The Little Vest that Could: How Does 23-year-old Body Armor Hold Up?

I’ve been in the law enforcement profession long enough to cycle through a few vests. My first vest was Level IIIA soft armor from Second Chance followed by a Point Blank Level II. My current vest is a Point Blank Level IIIA with hard plate insert. Each vest I’ve had served me well and, thankfully, never been used for its intended purpose. As I cycled through these vests, I heard the common theme that body armor “expires” at five years. In reality, the warranty expires in five years. Nonetheless, I always wondered, when does body armor become ineffective?

Before getting into the details of how I tested this, let’s have a discussion on body armor. In the interest of gross oversimplification, body armor is simply categorized as hard and soft armor. Hard armor falls into a wide range of synthetic and steel armor commonly rated for rifle threats. For purposes of this article, the focus will be on soft armor.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has developed a system for determining the ballistic protection of body armor. The system has five levels of armor rating: Levels IIA (stops 9mm and .40 from handguns), II (9mm and .357 Magnum), IIIA (.357 SIG and .44 Magnum), III (7.62mm FMJ lead core), and IV (.30-06 black tip steel penetrator). Soft armor normally consists of IIA, II, and IIIA armor types. Traditionally, soft armor is what law enforcement wears for day-to-day patrol activities while hard armor has more specialized applications due to its increased weight and bulk.

My path into owning body armor began in 2013. I was in a military surplus store with a buddy when we came across some old military Kevlar vests. He took a look at the vests, marked cheaply at $100, and suggested I buy one. “It’s better than nothing,” he said. I remember picking it up, shrugging my shoulders, and tacitly agreeing. I left the store with panels and carrier in hand wondering if they would ever withstand the test, heaven forbid I needed them. Only recently did I finally answer that question.

The Vest

The vest that was tested was manufactured by Point Blank with a manufacture date of June 2000. Effectively, this vest is old enough to drink and buy a handgun (preferably not at the same time). Since this was military surplus, the vest was part of the military Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System. Normally, hard plates would be used with this armor. The armor was not given a rating from the NIJ but, per the military, is tested to withstand a 124-grain 9mm projectile at approximately 1,500 fps.

The vest tested was well-worn and highly flexible. For anyone who’s worn Kevlar, it’s not a flexible material normally, so I had some concerns before the first round was even fired. The Kevlar was removed from the vest carrier and placed on an OSB board backer for testing. All shots were fired from a distance of approximately 7 yards.

Firearms and Calibers

There was a time I was a scientist (geologist), but for purposes of this test, some grace should be given for 23-year-old body armor. While additional, arguably more consistent, testing parameters (e.g. same barrel lengths) may be worthy at a later date, I chose firearms within reaching distance of the open safe at the time. The firearms and ammunition are listed in Table 1.

In testing this armor, I sought a diverse range of firearms, barrel lengths, and configurations. I’ll be honest, it’s 23-year-old body armor. I didn’t expect much from it nor did I expect it to survive much abuse. I’ve been wrong before, and I anticipate further transgressions in the future, but was I ever wrong about the durability of this armor.

Results

As I began testing the armor, I started small and worked my way up by caliber and muzzle energy. I didn’t expect the armor to withstand past the abuse of 9mm +P, much less the .357 SIG or 10mm Auto. The armor consists of 28 panels of Kevlar.

The .22 LR stopped quite easily at the fourth panel. The 9mm FMJ made its way through five panels while the +P stopped at eight. The majority of the cartridges tested didn’t exceed eight panels. Ultimately, .44 Magnum recorded the best performance of the day with 12 panels. While the projectiles were stopped, I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of trauma inflicted by the energy transfer from the vest to the body. The deformation on the rear of the vest is significant at larger calibers. Consequently, the deformation of that panel has to go somewhere and, unfortunately, that is into the wearer’s body.

After a good night’s sleep and some reflection, I determined this armor, as spectacularly as it performed, was not put through a rigorous enough gauntlet of abuse to determine its durability. It was only appropriate to properly evaluate the vest with the best possible chance at making it fail.

For this round of testing, I focused on higher velocities and muzzle energy. The testing distance remained at seven yards but a chronograph was added to verify velocities. Testing began with a Ruger PC-9 takedown carbine outfitted with an AAC Ti-Rant 45. The ammunition was Federal HST 9mm 124-grain +P. I hoped the longer barrel would add some velocity and, coincidentally, penetration. Surprisingly, the projectile still stopped at eight panels with a muzzle velocity of 1,458 fps. I upgraded to a Smith & Wesson Model 29 with an 8 3/8” barrel. The results were much the same as they were with the Model 69. The .44 Special, registering at an anemic 848 fps, flattened on the first panel. The .44 Magnum had the same spectacular effect but stopped at 12 panels with a muzzle velocity of 1,128 fps.

Since longer barrels weren’t doing the trick, it was time to go for more energy and more velocity. I began with my trusty Remington 870 12 gauge with a 20” barrel loaded with Winchester Ranger Segmented 1-ounce slug. The round registered a respectable 1,133 fps as it smashed through the center of the vest, exiting out the back. The same result was achieved with a .223 Hornady TAP 55-grain V-Max going 2,930 fps through a 16” barrel with AAC suppressor.

While attempting to document back face deformation on video, one of the 9mm +P rounds completely passed through the vest (see video below). This is after the vest took over a dozen projectile strikes and was thoroughly weakened. In a scenario akin to the chicken or the egg, I was unable to determine if the pass-through was due to a weak point in the vest that was pre-existing or if it weakened from the numerous previous projectile strikes.

Conclusions

The longevity and durability of a vest depend greatly on the care given to it by its user. While I never served in a military capacity, I’m well aware of how rough military and law enforcement are on their equipment. Exposure to moisture, improper storage of the vest, etc, can degrade the quality of the Kevlar over time. Most manufacturers will not warranty a vest outside of five years from the manufacture date. This vest has clearly withstood the test of time and daily abuse to remain viable against most handgun calibers it will face.

Would I recommend relying on surplus body armor for professional applications? No. However, this testing shows soft armor can withstand prolonged periods of use outside of the warranty period and remain functional. Nevertheless, armor of any kind should be properly cared for. It should be laid flat or left on a hanger in a low-humidity environment. The last ten years of this vest’s life were spent largely on a hanger and without much use. The results, as documented below, were impressive, to say the least. Ultimately, I would recommend purchasing new, unused body armor if you plan on using it for any serious professional or self-defense applications.