mentholated

Was it worth it? Says on the label it'll stop buckshot and grenade fragments.. not sure about actual rounds though. Probably not ball rounds. Guy I bought it from told me it was kevlar and vietnam era.. did they even have kevlar back then?

FatCobra

They had Kevlar back then, but what do you need it for? If you bought it just as a collector, then it was a good deal. If you're using that to deflect something, then it wont come out good for you.

P8riot

M'eh.. what's it matter - it was only $45.. And if he's going hunting with Cheney this week, it might come in useful.

Unless it was used for it's purpose.. :P

__________________





Age of Conan: Tharashk (Taxiarchos), Thaumiel (alt), guild Ars Tactika - Cimmeria
XBox360 GamerTag: P8riotOne (but it might also be my son playing - he can game with TG tho!)

mentholated

I saw a deal. I like deals.

CingularDuality

Vietnam era flak jackets were designed to stop, err, flak. They're not bulletproof by any stretch of the imagination. So, although I don't know how often you're worried about grenade fragmentation, artillery debris, or other chunks of large burning metal flying through the air and hitting you, but it doesn't sound like much of a deal to me.

Unless you want it as some sort of collector's piece.

Oh, and it's heavy, bulky and stinky. If you want a bulletproof vest, they're only a few hundred bucks, are light, comfortable and made of sweat wicking materials that won't stink (as much) after you've been wearing it all day.

Just don't try to take it out of the country!

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

mentholated

Yeah I should've looked up the definition of flak. I plan on getting a real vest when I have the money, but this flak vest should be useful for jogging. (as weight resistance)

Switch

Just out of curiosity....
Do you plan on having bullets fly in your direction any time soon, and if so, why?

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

mentholated

I should hope not.

CingularDuality

I'm not sure where you live, but there are parts of cities all over the world, where bullets fly in various directions that you have no control over.

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.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Acreo Aeneas

Flak jackets are just that, flak jackets. They weren't designed to stop real bullets, only shell fragments and shards from lesser explosions.

__________________

sordavie

You mean this? http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9932 I hate when people (not you) try to mislead the general population by twisting some interpretation of the statistics.

That's comparing the murder rates of particular, hand picked US cities during certain worst years, with the violent death rate for Iraqis in the country of Iraq in 2006, given figures by the Iraqi ministry of health, defense, and interior. These are based only on the figures for Iraqi civilian, soldier, and police causalities and excludes coalition casualties.

I'm willing to bet all my money that the violent death rate in Baghdad for 2006 is much higher than the murder rate for any large US city in the history of the US.

I'm sure we could even find some small US town somewhere which experienced a murder some year when it had a population of 100. That would mean that the murder rate for that town for that year is 10,000 in 100,000. That's ridiculous compared to the typical figures seen on that page: ~50 in 100,000. But, of course that really says nothing about your safety in that town relative to your safety in Iraq.

The murder rate in the US in 2004 was 5.5 in 100,000. In that same year, the murder rate in NYC was 7 in 100,000.

Perhaps what you heard wasn't something that this guy dug up but, as you said, that the murder rates of some US cities is higher than the death rate of US troops in Iraq. But that can't be right. There have been 3842 US casualties in Iraq. In order to approach the murder rates of those cities in the link, ~50 in 100,000, we would have had to have 7,684,000 US troops in Iraq. Certainly, we've sent much fewer than that. No country in the world has a standing army close to that large. So, the death rates for US troops must be much higher than the murder rates for those cities during those years.

I don't know exactly how many US soldiers have been stationed in Iraq, but I think it's safe to assume less than 500,000. So, 3842/500,000= a US casualty rate of 768.4 in 100,000 on the assumption that there have been half a million US troops sent to Iraq. That's more than 10 times the murder rate of all but one those cities (like 9 times more in the other case) during those worst years mentioned in the link. And, that's with, I think, a very very generous estimate of how many US troops have been in Iraq.

__________________

leejo

That's 3842 over 4 years. Try again.

It is true that in certain months the death rates among US soldiers in Iraq is lower than the annual murder rate in some cities. I'll leave it to you to do the math and research, but I've checked it and it's true. Still an apples and oranges comparison, but you can take it for whatever you want.

I would rather be in Detroit than Baghdad, but not by a lot.

sordavie

I did not base my calculation on the number of US troops in Iraq over a year--that would be a figure much lower than half a million. I estimated how many US troops were in Iraq since the beginning of the war. I gave you an estimate of the casualty rate for US troops in Iraq. That's what I said I did. That's what I gave you. I did not say I would give you an estimate of the casualty rate for US troops in Iraq in year X. Why do I need to try again? You need to read again.

Perhaps you think my estimate is low. Even if we estimate that a million US troops have been deployed in Iraq, the casualty rate is much, much higher than any major US city in their worst years: 3,842/1,000,000= casualty rate of 384.2 in 100,000. Compare that with the murder rates in those cities linked: ~50 in 100,000. Detriot's murder rate for 2006 was 46 in 100,000. The casualty rate for US troops in Iraq is more than 8 times the murder rate for Detriot in 2006.

This is also not to mention the wounded or ill. Information from wiki places the total wounded or ill of US troops deployed in Iraq at almost 37,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multina..._Force_in_Iraq. The wounded or ill rate in Detriot is surely much, much lower than in Iraq. The wounded or ill rate, given the assumption of 1,000,000 total US troops deployed to Iraq is: 3,700 in 100,000.

The rate of death, illness, or injury for US troops in Iraq, given the assumption of a million deployed over 4 years is 4,084 in 100,000. That is very high.

I would much, much rather be in detriot than a US soldier in Iraq by a long shot, if safety were the only consideration.

__________________

leejo

Well you did say that you think it's safe to assume that fewer than 500,000 US soldiers have been stationed in Iraq. As of Jan. 31, 2005, the exact figure was 1,048,884. I would assume that the number has increased since then. So yes, I think your numbers are low.

I don't disagree that being a US soldier in Iraq is more dangerous than being a white middle class liberal in Detroit. However, it may be safer than being a black lower class man in Detroit. And in any case, the monthly rate is occasionally lower than the annual rate in some cities.

I was being slightly facetious about being in Detroit. Slightly.

With regard to your new argument that we aren't considering the wounded and ill, I think you're way off there. In 2005, there were 114 million visits to the ER in this country. I assume that at least half of them were either sick or injured and not just hanging around for the thrill of it. 114 million visits to the ER is roughly 38,000 per 100,000.

I won't argue that the wounds the field hospitals see would cause most civilian ER staff to have their eyes roll into the backs of their heads. In any case, Bottom line, stop assuming and grabbing your numbers out of thin air. Your brilliance is no substitute for the occasional fact, and is no excuse for falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned.

EvilTodd

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

__________________