#29026
Whirlibird
Whirlibird
Survivalist
member10

<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>74 wrote:</div>Whirly,<br>
So you are saying don’t use armor because it better to take a shot in the aorta than the groin, or it’s a waste of time protecting your body because your arms will get it anyway? Don’t use armor plates because the splatter will hit you somewhere else it’s better to take a slug in the chest?

What are you advocating?

No, not saying avoid plates, but I am saying to look into plates that have some sort of coating or packaging that traps fragments. I have a couple of trauma plates here that are encased in kevlar or ballistic nylon, they slip into the front pocket of a concealable vest. The way it’s covered, all the little bits and pieces, especially those that might be directed upwards are captured.

I’m advocating using more than just common sense, and looking ahead a bit.

Because of the needs and situations we are concerned about, not just getting shot, but infections and injuries that go along with getting shot at.
It’s one thing to dig a chunk of copper out of your arm/leg right now and go on with your day hardly giving it a thought, kind of like an ingrown toenail. But when there’s no medical care, no antibiotics, that makes this take on a whole new level of seriousness.

Shirts and such can help, but some form of containment that won’t get torn and carried with the fragments into the wound is a good idea. Death from infection is not a pretty way to go.

Somewhere around here I have an older picture of a holstered G17 that took a hit right through the soft nylon holster. The jacket fragments and such were easy to find on the xrays and such. But the doctors had a time finding all the holster bits and jeans material that had gotten carried/pushed into the gent’s thigh.

I confront someone wearing a chicken plate carrier, plates or not I’m going to shoot high or low and end the threat.