Body armor performance standards are lists generated by national authorities, of requirements for armor to perform reliably, clearly indicating what the armor may and may not defeat. Different countries have different standards, which may include threats that are not present in other countries.
The VPAM scale as of 2009 runs from 1 to 14, with 1-5 being soft armor, and 6-14 being hard armor.[1] Tested armor must withstand three hits, spaced 120mm apart, of the designated test threat with no more than 25mm of back-face deformation in order to pass. Of note is the inclusion of special regional threats such as Swiss P AP from RUAG and .357 DAG. According to VPAM's website, it is apparently used in France and Britain.
The VPAM scale is as follows:[2]
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| PM 1 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 2 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 3 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 4 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 5 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 6 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 7 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of: | |
| PM 8 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 9 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 10 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 11 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 12 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| PM 13 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from an arbitrary distance, of:
| |
| PM 14 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from an arbitrary distance, of:
|
The Technische Richtlinie (TR) Ballistische Schutzwesten is a regulation guide in Germany for body armor. It is mainly issued for body armor used by the German police, but also for the German armed forces and civilian available body armor. Producers have to meet the criteria of the TR, if they want to participate in open competitive bidding made by German agencies. The TR specifies different Schutzklassen (SK), which translates to protection classes, which a body armor can have. It specifies five different classes ranging from L to 4 of ballistic protection (e.g. SK 4). It also gives specifications for additional Stichschutz (ST), protection against knives, using the same classes as the ballistic protection, but giving it the additional ST label (e.g. SK L ST). The ballistic tests to determine a class are now integrated into the VPAM guidelines, so that the tests differ just in minor details and only one test (SK 1) is significantly different as of 2008.[3]
The TR scale is as follows:[3]
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| SK L | This test is based on VPAM PM 2, but it tests also for point-blank shots. This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, as well as point-blank shots, of:
| |
| SK 1 | This test is based on VPAM PM 3, but it adds two police special rounds, with the following modifications: This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters in an angle of 25°, as well as 3 shots at point-blank, of:
| |
| SK 2 (PM 5) | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5±0.5 meters, of:
| |
| SK 3 (PM 7) | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of: | |
| SK 4 (PM 9) | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.5 meters, of:
|
The German TR are generally comparable to the American NIJ, but the German TR usually tests more threat scenarios, as there are no point-blank shots as well as no police special rounds. In contrast the NIJ tests for bigger calibers and higher man stopping power. And while the German TR tests smaller calibers and lighter bullets, it also tests more aggressive rounds, as the first test already uses steel FMJ bullets, while the NIJ uses normal FMJ rounds. In addition SK 4, the highest protection class, is specified to withstand three hits, while Level IV needs only to withstand one hit - although by a bigger caliber (7.62×63mm).[4]
The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is governing standards and testing protocols for police body armor.
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| HG1/A | This armor would protect against six (three for S-sized panel) hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| HG1 | This armor would protect against six (three for S-sized panel) hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| HG2 | This armor would protect against six (three for S-sized panel) hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| HG3 | This armor would protect against six (three for S-sized panel) hits, fired from 10 meters, of:
| |
| RF1 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10 meters, of:
| |
| RF2 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10 meters, of:
| |
| SG3 | This armor would protect against 1 hit, fired from 10 meters, of:
|
BFD (Back Face Deformation) to be measured after each shot, maximum allowed BFD for HG1/A class is 44mm and 25mm for the rest.
GOST R 50744-95 is the Russian Federation standard for body armor. Prior to the 2017 revision, the threat levels ran from 1 to 6. Noticeably, it included threats with the suffix A, which denote heightened ratings as opposed to lowered ratings in the NIJ standard.[5]
The old (pre-2017) standards are as follows:
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| Class 2 | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| Class 2A 12 gauge | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5 meters, of:
| |
| Class 3 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of: | |
| Class 4 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of:
| |
| Class 5 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of:
| |
| Class 5A | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of:
| |
| Class 6 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of:
| |
| Class 6A | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 5.10 meters, of:
|
With the 2017 revision, the standards have changed significantly. Threat classes now range from BR1 to BR6. 'A'-suffixed classes have been eliminated, and their test threats have been either merged into the new categories, such as Classes 6 and 6A being moved into Class BR5, or removed entirely, as in the case of Class 2A. Additionally, several of the threat levels have been increased in difficulty with the introduction of new test threats; most notably is the introduction of Class BR6, which requires the tested armor to survive three hits of 12.7×108mm B32 API. In spite of the more difficult test threats, the 16mm back-face deformation limit remains unchanged.[6]
The updated standards from the 2017 revision are as follows:
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| BR1 | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5±0.1, meters of:
| |
| BR2 | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5±0.1 meters, of:
| |
| BR3 | This armor would protect against five hits, fired from 5±0.1 meters, of:
| |
| BR4 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.1 meters, of: | |
| BR5 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 10±0.1 meters, of:
| |
| BR6 | This armor would protect against three hits, fired from 50±0.5 meters, of:
|
NIJ Standard-0101.06 had specific performance standards for bullet resistant vests used by law enforcement. This rated vests on the following scale against penetration and also blunt trauma protection (deformation):[7]
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| Level I | This armor would protect against
It is no longer part of the standard. | |
| Level IIA
.40 S&W | New armor protects against:
Conditioned armor protects against
It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Type I]. | |
| Level II 9mm +P | New armor protects against
Conditioned armor protects against
It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I and IIA]. | |
| Level IIIA | New armor protects against
Conditioned armor protects against
It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II]. | |
| Level III Rifles | Conditioned armor protects against
It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA]. | |
| Level IV Armor Piercing Rifle | Conditioned armor protects against
It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, IIIA, and III]. |
In April 2024, NIJ began testing with NIJ Standard-0101.07 in conjunction with NIJ Standard-0123.00. NIJ Standard-0101.07 outlines testing procedures, while NIJ Standard-0123.00 describes ballistic protection levels. These standards completely replaced the NIJ Standard-0101.06.[10] [11] HG is rated for handgun threats and RF is rated for rifle threats.
The ballistic protection levels outlined in NIJ Standard 0123.00 are as follows:
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| NIJ HG1 | This armor would protect against:
This is roughly equivalent to the obsolete NIJ Level II ballistic protection level. | |
| NIJ HG2 | This armor would protect against:
This is roughly equivalent to the obsolete NIJ Level IIIA ballistic protection level. | |
| NIJ RF1 | This armor would protect against:
This is roughly equivalent to the obsolete NIJ Level III ballistic protection level. | |
| NIJ RF2 | This armor would protect against:
This is identical to the ballistic protection provided by NIJ RF1, with the addition of 5.56x45mm M855. This level has no equivalent in obsolete NIJ Standard-0101.06. | |
| NIJ RF3 | This armor would protect against:
This is roughly equivalent to the obsolete NIJ Level IV ballistic protection level. |
Backface deformation is defined in NIJ Standard-0101.07 as "the indentation in the backing material caused by a projectile impact on the test item during testing". It is measured by shooting armor mounted in front of a backing material, typically oil-based modeling clay. The clay is used at a controlled temperature and verified for impact flow before testing. After the armor is impacted with the test bullet, the vest is removed from the clay and the depth of the indentation in the clay is measured.
Some armor tested under NIJ Standard-0101.07 is conditioned before testing, meaning it has been subjected to stress factors such as submersion, vibration, or impacts. These stress factors have been shown in some cases to degrade the performance of some armor material. The test-round velocity for conditioned armor is the same as that for unconditioned armor during testing, whereas in the previous standard the velocities would have varied. For example, under NIJ Standard-0101.06, conditioned Level IIIA would have been shot with a .44 Magnum round at 408m/s, while unconditioned Level IIIA would have been shot at 436m/s. Under NIJ Standard-0101.07, the velocity used for testing conditioned and unconditioned armor is the same. Armor conditioning procedures are outlined in ASTM E3078 Standard Practice for Conditioning of Hard Armor Test Items.
Generally, textile armor material temporarily degrades when wet. As a result of this, the major test standards call for wet testing of textile armor.[12] Mechanisms for this loss of performance are not known. Neutral water at room temp has not been shown in testing to negatively affect the performance of para-aramid or UHMWPE[13] but acidic, basic and some other solutions can permanently reduce para-aramid fiber tensile strength.[14]
From 2003 to 2005, a large study of the environmental degradation of Zylon armor was undertaken by the US-NIJ. This concluded that water, long-term use, and temperature exposure significantly affect tensile strength and the ballistic performance of PBO or Zylon fiber. This NIJ study on vests returned from the field demonstrated that environmental effects on Zylon resulted in ballistic failures under standard test conditions.[15]
The NIJ's stab resistance standards (Standard–0115.00) define three levels of protection:
For all three levels, the maximum blade or spike penetration allowed is 7 mm (0.28 in), with this limit being determined through research indicating that internal injuries to organs would be extremely unlikely at this depth of penetration. The overtest condition, which is intended to ensure an adequate margin of safety in the armor design, permits a maximum blade or spike penetration of 20 mm (0.79 in).[16]
The standard does not directly address slash resistance and instead notes that, since stab threats are more difficult to defeat, any armor that can defeat a stab threat will also defeat a slash threat.[16]
Although the US military requirements for body armor mirror the NIJ's on a surface level, the two are very different systems. The two systems share a 44mm limit on back-face deformation, but SAPI-series plates increase linearly in protection (with each plate tested against the preceding plate's threats), and require a soft armor backer in order to reach their stated level of protection.
| Armor Type: | Protection:[17] | |
|---|---|---|
| Soft Armor
9×19mm FMJ | US Army soft armor inserts adhere to standards specified under FQ/PD 07–05.[18] They are required to stop the following ballistic and fragmentation threats:
| |
| SAPI | SAPI plates were the first ballistic plates to see mass issue in the US military. They have a black fabric cover with white text. These plates adhere to CO/PD 00-03[19] and are rated to stop the following threats:
| |
| ISAPI
7.62×39mm API | ISAPI (Improved SAPI) plates were designed as an upgrade to SAPI in the face of API threats in Iraq. They were superseded by ESAPI plates before they could be widely issued. These plates are rated to stop the following threats:[20]
| |
| ESAPI (Revs. A-E) | ESAPI plates were developed in response to increased threats posed by 7.62×54mmR AP threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a green fabric cover with white text. Original ESAPI plates, as well as those from Revisions B through D have the text "7.62mm APM2 Protection" on the back; Rev. E plates have the text "ESAPI - REV. E". The early-model plates are rated to stop the following threats:[21]
| |
| ESAPI (Rev. G)
7.62×54mmR Sniper 5.56×45mm AP | With the issuance of CO/PD 04-19H[22] on 4 March 2013, the ESAPI protection standards improved significantly. These plates are indicated by the text "ESAPI - REV. G" on the back and are rated to stop the following threats:
| |
| ESAPI (Rev. J)
7.62×54mmR Sniper 5.56×45mm AP | With the issuance of CO/PD 04-19REV J[23] on 1 October 2018, the ESAPI protection standards were changed again. The protection requirements from 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball and 5.56×45mm M855 were removed, and a high first-shot V50 requirement was added for the .30-06 M2 AP projectile. These plates are indicated by the text "ESAPI - REV. J" on the back and are rated to stop the following threats:
| |
| XSAPI
7.62×39mm API 7.62×54mmR Sniper 7.62×51mm AP 5.56×45mm AP | XSAPI plates were developed in response to a perceived threat of AP projectiles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 120,000 inserts were procured;[24] however, the AP threats they were meant to stop never materialized, and the plates were put into storage. XSAPI plates have a tan fabric cover with black text. Early plates have the text "7.62 mm AP/WC Protection"[25] inscribed on the back; on newer variants, this text instead reads "XSAPI - REV. B" or "XSAPI - REV. C". These plates adhere to FQ/PD 07-03 and are rated to stop between three and six shots at velocities between 2750ft/s and 3350ft/s (V0) depending on threat type.[26] [27] |
The Chinese Ministry of Public Security has maintained GA141, a standard document for describing the ballistic resistance of police armor, since 1996., the latest revision is GA141-2010. The standard defines the following grades using domestic weapons:[29]
| Armor Level | Protection | |
|---|---|---|
| GA 1 7.62×17mm | Copper-jacketed bullet of 4.87g mass at 320±10 m/s, as shot from a type 64 or type 77 pistol. | |
| GA 2 7.62×25mm Tokarev (Pistol) | Copper-jacketed bullet of 5.6g mass at 445±10 m/s, as shot from a type 54 pistol. | |
| GA 3 7.62×25mm Tokarev (SMG) | Same bullet as above, but with a velocity of 515±10 m/s, as shot from a type 79 submachine gun. | |
| GA 4 7.62×25mm Tokarev AP (SMG) | Steel-cored bullet of 5.68g mass at 515±10 m/s, as shot from a type 79 submachine gun. | |
| GA 5 | Steel-core bullet, 8.05g mass at 725±10 m/s, as shot from a type 56 or type 81 assault rifle. | |
| GA 6 | Steel-core bullet, 9.6g mass at 830±10 m/s, as shot from a type 79 or type 85 sniper rifle. |
Levels higher than 6 are marked "special".[29] Levels 1 through 5 are to be tested with 6 shots. Level 6 is to be tested with 2 shots.[29]
Annex A describes the use of GA grades against other "common" threats. 9×18mm Makarov is assigned to GA 1, 9×19mm to GA 2, 9×19mm AP (steel) and 5.8×21mm DAP92 AP to GA 4, 5.8×42mm DBP87 to GA 6, and "type 53" 7.62×54mmR API to "special grade".[29]
Measuring the ballistic performance of armor is based on determining the kinetic energy of a bullet at impact (Ek = mv2). Because the energy of a bullet is a key factor in its penetrating capacity, velocity is used as the primary independent variable in ballistic testing. For most users the key measurement is the velocity at which no bullets will penetrate the armor. Measuring this zero penetration velocity (v0) must take into account variability in armor performance and test variability. Ballistic testing has a number of sources of variability: the armor, test backing materials, bullet, casing, powder, primer and the gun barrel, to name a few.
Variability reduces the predictive power of a determination of V0. If for example, the v0 of an armor design is measured to be 1600ft/s with a 9 mm FMJ bullet based on 30 shots, the test is only an estimate of the real v0 of this armor. The problem is variability. If the v0 is tested again with a second group of 30 shots on the same vest design, the result will not be identical.
Only a single low velocity penetrating shot is required to reduce the v0 value. The more shots made the lower the v0 will go. In terms of statistics, the zero penetration velocity is the tail end of the distribution curve. If the variability is known and the standard deviation can be calculated, one can rigorously set the V0 at a confidence interval. Test Standards now define how many shots must be used to estimate a v0 for the armor certification. This procedure defines a confidence interval of an estimate of v0. (See "NIJ and HOSDB test methods".)
v0 is difficult to measure, so a second concept has been developed in ballistic testing called the ballistic limit (v50). This is the velocity at which 50 percent of the shots go through and 50 percent are stopped by the armor. US military standard MIL-STD-662F V50 Ballistic Test define a commonly used procedure for this measurement. The goal is to get three shots that penetrate that are slower than a second faster group of three shots that are stopped by the armor. These three high stops and three low penetrations can then be used to calculate a v50 velocity.
In practice this measurement of v50 requires 1–2 vest panels and 10–20 shots. A very useful concept in armor testing is the offset velocity between the v0 and v50. If this offset has been measured for an armor design, then v50 data can be used to measure and estimate changes in v0. For vest manufacturing, field evaluation and life testing both v0 and v50 are used. However, as a result of the simplicity of making v50 measurements, this method is more important for control of armor after certification.
After the Vietnam War, military planners developed a concept of "Casualty Reduction".[30] The large body of casualty data made clear that in a combat situation, fragments, not bullets, were the most important threat to soldiers. After WWII, vests were being developed and fragment testing was in its early stages.[31] Artillery shells, mortar shells, aerial bombs, grenades, and antipersonnel mines are all fragmentation devices. They all contain a steel casing that is designed to burst into small steel fragments or shrapnel, when their explosive core detonates. After considerable effort measuring fragment size distribution from various NATO and Soviet bloc munitions, a fragment test was developed. Fragment simulators were designed, and the most common shape is a right circular cylinder or RCC simulator. This shape has a length equal to its diameter. These RCC Fragment Simulation Projectiles (FSPs) are tested as a group. The test series most often includes 2 grain (0.13 g), 4 grain (0.263 g), 16 grain (1.0 g), and 64 grain (4.2 g) mass RCC FSP testing. The 2-4-16-64 series is based on the measured fragment size distributions.
The second part of "Casualty Reduction" strategy is a study of velocity distributions of fragments from munitions.[32] Warhead explosives have blast speeds of 20000ft/s to 30000ft/s. As a result, they are capable of ejecting fragments at very high speeds of over 3300ft/s, implying very high energy (where the energy of a fragment is mass × velocity2, neglecting rotational energy). The military engineering data showed that, like the fragment size, the fragment velocities had characteristic distributions. It is possible to segment the fragment output from a warhead into velocity groups. For example, 95% of all fragments from a bomb blast under have a velocity of 3000ft/s or less. This established a set of goals for military ballistic vest design.
The random nature of fragmentation required the military vest specification to trade off mass vs. ballistic-benefit. Hard vehicle armor is capable of stopping all fragments, but military personnel can only carry a limited amount of gear and equipment, so the weight of the vest is a limiting factor in vest fragment protection. The 2-4-16-64 grain series at limited velocity can be stopped by an all-textile vest of approximately 5.4 kg/m2 (1.1 lb/ft2). In contrast to the design of vest for deformable lead bullets, fragments do not change shape; they are steel and can not be deformed by textile materials. The 2gr FSP (the smallest fragment projectile commonly used in testing) is about the size of a grain of rice; such small fast moving fragments can potentially slip through the vest, moving between yarns. As a result, fabrics optimized for fragment protection are tightly woven, although these fabrics are not as effective at stopping lead bullets.
One of the critical requirements in soft ballistic testing is measurement of "back side signature" (i.e. energy delivered to tissue by a non-penetrating projectile) in a deformable backing material placed behind the targeted vest. The majority of military and law enforcement standards have settled on an oil/clay mixture for the backing material, known as Roma Plastilena.[33] Although harder and less deformable than human tissue, Roma represents a "worst case" backing material when plastic deformations in the oil/clay are low (less than 20mm).[34] (Armor placed over a harder surface is more easily penetrated.) The oil/clay mixture of "Roma" is roughly twice the density of human tissue and therefore does not match its specific gravity, however "Roma" is a plastic material that will not recover its shape elastically, which is important for accurately measuring potential trauma through back side signature.
The selection of test backing is significant because in flexible armor, the body tissue of a wearer plays an integral part in absorbing the high energy impact of ballistic and stab events. However the human torso has a very complex mechanical behavior. Away from the rib cage and spine, the soft tissue behavior is soft and compliant.[35] In the tissue over the sternum bone region, the compliance of the torso is significantly lower. This complexity requires very elaborate bio-morphic backing material systems for accurate ballistic and stab armor testing.[36] A number of materials have been used to simulate human tissue in addition to Roma. In all cases, these materials are placed behind the armor during test impacts and are designed to simulate various aspects of human tissue impact behavior.
One important factor in test backing for armor is its hardness. Armor is more easily penetrated in testing when backed by harder materials, and therefore harder materials, such as Roma clay, represent more conservative test methods.[37]
| Backer type | Materials | Elastic/plastic | Test type | Specific gravity | Relative hardness vs gelatin | Application | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roma Plastilina Clay #1 | Oil/Clay mixture | Plastic | Ballistic and Stab | >2 | Moderately hard | Back face signature measurement. Used for most standard testing | |
| 10% gelatin[38] [39] | Animal protein gel | Visco-elastic | Ballistic | ~1 (90% water) | Softer than baseline | Good simulant for human tissue, hard to use, expensive. Required for FBI test methods | |
| 20% gelatin[40] | Animal protein gel | Visco-elastic | Ballistic | ~1 (80% water) | Baseline | Good simulant for skeletal muscle. Provides dynamic view of event. | |
| HOSDB-NIJ Foam | Neoprene foam, EVA foam, sheet rubber | Elastic | Stab | ~1 | Slightly harder than gelatin | Moderate agreement with tissue, easy to use, low in cost. Used in stab testing | |
| Silicone gel[41] | Long chain silicone polymer | Visco-elastic | Biomedical | ~1.2 | Similar to gelatin | Biomedical testing for blunt force testing, very good tissue match | |
| Pig or Sheep animal testing[42] | Live tissue | Various | Research | ~1 | Real tissue is variable[43] | Very complex, requires ethical review for approval |
Stab and spike armor standards have been developed using 3 different backing materials. The Draft EU norm calls out Roma clay, The California DOC called out 60% ballistic gelatin and the current standard for NIJ and HOSDB calls out a multi-part foam and rubber backing material.
This history helps explain an important factor in Ballistics and Stab armor testing, backing stiffness affects armor penetration resistance. The energy dissipation of the armor-tissue system is Energy = Force × Displacement when testing on backings that are softer and more deformable the total impact energy is absorbed at lower force. When the force is reduced by a softer more compliant backing the armor is less likely to be penetrated. The use of harder Roma materials in the ISO draft norm makes this the most rigorous of the stab standards in use today.
