location :Shot Spacing : 9.0 ft. From MuzzlePER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA
DRY
40%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA (MODIFIED) PRE-TEST CLAY TEMP: 98.5 F
(3) :
216

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE 20152015 NA NA NA 34 NA 1.92
ONT ) lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: 329-IIIA R04 6050; 1.4 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
217

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SECOND CHANCE 2015-2015 NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned :
2.06
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: 329-IIIA R04 6050; SERIAL#: 11191794; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025606
Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA Range No. : 2 Temp. : 68 F Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Gunner : CHES BP : RH : 29.75 in. Hg
DRY
42%
Recorder : SHANK

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
218

TEST PANEL
PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA 9.0 ft. From Muzzle 69 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.85 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 62% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357/9-R2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : CHES Recorder : SHANK
219

TEST PANEL
2.05
DRY
62%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
220

TEST PANEL
SECOND CHANCE 20152015 NA NA NA 26 NA 1.48 lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: 329-II R01 6040; 1.6 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
ONT )
221

TEST PANEL
1.57
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: 329-II R01 6040; SERIAL#: 11191784; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025613
DRY
62%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
222

TEST PANEL
223

TEST PANEL
2.06
DRY
60%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
224

TEST PANEL
225

TEST PANEL
2.06
DRY
60%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
226

TEST PANEL
ONT )
227

TEST PANEL
1.56
DRY
63%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
228

TEST PANEL
ONT )
229

TEST PANEL
1.57
DRY
63%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
230

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA lbs. CODE Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SII-6.0; 2.3 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : NA 14 NA 1.38 NEW
ONT )
231

TEST PANEL
1.38
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191774; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025535
DRY
63%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
232

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA NA 12 NA 1.76 lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING MODEL#:2.4 (FR SIIIA-6.0; Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
ONT )
233

TEST PANEL
1.77
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191781; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025597
DRY
40%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
234

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA NA 12 NA 1.76 lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; 2.5 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
ONT )
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP SERIAL#: 11191778; DOM: JUN 2011; LOT#:025597
PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA 9.0 ft. From Muzzle 68 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.78 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 69% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357-9mm/R-1 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : M.GOMEZ Recorder : B.SHAFFER
235

TEST PANEL
1.77
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191780; DOM: JUN 2011; LOT#: 025597
Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA Range No. : 2 Temp. : 68 F Barrel No./Gun : 357-9mm/R-1 Gunner : M.GOMEZ BP : RH :
DRY
29.78 in. Hg 69%

Recorder : B.SHAFFER

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
236

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA lbs. CODE Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SII-6.0; 2.6 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. : NA 14 NA 1.38 NEW
ONT )
237

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SAFARILAND LRC NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned :
1.37
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SII-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191771; DOM: 06/2011; LOT# 025535
DRY
65%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
238

TEST PANEL
SAFARILAND LRC NA NA NA 12 NA 1.75 lbs. CODE NEW Heat No. : Weight : Hardness : AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; 2.7 (FR Plies/Laminates : Sample No. :
ONT )
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP SERIAL#: 11191777; DOM: JUN 2011; LOT#:025597
PER-NIJ-STD- 2005 INTERIM LEVEL IIIA 9.0 ft. From Muzzle 68 F Witness Panel : CLAY Residual Vel. Screens : NA BP : 29.78 in. Hg Obliquity : 0 deg. Residual Vel. Location : NA RH : 69% Backing Material : 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : 16.4 ft. Barrel No./Gun : 357-9mm/R-2 Conditioning : DRY Target to Wit. : 0.0 in. Gunner : SHANK Recorder : ADAMS
239

TEST PANEL
Manufacturer : Size : Thicknesses : Avg. Thick. : SAFARILAND LRC NA NA Required BL(P). : Date Rec'd. : Via : Returned :
1.76
REMARKS FOR MAKEUP AND STITCHING. MODEL#: SIIIA-6.0; SERIAL#: 11191779; DOM: JUN 2011; LOT#:025597
Primary Vel. Screens : 6.5 ft., 11.5 ft. Obliquity : Witness Panel : Backing Material : Conditioning : 0 deg. CLAY 5.5" CLAY Range to Target : Target to Wit. : 16.4 ft. 0.0 in. Residual Vel. Screens : NA Residual Vel. Location : NA Range No. : 2 Temp. : 68 F Barrel No./Gun : 357-9mm/R-2 Gunner : SHANK BP : RH : 29.78
DRY
in. Hg 69%
Recorder : ADAMS

Powder : ACCURATE
NO. 2
Lot No. : REMINGTON
23558

(2) : (1) : PER-NIJ-STD-
(3) :
240
APPENDIXG
FiberTestingResults
241

TableG1Specificstrainenergy,wavespeedandtheballisticperformance parameter(BPP)forfiberfromnewvests. SpecificStrainEnergy WaveSpeed /2,J/kg ,m/s x103 BPP X103 42.4 7.96 697 47.4 8.12 727 41.8 7.93 692 55.6 8.74 785 44.4 8.80 731 54.7 8.90 786 51.7 8.44 758 48.1 8.61 745 45.2 8.05 714 46.1 9.03 746 50.8 8.28 749 58.9 7.91 775 48.6 8.09 732 34.9 8.08 655 41.8 8.25 701 51.28.23 8.540.331 75646
242
TableG2Specificstrainenergy,wavespeedandtheballisticperformance parameter(BPP)forfiberfrom5yearoldvests SpecificStrainEnergy WaveSpeed /2,J/kg ,m/s x103 X103 44.0 9.05 736 61.6 9.24 828 49.6 8.54 750 52.3 8.81 772 61.8 8.85 817 57.6 8.5 787 47.4 8.21 729 52.3 8.16 752 52.0 8.23 753 36.2 8.80 683 44.6 8.40 721 56.0 8.58 782 44.3 8.07 709 53.0 8.58 769 52.2 8.62 766 37.7 8.47 682 44.1 8.28 714 42.6 8.18 698 43.2 8.31 711 54.7 8.88 780 54.2 8.32 767 51.3 8.33 753 50.4 8.18 743 62.5 8.82 858 62.9 8.60 815 63.0 8.43 809 59.6 8.48 796 47.56.22 8.350.375 73337
243
TableG3.TensileModulus,TensileStrengthandStraintoFailureofFiberin theVest Density Tensile Tensile Strainto 3) (Kg/mm Strength Modulus Failure (GPa) (GPa) 1440 3.54 91 .0346 1440 3.74 95 .0365 1440 3.48 91 .0346 1440 4.48 110 .0357 1440 3.77 112 .0339 1440 4.53 114 .0348 1440 4.21 103 .0354 1440 4.05 107 .0342 1440 3.76 93 .0346 1440 3.97 117 .0334 1440 3.92 99 .0373 1440 4.00 90 .0434 1440 3.84 94 .0365 1440 3.27 94 .0308 1440 3.46 98 .0348
244
TableG4.TensileModulus,TensileStrengthandStraintoFailureofFiberin thevest. Density Tensile Tensile Strainto 3) (Kg/mm Strength Modulus Failure (GPa) (GPa) 1440 3.79 118 .0335 1440 5.03 123 .0353 1440 4.15 105 .0344 1440 4.23 112 .0356 1440 4.72 113 .0377 1440 4.28 104 .0387 1440 3.77 97 .0362 1440 3.93 96 .0383 1440 3.95 97 .0379 1440 3.59 112 .0291 1440 3.88 102 .0331 1440 4.27 106 .0377 1440 3.54 94 .0360 1440 4.16 106 .0368 1440 4.27 107 .0352 1440 3.49 103 .0311 1440 3.65 99 .0348 1440 3.63 96 .0330 1440 3.76 99 .0331 1440 4.42 114 .0350 1440 4.11 100 .038 1440 3.99 100 .0370 1440 3.93 96 .0369 1440 4.28 127 .0454 1440 4.10 107 .0442 1440 4.12 102 .0440 1440 3.92 104 .0438 1440 3.70 107 .0308
245
TableG5FiberDiameterMeasurements
Diameter in m Fabric Direction 1 2 Overall: PERF-NEW1.2-H Std. Dev. 1.2 0.4 0.9 Small Sample Correction 10.81% 3.23%
Sample Name PERF-NEW1.1-H
1 13. 2 11. 5
2 12. 7 11. 7
3 10. 0 11. 1
4 12. 4 12. 0
5 11. 8 11. 9
Mean 12.0 11.6 11.8
CV 10.30% 3.07%
1 2 Overall:
11. 1 11. 9
11. 5 12. 1
11. 5 12. 0
10. 4 11. 6
10. 7 11. 2
11.0 11.8 11.4
0.5 0.4 0.6
4.42% 3.10%
4.64% 3.26%
PERF-NEW1.3-H
1 2 Overall:
12. 3 11. 6
11. 7 12. 8
11. 7 11. 0
12. 1 11. 5
10. 9 12. 0
11.7 11.8 11.8
0.5 0.7 0.6
4.57% 5.71%
4.80% 5.99%
PERF-NEW1.4-W
1 2 Overall:
7.8 9.7
9.0 8.7
8.1 8.7
8.3 7.2
8.6 8.5
8.4 8.6 8.5
0.5 0.9 0.7
5.52% 10.44%
5.80% 10.96%
PERF-NEW1.5-W
1 2 Overall:
8.1 8.6
9.0 8.6
8.1 9.0
8.8 8.3
9.1 7.6
8.6 8.4 8.5
0.5 0.5 0.5
5.65% 6.19%
5.93% 6.50%
PERF-NEW1.6-W
1 2 Overall:
8.6 8.3
8.0 8.0
8.0 7.8
8.4 8.1
8.8 9.0
8.4 8.2 8.3
0.4 0.5 0.4
4.28% 5.60%
4.49% 5.88%
PERF-NEW1.7-W
1 2 Overall: 1 2 Overall:
8.4 8.1
8.3 9.0
8.6 8.7
9.0 8.7
9.7 8.3
8.8 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.6
0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6
6.48% 4.18%
6.80% 4.39%
PERF-NEW1.8-W
8.7 8.5
7.9 7.8
9.1 9.2
8.1 8.6
9.5 8.3
7.73% 5.98%
8.12% 6.28%
246
PERF-NEW2.1-W
1 2 Overall:
10. 4 8.8
9.5 8.3
8.7 9.1
9.2 8.6
9.0 8.5
9.4 8.7 9.0
0.7 0.3 0.6
6.95% 3.52%
7.30% 3.70%
PERF-NEW2.2-W
1 2 Overall:
7.7 8.5
7.9 8.7
8.0 8.5
7.8 8.6
8.5 8.3
8.0 8.5 8.3
0.3 0.1 0.4
3.90% 1.74%
4.10% 1.83%
PERF-NEW2.3-H
1 2 Overall:
10. 8 11. 3
11. 1 10. 8
11. 5 10. 8
11. 8 11. 9
11. 6 11. 7
11.4 11.3 11.3
0.4 0.5 0.4
3.55% 4.47%
3.73% 4.69%
PERF-NEW2.4-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 5 11. 6
12. 0 12. 0
11. 9 10. 2
11. 6 11. 2
11. 5 10. 1
11.7 11.0 11.4
0.2 0.8 0.7
2.00% 7.66%
2.10% 8.04%
PERF-NEW2.5-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 7 10. 8
12. 3 10. 9
11. 6 11. 3
12. 4 12. 0
11. 5 10. 5
11.9 11.1 11.5
0.4 0.6 0.6
3.52% 5.21%
3.69% 5.48%
PERF-NEW2.6-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 3 11. 2
11. 9 11. 5
11. 2 11. 5
11. 7 10. 1
12. 2 11. 1
11.7 11.1 11.4
0.4 0.6 0.6
3.57% 5.20%
3.75% 5.46%
PERF-NEW2.7-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 7 11. 5 11. 7 11. 0
11. 5 10. 1 10. 5 10. 5
11. 4 12. 1 12. 4 11. 1
11. 0 11. 3 12. 4 11. 6
10. 8 11. 6 13. 1 11. 7
11.3 11.3 11.3 12.0 11.2 11.6
0.4 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.9
3.28% 6.56%
3.45% 6.89%
PERF-USED1.1-H
1 2 Overall:
8.18% 4.35%
8.59% 4.57%
PERF-USED1.2-W
1 2 Overall:
6.5 7.7
8.1 8.1
7.3 7.4
7.2 7.4
7.4 7.3
7.3 7.6 7.4
0.6 0.3 0.5
7.81% 4.32%
8.20% 4.53%
247
PERF-USED2.1-W
1 2 Overall:
8.3 9.0
7.1 7.9
8.7 7.7
8.4 7.9
7.4 8.1
8.0 8.1 8.1
0.7 0.5 0.6
8.65% 6.30%
9.09% 6.62%
PERF-USED4.1-H
1 2 Overall:
10. 4 11. 9
10. 8 11. 4
11. 0 11. 1
10. 4 11. 5
10. 6 12. 0
10.6 11.6 11.1
0.3 0.4 0.6
2.45% 3.20%
2.57% 3.36%
PERF-USED5.1-H
1 2 Overall:
10. 2 11. 5
11. 1 11. 3
11. 1 11. 0
10. 2 10. 8
11. 8 10. 4
10.9 11.0 10.9
0.7 0.4 0.5
6.28% 3.91%
6.60% 4.11%
PERF-USED6.1-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 5 11. 0
11. 2 11. 9
10. 3 13. 1
10. 5 11. 9
10. 5 10. 6
10.8 11.7 11.3
0.5 1.0 0.9
4.81% 8.26%
5.05% 8.68%
PERF-USED7.1-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 0 11. 5
12. 2 12. 2
11. 1 12. 7
11. 7 12. 6
11. 5 12. 7
11.5 12.3 11.9
0.5 0.5 0.6
4.22% 4.16%
4.43% 4.36%
PERF-USED8.1-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 6 12. 6 12. 4 12. 1
11. 7 11. 9 12. 0 12. 5
11. 7 13. 5 12. 0 11. 1
13. 4 12. 8 12. 2 12. 5
12. 4 12. 4 11. 7 13. 0
12.2 12.6 12.4 12.1 12.2 12.2
0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.5
6.28% 4.63%
6.59% 4.87%
PERF-USED9.1-H
1 2 Overall:
2.16% 5.82%
2.27% 6.11%
PERF-USED10.1-W
1 2 Overall:
7.7 8.4
6.8 8.1
7.4 8.0
8.0 9.0
7.9 8.5
7.6 8.4 8.0
0.5 0.4 0.6
6.38% 4.69%
6.70% 4.92%
PERF-USED11.1-W
1 2 Overall:
7.8 7.9
8.5 8.3
8.4 9.0
7.4 9.1
8.1 7.9
8.0 8.4 8.2
0.5 0.6 0.5
5.60% 6.89%
5.88% 7.23%
248
PERF-USED12.1
1 2 Overall:
8.3 8.1
8.5 7.9
8.6 8.5
9.5 8.0
8.9 9.4
8.8 8.4 8.6
0.5 0.6 0.6
5.33% 7.33%
5.60% 7.69%
PERF-USED13.1-H
1 2 Overall:
13. 0 11. 9
10. 6 11. 5
12. 8 11. 6
12. 1 11. 2
11. 8 11. 5
12.1 11.5 11.8
1.0 0.3 0.7
7.90% 2.18%
8.30% 2.28%
PERF-USED14.1-H
1 2 Overall:
13. 0 11. 5
12. 5 12. 6
13. 0 12. 9
12. 9 12. 6
11. 1 11. 5
12.5 12.2 12.4
0.8 0.7 0.7
6.47% 5.47%
6.80% 5.74%
PERF-USED15.1-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 3 12. 0
11. 8 12. 5
11. 9 12. 6
10. 8 11. 2
11. 2 11. 9
11.4 12.0 11.7
0.5 0.6 0.6
3.97% 4.65%
4.17% 4.88%
PERF-USED16.1-W
1 2 Overall:
8.0 7.9
8.3 8.3
9.1 8.1
8.4 8.0
7.6 8.1
8.3 8.1 8.2
0.6 0.1 0.4
6.69% 1.84%
7.03% 1.93%
PERF-USED17.1-W
1 2 Overall:
9.3 7.9
8.6 8.6
8.0 8.3
9.1 7.3
8.7 7.7
8.7 8.0 8.4
0.5 0.5 0.6
5.76% 6.38%
6.04% 6.70%
PERF-USED18.1-H
1 2 Overall:
12. 9 11. 0
11. 2 11. 9
12. 0 13. 5
11. 9 12. 9
12. 6 11. 3
12.1 12.1 12.1
0.7 1.1 0.8
5.45% 8.74%
5.73% 9.18%
PERF-USED19.1-W
1 2 Overall:
8.1 8.0
7.7 8.5
8.6 8.0
9.0 7.9
8.5 7.9
8.4 8.1 8.2
0.5 0.3 0.4
5.93% 3.11%
6.23% 3.27%
PERF-USED19.2-W
1 2 Overall:
7.7 8.8
8.5 8.0
7.9 7.9
8.7 8.3
8.5 8.1
8.3 8.2 8.2
0.4 0.4 0.4
5.25% 4.34%
5.51% 4.55%
249
PERF-USED19.3-W
1 2 Overall:
8.3 7.8
8.8 8.5
7.4 7.9
8.3 7.6
8.4 8.1
8.2 8.0 8.1
0.5 0.3 0.4
6.22% 4.29%
6.53% 4.50%
PERF-USED20.1-H
1 2 Overall:
9.0 9.1
9.0 9.4
8.3 8.6
8.7 9.2
8.5 7.7
8.7 8.8 8.8
0.3 0.7 0.5
3.54% 7.75%
3.72% 8.14%
PERF-USED21.1-W
1 2 Overall:
8.6 7.0
8.8 8.3
8.0 7.9
7.5 7.7
8.4 8.5
8.3 7.9 8.1
0.5 0.6 0.6
6.27% 7.42%
6.58% 7.79%
PERF-USED22.1-H
1 2 Overall:
12. 0 11. 2
13. 1 12. 3
12. 8 11. 3
11. 1 11. 2
11. 1 11. 8
12.0 11.6 11.8
0.9 0.5 0.7
7.75% 4.18%
8.13% 4.38%
PERF-USED23.1-H
1 2 Overall:
12. 2 10. 8
11. 5 12. 0
10. 6 11. 2
10. 6 11. 5
12. 6 11. 8
11.5 11.5 11.5
0.9 0.5 0.7
7.92% 4.17%
8.32% 4.37%
PERF-USED24.1-W
1 2 Overall:
8.8 7.7
8.5 9.1
8.3 7.9
8.3 8.8
8.1 7.5
8.4 8.2 8.3
0.3 0.7 0.5
3.15% 8.62%
3.31% 9.05%
PERF-USED25.1-W
1 2 Overall:
7.1 7.9
8.3 8.7
7.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
8.7 7.3
8.1 8.2 8.1
0.7 0.6 0.6
8.53% 7.04%
8.96% 7.40%
PERF-USED25.2-W
1 2 Overall:
9.1 8.7
9.4 9.0
8.7 8.3
7.7 8.3
7.8 7.9
8.5 8.4 8.5
0.8 0.4 0.6
8.94% 5.00%
9.39% 5.25%
PERF-USED25.3-W
1 2 Overall:
8.3 7.6
9.1 8.6
8.1 8.0
8.1 7.5
9.0 7.8
8.5 7.9 8.2
0.5 0.4 0.5
5.77% 5.52%
6.06% 5.79%
250
PERF-USED26.1-H
1 2 Overall:
11. 0 11. 9
11. 6 12. 4
12. 2 12. 9
10. 9 11. 7
11. 7 10. 5
11.5 11.9 11.7
0.5 0.9 0.7
4.67% 7.59%
4.90% 7.96%
MAX MEAN N N VALUES LE 5% N VALUES 5% - 10% N VALUES GE 10%
10.44% 5.50% 90
10.96% 5.77% 90
39
37
49
51
NOTES:
-45 fabric samples supplied by Sponsor and received 8/15/11. Samples identified in results below. -Yarns were unraveled from fabric to extract individual fibers for measurement. -For diameter measurements, 5 fiber samples in each fabric direction were randomly selected for measurement. -Equipment used: Motic microscope with digital imaging.
251
TableG6DetailedTensileResultsforNewVests
PERF-New-1.1-H Sample: 11.8 Mean Diameter (m): PERF-New-1.2-H Sample: 11.4 Mean Diameter (m):
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Tensile Strength (MPa) 4358 3833 3192 4122 2725 3945 2494 2968 3831 3974 3544 644 18.2
Modulus (GPa) 91.92 94.71 88.03 94.64 84.79 95.93 94.36 92.15 94.49 80.84 91.19 5.02 5.51
Strain at Failure (%) 4.08 3.72 3.12 4.06 2.89 3.61 2.42 2.92 3.57 4.18 3.46 0.59 17.19
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 92.30 98.91 92.86 92.13 91.97 98.47 101.28 93.87 89.80 98.71 95.03 3.92 4.12
PERF-New-1.3-H Sample: 11.8 Mean Diameter (m):
PERF-New-1.4-W Sample: 8.5 Mean Diameter (m): Strain at Failure (%) 3.29 3.17 3.21 3.48 3.60 3.60 3.21 3.86 3.30 3.88 3.46 0.27 7.70 Tensile Strength (MPa) 4499 4288 5185 3707 4712 4160 5032 4498 4380 4355 4482 424 9.5 Modulus (GPa) 114.28 91.07 131.36 114.50 110.92 102.64 106.50 118.75 110.76 101.12 110.19 10.93 9.92 Strain at Failure (%) 3.40 3.80 3.69 2.82 3.68 3.47 4.10 3.48 3.58 3.70 3.57 0.33 9.27
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 93.00 92.73 87.63 92.43 93.89 78.74 86.51 99.48 90.00 92.23 90.66 5.50 6.07
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
252
PERF-New-1.5-W Sample: 8.5 Mean Diameter (m):
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 111.17 91.23 137.00 140.70 123.78 82.39 109.63 85.19 122.28 112.20 111.56 20.34 18.24
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 106.28 121.27 89.73 99.28 99.43 106.37 94.91 114.32 106.36 88.85 102.68 10.34 10.07
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
253
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 106.17 81.08 96.96 97.95 76.42 98.37 83.82 96.25 98.04 99.18 93.42 9.52 10.19
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
PERF-New-2.4-H Sample: 11.4 Mean Diameter (m): Strain at Failure (%) 2.38 4.54 2.89 3.78 3.09 4.80 3.87 3.59 4.09 4.27 3.73 0.76 20.38 Tensile Strength (MPa) 3677 4224 4351 4404 4323 3660 4227 4381 3501 3246 3999 431 10.8 Modulus (GPa) 73.85 92.00 101.46 93.10 59.81 78.64 111.57 92.28 107.21 91.46 90.14 15.69 17.40 Strain at Failure (%) 4.42 4.18 4.01 4.27 5.92 4.30 4.09 4.27 3.52 3.40 4.24 0.68 16.05
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 95.30 88.73 96.76 91.29 108.17 106.38 113.42 90.31 108.73 88.80 98.79 9.45 9.57
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
254
PERF-New-2.6-H Sample: 11.4 Mean Diameter (m): Strain at Failure (%) 4.10 3.59 3.78 3.39 3.79 3.88 3.00 3.87 3.98 3.09 3.65 0.37 10.24 Tensile Strength (MPa) 3047 3934 3111 2870 4013 3144 3370 2409 4427 2320 3265 686 21.0 Modulus (GPa) 102.78 102.02 90.51 104.63 96.73 81.94 99.99 72.22 96.20 93.03 94.01 10.20 10.85 Strain at Failure (%) 2.73 3.39 3.00 2.51 3.62 3.28 3.10 2.78 4.06 2.32 3.08 0.53 17.15
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 84.95 91.03 84.18 95.71 95.10 104.70 112.65 97.25 99.89 77.60 94.31 10.36 10.99
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
Modulus (GPa) 104.54 102.26 101.13 100.32 92.56 96.88 94.43 78.68 96.31 113.10 98.02 8.97 9.15

255
NOTES:
-45 fabric samples supplied by Sponsor and received 8/15/11. Samples identified in results below. -Yarns were unraveled from fabric to extract individual fibers for measurement. -For tensile measurements, 5 fiber samples in each fabric direction were randomly selected for measurement. -In the results below, Replicates 1 through 5 correspond to Direction 1 in Fiber Diameter measurements, and Replicates 6 through 10 correspond to Direction 2. (All ten values were averaged.) -Equipment used: MTS Q-Test/5 -Test Speed: 15 mm/min; Gauge Length: 1 inch -Test Method: ASTM D3822
256
TableG7DetailedTensileResultsforUsedVests
PERF-Used-1.1-H Sample: 11.6 Mean Diameter (m): Tensile Strength (MPa) 3903 4002 4005 3803 4132 2771 3951 3805 4374 3194 3794 469 12.4 Modulus (GPa) 116.69 117.44 117.45 120.40 125.93 118.09 125.63 112.59 115.90 112.01 118.21 4.69 3.97 Strain at Failure (%) 3.51 3.59 3.50 3.30 3.41 2.42 3.31 3.59 3.92 2.93 3.35 0.41 12.34 PERF-Used-1.2-W Sample: 7.4 Mean Diameter (m): Tensile Strength (MPa) 5619 4819 3439 4486 5580 5260 5107 5087 5499 5395 5029 661 13.2 Modulus (GPa) 131.93 124.83 122.43 109.15 131.84 137.86 118.33 114.99 121.59 116.97 122.99 8.81 7.16 Strain at Failure (%) 3.80 3.38 2.31 3.47 3.79 3.55 3.66 3.67 3.75 3.87 3.53 0.45 12.88
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
PERF-Used-2.1-W Sample: 8.1 Mean Diameter (m): Tensile Strength (MPa) 3626 4032 4461 3914 4538 4597 4344 3603 4064 4318 4150 360 8.7 Modulus (GPa) 108.62 90.34 124.09 108.75 102.72 114.23 99.29 98.76 109.24 94.02 105.01 10.04 9.56 Strain at Failure (%) 2.72 3.78 3.20 3.13 3.78 3.50 3.88 3.09 3.50 3.78 3.44 0.39 11.24
PERF-Used-4.1-H Sample: 11.1 Mean Diameter (m): Tensile Strength (MPa) 3544 3792 4086 3644 2730 4897 5176 5200 4368 4851 4229 814 19.2 Modulus (GPa) 106.25 109.87 107.66 110.82 113.85 121.33 112.11 124.33 99.22 112.59 111.80 7.18 6.42 Strain at Failure (%) 3.20 3.20 3.89 3.08 2.41 3.71 4.27 3.87 3.98 3.98 3.56 0.57 15.94
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
257
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
258
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
PERF-Used-12.1 Sample: 8.6 Mean Diameter (m): Tensile Strength (MPa) 3293 2774 3451 3064 3144 2758 2558 2593 3137 2615 2939 319 10.8 Modulus (GPa) 97.17 92.00 99.13 103.15 95.91 106.92 77.19 111.61 92.20 95.75 97.10 9.41 9.69 Strain at Failure (%) 2.79 2.69 2.96 2.60 2.94 2.32 2.70 2.00 2.85 2.56 2.64 0.30 11.18
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
259
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
260
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
261
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
262
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
263
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean: Std. Dev: % CV
NOTES:
-45 fabric samples supplied by Sponsor and received 8/15/11. Samples identified in results below. -Yarns were unraveled from fabric to extract individual fibers for measurement. -For tensile measurements, 5 fiber samples in each fabric direction were randomly selected for measurement. -In the results below, Replicates 1 through 5 correspond to Direction 1 in Fiber Diameter measurements, and Replicates 6 through 10 correspond to Direction 2. (All ten values were averaged.) -Equipment used: MTS Q-Test/5 -Test Speed: 15 mm/min; Gauge Length: 1 inch -Test Method: ASTM D3822
264

Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document No.: Date Received: Award Number:

HeathGrant,Ph.D.** BruceKubu** BruceTaylor,Ph.D.*** JackRoberts,Ph.D.**** MeganCollins** DanielJ.Woods,Ph.D.**

increasinglyprevalent.Largemajoritiesofofficersreportthattheyobeythose policies.Andakeyfactorinhighcomplianceratesappearstobethefactthat largemajoritiesofofficersunderstandthatarmorisvitaltotheirsafety. Asmentionedabove,thesurveyconductedforthisprojectisnotdirectly

comparabletothePERF/BJAsurveyof2009,becauseitwasdesignedtobea representativesampleoflawenforcementofficers,asopposedtothe2009surveyof lawenforcementagencies.However,thenewsurveydoesappeartoofferstrong evidencethatmandatorywearpoliciesarebecomingmoreprevalent.

chosentoreflectanationallyrepresentativesampleofmunicipal,county,andstate agencies,foundthatmorethan92percentofofficersreportedthattheyare requiredtowearbodyarmor,eitheratalltimeswhenonduty(57%)oratmost timeswhenonduty(35.3%). Bycontrast,thesurveycompletedin2009foundthatonly59percentofthe

respondingagenciesrequiredtheirofficerstowearbodyarmoratleastsomeofthe timetheywereonduty. Similarly,thenewsurveyfoundthat77.9percentofofficersreportedthat

theiragencyhasawrittenbodyarmorpolicy.Bycontrast,the2009surveyfound thatonly45percentoftherespondingagenciesindicatedthattheyhadawritten policyrequiringtheirofficerstowearbodyarmor. Thesefindings,showingincreasesinmandatorywearrequirements

Departmentcitedanincreaseinofficerdeathsinfirearmsrelatedincidentsin adoptingthisnewrequirement. Itisencouragingtonotethatfatalshootingsofofficersdeclinedsharply

produceddataonofficerscompliancewith,andattitudesabout,bodyarmor policies.Thesefindingswereencouraging:nearlyallofficersreportedthatthey wearbodyarmorwhenrequiredtodoso,obeyingthepolicieseitherallofthetime (87.9%)ormostofthetime(11.4%). Andeventhough73percentofrespondingofficerssaidtheyhadneverbeen

shotatorinvolvedinothersituationsinwhichtheirbodyarmorprotectedthem frompossibleinjuries,officersoverwhelminglyunderstandtheneedtowearbody armor;90percentsaidthatonereasontheywearbodyarmoristhatitiscriticalfor safety.Inaddition,49.2percentofrespondingofficersidentifiedagencypolicy

requiresitasareasonwhytheywearbodyarmor,and14.3percentcitedfamily pressureasafactorintheirdecisiontoweartheprotectivegear. PolicyImplicationsandRecommendations:Thesurveyrevealedthat

consequenceofasecondoffensewouldbeawrittenreprimand.Only20.3percent saidthattheybelievedthatasecondoffensewouldresultinasuspension. Despitethefactthatofficersdidnotbelievethatfailingtowearbodyarmor,

aboutmanybodyarmorcareandmaintenancepractices.However,significant numbersofofficersdonotunderstandcertainaspectsofrecommended procedures.Furthermore,officersdonotalwaysadheretorecommended practicesevenwhentheydounderstandthem. Thesurveyincludedaseriesoftruefalsequestionsdesignedtotestofficers

wereunwilling(duetoorderingsuchasmallnumber)and/orunable(someofthematerialsutilized tomakethe04vestswerenolongerinproduction)todoso.Facedwiththisreality,theresearch team,includingfederalrepresentativesandbodyarmorexperts,madethedecisiontomake xii

combinedwithtightlywovenfiberlayers,laminatedmaterials,ormetallicelements, italsocanprovidesomelevelofprotectiontothewearerfromknifeattacksand otherformsofinjuries(e.g.blunttraumafromtrafficaccidents). Oneofthefirstdocumentedcasesofbodyarmorbeingdemonstratedforlaw

willbediscussedinthecurrentstudysresults,todayasignificantmajorityof departmentsnationallyrequirethatthattheirpoliceofficerswearbodyarmoratall timesoratmosttimeswhenofficersareonduty.Thisrepresentsamajorchange

fromthe2009BJAPERFBodyArmorStudy,whichfoundthat59percentof agenciesrequiretheirofficerstowearbodyarmorwhenonduty(althoughmany officerschosetoweararmoranyway). However,thissamestudyshowedlimitationsinthedegreetowhichagencies

ensuredthepropercareandmaintenanceofthearmorwornbytheirforce.Thisis trueeventhoughsignificantdataandpracticalexperiencehavedemonstratedthe potentialforenvironmentalandothermaintenancefactorstodegradebodyarmor performanceinthefield. Despiteitswidespreaduseandrecognizedimportance,todate,norigorous

themethodologyutilizedbyWeisburdetal.(2001)tostudyanationally representativesampleofpoliceofficersonuseofforce12,thecurrentstudysurveys arandomselectionofmorethan1,000individualofficersnationally13about

reportedbodyarmorusagebehaviors.Whilethesamplesizesweresmall,the combinedofficerinterviews(N=29)andbodyarmortesting(N=30usedand15 unused)representanimportantexploratoryeffortthatwillhaveimplicationsfor thefieldandfuturereplicationstudies.

designedtoofferbothfirearmsandknifeprotection,butthesearelesspopularintheUnitedStates, becausethemetallicarrayandchainmailnecessarytoprotectagainstknivesofferslittleballistics performance. 5

forallegedlyknowinglysellingdefectivematerialforbulletproofvestsusedbylaw enforcementagencies.HoneywellsoldZylonShieldmaterialdespiteevidence thatitdeterioratedunderhotandhumidconditions.Onceagain,thegovernment claimedthatthevestswouldnotremaineffectiveforthefiveyearwarrantyperiod.

representativesurveyoflawenforcementagenciesfocusedonbodyarmorpolicies andpractices(PERF,2009).Theinstrumentcollecteddataonthebodyarmor policiesofindividualagencies,whethertheyprovideofficerswitharmor,aswellas outcomesofbodyarmoruseandofficersafety.Theoverwhelmingmajority(99%)

withorganizationalpoliciesrelatedtothecareandmaintenanceoftheirbodyarmor inawaythathasnotbeenpreviouslydone. KeyVariablesAffectingBodyArmorDegradation Asdiscussedabove,aseriesoftragicincidentsexposedthedangerous

primarilyinvestigatedspecificpoliceagenciesorlocal/statejurisdictions.Aswillbe discussedinthemethodssection,thisstudysoughttoexamineindividualofficers bodyarmorcareandexperiencewiththeirbodyarmor,usinganationally representativesample.

thatthisnumberofswornofficerswasattained,96agencieswereselected,as discussedbelow.31Ofthese,92(95.8%)agreedtoparticipate. DefiningtheStrata.Giventhatthevastmajorityoflawenforcement

weightof10;andinastratumwherethesamplingfractionis1in22,allcases receivedaweightof22. Table1.StudyStratificationVariables

AgencyLevelSampleSelection.Basedupontheabovestratificationcriteria, asufficientnumberofagenciestoensureadequaterepresentationtothepopulation wererandomlyselectedforpossiblestudyparticipation.Inselectingthesample,

Protection/ProtectiveCapabilitieslevelofbodyarmorworn; respondentknowledgeabouttheprotectivecapacitiesofthebody armor(true/falsequestions);respondentuseofadditionalprotective measures(trauma/ballisticplates);andwhetherornotthebody armoriswornunderorovertheuniformshirt;

Maintenance,Training,andInspectionsourceofeducationabout thecareandmaintenanceofbodyarmor;frequencyandtypeofbody armorinspections;andreplacementpractices;

least60%ofthesurveyswerereceivedfromagivenagency.Officerswereinstructedtodisregardthe subsequentsurveywavesiftheyhadalreadysubmittedacompletedsurvey.Thiswasnecessary sincethesurveywasanonymousandtherewasnowaytodeterminewhichspecificofficershad respondedandwhichhadnot. 26

PhaseOnebyevaluatingtheeffectsoftheage,climate,experience,andmaintenance factorsontheoveralldegradationofbodyarmor.Althoughtheunitofanalysisin thisstudywastheactualbodyarmor,eacharmorunitwaslinkedtoanindividual

powerofourmalevestsample,wehaveenoughunitstohavemorethanonefrom eachclimatezonerepresented,andcanexploregeneraldifferences. b) SampleSelectionProcess The30usedvestsobtainedforthestudywereaconveniencesamplefrom

samplingprocesswasthatitproducedasamplewithsufficientnumbersinthetwo maincategoriesbeingexaminedforbetweengroupdifferences:climatezoneand primaryfibercomposition.49Importantly,thisoutcomewasachieved(seeTable3).

PRIMARYFIBERCOMPOSITION 4wovenaramid 4hybrid 3wovenaramid 4hybrid 4wovenaramid 4hybrid 4wovenaramid 3hybrid

PROTECTIONLEVEL 4LevelII 4LevelIIIA 5LevelII 2LevelIIIA 1LevelII 7LevelIIIA 3LevelII 4LevelIIIA

Ballisticslimittesting(V50values)Thismeasuresthevelocityatwhich50 percentoftheshotsperforate(i.e.,gothroughthearmor)and50percent partiallypenetrate(i.e.,arestoppedbythearmor)(NationalInstituteof Justice,2008)Theseshotsfromtheperforateandfromthestoppedgroup areusedtocalculateav50velocity.

makeupofthearmorpanels(plycounts,descriptionofmaterial,etc.).Backface signatureswerealsosuppliedforallnonpenetratingshots.54 b) FiberTestingProcedures i. GeneralSamplingProcedures Followingtheballistictestingandofficerinterviews,thevestswerereturned

cardandfiberweremountedintheclampsinthetensiletester,smallscissorswere usedtotrimthecardawaysothatonlythefiberextendedacrosstheopening betweentheclamps.

10.7percentfemale.Thecurrentprofessionalranksoftheserespondentsvaried, althoughthemajorityselfidentifiedasanOfficer/Deputy/Trooper(70.4%), followedbySergeant(13.7%)andotherranks.57(seeTable4).Morethanhalfof respondents(51.0%)hadelevenormoreyearsofswornexperience;29.8percent

area(51.6%);23.0percentofofficerssaidtheyworkinsuburbanareas,and10.5 percentinruralareas.Theremaining6.3percentofresponsesiscomposedof Other(e.g.highwaypatrol,statewidejurisdiction),orhybridareasthatarenot exclusivelyonetypeofregionorthatfluctuateseasonally.

yearsofuse(Chinetal,2007).Thissectionexaminesofficerpatternsofbodyarmor careandmaintenance. a)BodyArmorStorageAfterUse Participantsweregiventheoptionofindicatingallthewaysthattheystored

men),andlesslikelytouseaclotheshangernotdesignedforbodyarmor(44.2 percentcomparedto58.7percentofmen)forbodyarmorstorage. b)BodyArmorCarrierCleaningPractices Ballisticprotectionisaffordedbythearmorpanelnotthecarriermaking

64ThosewhomarkedOtherindicatedthattheymightlosevacationdays,thattheiruseofarmor hadneverbeencheckedbyasupervisor,orthattheydidnotknowtheconsequencesbecausethey werenotoutlinedinthepolicy.

inspectionstoensurethattheyarewearingbodyarmor,andjust9.3percentcheck forpropermaintenance.Ofthosewhosaidthatarmorwearingisinspected,more thanhalfsaiditoccursmultipletimesperyear(seeTable11).Checksfor

BodyArmorSelection/Acquisition a)WhatAreTheyCurrentlyWearing? Mostoftheofficersbodyarmoriswithintherecommendedfiveyearage windowofmostmanufacturerwarranties.Thevastmajority(93.2%)of respondents(N=940)reportedhavingarmorthathadbeenpurchasedbetween

TrainingFormat Manufacturer provided literature/manuals Academy Firearmstraining

53.5 34.5 23.5

relatedtothebenefitsandlimitationsoftheirbodyarmor.Thisfindingwas relativelyconsistentacrossdifferenttypesofjurisdictions.Regardingcareand maintenance,roughly27percent(27.8%)hadnotreceivedthistraining,withthis beingslightlymorecommoninruralsettings(33.3%)thaninurbanorsuburban agencies.

WeareassigningthetermBallisticPerformanceParameter(BPP)tothe expression ,andisthefiberultimatestrength,isthefiberultimate

tensilestrain,isthefiberdensityandEthelinearelasticfibermodulus.The expression isthefiberspecificstrainenergyandtheexpression isthespeedof

TheballisticdatawasanalyzedbylookingattheaverageV50limits69and backfacedeformationsfor:eachvestlevel,eachtypeofvest(Hybridorwoven fabric),eachplylevel(thenumberofpliesinthevestsvariedfrom12to34)and eachregionofthecountry.Figure2showstheV50limitfortheLevelIIandIIIAsoft

Figure2.V50limitforLevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftarmorvestsasafunctionofnumber ofpliesinthevestfornewvestsand5yearoldveststestedinaccordancewithNIJ 0101.04.

averageV50ballisticlimitof17014.3fpsandtheusedvestsfromthehigh/low andlow/lowregionsofthecountry,with24plies,hadV50ballisticlimitsof1543 40fpsand155726fps,respectively.

Figure4.V50limitforLevelIIIAnewcomparedto5yearoldsoftarmorveststhat havebeensubjectedtodifferentlevelsoftemperatureandhumiditytestedin accordancewithNIJ0101.04.

Figure6.V50ballisticlimitfor5yearoldlevelIIandLevelIIIAsoftbodyarmorthat hadbeensoakedinwaterorsweatprevioustotestingversusthosethathadnot beensoakedinwaterorsweatprevioustotestingandtestedinaccordancewithNIJ 0101.04.

Figure8.Specificstrainenergyvs.soundvelocityofKevlarfibersextractedfromthe fiveyearoldsoftarmorvests.Thesolidlineisforotherhighperformancefibers,as wellas,Kevlar29and49fromMcDonough,etal.(2010)andforKevlarfromnew vestsandfiveyearoldvestsinthecurrentstudy.

TheapparentreductioninV50seeninthecurrentballistictestsbetween newandusedarmormayonlybearesultofthemodeltomodelvariationsseen withineacharmorlevel.

PERF/BJAsurveyof2009,becauseitwasdesignedtobearepresentativesampleof lawenforcementofficers,asopposedtothe2009surveyoflawenforcement agencies.However,thenewsurveydoesappeartoofferstrongevidencethat mandatorywearpoliciesarebecomingmoreprevalent.

chosentoreflectanationallyrepresentativesampleofmunicipal,county,andstate agencies,foundthatmorethan92percentofofficersreportedthattheyare requiredtowearbodyarmor,eitheratalltimeswhenonduty(57%)oratmost timeswhenonduty(35.3%). Bycontrast,thesurveycompletedin2009foundthatonly59percentofthe

respondingagenciesrequiredtheirofficerstowearbodyarmoratleastsomeofthe timetheywereonduty. Similarly,the2011surveyfoundthat77.9percentofofficersreportedthat

theiragencyhasawrittenbodyarmorpolicy.Bycontrast,the2009surveyfound thatonly45percentoftherespondingagenciesindicatedthattheyhadawritten policyrequiringtheirofficerstowearbodyarmor. Thesefindings,showingincreasesinmandatorywearrequirements

HeathGrant,Ph.D. BruceKubu BruceTaylor,Ph.D.* JackRoberts,Ph.D. MeganCollins DanielJ.Woods,Ph.D.**