The internationally accepted standard for the performance of bullet resistant
armour is the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)01.0104.
This standard specifies four soft armour levels as shown below.
Download the Ballistic Standards Documents:
MIL STD 662
NIJ 0101.04
NIJ
0106.01
Download the Technical specifications for Global Armour Highmark covert
body armour carrier HC210:
Highmark
HC210
Performance of Bullet Resistant Armour
| LEVEL |
AMMUNITION
|
BULLET MASS
(grains) |
VELOCITY
(m/s)
|
SHOTS 90 DEGREES
|
SHOTS 60 DEGREES
|
MAX TRAUMA (mm)
|
| HG1 |
.357 Mag Norma 19107 |
158
|
375 - 395
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
| 9mm DM11A1B2 |
124
|
350 - 370
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
| HG2 |
.357 Mag Norma 19107 |
158
|
440 - 460
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
| 9mm DM11A1B2 |
124
|
415 - 435
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
| .44 Mag R44MG2 |
240
|
430 - 460
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
| RF1 |
7.62X51mm L2A2 |
144
|
815 - 845
|
3
|
0
|
25
|
| SG1 |
12ga Winchester 1oz slug |
437
|
410 - 460
|
1
|
0
|
25
|
ANTI-STAB STANDARDS
|
|
Impact Energy Strike
1
|
Impact Energy Strike
2
|
| Level |
Police Standard
Test Weapon |
Joules
|
ft/lbs
|
Penetration
Max (mm) |
Joules
|
ft/lbs
|
Penetration
Max (mm)
|
| Anti-Slash |
3 inch Bowie Knife (L113) |
25
|
18.4
|
5
|
Not Tested
|
| 6 inch Bowie Knife (L104) |
5
|
| KR1+SP1 |
Engineered Blade (P1/B) |
24
|
17.7
|
7
|
36
|
26.5
|
20
|
| Engineered Spike (SP/B) |
Nil
|
Nil
|
| KR2+SP2 |
Engineered Blade (P1/B) |
33
|
24.3
|
7
|
50
|
36.8
|
20
|
| Engineered Spike (SP/B) |
Nil
|
Nil
|
| KR3+SP3 |
Engineered Blade (P1/B) |
43
|
31.7
|
7
|
65
|
47.9
|
20
|
| Engineered Spike (SP/B) |
Nil
|
Nil
|
History of Body Armour
Background
Protecting the human body against injury
dates as far back as recorded
history, when ancient warriors wore bronze, copper and iron breastplates
during battle. Today, for the army, police officers, security personnel and
those that
compete in the world of sport, the use of equipment to protect the body is
almost commonplace. From sports shin pads and ballistic vests to thorn-proof
gardening gloves, wearers rely on body armour to protect them against severe
injury, and at the same time require it to be lightweight and comfortable to
wear.
The Romans used three main types of body armour: mail, scale and segmental.
All body armour would have been worn over a padded arming doublet.
Mail was normally made of iron rings, each riveted one
interlinked with four other punched or welded rings. In the early imperial
period, the wearer's shoulders were reinforced with 'doubling' which was
fastened across the chest. Used throughout the Roman period.
Scale armour was made of small plates of iron or copper
alloy wired to their neighbours horizontally and sewn to a fabric or leather
backing. In the 2nd century A.D., a new form of semi-rigid cuirass was
introduced where each scale was wired to its vertical, as well as horizontal,
neighbours. Similarly used throughout the Roman period.
Segmental armour consisted of overlapping curved bands or
iron fastened to internal leather straps. Used from the 1st to 3rd centuries
A.D.
Protective Equipment from a Design Perspective
The range of incidents that can cause injury
is immense, and while there are
various body armour solutions for particular problems, the issues of impact,
man-made protection versus natural body protection, and damage to vital organs
are often not looked at in an integrated manner when designing equipment for
body protection. Key questions must be answered as part of this design
process. What is it important to guard against - impact velocity, mass, force,
impulse,
energy, or momentum? Which of these factors is attenuated most on passage
through a protective layer, and do different protector designs/materials do
this
to different degrees? The ability to stop a bullet or knife blade may decide
success in some applications, but what of blunt trauma, such as being hit on
the shin? How good is the body’s own protective system?
Protective Equipment from Technological Perspective
From a technological viewpoint, body armour
is now well developed, with a
variety of competing materials systems and manufacturers, all offering good
all-round solutions. The current challenge is to engineer a better balance of
properties to improve ergonomics and the integration with other equipment and
clothing. The military market is relatively mature and its main challenge is
to increase the level of protection and coverage while keeping weight low. The
police and other civilian markets, such as public transport workers, cab
drivers and ambulance paramedic crews, are relatively less mature with
significant
challenges in providing wearable and often discreet systems for everyday use.
