I realize there is no such thing as an absolute bullet-proof vest; “bullet-resistant vest” would be more accurate a term. But I also understand that there have been significant advances in tactical body armor,which has yielded vests that are claimed to defeat most small arms fire; even, as some manufacturers attest, 9 mm FMJ from a submachine gun.
I would be interested in reading input from knowledgeable combat or law enforcement veterans, or others aware of these armor advances, whether these claims are accurate, and if these new vests would be more useful than older models in certain combat situations --either on the battlefield or in a violent stateside shootout.
Sorry, my friend, but 9mm Para ISN’T a round known to be particularly powerful in firearms circles (not including +P+ loads, of course). True, it has come a long way from what it used to be, but most consider it to be the absolute MINIMUM you should consider for a defensive round. The difference in power that the round picks up from being fired out of a slightly longer SMG bbl is almost negligible.
That being the case, body armor has been able to reliably stop most pistol rounds for decades. What’s rather exciting now is the capability of some suits to stop rifle bullets, including AP in some instances, that used to cut through it as easily as normal clothing. Of course, that prompts improvement in projectiles, and the cycle of technological betterment continues.
Now you’re wondering why doesn’t everyone own a set, especially everyone in the military. Several reasons, actually. Body armor is heavy, hot, uncomfortable and it can impede your movement and slow your reaction time. In many situations it’s actually better to NOT be armored. Body armor also doesn’t cover everything, and in some cases has been known to make people believe that they are invulnerable to small arms fire, when just the opposite is true.
