Body Armor / Ballistic Protection

[Dustdevil]

MICH and ACH (and LWH also) are all rated Level IIIa.

[armymedic571]

I think what they're talking about is a thread a while back about wearing a helmet while working the back of a bus.

Ohhh, my apologies....

MICH and ACH (and LWH also) are all rated Level IIIa.

I stand corrected, but I fail to believe without data. I have firsthand knowledge of integrity failure. But that is hear-say at best.

OK, Dust you got me. I went back and researched it myself. You are correct. However, Level IIIa does not protect against 7.62 or 5.56. The Assault rifle rounds that will most likely be used in certain environments.

But once again, I stand corrected.

Edited March 26, 2010 by armymedic571

[Dustdevil]

Yeah, the whole III vs. IIIa thing gets confusing. IIIa will take a glancing or long distance blow from both 5.56 and 7.62 in a lot of cases, but it certainly is not rated for that. I believe IIIa is only up to 9mm SMG rounds. I've seen them take some pretty impressive punishment though! Unfortunately, most guys are no longer wearing a helmet by the time I saw them, so I couldn't get a good look at many of them.

[brentoli]

I have the extra carrier, and have used it primarily at scenes where we are advised that shots may be fired, like "Warrant Service" standby's (use the search feature on Tactical EMS in or with SWAT responses).

I'm surprised no one picked up on this.

You realize that wearing a vest only when you think you might need it, is akin to wearing your seatbelt only when you think there might be a crash.

[Dustdevil]

Yep. We've discussed this before. If you think you're in a situation where you might be shot at, the answer is to not enter. Putting on a vest and going in anyhow is a recipe for epic fail. Nothing is more dangerous than a false sense of security.

[brentoli]

Its truly sad that we are having these discussions. I brought up the self defense thread due to a senario that happened near by. I am declining to discucss it right now due to the freshness of it and not knowing all the details.

Here is an interesting article on Slate today about doctors in a practice and ER doctors being subject to violence:

When Paitents Attack!

According to 2005 data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, health care workers are twice as likely as those in other fields to experience an injury from a violent act at work, with nurses being the most common victims. Nobody in this country keeps consistent track of how much of that violence is directed at doctors. (The last report from the Department of Justice put the number of doctors assaulted at about 71,000 from 1993 to 1999.)

...

A 2006 study confirmed that doctors usually improvise when confronted with a violent patient. Their responses range from pragmaticlike writing the desired prescriptionto Vaudevillian. One doctor admitted to carrying a fake gun; another suggested he would fake a heart attack, fall to the floor, and hope the patient would feel guilty for having caused it and just walk out. More disturbing: Forty percent of ER physicians, according to the aforementioned 2005 survey, admitted to carrying a gun, knife, or other weapon.

Edited March 27, 2010 by brentoli

[Dustdevil]

More disturbing: Forty percent of ER physicians, according to the aforementioned 2005 survey, admitted to carrying a gun, knife, or other weapon.

I wonder if they are disturbed that the doctors are carrying weapons, or because the doctors need to carry weapons?

[brentoli]

I wonder if they are disturbed that the doctors are carrying weapons, or because the doctors need to carry weapons?

I didn't notice that. I think I have trained my mind to pass over spin phrases.