# Gear Review - MOFOCR From CP Gear



## westie47 (3 Jun 2007)

Well, after much anticipation I ordered the MOFOCR in Cadpat TW from CP Gear back in March. I wanted it before I reported for work-up training. I ended up getting the second one off the line! I managed to get it set up and had it ready for the field.  We were out for approximately 5 weeks in Wainwright and Suffield.

This rig ROCKS!!!!! I wore it all day, every day with no problems. After that whole ex, there are a couple of frayed threads and that's about it.

The set up: 

Left Side: TT Large Radio Pouch, HSGI Large EOD, CP Gear Lobster Trap and two ESSTAC pistol mag pouches attached to the EOD, two CP gear double mag pouches, above those are two ESSTAC single mag pouches, CP Gear frag grenade pouch and PRR.

Right Side: CP gear Triple mag pouch, ESSTAC Minimed, HSGI Smoke, CP Gear FA pouch, HSGI Smoke, Bayonet and CP Gear frag grenade pouch above .

Back: HSGI hydration carrier modified to attach to the rig.

Positive Points: 

1. It has a lot of real estate for attaching pouches, I could easily carry a sect commander's load - 10 mags (we had 5), DAGR, PRR, 521, IFAK, 2 x frag, 2 x smoke, dump pouch, Surefire, Gerber, compass, map, water, batteries, etc
2. The front map pockets rock, I had my compass in the left one and the map in the right one, much easier to access.
3. It was easily worn over the FPV and was comfortable.
4. The MOFOCR doesn't bounce around stays tight on the body.
5. Easy to access the mag pouchs, even with grenade pouches above them.
6. Pricing is reasonable, especially if you get one of the packages.
7. I attached a couple of female fastex buckles to the sides and took two 'sleeves' with fastex buckles on the yoke in order to have a quick release system for my hydration carrier. It worked awesome as I could very quickly detach my Camelbak if I had to carry a ruck/small pack, radio. I just threw it in the pack and off I went. 

Points to Improve:

1. The attachment Snapdragon buckles on the front took quite a bit to get used to. I could get my rig on quick, but it took a few seconds to get the buckles done up. The system I came up with was to unzip the two map pockets and do the buckels up starting from the top and working my way down. Then just ip up the map pockets. Also, you need to keep the rig a bit loose, that helps a lot as well.
2. Matt should extend the 'loop' strip that is under the shoulder straps the whole length of the strap, and come up with a sleeve with a buckle, or just attach a female fastex buckle to the shoulder straps.

Other than that I am very happy with this rig, I will be getting one in Cadpat AR for the deployment and have encouraged my soldiers to get this rig if they are going to buy a rig.

Pouches: The new CP Gear pouches are great as well. I also had a mix of some other pouches.

IFAK: Fits all the stuff we carry perfectly. Should have another  strip of 'loop' on it though.

Double Mag Pouch: I have already done a review of this, Matt sent me the newest version and there are no concerns.

Triple Mag Pouch: Didn't get to use it too much with mags as we only got issued the basic EIS (5 mags), but it did hold the large smoke grenades we got issued (British I believe)

Frag Pouch: great pouch, they fit the M67 and the new C13 perfectly, easy to get the frags in and out!

Lobster Trap Dump Pouch: I've reviewed this pouch before, great pouch but could be a bit bigger. I encourage all inf soldiers to add a dump pouch, they have a 100 different uses.

TT Large Radio Pouch: Holds the 521 perfectly, but we didn't get issued any 521's 

HSGI Large EOD: great all round utility pouch, I had my mag charger, extra ammo, snacks, etc in it.

HSGI Smoke Pouch: Don't lke this pouch, too hard to get the smoke out of and only takes up one channel of PALS, I am going to try the CP Smoke pouch

ESSTAC Minimed and Pistol mag pouches: What can I say about Stu's stuff, absolutely bulletproof. The Minimed holds the DAGR perfectly. However I think someone should make a dedicated DAGR pouch.

Overall, Matt has really brought CP gear around. 

Pics: I have one pic but had trouble getting it up due to bandwdth problems at the 5 star hotel  :they have us at.  I will try and get it up later.


----------



## Razic (5 Jun 2007)

awsome review, thank you very much, i've been looking into this thing for sometime now.


----------



## westie47 (6 Jun 2007)

Here's a pic:


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Jun 2007)

Not too shabby looking..I wouldn't be able to walk 20 feet around here without getting jacked for wearing something like that.. yay for uniformity!!!


----------



## darmil (6 Jun 2007)

Well as of yesterday the TF RSM said only issue Tac vest for over seas.I guess the new Tac vests are coming, A3 might be getting them in a few weeks.


----------



## Farmboy (6 Jun 2007)

> TF RSM said only issue Tac vest for over seas



 I've heard that a few times in meetings with RSM's about to go over.  Seems to change quite fast once over there.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Jun 2007)

Farmboy.. exactly.  MikeH.  Every TF RSM has said that it seems, but once they hit the "real world" they realize what many other armies have realized.. not everyone uses the same kit and in the same way.

We'll see.. 03-07 has a no go policy too....


----------



## KevinB (6 Jun 2007)

Well I'd like to point out that for all his other failings the CWO Randy (this is my safety - BANG) Northrup of 1VP was agreeable to troops using decent gear prior to the their first TIC.


----------



## westie47 (6 Jun 2007)

Well DLR was at our coy lines a couple weeks ago, they had a bunch of after market rigs to show the boys.  They are also sending some chest rigs (50) for the coy to trial. Haven't heard anything about a new TV. basically, anything we have right now is considered 'trial' until we deploy. Guys can pretty much wear whatever they want, within reason.


----------



## darmil (6 Jun 2007)

Well  hope that the Tac vest falls through and I CAN decide what works for me.I Know what vest I want but don't want to waste money to find out I can't wear it.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Jun 2007)

westie47 said:
			
		

> Points to Improve:
> 
> 1. The attachment Snapdragon buckles on the front took quite a bit to get used to. I could get my rig on quick, but it took a few seconds to get the buckles done up. The system I came up with was to unzip the two map pockets and do the buckels up starting from the top and working my way down. Then just ip up the map pockets. Also, you need to keep the rig a bit loose, that helps a lot as well.
> 2. Matt should extend the 'loop' strip that is under the shoulder straps the whole length of the strap, and come up with a sleeve with a buckle, or just attach a female fastex buckle to the shoulder straps.
> ...



Thanks for putting this stuff through the paces.   

IRT points to improve on, I'll definitely take all of these into consideration for future modified versions:

-MoFOCR shoulder straps velcro underneath.  I see where you're coming from with this as per our discussion in Edmonton the other week.  Stu @ Esstac has done this with his Boar padded harness and it's not a bad system that he's worked out at all.  Something else that could be done would be to add another set of D rings on the shoulder straps, above the MOLLE webbing. That way you could anchor stuff like QR buckles, webbing, etc. for hydration carriers and other items you'd want on your back.d

-MoFOCR front buckles.  Easiest thing I've found with the MoFOCR front closure Snapdragon buckles when you're donning the vest and securing the front buckles is to take your right hand and insert it (your hand) behind the right front vest panel coming from the armpit area.  With your index finger and thumb grab the male buckle and insert it into the female, working from the bottom buckles up.  This seems to be the easiest method of securing the front buckles of the MoFOCR.  

-IFAK.  I'll do up a version with more velcro and send it your way to T&E to see if it's got enough surface area to place everything you want.

-Lobster Trap.  Point taken about your preference for a larger version.  I'll look into doing 2 versions of the Lobster Trap; the current sized one as a 'Regular' version and then a larger sized one as per your preference for a pouch about the size of the Maxpedition Larg Rollypoly.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (9 Jun 2007)

Just finished up Shilo's site visit today and the OC's of B & C Coy's of 2VP have purchased the commander version of the MoFOCR for TF 1-08.  RSM Semenko has given the CP Gear MoFOCR, the Dropzone ModCan Vest, and the PSP DHTC Patrol Vest and DHTC Chest Rig the ok as the 'approved' aftermarket rigs for the TF 1-08 Battlegroup above and beyond what the DLR load carriage trial has provided (which include a small number of the DHTC rigs).


----------



## Bzzliteyr (9 Jun 2007)

That is an AMAZING development and hopefully a sign of things to come...


----------



## Kendrick (9 Jun 2007)

haha forget it Buzz, we ain't getting squat.  Bah.


----------



## darmil (11 Jun 2007)

Is there any pictures of the DHTC rigs??...Nevermind found pictures.So if it's approved where can you buy one and whats the damage?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Jun 2007)

MikeH said:
			
		

> Is there any pictures of the DHTC rigs??...Nevermind found pictures.So if it's approved where can you buy one and whats the damage?



Pacific Safety Products did up a batch of these back in the 2000-2002 (?) timeframe, but have never offered them for private purchase sale.  Good luck on trying to get your hands on one as they fetch a hefty price on ebay as collectors tend to snap them up as novelty items.


----------



## The_Green_Basterd (14 Jun 2007)

In the same week CP gear stopped by with there Road show, 2 PPCLI was issued a bunch of Rigs from RCMP vests to Arktis.  Comparing them to the new MoFOCR left me with only one Opinion, if it aint Modular, its JUNK.


----------



## Patroels (19 Jun 2007)

@Matt_Fisher

I was wondering if you could help me out with a link?

I'm currently working on a monsterpouch for 7,62-belts (1200 shots divided on to 24 belts: Guess I should call it "MMGMP" or Mad Machine Gunners Monster Pouch, huh?)

Anyway, I've been Googl'ing both my right and left arm to a state of near-arthritis trying to find someone who would sell me a small batch of black Snapdragon buckles, but so far no luck.

I'd really appreciate all the help I could get!

Regards
Troels Maaloe
Copenhagen, Denmark


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Jun 2007)

I am not Matt Fisher, but the "roll your own" forum on the Lightfighter (www.lightfighter.net) boards will surely be able to hook you up if Matt can't.  You can also get tons of ideas and techniques whilst drooling over others' handiwork.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (20 Jun 2007)

RCMP vests?  Junk?!?  I think you are mistaken, sir.

And if you can't get the sarcasm in that, you need to give your head a shake.


----------



## PteGDD (20 Jun 2007)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> RCMP vests?  Junk?!?  I think you are mistaken, sir.
> 
> And if you can't get the sarcasm in that, you need to give your head a shake.



Ahahahha I laughed as soon as I saw "Sir" 
Officer jokes are the best.


----------



## KevinB (21 Jun 2007)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> RCMP vests?  Junk?!?  I think you are mistaken, sir.
> 
> And if you can't get the sarcasm in that, you need to give your head a shake.



Police vest usage is far different from Green Side military operations...


----------



## DropZone (21 Jun 2007)

Gentlemen,

I have no idea what "RCMP" vests are being referred to, but we have been supplying the Drop Zone ModCan to RCMP special teams for over a year now. 

Kind Regards
Brian Kroon


----------



## PhilB (21 Jun 2007)

The vest I have seen is not the ModCan vest. However, IMHO, the modcan vest does not adequately address the needs of soldiers serving in Afghanistan either. It is designed to imitate the "look" of the tacvest, and as such I feel that it picks up some of the negative traits of the tacvest. It is not as adjustable vertically as a chest rig type platform, it relies on a zipper for closure and all of the draw backs that that entails, it does not allow you to center your pouches on your body, it has the same ride issues as a tacvest, it has the same ackward adjustment system as the the issue tac vest, large amounts of the upper PALS area is all but useless in order to still have unimpedded access to magazines, and finally at $300 for just the base rig it is extremely expensive compared to other opti0ons on the market. Just my two cents. I am not trying to start a flame war, but I see a lot of troops buying kit based on what manufacturers say (manufacturers are intrinsically biased towards their own product! : ) without proper research and getting stuff that they spent too much on, that does not work.


----------



## Bomber (22 Jun 2007)

The RCMP vest in question is a modification of the current TAC VEST, using increased mag storage and different options for the bayonet arear, there is a pistol mag attachment and a radio attahment, if you are not interested in mounting the bayonet there.  I can go an grab one fromthe locker and see if there are any other real differences in the design.


----------



## Yeoman (22 Jun 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> The vest I have seen is not the ModCan vest. However, IMHO, the modcan vest does not adequately address the needs of soldiers serving in Afghanistan either. It is designed to imitate the "look" of the tacvest, and as such I feel that it picks up some of the negative traits of the tacvest. It is not as adjustable vertically as a chest rig type platform, it relies on a zipper for closure and all of the draw backs that that entails, it does not allow you to center your pouches on your body, it has the same ride issues as a tacvest, it has the same ackward adjustment system as the the issue tac vest, large amounts of the upper PALS area is all but useless in order to still have unimpedded access to magazines, and finally at $300 for just the base rig it is extremely expensive compared to other opti0ons on the market. Just my two cents. I am not trying to start a flame war, but I see a lot of troops buying kit based on what manufacturers say (manufacturers are intrinsically biased towards their own product! : ) without proper research and getting stuff that they spent too much on, that does not work.



that was something I have to agree with totally. in the last three months I have gone through three chest rigs just because there was just one thing wrong with it. I just picked up another vest this week (esstac boar) and it'll probably be going out soon as well. 
I have been trying to encourage guys in the 3rd Battalion to go out, and do your homework and think of what it is you want. the guys in the coy keep saying they want to get new stuff (most saying they want to buy dragonskin and groin protectors, but that's a different story), but none know where to turn. there's what? two companies in Canada that make stuff that I suppose can be classified as respectable kit? That's about it really.
I will still end up picking up one of these platforms as soon as I can afford to, in order to see if it is something I want to chase after. I just don't think it is though, but we will find out.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (22 Jun 2007)

Greg,

I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.   

Maybe next time?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Jun 2007)

Yeoman, reference body armour, etc... I wonder just how many deaths/injuries could have been prevented had those systems been in use?? (devil's advocate here)  I know back in the day and still to this day, many armour crewman would complain about the need for steel toed boots.  "We work with heavy stuff, why can't we get them?" 

I like to remind my troops of an old safety digest article (I think) that addressed that issue by pointing out that the amount of injuries to armour crewman with regards to unprotected feet were so minor that it didn't validate the need to issue steel toed boots to the trade.  However, at the armour school a compromise was made and most of the tankers that had to go assist the maintainers (who wore steel-toes) would get a pair issued.

Which brings me back to the point that sometimes pointing the "young fellows" in the right direction with regards to kit and keeping them from going out and making huge purchases (ie. Dragon skin)is a good idea.  That includes the cooks and other support trades that need that LCF (look cool factor).  

Matt, I'll be getting in touch during my leave to sit down and talk armour vesting with you.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jun 2007)

There has been some real worrisome stuff come out about Pinnalce and Murray Neal (CEO of Pinnacle -- the makers of DragonSkin) -- basically I stopped wearing mine and went back to ESAPI's -- I would caution everyone NOT to trust the NIJ rating on the DragonSkin -- expect to see some Criminal Charges...

Best advice to people here -- tailor your gear to your mission -- a Dismounted need is totally different from a mounted crewman.  And LMG, GPMG, and others are different as well.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Jun 2007)

I spoke with RSM Semenko on the phone and his reasons for approving the rigs he did were:
(his words not mine so do not debate me on the reasoning)

1) They look very similar to the issue vest which is important for recognition

2) Chest rigs are too front heavy and the ones approved are more like vests

 That would be it.

 It didn't matter that a very large number of troops have deployed with TAG and HSGI rigs and have had rave reviews about them.  The great thing about ones like the TAG Operator is they will carry what is needed, *they will survive the mission*, they aren't to expensive for the rifleman who might only use it for 1 tour, oh and they are warrentied for *life*, which means if it breaks on your 25th tour I will replace or fix it for free.

 MOLLE is the way to go if your deploying more than once or you mission changes etc. but yes, non MOLLE rigs still do have a place.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jun 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> but yes, non MOLLE rigs still do have a place.


On a mannequin in a museum  ;D


----------



## Big Red (22 Jun 2007)

If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jun 2007)

Roger that -- My guess its this dinosaur knee jerk to trying to find a rationale when there is none.

If you pop a friendly due to the vest they wore you have no business being in theatre -- or the Army either for that matter.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Jun 2007)

> If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong



 I was trying to explain in a nice way that 1RCR, 3PPCLI and others had no problem with IDing each other with a wide variety of rigs on.  He wasn't going to listen to me though.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Jun 2007)

The sauruses are here to stay.. we must meld the minds of our new, younger generation of senior NCMs (soon to be myself, I hope) and encourage some rational thought as these are things that help make life easier.

(devil's advocate hat on again) However, they might just play the game I played earlier in here with a "necessity" issue.  Do we really need them?  People have been making do with the issue tac-vest just fine, blah blah blah.. hear where I am coming from?


----------



## PteGDD (23 Jun 2007)

Big Red said:
			
		

> If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.



I like what you are trying to say here, and I think you are correct.  If you are basing a decision as to who is good and bad by a vest, you probably S*** the bed!  However you must also look at the RSM's prospective.  Think about the liability behind his decisions to allow rigs that do not look like the traditional issued stuff.  He is just playing "worst case scenerio," because whos ass is it when Bloggins blows away buddy and says he looked like enemy?  There is some sense behind his decision, he's just playing the old cover your own ass army game.  But I must admit, I'm a fan of  using what works and I wish I could experiment and try some new stuff myself.


----------



## Armymedic (23 Jun 2007)

Big Red said:
			
		

> If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.



That would be second to if they have a weapon or not, and constitute a thread, no?


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> and constitute a thread, no?



Damn those threads  

I still dont beleive its a good idea to make a shooting decision based on what weapon someone has either -- especially in a conflict where you can be supported by ANA and ANP (or opposed by the ANP too).


----------



## Canadian Sig (23 Jun 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Greg,
> 
> I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.
> 
> Maybe next time?



Poor Greggy was probably way to hung over to come look at kit. Oh well. I made it in ( with the Mrs ) and I was fairly impressed with the rig. As soon as I can talk to the boss and see what leeway we get with kit for the roto I will be calling you up greg.

Toby


----------



## Yeoman (23 Jun 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Greg,
> 
> I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.
> 
> Maybe next time?



terribly sorry Matt, I was on a tasking at the time with 1RCR through out the week. and well siggy was right about weekend. we had a few promotions that friday in 3.
next time around, can't say a yes. but I'll attempt to again.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Jun 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> On a mannequin in a museum  ;D



Not necessarily; guys with big budgets (i.e. DHTC, DEV/NSW, SF/Delta, etc.) who can afford to buy (using organizational monies) multiple rigs for various mission requirements still use a lot of fixed pouch rigs mainly due to weight savings, as pouches don't neeed backs sewn on to them, no need for extra webbing, etc.  It may not seem like much, but it all adds up and if you ever compare the weight of a fixed pouch rig to a modular rig all loaded up the difference is significant.  There's also a trend within this community to move away from heavier/durable materials like 100 denier Cordura to lighter weight 500 denier and even 330 denier to save weight.  They're not so concerned with durability, as if the rig is worn out by the time they're finished with it for the task at hand, they just get a new one made up, again using organizational funds to purchase.

However, with that said, for most guys who're going to buy gear using monies from their own pocket, modularity allows the greatest flexibility, especially with a combat arms environment whereas role/mission requirments change and as such the load can be configured to suit those changes.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2007)

Matt,
  I've seen most of the guys in that field going modular these days - most of the DA teams are running Eagle or Paraclete integrated armor systems.  Yeah for some stuff its alot easier to take a Mattech and have them move a pouch a hair this way and that, but other than specific units MP-5 guys CT rigs I've not seen a lot of guys wearing dedicated rigs -- and I see a fair amount of dudes around here.
SOCOM is restricted to SPEARS/BALCS armor platfroms -- which pretty much dictated a Eagle CIRAS - or Paraclete RAV -- or wearing one of the Plate Carriers over the soft armor carrier (its all included in the SOCOM go to war bag)


----------



## DirtyDog (23 Jun 2007)

Those front "snapdragon" buckles look somewhat akward.

I wonder how much leeway the 3RCR BG will be given early next year in regards to kit?


----------



## Donut (23 Jun 2007)

The snapdragons took some getting used to, but Westie 47's way of unzipping the front pockets adds enough flexibility to the rig to get 'em done up.

I find it easier to do up the middle one first, then the top and bottom; otherwise it's too hard to access the middle one.

Good luck with the RCR!

DF


----------



## Yeoman (23 Jun 2007)

I've heard some things. but well since the battle group ain't offically formed, ain't nothing offical to say about wearing non-issued vests.
probably turn out the same way it did with 1RCR


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Jun 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Those front "snapdragon" buckles look somewhat akward.
> 
> I wonder how much leeway the 3RCR BG will be given early next year in regards to kit?



I'm going to be posting a Youtube video on how the front snapdragon's are done up and released over the next 2 weeks.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jun 2007)

While the article is intended as a slap at the media (in this case NBC), it speaks to the Dragon Skin issue.
Shared in accordance with Copyright Act.

Link to _Weekly Standard_ online article

*NBC's Body Armor Embarrassment 
Another failed attempt to paint soldiers as victims. * 
by Tom Donnelly 
06/20/2007 11:14:00 AM 

ONE OF THE RECURRING themes of press coverage of the Long War, and particularly the conflict in Iraq, is that soldiers are victims. According to this trope, soldiers and Marines are sacrificing themselves in a cause already lost, by an administration that cares little for the men and women in uniform. The proof of this last proposition was demonstrated to the media's satisfaction long ago, and confirmed for them in former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's proclamation that we went to war with the force we had rather than the one we'd liked to have.

Exhibit number one in the press's case for the prosecution was the question of armor protection for soldiers--not only armor for trucks and Humvees but individual body armor. Facts have never been allowed to get in the way of these stories--nor have questions about the tradeoffs between mobility and protection --and, if a recent report by NBC's Lisa Myers is any indication, they still aren't. In Myers's report, done in the classic "I-team" TV investigative style, NBC paid for an independent ballistics test comparing something called Dragon Skin body armor (so-called because it is made up of overlapping ceramic discs) with the Interceptor body armor now being worn by soldiers.

Far from being a case of independent investigation, the report smells more like a piece of special pleading. Dragon Skin is made by Pinnacle Body Armor, whose chief executive, Murray Neal, has long complained that the Army has been lying about his product. According to Myers, "In our limited testing at a renowned ballistics lab in Germany, Dragon Skin was able to defeat more bullets than the Army's Interceptor and did so with significantly less body trauma."

Employing yet another media-catnip tactic, Neal and his PR team have convinced some concerned parents that there may be something better than what the Army is supplying their children; they in turn have agitated for Congress to intervene. The House Armed Services Committee's once-moderate Democratic chairman Rep. Ike Skelton--whose son is a soldier, and who is apparently competing for the Iraq "oversight" job with more reliably left Rep. Henry Waxman--dutifully responded to the NBC broadcast by holding a hearing on the subject of body armor. Alas, the story soon deviated from the script. 

In testimony to the committee, the Air Force related its history with Dragon Skin. While researching flexible body armor, the Air Force purchased some Dragon Skin for evaluation. However, after being notified of Dragon Skin test failures, the Air Force requested a live fire test, which Dragon Skin failed, resulting in a recall of all its Dragon Skin. As it happens, the Army has had a similar experience. It had purchased some Dragon Skin vests for use by its Criminal Investigations Command, but recalled the vests in April 2006, not only because of test failures, but because of false certification claims. Finally, under questioning from the committee's ranking Republican, Duncan Hunter, once an infantryman in Vietnam, one of NBC's "experts," upon hearing of the Army's experience, allowed that Dragon Skin was "not ready for prime time."

The NBC report, too, included questionable claims--and its tests were indeed "limited," falling far short of military standards. In fact, Pinnacle's Dragon Skin body armor has been tested a total of six times by the military, four times by the Army, and once each by the Air Force and Marines. It has failed every time.

On the Army's website you can see footage of Pinnacle's Murray Neal peering into a hole in ballistic clay--which simulates the human body--after a test round made a full penetration of his product. The Army standard is, not surprisingly, zero penetrations. According to the Army, Dragon Skin suffered 13 penetrations out of 48 test shots. The service also provided NBC with the results from a May 2006 test showing that Dragon Skin failed Army testing, "miserably" in the words of Brig. Gen. Mark Brown of the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground.

But why let the facts get in the way when you're retelling a story that fits the accepted narrative? The press and the leadership of the Democratic party, in the throes of an extended Vietnam flashback, have decided the war is lost. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even thinks he knows what's going on in Baghdad better than does Gen. David Petraeus, the commander on the scene. But the media and the Democrats still fear that their defeatist attitudes may alienate people in uniform, or Americans more broadly. Thus the need to cast soldiers as victims. The only victim in the body army story, though, is the truth.

Tom Donnelly is resident fellow in defense and national security studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jun 2007)

So want mine


----------

