45 bucks for a flak jacket - Page 2

mentholated · 10-31-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTodd

On a lighter note, if you can stand the weight, the old flak jackets are great for saving your torso from paintball bruises.

It only feels heavy when I use my arms to lift it, otherwise its very comfortable. I don't do paintballing, but I plan to get into it and thats one thought that popped into my mind when I saw it. I know how bad those things sting, and I've been shot point blank in the chest with one.

(yes, I am a weak nerd)

**CingularDuality** · 10-31-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I haven't verified it, but I heard on the radio the other day that the muder rate several US cities are each higher than the death rate of US troops in Iraq. Think about that for a second.

I just want to publicly apologize for that pathetic attempt at English.

**sordavie** · 10-31-2007, 12:16 PM

Uh? Who's the one who's grabbing numbers out of thin air and manipulating the statistics, you or me? It's you. You're doing the same exact thing that this guy in the link is doing. Taking a subclass of the sample to derive certain statistics that back what you want to say. That there are certain months where the US casualty rate in Iraq is lower than the murder rate in certain cities and drawing the conclusion that therefore being a soldier in Iraq is safer than being a citizen in that city is to grab at numbers of of thin air. The relevant casualty rate for US soldiers in Iraq, if we do it statistically is the one given by how many casualties there are over how many US soldiers have been deployed there total--not some restricted sampling.

The whole reason why some scientific experiments are criticized for not having a large enough sample size is exactly this. They don't give us a clear picture of what's going on. The US casualty rate in Iraq is not given by the US casualty rate in Iraq in a particular month. That's not the relevant statistic to compare when comparing the relative safety of being a US soldier in Iraq and being a citizen (or black male or whatever) in Detriot.

**leejo** · 10-31-2007, 01:23 PM

Either you don't understand what I've said or you are willfully ignoring entire sections of my posts to twist what I've said. I don't care which. Frankly, you seem like a teenager who's been caught and is trying to make it Dad's fault. "Oops, I guess 500,000 IS low" or "Hmm yes 114 million ER visits is surprisingly high" would be a man's response.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-31-2007, 01:41 PM

If you hunt then a good bullet proof vest would not be a bad idea. Hunting today is being restricted to smaller and smaller areas meaning more and more hunters within gun shot of each other.

**CingularDuality** · 10-31-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

The US casualty rate in Iraq is not given by the US casualty rate in Iraq in a particular month. That's not the relevant statistic to compare when comparing the relative safety of being a US soldier in Iraq and being a citizen (or black male or whatever) in Detriot.

I see what you're saying here. But the fact that more folks were gunned down in downtown Dallas last month than Americans were killed in Iraq is an interesting statistic (that I just made up, but I'm sure has been true several months in the last few years). Sure, it's importance as a statistic is somewhat trivial, but trivia is cool. And it does still make a point.

Whether or not the statistic is relevant, however, has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. I understand the convenience of estimating numbers to make a point, Sordavie, but for goodness sake, you could apologize when it's pointed out that your incorrect estimates make your arguments incorrect, or that your definition of "very high" is lower than what we see in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

If you hunt then a good bullet proof vest would not be a bad idea. Hunting today is being restricted to smaller and smaller areas meaning more and more hunters within gun shot of each other.

The problem is that soft body armor isn't very effective against high power rifle ammunition. To stop those bullets reliably, you would have to also carry "shock" plates (often made out of inflexible steel or ceramic), which offer only limited protection directly to your front, or to your back.

**sordavie** · 10-31-2007, 06:11 PM

Why is that an interesting fact? It's also a fact that almost as many were gunned down in one day at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 as US casualties in Iraq in Oct. 2007 (33 vs 36). Doesn't seem that interesting. Certainly I can't draw any conclusions about the relative safety of being a student at Virginia Tech to that of being a US soldier in Iraq.

It's also a fact that 100%, 4 out of 4 statistically, of the people in this house were murdered: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1820414.shtml. That's a murder rate of 100,000 in 100,000. That's 260 times the US casualty rate in Iraq. What conclusion are we supposed to draw about the relative safety of living in that house versus being a US soldier in Iraq? I don't see why this is an interesting fact. It seems pretty mundane, if you understand that these kinds of statistics can always be cooked up given some chosen sample class. That point does it make? That being deployed as a US soldier in Iraq for four years is 260 times safer than living in Kirkland, Wash.?

My incorrect estimates only gave us a low ball figure. As I showed, even if we take the real numbers, they do not give an incorrect argument. My argument is that we would have had to deploy more than 7,000,000 troops in Iraq with the same actual total casualties for the death rate of US soldiers in Iraq to approach the murder rates for certain US cities.

Ok. My estimate was lower than I thought, but not by nearly enough to change the soundness of the argument. I even gave you statistics for a more realistic estimate. You can even double that realistic estimate or even double the actual number of deployed troops and come out with the same conclusion. The death rate for US troops in Iraq doesn't even come close to the murder rate for US cities.

What am I supposed to be apologizing for? I'm sorry that my estimate was low even though I told you what the deployment figure would need to be like in order for the statistics to be interesting in the relevant sense: that we should be surprised to find out that the relative safety of being a soldier in Iraq is the same as being a citizen in one of these cities. The incorrect estimates do not make the arguments incorrect. The argument stands because the incorrect estimate wasn't far off enough to matter. Even with an estimate of double the number of troops we've actually sent, the casualty rate for US soldiers in Iraq is still double the murder rate of many of those cities during their worst years mentioned in the link.

**Rincewind** · 10-31-2007, 06:35 PM

Remember the time when this thread was about a flak jacket? I remember that like it was yesterday.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-31-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

The problem is that soft body armor isn't very effective against high power rifle ammunition. To stop those bullets reliably, you would have to also carry "shock" plates (often made out of inflexible steel or ceramic), which offer only limited protection directly to your front, or to your back.

Didn't know that. Good info.

Would it provide no protection? And wouldn't the ammo type also be considered. I think most ammo used to kill animals are not the high penetration type. More of the fragment/flatten out like crazy to ensure a kill. (At least that is what I choose.)

And what if the shot is from a distance?

And I assume it is no good against arrows? I have heard that the typical vest doesn't stop things like knives so would that be true of arrows?

Just some questions from a inquisitive mind.

Bc2ID · 10-31-2007, 06:44 PM

mentholated, if you are going to use the vest a weight resistance during running, then you have found yourself the correct tool. The old US Army one (circa 1993) did the trick for me for several years. Just a bit of advice though, you may want to install a bit of padding in the underarm and collar area as it will help against chaffing.

Good luck!

Kerostasis · 10-31-2007, 07:01 PM

@ the random argument about casualty rates: Not that I care much, but normally death rates are expressed in a deaths-per-capita-per-year format, and as near as I can tell Sordavie's statistics are using the 4-1/2 year deployment in Iraq as a single time unit rather than converting back to years.

That said -- I think our running average is somewhere around ~500 deaths per 100,000 per year for soldiers in Iraq. This is a damn good number for a warzone, but not really very good by comparison to living in Detroit.

mentholated · 10-31-2007, 07:08 PM

Philly is turning into detroit, which turned into baghdad.. so eventually philly will turn into baghdad. I'm just trying to burn some cholesterol and protect my vital organs as much as I can afford, until I'm legally allowed to pack heat, which will be in a few months.

Acreo Aeneas · 10-31-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentholated

It only feels heavy when I use my arms to lift it, otherwise its very comfortable. I don't do paintballing, but I plan to get into it and thats one thought that popped into my mind when I saw it. I know how bad those things sting, and I've been shot point blank in the chest with one.

(yes, I am a weak nerd)

You should try a loaded tactical vest on top of that.

Judge_Leo · 11-01-2007, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Didn't know that. Good info.

Would it provide no protection? And wouldn't the ammo type also be considered. I think most ammo used to kill animals are not the high penetration type. More of the fragment/flatten out like crazy to ensure a kill. (At least that is what I choose.)

And what if the shot is from a distance?

And I assume it is no good against arrows? I have heard that the typical vest doesn't stop things like knives so would that be true of arrows?

Just some questions from a inquisitive mind.

Gringo, one thing that a lot of people don't realize about a bullet, and a high powered rifle bullet in particular because of it's velocity, is the high RPM that a bullet spins at as it travels. The rotation is what gives the bullet stability in flight and a predictable trajectory. A bullet fired from a .243 rifle at 3000 fps from a barrel with a 1:12 twist results in a rotation of around 3600 rpm. When that bullet strikes an object and begins to deform the leading edges act like a drill and will cut through soft materials like flesh or kevlar very effectively. The energy that is carried by the bullet (dependent on the weight and velocity at point of impact) is also expended into the object it hits. At 100 yards a .243 or .270 rifle will penetrate 1/2" of mild steel and drill a hole through it about twice the diameter of the bullet using lead point (hunting) bullets. I've done this and it is amazing how clean the hole is. If the steel is heat treated, a high strength alloy or has a hardened surface then lead point bullets will splatter and not penetrate, but the impact if you are wearing the steel plate would be huge and could still kill you. Armor piercing bullets would most likely pass through if they hit perpendicular to the plate but probably ricochet if at an angle. I have seen stories of soldiers being shot by snipers and have a bullet ricochet around "inside" their body armor as it passes through their body making quite a mess.

The "cop killer" bullets that have made news in the past were pistol bullets that use the rotation to "burn" through kevlar by tipping a non expanding bullet - most were solid copper - with teflon for less friction so they will continue to spin when they hit the vest.

Back to the original topic. I still don't understand why any law abiding civilian would think they should have to wear a kevlar vest. Law enforcement or security personnel of course, but if you fear that much for your safety as an average joe citizen that you want to wear a vest for protection then you should seriously consider moving.

mentholated · 11-01-2007, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge_Leo

Gringo, one thing that a lot of people don't realize about a bullet, and a high powered rifle bullet in particular because of it's velocity, is the high RPM that a bullet spins at as it travels. The rotation is what gives the bullet stability in flight and a predictable trajectory. A bullet fired from a .243 rifle at 3000 fps from a barrel with a 1:12 twist results in a rotation of around 3600 rpm. When that bullet strikes an object and begins to deform the leading edges act like a drill and will cut through soft materials like flesh or kevlar very effectively. The energy that is carried by the bullet (dependent on the weight and velocity at point of impact) is also expended into the object it hits. At 100 yards a .243 or .270 rifle will penetrate 1/2" of mild steel and drill a hole through it about twice the diameter of the bullet using lead point (hunting) bullets. I've done this and it is amazing how clean the hole is. If the steel is heat treated, a high strength alloy or has a hardened surface then lead point bullets will splatter and not penetrate, but the impact if you are wearing the steel plate would be huge and could still kill you. Armor piercing bullets would most likely pass through if they hit perpendicular to the plate but probably ricochet if at an angle. I have seen stories of soldiers being shot by snipers and have a bullet ricochet around "inside" their body armor as it passes through their body making quite a mess.

The "cop killer" bullets that have made news in the past were pistol bullets that use the rotation to "burn" through kevlar by tipping a non expanding bullet - most were solid copper - with teflon for less friction so they will continue to spin when they hit the vest.

Back to the original topic. I still don't understand why any law abiding civilian would think they should have to wear a kevlar vest. Law enforcement or security personnel of course, but if you fear that much for your safety as an average joe citizen that you want to wear a vest for protection then you should seriously consider moving.

Why should I move out of my home town just because the cops are so ineffective here? I'll take my own safety into my own hands. They can handle the law breakers (or can't, depending on your view of the crime in philly).

Maybe ineffective was the wrong word..

But no one here has any respect for our LEOs. They're a joke.

10-31-2007, 12:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,260	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket Uh? Who's the one who's grabbing numbers out of thin air and manipulating the statistics, you or me? It's you. You're doing the same exact thing that this guy in the link is doing. Taking a subclass of the sample to derive certain statistics that back what you want to say. That there are certain months where the US casualty rate in Iraq is lower than the murder rate in certain cities and drawing the conclusion that therefore being a soldier in Iraq is safer than being a citizen in that city is to grab at numbers of of thin air. The relevant casualty rate for US soldiers in Iraq, if we do it statistically is the one given by how many casualties there are over how many US soldiers have been deployed there total--not some restricted sampling. The whole reason why some scientific experiments are criticized for not having a large enough sample size is exactly this. They don't give us a clear picture of what's going on. The US casualty rate in Iraq is not given by the US casualty rate in Iraq in a particular month. That's not the relevant statistic to compare when comparing the relative safety of being a US soldier in Iraq and being a citizen (or black male or whatever) in Detriot. __________________

10-31-2007, 01:23 PM	#19 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket Either you don't understand what I've said or you are willfully ignoring entire sections of my posts to twist what I've said. I don't care which. Frankly, you seem like a teenager who's been caught and is trying to make it Dad's fault. "Oops, I guess 500,000 IS low" or "Hmm yes 114 million ER visits is surprisingly high" would be a man's response.

10-31-2007, 01:41 PM	#20 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,862	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket If you hunt then a good bullet proof vest would not be a bad idea. Hunting today is being restricted to smaller and smaller areas meaning more and more hunters within gun shot of each other. __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

10-31-2007, 06:11 PM	#22 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,260	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket Why is that an interesting fact? It's also a fact that almost as many were gunned down in one day at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 as US casualties in Iraq in Oct. 2007 (33 vs 36). Doesn't seem that interesting. Certainly I can't draw any conclusions about the relative safety of being a student at Virginia Tech to that of being a US soldier in Iraq. It's also a fact that 100%, 4 out of 4 statistically, of the people in this house were murdered: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1820414.shtml. That's a murder rate of 100,000 in 100,000. That's 260 times the US casualty rate in Iraq. What conclusion are we supposed to draw about the relative safety of living in that house versus being a US soldier in Iraq? I don't see why this is an interesting fact. It seems pretty mundane, if you understand that these kinds of statistics can always be cooked up given some chosen sample class. That point does it make? That being deployed as a US soldier in Iraq for four years is 260 times safer than living in Kirkland, Wash.? My incorrect estimates only gave us a low ball figure. As I showed, even if we take the real numbers, they do not give an incorrect argument. My argument is that we would have had to deploy more than 7,000,000 troops in Iraq with the same actual total casualties for the death rate of US soldiers in Iraq to approach the murder rates for certain US cities. Ok. My estimate was lower than I thought, but not by nearly enough to change the soundness of the argument. I even gave you statistics for a more realistic estimate. You can even double that realistic estimate or even double the actual number of deployed troops and come out with the same conclusion. The death rate for US troops in Iraq doesn't even come close to the murder rate for US cities. What am I supposed to be apologizing for? I'm sorry that my estimate was low even though I told you what the deployment figure would need to be like in order for the statistics to be interesting in the relevant sense: that we should be surprised to find out that the relative safety of being a soldier in Iraq is the same as being a citizen in one of these cities. The incorrect estimates do not make the arguments incorrect. The argument stands because the incorrect estimate wasn't far off enough to matter. Even with an estimate of double the number of troops we've actually sent, the casualty rate for US soldiers in Iraq is still double the murder rate of many of those cities during their worst years mentioned in the link. __________________

10-31-2007, 06:35 PM	#23 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,997	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket Remember the time when this thread was about a flak jacket? I remember that like it was yesterday. __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

10-31-2007, 06:44 PM	#25 (permalink)
Bc2ID Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In the shed fixing my lawnmower! Posts: 1,920	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket mentholated, if you are going to use the vest a weight resistance during running, then you have found yourself the correct tool. The old US Army one (circa 1993) did the trick for me for several years. Just a bit of advice though, you may want to install a bit of padding in the underarm and collar area as it will help against chaffing. Good luck! __________________ "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

10-31-2007, 07:08 PM	#27 (permalink)
mentholated Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 795	Re: 45 bucks for a flak jacket Philly is turning into detroit, which turned into baghdad.. so eventually philly will turn into baghdad. I'm just trying to burn some cholesterol and protect my vital organs as much as I can afford, until I'm legally allowed to pack heat, which will be in a few months.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links