What to Know When Shopping for Bulletproof Plates and Panels

Well, another school year begins and parents everywhere fear for their kids. Before we get started, we can go back and forth on how to prevent school shootings, whether or not guns or certain guns should be banned. Whether laws or lack of laws do anything. We could also argue back and forth until we are blue in the face about what a perfect world could be.

With all that being said, the world is not perfect and bad things happen to good people. The question is, do you give yourself or your kids a fighting chance?

Ok, bulletproof backpacks have become a necessity for some and for others a way of life.

When choosing a bulletproof backpack, some things to consider is stopping potential. Velocity is key when considering the protection level you want.

A ballistic panel (soft) or plate (hard) level will dictate what the armor has been tested or even certified to stop.

Many companies will cite the .44 magnum caliber in an attempt to convince you that, “if it can stop Dirty Harry’s round, then it must be up to the task”. That type of thinking would be wrong. You see, the .44 magnum is a monster of a round, it is even used for defense in brown bear country. The reason why the .44 magnum is so potent is due to the weight of the bullet (quite heavy) and its ability to deliver serious energy on the target. A slow heavy bullet will dump a mass of kinetic energy onto a target, thereby, it is a mainstay for stopping power (what you need when a brown bear is charging you). Pistol armor is usually much lighter in weight and usually costs less.

However, a round like the .223/5.56 moves at a much faster speed, which means instead of dumping kinetic energy onto the target, it burns through steel like butter (literally). It requires a different type of armor to provide protection. This is where hard plates usually come into the mix, they are heavier and costs more than soft panels.

Another aspect to consider is whether or not the armor you choose has been tested to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) rating. www.nij.gov Body Armor Standards

For any piece of armor to be awarded the NIJ standard, that piece of armor must got through testing to be guaranteed to perform as intended (stop “x” caliber). That testing, certification and sticker usually demands a higher price.

For those who have never used body armor, it can be quite tricky understanding all of the jargon. I hope this helps to simplify your decision.

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “What to Know When Shopping for Bulletproof Plates and Panels

  1. Hardy har har 😒 Too bad you don’t have a patent, you’d be rollin in the green. Make the sheeple afraid and sell them “safety”. I’ll pass.

    I think my backpack in high school would’ve qualified as bullet proof. Four ginormously thick textbooks? Damn thing weighed 30lbs I’d bet.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      lol, yeah, but people still want to buy it and they may have no idea what they are getting vs what they are not getting.

      1. Ah…so you’re like a consultant? It’s good info.

        Maybe the “safest” thing is to never leave the house? Never physically interact with another person? Plug into one’s favorite “news” and wait to be told how and what to think?

        Still gonna pass…

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          No, I am not a consultant. I just know a thing here and there. I am by no means an expert. Just enough info to ask better questions when shopping around, I guess would be the best way to place my understanding of armor.

          Exactly Granny, I am not trying to sway a viewpoint.

          The world will do what it does. Take it or leave it.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Yeah Granny, it is a thing. A lot of companies will advertise the .44 magnum resistance capability, which is a decent rating, since most shootings involve a handgun. But, .44 magnum resistance capability doesn’t stop all.

              1. I’m speechless. Seriously don’t even know how to respond to backpacks. SMH

                What kind of armor is good against which kind of ammo is good information to have, so thank you for sharing your knowledge.

                Backpacks?! I’ll be muttering to myself in the corner…

  2. Seriously? Rather than addressing the root cause of mass shootings in schools, your proposed solution to keeping kids safe at school is sending them to school wearing body armor and carrying bulletproof backpacks? Unbelievable!

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Hmmm, Fandango, my old plaything. I could recommend inclusivity and tolerance, unfortunately though, those two traits have been known to transmit aids.

      What is the root cause?

          1. What do I blame for these atrocities? By atrocities you mean some guy walking into a school, a mall, an office, a church, a synagogue, a concert, a fair and opening fire with a semiautomatic assault rifle with a high capacity clip and indiscriminately killing and wounding anyone in sight? I blame you, BC, and those like you who go to extraordinary lengths to deflect blame for these atrocities: the proliferation and availability of guns, especially military-style assault weapons. Other DEVELOPED countries have people with mental health issues, disaffected young men, violent video games, violent movies. But other DEVELOPED countries rarely have mass shootings.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              That’s about what I expect outta you Fandango, convenient excuses. You blame me, hilarious! 🤣

              By “developed” countries, what do you mean? What is the criteria for “developed”? What do you call those other countries that are not “as developed”?

              Could you also provide a list of “developed” countries?

              Is Mexico “developed”?

              Is Somalia “developed”?

              Is Russia “developed”?

              1. A “developed” country is a sovereign state that has a developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less industrialized nations. Countries that are not “developed” are “undeveloped” countries, alternatively known as “third world” counties.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Hmmm, it sounds like you are saying that other countries aren’t as good as America. Fandango, that comes across rather elitist.

                  What are the minimum requirements for the title “developed”?

                  1. I didn’t say that at all, BC. Once again, you are deflecting. I used only one criteria in my comparison of America to other developed countries: the number and frequency of mass shootings.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, what exactly is the comparison comprised of? Land mass, population, industry, GDP, life expectancy, imports/exports, immigration numbers, poverty level, etc.?Perhaps constitution or bill of rights, maybe politically?

                      What nations in your opinion are not as “developed” as America?

                    2. I sent you a link. By the way, my name is Fandango, not Google. And again, my comparison was exclusively between the number of incidents and the frequency of mass shootings, not of land mass, population, industry, GDP, life expectancy, imports/exports, immigration numbers, poverty level, etc. Stop changing the subject.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      How do you compare mass shootings when you won’t compare population or land mass? There needs to be contrast associated with your comparison.

                      Remember, “mass” refers to 3-4 people not including the shooter. Also, another helpful tool may be to consider the total numbers of murders, to contrast your claim of amount of “mass shootings”.

                    4. I told you. The number of mass shootings, the frequency of mass shootings, and the number of people shot. And I’m not talking about murders or suicides. I’m talking about individual incidents where 3 or more people are shot…with a gun or a rifle. It’s not that complicated, BC.

                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Ok, so what country/countries have a higher number/percentage? You can’t just throw out a talking point without proving context or contrast.

                    6. bottomlesscoffee007

                      What type of murder are you ok with Fandango? It’s obvious that you are not in favor of a shooting death, so with that in mind, what type of murder doesn’t bother you?

                    7. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Well then why would you go around talking about shootings and not all murders? Do you care only about shootings or do you care about all murders?

                    8. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Why focus on one type of murder? When it comes to rape, do you only focus on anal rape?

                    9. Mass shootings. That’s what I’m talking about, BC. Not murders by knife, bomb, strangulations, or even individual murders by gun. And not about rape, pedophilia, kidnappings, or any other heinous acts. MASS SHOOTINGS. That’s all I’m focusing on, as you well know.

                    10. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Ok Fandango. Focus on mass shootings l, focus on going to mars as well. One question though, what is the one specific, not general thing all of your mass shootings involve?

                    11. “what is the one specific, not general thing all of your mass shootings involve?” Is that a trick question? The one specific thing all mass shootings have in common is a high-capacity, military-style, semiautomatic assault weapon.

                    12. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Yeah, that’s what I figured. Doesn’t Tesla have a feature called “autopilot”? Hmmm, any guns or magazines you know about that have a similar feature? You’re reaching Fandango, to prove a point, yet you can’t see the forest from the trees, much less smell the shit on your knees.

                    13. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I would rather people protect themselves with firearms and weapons in general. I am not advocating for people to be defenseless like you are Fandango.

                    14. People wouldn’t be or feel defenseless if so many other people didn’t have weapons capable of killing a high number of people in seconds. Again, you’re missing the whole point. Get rid of the guns that cause people to feel defenseless against mass shootings in stores, malls, parks, etc.

                    15. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Ok, you first. Or them first. Why should I throw down my arms when many more have arms? Get them to throw down their arms, get the police, law enforcement as a whole and the military to completely disarm first and then I’ll think about it.

                      Or, how about this, disarm the criminals first. Can you get the criminals to disarm, whether that be guns, knives, bombs or anything else that can be used as a weapon? Get everyone else in the entire world to utterly and completely disarm and then maybe ill follow suit. Until then, you’re barking up the wrong tree bud.

                    16. bottomlesscoffee007

                      For example, let’s say we are comparing two separate countries. One country has a population of 100, the other country has a population of 10. In the country with 100 people, 10 are murdered every year and in the country with 10 people, 1 person is murdered every year.

                      A quick glance would seem that the country with 100 people is much more dangerous, however both in countries 10% of their population is murdered every year.

                      That is why population matters Fandango, when discussing numbers and attempting to draw comparisons.

                    17. You totally miss the point. I’m not talking about the murder rate. Again, it’s the number of mass shooting incidents where three or more people are shot and the frequency of such incidents. In your ludicrous example, if one person is shot in the country of 10, that’s NOT a mass shooting. If 10 are shot in a country of 100, how many of those 10 were shot in instances of 3 or more?

                      You’re making spurious arguments for the sake of deflecting. I know you’re not stupid, BC. So stop saying stupid things.

                    18. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Your missing the point Fandango. It’s so obvious. You are arguing that the U.S. has the most “mass shootings” compared to other developed countries. However, the “mass shootings” only account for a certain amount of overall murder. That argument alone seems to say that you are against only “mass shootings” or you are acknowledging that people are still murdered whether the assailant used a firearm or not.

                      In one instance you are arguing that due to the 2A and the gun culture in America, that people are not safe and that “mass shootings” occur in the U.S. more often than in other developed nations, in the same breath you refuse to acknowledge the murder that takes place without a firearm. So, you are attempting to argue that banning guns would save “x” number of lives, yet that cannot be proven, that is a theory at best and a wet dream at worst.

                      If you are arguing for the safety of people, then you must acknowledge that gun control will not stop murder, since “gun violence” is very low on the scale when it comes to murder. Gun control makes it harder for people to defend themselves. Look at Hong Kong, the Chinese government is now using Armored Personnel Carriers on the citizens of Hong Kong, to stop the protests. The citizens of Hong Kong want their own bill of rights, the citizens of Hong Kong want their own 2A.

                      Remember, the 2A was to ensure the government would not advance on its own people. Yet, when you argue against a person’s right to defend themselves or their right to life, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

                      Sure, people are murdered and it is horrible. Yet to disarm those of us who remain, you embrace a police state. I can understand your frustrations, at the same time, don’t blame those who do not agree with you, don’t expect those of us who remain to forsake our self defense or give up our arms to make you feel better.

                      Body armor helps to protect. Do you realize that felons are prohibited by law from owning or using body armor? A felon, who serves their time, is forever stricken from owning a firearm and if that is not bad enough, they are furthermore vulnerable since they are stricken from owning body armor.

                      The world is dangerous and wishing it away won’t do any good, either be proactive or sacrifice yourself to the demands that you expect everyone else to cater to you for.

                    19. You totally miss the point. I’m not talking about the murder rate. Again, it’s the number of mass shooting incidents where three or more people are shot and the frequency of such incidents. In your ludicrous example, if one person is shot in the country of 10, that’s NOT a mass shooting. If 10 are shot in a country of 100, how many of those 10 were shot in instances of 3 or more? There have been more than 250 mass shootings incidents in the US just this year. How many mass shootings have occurred this year outside of the US (in developed countries)?

                      You’re making spurious arguments for the sake of deflecting. I know you’re not stupid, BC

                    20. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Who do you bow down to Fandango? Who is your master, who is your provider and your protector?

                    21. bottomlesscoffee007

                      How many people does the Chinese government kill every year? How many of these “developed” nations that you cite, where the citizens have no defense against their own government?

                    22. Jesus Fucking Christ. I’m not talking about totalitarian governments. I’m talking about everyday citizens armed to the teeth who go around attempting to shoot as many innocent citizens as they can using semiautomatic weapons. Are you daft?

                    23. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, you don’t care about totalitarian regimes? That actually makes sense, since you promote a police state and support the government’s ability to retaliate and abandon the bill of Rights and the constitution.

                      How does a person get to be as progressive as you Fandango?

                    24. “… since you promote a police state and support the government’s ability to retaliate and abandon the bill of Rights and the constitution.” I think you know how to read, BC, but you clearly don’t comprehend what you read very well. Again, the context of this whole discussion is centered around the number and frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. It’s not about totalitarian regimes, although I’m beginning to believe that Trump is attempting to create a totalitarian regime in America.

                    25. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Fandango, you advocate for disarming Americans. Fandango, you want guns banned, you want people unarmed and vulnerable.

                      You can blame me for whatever makes you feel better, but in the end, you are the one demanding that law abiding citizens be disarmed.

                    26. “Fandango, you advocate for disarming Americans. Fandango, you want guns banned, you want people unarmed and vulnerable.” Please point out, BC, where I advocated for disarming Americans or for banning all guns or for wanting to leave people unarmed and vulnerable. Do you “say” these just to “hear” the sound of your own voice?

                    27. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Why then do you demand that rifles and magazines are banned? How about you lost what firearms you feel are appropriate.

                    28. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Article 1, section 8,

                      Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                    29. That’s why every year Congress has to approve a new Defense Department budget. But remember what you said about there being nothing in the Constitution about a military. Tsk, tsk. Wrong again, BC.

                    30. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You got me Fandango, I was referring to a constant federal army, but your right.

                    31. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Why do you want the police to be armed but you don’t want law abiding citizens armed?

                    32. Law abiding citizens can be armed, per the Second Amendment. But why do law abiding citizens need high-capacity, military-style, semiautomatic assault rifles. And why should law abiding citizens oppose common sense gun control legislation?

                    33. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Is common sense subjective? How does a person get on the no fly list? How does a person come off of the no fly list? Why does law enforcement need fully automatic weapons? Why does law enforcement need body armor? What is the purpose of the secret service? Why does law enforcement need drones? Why does law enforcement need MRAPs? Why does law enforcement need intelligence gathering equipment? Why does law enforcement need silencers? Why does law enforcement need snipers? Why does law enforcement need short barreled rifles? Why does law enforcement need short barreled shotguns? Why does law enforcement need armor piercing ammunition? Why does law enforcement need flash bangs? Why does law enforcement need tear gas?

                    34. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Believe it or not, but there is no right to a military or a law enforcement agency. If you don’t believe me, read the constitution.

                    35. Once again, you are wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides Congress authority to raise and support Armies and to provide and maintain a Navy.

                    36. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Gun control has been happening since Wounded Knee, how did that work out for the Indians?

                      Since 1934, gun control legislation has yet to stop any violence, whether that be from a criminal with a gun or a criminal with a fist.

                      Tell me Fandango, how many cops get to kill, and actually get away with it? Disarming law abiding citizens will ensure the state can exercise its will over the law abiding citizens.

                    37. Again, tell me where I have advocated for disarming law abiding citizens. Stop making shit up and putting words in my mouth. I’m done. Have a nice life, BC.

                    38. bottomlesscoffee007

                      That’s exactly what you do Fandango. Advocate for law abiding citizens to be disarmed and defenseless, no guns and no armor. Spoken like a true progressive

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Ok, so based off of that criteria. Does that mean that countries that are ranked below America are not as good as America?

                  Also, what is the leading cause of death in those other “developed” countries? Is the comparison 1:1 or is the comparison based off of a ratio?

  3. It’s sad that we, in the US of A, have to think about bulletproof backpacks…
    But what awesome information. In a bite size. Great for people who don’t have a lot of knowledge on the topic.

  4. Its a sad state that we’ve come to this, bulletproof backpacks. I remember regular backpacks but back then all I had to worry about in high school were bullies and getting home in time for dinner after softball practice. But this is where we are at now, and as you mentioned, we need to address the root cause of the need for this.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      No worries Huntress. This is how it has always been everywhere else. It’s just now beginning to effect us. The root cause is a tricky term, it makes it seem as if it is an easy answer.

      Remember back in the 1990s when gang violence was all over the TV and movies? Or when drugs were all the rage in schools? This is the same thing in my mind.

      Societies never become more peaceful. They may start out that way, but as history has proven time and time again, society and civilization never lasts and is always getting worse.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Yeah, throughout history, over correction seems the be the model that is always implemented, yet causes more destruction and chaos. Whether that be dealing with the Indians, drugs, convincing people that reefer madness abounds, etc.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Wow, Marleen, way to be a year late on that. Yeah, the NRA is a sham and has been for awhile now, no news there.

      1. Marleen

        I talked about it then, too, and back through 2016 (that’s three years), but whatever. A collected variety of legal aspects on the situation in one presentation could be helpful to some people. I figure some who pay “dues” and buy trinkets — and there are people who have bequeathed their estates — for this organization (a “non-profit” org, right) would want to be more informed. Others could see the sick thinking ahead of time. And still others don’t care. Plus, what the NRA and others like them want is still largely referenced.

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-business-host-trish-regan-and-dana-loesch-spar-over-background-checks/ar-AAFtOZ3
        Fox Business host Trish Regan and former NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch engaged in a Twitter exchange about background checks on Wednesday.

        Loesch responded in a tweet saying she disagreed with Regan, while saying she was unsure which poll supported the Fox host’s argument that a majority of Americans support more action on guns.

        Regan then fired back, noting, “She has to disagree bc she’s paid to disagree,” while reiterating that the “majority of Americans believe we need better background checks for prospective gun owners.”

        Loesch defended her record, saying she was not paid to disagree and that she has been a “strong” defender of the Second Amendment “for well over a decade.”

        She then again questioned Regan’s data, prompting Regan to reply with screenshots of polling figures.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Ha, funny enough the commentator’s name is Regan. It was President Reagan that initiated and signed into law Background Checks, and even then the NRA was fooling people. Since the NRA had Reagan’s back. Ill admit Marleen, it is refreshing to see that you have taken note of the corrupt NRA all the way back in 2016, when many had not realized how horrible the NRA was.

          Polls are hardly scientific, yet many quote polls as an indicator. Yet has time has proven time and time again, polls dont mean shit, money and actual votes are the only indicators of anything.

          1. Marleen

            Polls don’t necessarily mean a whole lot, but that’s what Dana Loesch wanted to find out about from Trish. I find it a curiosity that a fully grown woman is proud of being a strong proponent of the Second Amendment “for well over a decade.” (Seriously, I laugh. But, really, she’s a sad character.) I’ve been pro Second Amendment since I was old enough to learn civics (since I was eleven). There are a number of disappointing things I’ve learned about Reagan subsequent to being old enough to vote for him remaining in office after ’84. Background checks wouldn’t be one of them. Ending open carry because black people were scary to him or his cohorts would be. One of the talking points in reaction back then (even if I didn’t know then that it had anything to do with Governor Reagan) was that you should have an absolute right to open carry but that concealment was what was questionable. Just a snapshot of how “the conversation” has gone.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Exactly Marleen, I agree with your thoughts about it. Dana is an interesting character, on one hand she placates the right and pretends to be a punching bag for the left. She want to be eye candy, yet she fails to impress or even move the needle.

              Funny enough her husband Chris Loesch has blocked me on Twitter numerous times. I guess as a pro-2A person, we are not supposed to question the narrative or the intentions of trump or the NRA or any of their holier than thou spokespeople.

              1. Marleen

                It’s hard to move the needle when the party line (or family line) is “no nothing never.” How can one turn the dial farther? She did what “the right” wanted, and I’d say managed to pull tighter on the knob with a shock jock kind of ethos… which they also apparently wanted (go Trump). I suppose she wasn’t as bad as Ted Nugent, but she was part of their whole universe (one of their action figures).

                Yet no more working for the NRA. Here’s earlier in August:

                Fred Guttenberg [father of Parkland student Jaime Guttenberg]

                @fred_guttenberg
                @DLoesch, only one hour ago, this was your tweet. Serious question for you. 29 people just died. Why is it that you would even think of playing this semantics game rather than wanting to do something?

                Dana Loesch

                @DLoesch

                Joe, what are “increased background checks?” How do you define it. Serious question.

                Meanwhile, I guess this guy wanted to audition:
                https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/neil-degrasse-tyson-apologizes-mass-shootings-tweet-backlash-161646546.html

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  How’s about anyone who wants to turn in their guns, do so. Let’s see his this plays out for everyone who is armed vs everyone who is disarmed.

                  Fred Guttenberg is really enjoying his new found fame.

                  1. Marleen

                    I know nothing of Fred other than what I just shared. [I do remember something else about Neil (other than that for which he’s most known).] Parents of murdered kids don’t ask for it, so I wouldn’t blame him for whatever fame he has now.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Yeah, at the same time, blaming everyone who didn’t kill your kid, also doesn’t help and it doesn’t bring your kid back to life.

                    2. Marleen

                      I don’t think background checks are a matter of blaming everyone, nor a matter of disarming everyone. Anyway, like I said, I don’t know what Fred has otherwise been doing. His response did fit, though. That is unless she’s too pretty to disagree with, even though she doesn’t (and can’t possibly) move the needle but only can get things wound up tight… like Ted apparently. Freakin’ weirdo has made some sick jokes-threats.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Yeah, Nugent had plenty to say when obummer was in, now that trump is in, Nugent seems good with gun control under trump.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.