SGT Private RallyPoint Member 442084 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>When will the Army accept the Dragon Skin Body Armor? It protects more of our body. It's flexible. It's just a light weight as the plate carrier. Yes it cost a lot, but it's much better. Why do you think? 2015-01-28T22:46:32-05:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 442084

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>When will the Army accept the Dragon Skin Body Armor? It protects more of our body. It's flexible. It's just a light weight as the plate carrier. Yes it cost a lot, but it's much better. Why do you think?

2015-01-28T22:46:32-05:00 2015-01-28T22:46:32-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 442095

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It's fatally flawed.<br /><br />While it is everything you say, there is an angle at which it provides next to no protection. Admittedly it is a low angle--the attacker would be shooting upward, but there is no such vulnerability with the plates we use now.

2015-01-28T22:52:28-05:00 2015-01-28T22:52:28-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 442117

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Man, I thought this topic was dead. I hadn't heard Dragon Skin uttered in at least five years.<br /><br />The problem with it is protection level and how heavy it is. It also lacks attachments to mount MOLLE equipment. While it can take repeated hits with minimal degradation in performance unlike ESAPI plates, it does not protect up to the same caliber as ESAPI and the vector of the incoming rounds can circumvent some of the protection as well.<br /><br />It was looked at and roundly rejected back in 2006.

2015-01-28T23:06:22-05:00 2015-01-28T23:06:22-05:00 Cpl Michael Strickler 506011

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I am all for continued R&amp;D to turn it into a viable option. Especially with how bulky the ESAPI designs have been becoming. It may be heavier, but it is easier to get used to weight than a restriction in movement I think...

2015-03-01T23:06:27-05:00 2015-03-01T23:06:27-05:00 2015-01-28T22:46:32-05:00