Talk:Small Arms Protective Insert

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Interceptor First To use SAPI?[edit]

What about the Ranger Vest, wasn't that designed first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.65.135 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PS-930 vest used by the Rangers in Mogadishu, 1993, was itself preceded by the ZTL vest used by Delta Force through the 1980s that had extremely heavy but (approximately) Level III inserts. The ZTL was itself preceded by the VBAGT of the 1960s that saw limited use in the Vietnam War, but the first vest to use the specific "SAPI" model was indeed the Interceptor.Berlioz AAPM (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESAPI Plates[edit]

I heard 6 lbs for the new SAPI plates for the new MTV. FYI, the sides SAPIs are ~2.3lbs. --ProdigySportsman 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit specific[edit]

Couldn't this info be located in the more generic trauma plate article? 85.131.18.111 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this refers to a specific set of models, no.Berlioz AAPM (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information.[edit]

This article states that intercetor is rate NIJ level IIIA however it does not stop .44 magnum rounds so can't be classified as such. Just look at Interceptor body armor.

I can't find any record of Ceradyne or ArmorWorks in the NIJ database of tested ballistics protection. The only entry for any of the US military's SAPI manufacturers is Simula, and they have no listing for the SAPI. It is not likely that the NIJ ever tested the SAPI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.58.34 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"standard plates are rated as NIJ III when used alone and NIJ IV when backed by the soft armor of the OTV."

news to me. sure it's not an urban?

btw, to poster above: nij testing? more likely testing is by a private lab official paperwork by nij  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.119.193 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an armorworks SAPI plate that is rated for 7.62 NATO M80 Ball. That is level III —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recall[edit]

Was it SAPI or ESAPI plates that were recalled from Armorworks? I have been trying to find out, but I cant find much info on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Army Recalls More Than 13K Armor Plates--87.145.0.168 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Small Arms Protective Insert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005143752/http://www.defensetech.org:80/archives/003567.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003567.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]