Body armor comes in a wide variety of sizes, weights, shapes, and protection levels, leading many to ask, “What materials are body armor made from?”
This is an important question, and understanding the answer can help you make an informed decision when selecting the right armor for your needs. While we’ve touched on this topic in previous discussions about the lifespan of body armor, this article delves deeper into the materials that make up the protective gear you depend on. If you’re seeking a comprehensive understanding of what goes into creating body armor, you’ve come to the right place.
What Are Bulletproof Vests Made From?
Soft body armor, commonly referred to as “bulletproof vests,” is a term often popularized by Hollywood and public perception, though the industry prefers more accurate terminology. These vests are designed to provide protection against handgun rounds, but rifle ammunition requires a more robust solution. Specifically, Level II and Level IIIA soft body armor are engineered to offer reliable defense against handgun calibers such as 9mm and .45 ACP, among others. While these two levels may appear identical at first glance, there are critical differences in their composition and performance.
Both Level II and IIIA soft body armor are made by layering materials such as Para-Aramid (commonly branded as ‘Aramid’ or ‘Kevlar’) and/or Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE, also known as ‘Dyneema’). Kevlar and Dyneema are among the leading brand names in their respective material categories, known for their exceptional strength and durability.
The number of layers required depends on the specific materials used. For example, there are various types of Aramid and UHMWPE, each offering distinct price points, strengths, and properties. Level II armor contains fewer layers than Level IIIA, resulting in slightly reduced protection. While both are effective against most handgun threats, Level II armor is less resistant to higher-caliber rounds like .44 Magnum compared to Level IIIA.
These soft armor materials are not only used in traditional vests but also in accessory panels such as throat, shoulder, and groin protectors, often employed by SWAT teams and military personnel. Additionally, soft armor is utilized as backing panels in hard plate carriers, enhancing their versatility and application.
By understanding the materials and design principles behind body armor, you can make more informed decisions about the type of protection best suited to your needs. Whether it’s for personal safety or professional use, knowing what’s in your body armor ensures you’re prepared for the threats you may face.
Aramid vs. UHMWPE
When comparing aramid and UHMWPE materials, several key differences emerge. Generally, aramid armor is softer, more flexible, heavier, and thicker than comparable UHMWPE panels. Modern manufacturers, including RMA, predominantly use UHMWPE in today’s soft body armor because it offers significantly greater strength than older-generation aramid materials like Kevlar.
Visually, distinguishing between UHMWPE and aramid materials is straightforward. Aramids typically exhibit a golden or yellow hue with a woven fabric appearance, and they maintain a fabric-like flexibility. In contrast, most UHMWPE materials present as translucent white, unidirectional laminates that resemble stiff plastic sheets rather than woven textiles.
The superior strength of UHMWPE allows manufacturers to use considerably less material by mass and volume to meet the same ballistic standards as aramid. Despite this, aramids remain relevant due to their inherent properties. Aramid fibers possess natural fire-resistant characteristics that UHMWPE lacks, and they are generally more cost-effective. This makes aramid an attractive option for achieving high levels of ballistic and fire resistance while ensuring a soft and comfortable wear experience at a lower price point. However, for those prioritizing ultra-thin and lightweight protection, UHMWPE remains the preferred choice.
In some cases, manufacturers blend aramid and UHMWPE within a single soft armor vest to leverage the benefits of both materials, achieving a balance of lighter weight and enhanced flexibility.
Soft Armor Wearability
The wearability of soft armor is largely subjective and depends on individual preferences and requirements. Some users may prioritize ultra-thin and lightweight protection, while others may prefer softer and more flexible armor for all-day comfort. Both options come with their own set of advantages and drawbacks, and the best choice ultimately depends on the user’s specific needs and circumstances.
For example, certain armor inserts, like the 0214 Level IIIA Soft Armor Inserts, offer a blend of flexibility and comfort, making them ideal for prolonged wear against the body. On the other hand, ultra-thin and lightweight plates, such as the 0226 Level IIIA Hard Plates, are excellent for applications where minimal bulk is essential, such as backpack inserts. These rigid plates provide substantial protection without adding significant weight, making them suitable for tactical scenarios where mobility is crucial.
Different armor configurations cater to various protective needs. For instance, hard plates are commonly used in plate carriers for law enforcement and military personnel, providing robust protection against high-velocity threats. Additionally, vehicles and buildings may incorporate other Level IIIA material options, such as fiberglass-reinforced polyethylene and composites, which offer durability and toughness. However, these materials are typically inflexible and unsuitable for soft armor applications where flexibility and thinness are paramount.
As technology advances, thinner and softer aramid and polyethylene materials continue to decrease in price, expanding the options available for soft armor wearability. This evolution allows users to select armor that best fits their comfort and protection requirements without compromising on performance or affordability.
What Is Rifle-Rated Body Armor Made Of?
Rifle-rated body armor is designed to provide protection against high-velocity rifle rounds and is typically constructed in a hard armor format. While there are some flexible rifle-rated armor solutions available, they do not offer the same level of protection as the traditional handgun-rated Level II or Level IIIA soft armor. The primary components used in rifle-rated armor plates include ceramics, polyethylene, steel, aramid, and composites, each offering unique properties and performance characteristics.
Choosing the appropriate rifle-rated armor involves balancing factors such as thickness, weight, price, and protection level. However, material science does not always allow for direct comparisons; for example, replacing Alumina ceramics with Boron Carbide ceramics does not result in a straightforward equivalence in performance or cost.
To illustrate, consider the analogy of vehicles: exchanging a rugged Tacoma for a high-performance Ferrari involves different trade-offs. The Tacoma excels in off-road capability and durability, much like certain armor components that are highly effective in rugged conditions. Conversely, the Ferrari prioritizes speed and handling on paved roads, akin to armor materials that offer superior protection with minimal weight but may lack versatility in different environments. Similarly, armor components serve distinct roles depending on their material composition and intended use.
Ceramics
Modern rifle-rated ceramic body armor primarily consists of Alumina Oxide, Silicon Carbide, or Boron Carbide combined with a backing material such as UHMWPE, Aramid, or composites. This combination allows manufacturers to customize armor solutions to meet specific requirements, including thinness, protection levels, and cost considerations. By mixing and matching these components, armor can be tailored to suit diverse end-user needs, providing flexibility in design and functionality.
Alumina
Alumina is the most widely used ceramic in body armor worldwide. It offers a balance of affordability and effectiveness, making high-grade ballistic protection accessible to a broad range of users. One of the main drawbacks of Alumina is its relatively heavy weight compared to other ceramics. However, this increased weight comes with benefits, such as a highly dense structure and reduced brittleness. In multi-hit scenarios, Alumina’s lower brittleness ensures that the strike face maintains its integrity longer than ceramics like Silicon Carbide or Boron Carbide.
Alumina is utilized in several popular armor plate series, including the 1155, 1165, and 1090 series plates. These Level IV (RF3) and Level III+ (RF2) plates strike a balance between cost and performance, offering substantial ballistic resistance at an affordable price point. While Alumina-based plates like the 1155 and 1165 are slightly heavier than their Boron Carbide counterparts, they excel in multi-hit performance and provide reliable protection without breaking the bank.
Silicon Carbide
Silicon Carbide is often regarded as the optimal ceramic for body armor due to its balanced properties. It is harder and lighter than Alumina, yet less brittle than Boron Carbide, making it a versatile choice for various armor applications. While Silicon Carbide is more expensive than Alumina, it offers enhanced performance characteristics that justify the higher cost for many users.
Silicon Carbide’s versatility extends to its ability to be produced in different grades, each varying in hardness, thickness, and effectiveness against different types of projectiles, including steel and tungsten. This variability means that Silicon Carbide plates from different manufacturers can exhibit significantly different material properties, even if they share the same ceramic name.
It’s important to note that not all manufacturers produce ceramics identically. For example, Alumina ceramics used in RMA plates are American-made and differ in thickness, length, width, chemical composition, purity, and hardness compared to imported strike faces used by other manufacturers. Similarly, while Silicon and Boron Carbide maintain consistent names, their specific properties can vary widely between manufacturers. This variation underscores the importance of understanding the specific material characteristics and manufacturing processes when selecting rifle-rated body armor.
Boron Carbide
High-end users, such as SOCOM, often prefer Boron Carbide plates due to their exceptional hardness (up to twice as hard as Alumina) and low density, making them ideal for engineering lightweight, rifle-rated armor. However, like a Ferrari, Boron Carbide comes with drawbacks. Its extreme hardness also makes it more brittle. Imagine striking a clay brick versus a glass brick with a hammer: while the glass is much harder, it shatters more dramatically on impact.
Boron Carbide behaves similarly. Unlike Alumina, which exhibits minimal crack propagation, Boron Carbide’s brittleness allows cracks to spread further through the ceramic upon impact. While techniques like lamination help mitigate this damage, Boron Carbide’s lightweight ceramics typically have inferior multi-hit performance compared to heavier Alumina ceramics.
Additionally, Boron Carbide’s unique chemical properties require higher temperatures and a more complex manufacturing process to create a cohesive strike face, significantly driving up production costs. This is evident when comparing the cost of our 1155 Level IV plates (priced below $200) to the much more expensive 1192 Level IV plates, even though both deliver high-level multi-hit Level IV protection. The premium price of 1192 plates reflects the advanced materials and engineering involved in their production.
Steel
RMA briefly offered steel plates to meet customer demand, but they’ve never been a core part of our product line. While steel armor has certain advantages, its drawbacks are substantial, making it vastly inferior to other materials for body armor.
Performance Against Common Threats
Steel plates consistently fail against 5.56 rounds, a prevalent threat worldwide and particularly in the U.S., where AR-15 rifles dominate. Despite being certified under older NIJ 0101.06 standards, steel plates are now excluded from certification under the updated NIJ 0101.07 RF1 standard. This change reflects the inadequacy of steel plates, which pass M80 NATO Steel testing but fail to stop 5.56 FMJ rounds.
Weight vs. Protection
Steel plates are excessively heavy for the limited protection they offer, often exceeding 12 pounds each. Despite this weight, they provide only Level III protection—comparable to or even inferior to Level IV ceramic plates, which are lighter.
Fragmentation Risk
Steel plates deflect bullets rather than absorb them, causing fragmentation (or “spalling”). When a bullet strikes steel, fragments can ricochet into the wearer’s face, neck, arms, or legs, posing a serious risk. By contrast, ceramic and UHMWPE plates break and absorb bullets, preventing such hazards.
Cost
While steel plates may seem affordable, necessary add-ons like bedliner sprays or aramid backing for fragmentation protection increase costs significantly, making ceramic or UHMWPE plates a better investment.
UHMWPE
Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) is a game-changer in modern armor design. This incredibly strong, lightweight material has revolutionized soft and hard armor production. While pure UHMWPE plates are slightly thicker than ceramic options, they are extraordinarily light, averaging around 3 pounds each.
Pros:
- UHMWPE plates provide full Level III protection, effectively stopping FMJ rounds without requiring a ceramic strike face.
- They excel in weight-sensitive environments, such as marine operations or mountain terrains, and are even buoyant in water.
Limitations:
- Pure UHMWPE plates cannot defeat hardened steel core rounds like M855 or M2AP. For such threats, ceramic plates are necessary.
Despite these limitations, UHMWPE remains a popular choice in modern war zones for its unmatched lightness and durability.
Hard Armor Backing Materials
Composite
Composites, often referred to as “fiberglass,” are used in nearly all Level IV plates under $300. These materials combine thin glass strands with a polyethylene resin for excellent ballistic resistance and minimal deformation. Commonly known as E-Glass or S-Glass, composites are a cost-effective option, with S-Glass offering a slightly thinner profile at a higher price point.
Aramid
Aramid, once widely used in soft and hard armor, has largely been replaced by better alternatives. It offers average performance at a higher cost, with disadvantages like susceptibility to heat and water damage, making it less appealing compared to composites or UHMWPE.
UHMWPE
UHMWPE is the leading material for plate backers due to its exceptional strength-to-weight ratio. It is used extensively in our Level IV, RF3, and RF2 plates, as well as all our Level III offerings, delivering top-tier performance.
Conclusion
Body armor manufacturing involves a careful balance of science, economics, and end-user needs. While creating armor capable of stopping extreme threats like .50 BMG is possible, it often results in impractical weight or cost. Striking the right balance between protection, weight, and price is key to meeting both user expectations and industry standards. The evolving NIJ 0101.07 standards are a step forward, helping define performance benchmarks for armor, particularly in the Level III+ category.