that is supposed to stop it

would that not make a juicy case for a slam dunk lawsuit?

shush now little one

NIJ standards are here

Let us peep

that being said, how exactly is it that these companies stay in business?

unless their armor actually stops the rated threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwL0HY8W2w

.17HMR 17gr doing 2600 fps out of a rifle

goes through IIIA

discussion is related to .22lr not .17hmr

much faster than .22lr or 5.7x28

I have a whole new respect for .17HMR

Not gonna lie

However, back to the argument

II and IIA is designed to stop 9mm and .40 round nose

FMJ

No AP

Based on the test criteria, the armor needs to have limited BFD

Which means it's not meant for penetrative ballistics, it's basically a kevlar shock pad.

A small, fast round will penetrate textile armor readily

but .22lr isn't .17HMR fast

In fact, based on the 2-4-16-64g test criteria for fragmentation resistance, armor rated for actual AP threats is *weaker* against 2-4g threats.

even .22 mag isn't fast enough

Which requires its own type and technique of textile weaving to defeat

https://www.ar15.com/forums/outdoors/Did_something_I_been_wanting_to_test_today_can_a_22LR_go_through_a_vest_/17-660154/

something something thread strength against targets they can't squeeze

what vest

what age

what humidity

what angle

what load

what location

what condition

how many rounds

There's a reason NIJ tests are done the way they are.

All of those factors affect textile armor

I have yet to find any compelling evidence showing that .22LR can defeat 3a

Which is why they're generally used alongside or as reinforcement to solid armor like cermaics or metals

the reason why it is probably not addressed is because they can't define an all-encompassing criteria for what .22LR it should defeat

Exactly.