Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Dragon Skin

Dragon Skin is a flexible body armor system developed by Pinnacle Armor Inc. in the early 2000s, comprising overlapping hexagonal tiles of silicon carbide ceramic discs, approximately two inches in diameter, bonded with epoxy resin and encased in high-tensile aramid fabric to mimic scale armor.^[1] This design aimed to defeat multiple armor-piercing rifle rounds, such as 7.62mm, while providing greater wearer mobility than traditional rigid ceramic plates integrated into vests like the Interceptor Body Armor.^[1]^[2] Introduced amid U.S. military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dragon Skin garnered media attention through televised demonstrations where it withstood bursts from assault rifles and even grenade fragments, prompting private purchases by some soldiers and temporary adoption by certain law enforcement agencies.^[1] However, official evaluations exposed critical deficiencies: in 2006 U.S. Army First Article Testing at H.P. White Laboratory, the armor suffered 13 complete penetrations out of 48 shots across various subtests, with discs shattering or adhesive failing under simulated combat loads.^[3]^[2] Environmental conditioning further compromised integrity, as extreme temperatures from -20°F to 120°F caused delamination and shifting of tiles, creating vulnerabilities; the system's bulk and weight—47.5 pounds for an extra-large configuration—exceeded practical limits compared to the 28-pound Interceptor vest.^[3]^[1]^[2] These empirical shortcomings prompted the Army to ban privately procured Dragon Skin units in 2006 and discourage its fielding, affirming standardized rigid-plate systems as superior for reliability under diverse conditions.^[3] The National Institute of Justice revoked certification in 2007 after verifying non-compliance with ballistic and trauma standards, despite some non-standardized tests—like an NBC-commissioned evaluation—suggesting potential in controlled scenarios.^[1]^[2] Pinnacle Armor contested the rulings legally but lost, culminating in the company's bankruptcy by 2010; the episode spurred refinements in military testing protocols, shifting oversight to the Army Test and Evaluation Command for enhanced consistency.^[1]^[2]

Development and Manufacturer

Pinnacle Armor History

Pinnacle Armor, Inc. was founded by Murray L. Neal, an inventor and author in the field of ballistic armor, with the company developing the Dragon Skin body armor technology originating from Neal's work initiated in 1999.^[4]^[5] Based in Fresno, California, the small-scale operation focused on innovative flexible body armor solutions amid surging demand for enhanced personal protection in the post-9/11 era, including during U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.^[6] The firm emphasized proprietary technologies for rifle-level threat mitigation, operating with a lean structure dedicated to advancing multi-hit resistant designs suitable for high-risk environments. Pinnacle Armor secured supply contracts with entities such as the CIA, U.S. Air Force, and select law enforcement agencies, providing armor for specialized federal and operational use.^[7]^[8] Despite these achievements, the company encountered significant hurdles, including protracted legal challenges related to certification processes and difficulties in expanding military procurement agreements. These factors led to mounting financial pressures, resulting in Pinnacle Armor's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 3, 2010, after which it ceased operations as an independent entity.^[9]

Design and Invention

Dragon Skin body armor was invented by Murray L. Neal, founder and CEO of Pinnacle Armor, Inc., as a response to the constraints of rigid ceramic plates in systems like the U.S. military's Interceptor Body Armor, which prioritized single-hit protection against rifle rounds but sacrificed wearer mobility and multi-hit resilience.^[10] The core innovation lay in a flexible array of independent, overlapping ceramic discs—typically two-inch diameter tiles made from silicon carbide—arranged to mimic the scalable structure of reptilian skin, enabling full torso coverage without the bulk or immobility of monolithic inserts.^[1] This scalar design sought to distribute incoming projectile energy across multiple tiles, theoretically isolating damage to localized areas and preserving adjacent sections for subsequent impacts, in contrast to traditional plates where a single defeat often rendered the entire panel ineffective.^[10] Prototyping occurred in the mid-2000s, building on earlier patent acquisitions, with the system marketed for its capacity to withstand threats like 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition while allowing enhanced articulation, such as 40-degree torso twisting essential for combat maneuvers.^[11] The engineering motivation emphasized causal distribution of kinetic forces: each disc functions autonomously, backed by composite materials to absorb and dissipate blunt trauma, aiming to elevate flexible armor from handgun-level to rifle-grade without compromising ergonomics.^[12] Initial development focused on scalability for vests like the SOV-2000 model, positioning Dragon Skin as a paradigm shift toward bio-inspired, modular protection prioritizing operational freedom over static rigidity.^[13]

Technical Specifications

Structure and Materials

Dragon Skin body armor consists of numerous overlapping silicon carbide ceramic discs, each approximately two inches in diameter, arranged in a scale-like configuration to cover the torso without rigid plates. These high-tensile strength discs are encased in a fiberglass textile and bonded within a polymeric composite matrix, enabling multi-directional flexibility while maintaining structural integrity through lamination and embedding of glass fibers.^[14]^[15]^[1] The design eschews traditional large, inflexible ceramic plates in favor of this segmented array, with hundreds of individual discs providing continuous coverage across the vital areas. The ceramic elements, known for their hardness akin to applications in automotive brakes, are integrated to form a cohesive yet adaptable layer.^[15]^[14] A full extra-large vest configuration typically weighs around 47 pounds, reflecting the density of the ceramic components and the extent of coverage achieved through the disc assembly.^[16]^[4]

Ballistic Protection Mechanisms

Dragon Skin's protection mechanism centers on an array of small, overlapping silicon carbide ceramic discs, each approximately two inches in diameter, embedded in a high-tensile-strength fiber matrix such as Zylon. Upon ballistic impact, the struck disc fractures locally, dissipating the projectile's kinetic energy through ceramic comminution and deformation of the bullet, while the backing fibers arrest fragments via tensile absorption. This localized failure prevents widespread crack propagation inherent in monolithic plates, theoretically confining damage to the individual disc and minimal adjacent elements.^[1]^[12] The overlapping scale-like configuration enhances coverage by minimizing unprotected gaps between elements, surpassing traditional plate carriers where rigid edges create vulnerabilities. By reducing the edge-affected zone per disc—due to their compact size—the design increases the effective protective area and supports multi-hit tolerance, with claims of withstanding over 10 rifle rounds if sufficiently spaced to avoid overlapping damage zones. This derives from the modular nature of the array, where independent disc integrity preserves overall ballistic resistance.^[12]^[17] In principle, energy transfer involves initial deflection and shear within the disc array, distributing residual momentum across overlaps without systemic failure. However, basic mechanics suggest limitations: cumulative shear stresses from repeated impacts could displace discs, eroding adhesion and exposing gaps, while oblique trajectories may reduce effective thickness and promote inter-disc sliding or edge defeats. Pinnacle Armor asserted this system defeated standard rifle rounds like 5.56x45mm M855, attributing efficacy to the combined ceramic-fiber synergy.^[12]^[18]

Testing and Performance Claims

Independent and Media Tests

NBC News commissioned independent ballistics testing of Dragon Skin body armor on May 3, 2007, at the Beschussamt Mellrichstadt laboratory in Germany, comparing it directly to the U.S. Army's Interceptor vest. In these tests, Dragon Skin withstood multiple 7.62mm rifle rounds, including scenarios where the Interceptor vest experienced penetrations after fewer impacts, demonstrating superior performance in single-hit and limited multi-shot sequences under controlled indoor conditions.^[19]^[20] The Discovery Channel's Future Weapons series, which premiered in April 2006, featured demonstrations of Dragon Skin stopping numerous 7.62x39mm rounds from an AK-47, including steel-core variants, with no penetrations observed in the spaced-shot trials shown. Similarly, the History Channel's Mail Call program tested the armor against nine steel-core rounds fired in full-automatic bursts from an AK-47 on dates in 2006, reporting complete stoppage without vest failure in the demonstrated configuration.^[21] These media-conducted evaluations, typically limited to ideal laboratory or range settings without multi-hit clustering, heat exposure, or sweat simulation, highlighted claims of up to 100% ballistic stoppage for designated threats in non-adjacent impacts, contributing to heightened soldier advocacy and public scrutiny of standard-issue gear. Local affiliates of ABC News and other outlets echoed these results in 2007 reports, amplifying interest ahead of more rigorous protocols.^[22]

Law Enforcement Evaluations

The Fresno Police Department acquired 26 sets of Dragon Skin body armor for its SWAT team after internal tests demonstrated the vest's ability to stop multiple .308 rifle rounds and 30 rounds from a 9mm MP5 submachine gun, indicating potential effectiveness against rifle-caliber threats encountered in urban tactical scenarios.^[23] Field suitability assessments by law enforcement highlighted viability for specialized high-threat operations but identified drawbacks including excessive weight—up to 47.5 pounds in full configurations—which limited mobility during extended patrols or pursuits.^[1] Heat retention in the layered disc design was also noted as a concern, with environmental exposure potentially exacerbating wearer fatigue and reducing comfort in prolonged urban deployments.^[24] Pre-2007 evaluations by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified select Dragon Skin models to Level III standards, verifying protection against 7.62mm rifle rounds in controlled single-shot tests, though performance varied in multi-hit protocols due to potential shifting of the overlapping ceramic discs.^[1] Limited adoptions occurred in select agencies for SWAT roles, where units reported successful integration for targeted operations, but widespread patrol use was constrained by per-vest costs starting at approximately $2,000 for basic torso coverage—escalating with add-ons—and ongoing maintenance needs for disc alignment and integrity.^[8]^[23]

Military and Official Trials

The U.S. Army conducted ballistic tests on Dragon Skin body armor from May 16 to 19, 2006, at the H.P. White Laboratory near Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, using standardized First Article Testing (FAT) protocols with 7.62x63mm APM2 armor-piercing ammunition.^[25]^[2] Across eight vests, 48 shots were fired, resulting in 13 complete penetrations—primarily on the first or second shot—with four vests failing outright, yielding a penetration rate of approximately 27%.^[26]^[27]^[2] These failures stemmed from displacement of the overlapping ceramic discs after initial impacts, which created gaps at edges or impact zones, allowing subsequent rounds to penetrate in multi-hit sequences where the structure degraded irreparably.^[25]^[26]^[27] Environmental conditioning tests, simulating shipment to Middle Eastern theaters with temperature cycles from -60°F to 160°F, caused catastrophic adhesive failures, leading to disc delamination, bunching at the vest bottom, and exposure of vital areas through widened gaps.^[25]^[26]^[2] In comparative trials against the Interceptor Body Armor with ESAPI plates, Dragon Skin—measuring 47.5 pounds and 1.7–1.9 inches thick—underperformed in repeatability and consistency under identical protocols, exhibiting greater vulnerability to multi-hit degradation despite its bulkier design relative to the 28-pound Interceptor.^[25]^[2] The U.S. Marine Corps, applying analogous standards to the Army's Interceptor system, reported similar empirical shortcomings in Dragon Skin evaluations, including inadequate disc stability and resilience under field-like stresses, rendering it unsuitable for scalable deployment during high-demand operations such as the Iraq surge.^[2] Prior assessments by the Air Force Research Laboratory in January 2006 and Aberdeen Test Center in February 2006 corroborated these results, identifying persistent ballistic and durability deficiencies in standardized military protocols.^[2]

Certification Status

Initial NIJ Certification

On December 20, 2006, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued Pinnacle Armor, Inc. a Notice of Compliance with NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements, officially certifying the Dragon Skin SOV-2000 flexible body armor system as meeting Level III protection standards under NIJ Standard 0101.04.^[28]^[29] This approval stemmed from independent compliance testing conducted on August 2, 2006, at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, where the armor demonstrated sufficient ballistic resistance and trauma mitigation.^[29] Level III certification required the armor to defeat one 7.62x51mm FMJ lead-core rifle round at a velocity of approximately 847 m/s (2,780 ft/s), while limiting backface deformation to no more than 44 mm to minimize blunt force injury risk.^[30] The testing adhered to NIJ's single-shot protocols, which evaluated energy absorption and penetration resistance without mandating multi-hit performance for this protection level at the time.^[30] This certification provided formal validation for law enforcement applications, enabling placement on NIJ's compliant products list and supporting limited procurement by agencies seeking rifle-threat protection, though it carried no endorsement for military multi-hit scenarios beyond the tested parameters.^[1]^[31]

Decertification and Appeals

In August 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) decertified the Dragon Skin body armor model, removing it from the NIJ Compliant Products List effective immediately. The decision stemmed from NIJ's review of evidence submitted by Pinnacle Armor, Inc., which determined that the armor failed to comply with NIJ Standard-0101.04, particularly due to inadequate documentation supporting its multi-hit resistance and backface deformation limits (trauma reduction).^[32]^[33] Pinnacle had warranted the armor's performance under rigorous conditions, but NIJ found the provided data from non-accredited sources insufficient to verify consistent adherence to the standard's ballistic testing protocols.^[32] Pinnacle Armor challenged the decertification through legal appeals, filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 1:07-cv-01655) alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, due process, and arbitrary application of standards influenced by external military tests. The company argued that NIJ imposed overly stringent or non-reproducible criteria not aligned with the original certification process and that warranty language discrepancies were being misused to mask performance validity. Courts rejected these claims, upholding NIJ's discretionary authority to revoke compliance based on reproducible failures observed in independent laboratory evaluations and Pinnacle's inability to submit compliant objective evidence.^[34]^[35] The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in 2011, noting that Pinnacle had not exhausted administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate the agency's actions were arbitrary or capricious.^[34] Decertification resulted in the loss of federal eligibility under programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, prompting law enforcement agencies to cancel orders and seek replacements, which exacerbated Pinnacle's financial strain and contributed to operational challenges. NIJ advised existing users to continue wearing the armor until substituted but emphasized the risks of non-compliant models.^[33]^[36]

Controversies and Bans

U.S. Army Ban

In March 2006, the U.S. Army issued Safety of Use Message (SOUM) 06-017, directing the discontinuation of procurement and use of Dragon Skin body armor, including purchases funded by soldiers themselves.^[37]^[38] The policy explicitly prohibited deployment of the armor in combat zones, framing its employment as a safety liability due to lack of formal approval and certification under Army standards.^[16] The ban aligned with Army acquisition protocols requiring equipment to adhere to established doctrine, which emphasized rigid ceramic plates integrated into the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system for consistent performance across standardized configurations.^[38] Dragon Skin's flexible disk construction raised concerns over logistical integration, as it had not been evaluated or fitted for compatibility with the IBA's outer tactical vest, potentially disrupting uniform supply chains and maintenance procedures.^[38]^[25] Enforcement involved direct warnings to personnel and orders for units to surrender any acquired Dragon Skin vests to the Program Executive Office Soldier.^[7] Although some soldiers and families lobbied Congress for review amid media coverage, subsequent inquiries yielded no policy reversal, with Army leadership upholding the directive to prioritize verified, doctrinally aligned protective gear.^[39]

Disputes Over Test Validity

Pinnacle Armor, the manufacturer of Dragon Skin, contested the validity of U.S. Army ballistic tests conducted in 2007, alleging inaccuracies and potential sample tampering that invalidated results showing penetration in 13 of 48 shots with armor-piercing rounds, including instances of "catastrophic failures" where ceramic discs shattered without fully stopping projectiles.^[3] The company argued that these outcomes contrasted sharply with independent demonstrations, such as NBC News footage from 2007 depicting the armor withstanding multiple hits, and anecdotal field reports from users claiming high efficacy rates, including assertions of up to 94% effectiveness in combat scenarios based on operator feedback emphasizing mobility and repeated impact resistance.^[16] Proponents, including some congressional advocates like Rep. John Murtha, suggested institutional resistance to disruptive technologies favoring established suppliers such as Ceradyne, whose rigid plate systems dominated military contracts, potentially influencing test protocols to prioritize incumbent designs over flexible alternatives.^[40] Counter-evidence from Army evaluations, however, highlighted reproducible design vulnerabilities rather than procedural flaws or falsification. Environmental stress tests revealed disc delamination and migration after heat exposure, with X-rays documenting scales detaching from backing materials and creating unprotected gaps, a failure mode confirmed in drop tests where overlapping discs shifted under impact or thermal cycling.^[23] These issues persisted across multiple trials, undermining claims of superiority and aligning with Department of Justice findings in 2007 that Dragon Skin failed to maintain integrity under operational extremes like desert temperatures, leading to decertification without evidence of data manipulation.^[32] Independent analyses, including a Defense Technical Information Center review, noted that while media-highlighted ballistic demos showed promise, they lacked comprehensive protocols matching military standards, such as angled shots or multi-hit sequences, revealing flexible armor's limitations in high-intensity environments where empirical wound data from Iraq and Afghanistan favored rigid plates for consistent torso coverage.^[2] Analysts have acknowledged Dragon Skin's potential niche viability for low-profile operations requiring flexibility, but empirical hit location data from combat—predominantly center-mass threats—demonstrates inferior performance against sustained fire compared to monolithic ceramics, with no verifiable suppression of positive field outcomes beyond quality control discrepancies in submitted samples.^[41] Absent substantiation for conspiracy, disputes underscore inherent trade-offs in scale-based designs versus validated alternatives, informing stricter post-2007 testing regimes without invalidating core failure mechanisms.^[2]

Company and Legal Repercussions

In 2007, following the U.S. Army's ban on Dragon Skin body armor and the National Institute of Justice's (NIJ) decertification, Pinnacle Armor faced proposed debarment by the U.S. Air Force on June 21, which prohibited the company from receiving federal contracts across government agencies.^[7] This stemmed from investigations into allegations that Pinnacle had delivered Dragon Skin vests falsely labeled as meeting NIJ Level III standards to Air Force entities, including the Office of Special Investigations.^[42] The debarment proceedings, combined with terminations for cause on existing delivery orders upheld by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in 2009, resulted in substantial revenue losses, as federal procurement constituted a primary market for advanced body armor manufacturers.^[43] Pinnacle responded by initiating litigation against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 1:07-cv-01655-LJO-SAB), claiming the NIJ's certification revocation violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment and seeking reinstatement and damages.^[35] The district court dismissed the suit on March 11, 2008, holding that NIJ certification represented no cognizable property or liberty interest protected by the Constitution.^[44] Pinnacle appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on May 26, 2011, reiterating the absence of a due process entitlement to certification.^[45] These legal setbacks and contract prohibitions eroded Pinnacle's financial position, leading the company to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 3, 2010, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 10-bk-10011).^[9] The proceedings were dismissed on November 29, 2010, after which assets, including intellectual property related to Dragon Skin, were liquidated through sales, though no immediate commercial successors adopted the technology for ongoing production.^[46] Founder and CEO Murray Neal, who had defended the product in congressional hearings, encountered personal bankruptcy filings amid the company's collapse (Case No. 10-bk-12372), marking the effective end of Pinnacle's operations in the body armor sector.^[47]

Legacy and Impact

Influence on Body Armor Design

The Dragon Skin system's overlapping ceramic disc configuration, intended to provide flexible, gapless coverage, prompted U.S. Army research into scalable flexible armor hybrids, notably influencing the development of prototypes like the FSAPV-E/X, which sought to balance enhanced mobility with ballistic resistance.^[2] However, rigorous testing demonstrated that the discs were prone to shifting under heat exposure and physical stress, compromising protection at oblique angles and during multi-hit scenarios, thereby reinforcing the superiority of rigid ceramic plates for vital areas where consistent performance was paramount.^[2] These vulnerabilities highlighted critical design trade-offs, informing subsequent armor iterations to prioritize mechanisms preventing component displacement and ensuring uniform trauma reduction across coverage zones.^[23] The empirical data from Dragon Skin evaluations contributed to heightened emphasis on environmental durability in flexible systems, though no direct disc-based technologies achieved broad military integration, with hybrid soft-rigid constructs prevailing due to validated multi-hit efficacy.^[2] In the broader market, the controversies surrounding Dragon Skin escalated scrutiny of manufacturer claims, resulting in more stringent pre-adoption testing protocols and independent oversight, such as the shift to Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) validations post-2007 hearings.^[2] This legacy fostered cautious innovation, directing resources toward empirically robust designs over unproven flexible alternatives while sustaining interest in bio-inspired scale architectures for potential future applications.^[48]

Modern Reassessments and Criticisms

Post-2010 technical analyses have attributed Dragon Skin's shortcomings primarily to inherent physical limitations of its overlapping ceramic disk design, rather than external political factors. The modular structure, while enabling flexibility, suffered from edge effects where projectiles striking near disk boundaries experienced reduced energy dissipation due to limited lateral support and potential gaps, compromising consistent ballistic performance across the vest's surface.^[49] Environmental stressors exacerbated these issues, with high temperatures causing delamination and disk displacement, as observed in standardized drop and heat exposure tests, rendering the armor unreliable under operational conditions like prolonged wear in arid environments.^[50] Despite these flaws, retrospective evaluations credit Dragon Skin with pioneering demonstrations of flexible, multi-hit rifle-rated protection, which influenced subsequent explorations in civilian body armor markets by highlighting the potential for non-rigid solutions against intermediate calibers. However, critics argue that promotional claims overstated capabilities by sidelining real-world variables, such as thermal-induced shifting that could create vulnerabilities during extended use.^[23] As of 2025, the design has seen no mainstream revival, with hard ceramic plates continuing to dominate military and law enforcement applications due to superior verified combat statistics in stopping high-velocity threats without flexibility-related trade-offs. Niche initiatives, such as Armor Research Company's NextGen series claiming enhanced Dragon Skin iterations, assert zero field penetrations but provide no independently validated test data, underscoring persistent challenges in scaling tiled flexible armor beyond prototypes. Recent symposium evaluations of similar hexagonal-tile flexible rifle plates indicate viability for better body conformity but highlight ongoing backface deformation exceeding limits, reinforcing plate superiority for high-threat scenarios.^[51]^[52]

References

[1]
What Is Dragon Skin Body Armor?
### Summary of Dragon Skin Body Armor
[2]
[PDF] How It Changed Body Armor Testing in the United States Army - DTIC
The results of the test seemed to confirm that Dragon Skin flexible body armor provided superior ballistic protection compared to the Army and Marine Corps ...
[3]
Army: Dragon Skin armor failed battery of tests - NBC News
May 21, 2007 · John Grant of Pearcy, Ark., led the charge for a congressional investigation over the body armor, saying he wanted the best possible protection ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[4]
Dragon Skin Body Armor By Pinnacle Armor | ShadowSpear Special ...
Jan 2, 2007 · Pinnacle Armor presents a revolutionary technology called DRAGON SKIN®, the first practical, FLEXIBLE BODY ARMOR that defeats rifle rounds.
[5]
Entrepreneur bringing high-tech manufacturing of body armor to ...
Jul 15, 2012 · Murray Neal created the breakthrough Dragon Skin technology in 1999. It was used by U.S. military special operations forces and sought after by ...<|separator|>
[6]
Point Blank Body Armor and Dragon Skin…Conclusion - SFTT
Pinnacle Armor's Murray Neal, whose small Fresno, Cal. company makes “Dragon Skin” body armor, was the only manufacturer to go on record. He does not ...
[7]
[PDF] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BODY ARMOR PROGRAMS ...
Jun 6, 2007 · You sell to law enforcement agencies and CIA and other kinds of folks who don't need a combat field version of your body armor. What is the ...
[8]
Point Blank Body Armor and Dragon Skin - SFTT.org
On October 5 Pinnacle announced it had received a $4.7 million federal contract to provide the US Air Force and “other federal agencies” more of its body ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[9]
10-10011 - Pinnacle Armor, Inc. - Content Details - - GovInfo
United States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of California. (). 10-10011 - Pinnacle Armor, Inc.. [Government]. Administrative Office of the United States ...Missing: 2008 | Show results with:2008
[10]
Dragon Skin: Tougher Than Critics? - WIRED
Aug 31, 2007 · A couple of years ago I interviewed Murray Neal, CEO of Pinnacle Armor , about the company's Dragon Skin flexible armor . He reeled off a list ...Missing: founding | Show results with:founding
[11]
Army defends quality of its armor | Stars and Stripes
May 23, 2007 · Murray Neal said eight of the rounds that penetrated the Dragon Skin vests were specifically aimed where there were no ballistic discs. Of the ...
[12]
Polymer and block copolymer, ceramic composite armor system
[0013] The Dragon Skin ® technology's flexible rifle defeating body armor has the lightest weight for the ballistic and fragmentation protection capabilities ...
[13]
Dragon Skin Gets the Shaft... - Military.com
Aug 6, 2007 · An alert DT reader passed along this release from the Department of Justice stating categorically that Murray Neal over sold his Dragon Skin SOV ...Missing: founding | Show results with:founding
[14]
Dragon Skin Body Armour (Part 1) - Military.com
May 23, 2007 · Dragon Skin is a type of ballistic vest made by Pinnacle Armor. It ... The discs are composed of silicon carbide ceramic matrices and ...
[15]
Analysis of Military Body Armor (Dragon Skin - Academia.edu
The structure of the Dragon Skin body armor consists of ceramic (silicon ... In conclusion, the Dragon Skin body armor is an excellent piece of material ...
[16]
Dragon Skin vs. Army | Military.com
May 18, 2007 · Perhaps the biggest Army concern is Dragon Skin's weight. An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though ...Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
Biomimetic armour design strategies for additive manufacturing
A ballistic vest known as Dragon skin armour, was manufactured by Pinnacle Armor mimicking the overlapping pangolin scales as can be seen by X-ray, as shown ...<|separator|>
[18]
How does DRAGON Skin body armor work, and is it better than ...
Dec 16, 2022 · Dragonskin body armor was made with dozens of small ceramic disks on a ballistic vest, the ceramic discs were made of similar materials as that of the current ...
[19]
NBC puts body armors to the test
May 20, 2007 · Click for results of independent ballistics tests commissioned by NBC News and conducted on May 3, 2007, in Germany ... Test 3 was of Dragon Skin ...
[20]
Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor? - NBC News
May 17, 2007 · Given the controversy over body armor, NBC News commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army's Interceptor vest.
[21]
NBC tests prompt investigation into U.S. armor
Jun 6, 2007 · On May 3 at a ballistics laboratory in Germany, NBC News testing showed that Dragon Skin, made by privately held Pinnacle Armor Inc ...
[22]
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3252906
[23]
Dragon Skin armor: What Went Wrong?
Its unique design was made of an overlapping series of high tensile strength ceramic discs, (picture taking small pieces of a ceramic plate and then overlapping ...
[24]
Dragon Skin Body Armor: The Controversial Technology ... - Editverse
The Dragon Skin saga reveals a critical tension between groundbreaking innovation and institutional validation. Field data showed 94% effectiveness in combat ...
[25]
Army Defends Body Armor Quality | Article | The United States Army
May 22, 2007 · Brown today released information about the testing that ruled out Dragon Skin a year ago. The tests were conducted May 16 to 19, 2006, at ...
[26]
Army: Privately-Sold Armor Failed Tests - CBS News
May 22, 2007 · Brown described "catastrophic failures" by the Dragon Skin armor, and said that in 13 of 48 shots, lethal armor-piercing rounds either shattered ...
[27]
Dragon Skin Takes a Beating on Hill | Military.com
Jun 7, 2007 · The NBC tests showed Dragon Skin absorbing many more rifle rounds ... tests of both Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor," Coyle said.
[28]
Dragon Skin Flexible Body Armor Officially Receives NIJ Level III ...
Dragon Skin Flexible Body Armor Officially Receives NIJ Level III Certification ... On December 20, 2006, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued Pinnacle ...
[29]
[PDF] Pinnacle Armor, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 55831 ) Under Contract No. GS ...
Dec 20, 2006 · On 1 July 1999, the General Services Administration (GSA) awarded the captioned Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract to USA Armoring ( ...Missing: CIA | Show results with:CIA
[30]
[PDF] Ballistice Resistance of Personal Body Armor
Sep 4, 2000 · NIJ Standard–0101.04 classifies body armor into seven different threat levels that, in order from lowest to highest level of protection, are ...Missing: Dragon Skin SOV- December 2006
[31]
Compliant Products List: Ballistic Resistant Body Armor
NIJ certifies torso-worn ballistic resistant body armor for law enforcement that complies with the requirements the NIJ Compliance Testing Program (NIJ CTP).
[32]
Archived | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ...
Aug 3, 2007 · Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor. NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence ...Missing: Sacramento 2006
[33]
DOJ Revokes Dragon Skin Body Armor's NIJ Certification Over ...
Aug 8, 2007 · DOJ Revokes Dragon Skin Body Armor's NIJ Certification Over Warranty Claims. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) ...
[34]
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/08-16209/08-16209-2011-05-26.pdf
[35]
[PDF] Pleading Paper - GovInfo
program to test body armor for civilian law enforcement use. ... Pinnacle alleges that DOJ and NIJ published statements that the dragon skin model was “no longer.
[36]
DOJ removes "Dragon Skin" vests from approved list - Police1
Aug 13, 2007 · “Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the [National Institute of Justice] list of bullet-resistant body armor ...
[37]
Army Bans Non-Military Issued Body Armor - NPR
Mar 31, 2006 · The most popular brand the soldiers have been buying is called the Dragon Skin, which is produced by a California company called Pinnacle Armor.Missing: Sacramento | Show results with:Sacramento
[38]
Army Bans the Use of Privately Purchased Body Armor
Mar 31, 2006 · “In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements,” the Army order says, and it “has not been ...<|separator|>
[39]
Army Called to Capitol Hill Carpet - Military.com
The Army plans to brief Congress about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports touting the vest's capabilities ...Missing: G- 1 prohibition
[40]
Are Troops Equipped With the Best Armor? - ABC News
Jun 6, 2007 · In the Army tests, Dragon Skin was penetrated 13 out of 48 times. The Army discourages its use. Yet the controversy has caused some soldiers and ...
[41]
Justice Department drops Dragon Skin body armor recommendation
Aug 9, 2007 · An NBC report in May that the commercially available armor, made of layered plates similar to scales, performed better in independent ballistic ...<|separator|>
[42]
USAF wants Fresno body armor maker banned from federal contracts
Jun 13, 2007 · Dragon Skin subsequently failed two tests conducted by the Air Force. The Air Force issued orders to its personnel to stop using the vests in ...Missing: procurement | Show results with:procurement<|control11|><|separator|>
[43]
https://www.asbca.mil/Portals/143/Decisions/2009/55831.pdf
[44]
Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States | E.D. Cal. | Judgment | Law
In order to be listed as compliant with the 2008 requirements, body armor must be submitted to and tested by the NIJ. The NIJ's new requirements are ...
[45]
Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-16209 (9th Cir. 2011)
Pinnacle alleged that the NIJ's decision to revoke certification of one of its products violated its procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.Missing: repercussions | Show results with:repercussions
[46]
Pinnacle Armor, Inc. Bankruptcy (1:10-bk-10011 ... - PacerMonitor
California Eastern Bankruptcy Court. Chapter 11. Case #:, 1:10-bk-10011. Case Filed: Jan 03, 2010. Dismissed: Nov 29, 2010. Terminated: Jan 25, 2011 ...
[47]
10-12372 - Murray Neal - Content Details - - GovInfo
Bankruptcy. Court Name. United States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of ... Pinnacle Armor, LLC and Jonathan Chessum, Creditor GE MONEY BANK, CreditorMissing: post- | Show results with:post-
[48]
Bio-inspired rigid-flexible coupled skin-scales system for enhanced ...
Oct 6, 2025 · Recent studies have demonstrated the utility of fish scale-inspired designs in applications ranging from body armor to static protective ...
[49]
r/QualityTacticalGear Guide: Dragon Skin Armor Analysis - Reddit
Mar 18, 2019 · The armor tiles they used being of insufficient ballistic resistance · The tiles migrating around the vest due to adhesive failures, resulting in ...
[50]
Whatever happened to Dragon's Teeth Body armor? Why did it fail?
Feb 26, 2023Dragon Skin Armor, what was the real issue behind it? - RedditCould Dragon Skin body armour actually work as advertised? - RedditMore results from www.reddit.com
[51]
Body Armor | Armor Research Company, Inc.
Armor Research Company is proud to carry forward the globally superior performance of DragonSkin ballistic, rifle-defeating body armor with next generation ...
[52]
The 2025 Personal Armour Systems Symposium: Field Notes, Part I
Thus the presentation suggests that modern flexible rifle armor can be designed and utilized by military forces, which is a noteworthy finding: A near-term path ...