Page 56 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Fall 2016

“It is important for agencies to recognize that a Figure 2 Results.
manufacturer’s warranty should not be interpreted
as a benchmark for service life. The warranty ex-
ists solely to limit the manufacturer’s liability on the (A) A 6-year-old vest
that sustained 9mm,
product and is not a reflection of the anticipated .40 caliber, and .45
service life of the product. caliber handgun rounds
“For agencies that determine that it is not fea- from 6 ft, with no vest
sible to replace armor in accordance with a man- penetration. (A)
ufacturer’s warranty cycle, the continued use of
serviceable units of armor is definitely better than
the alternative—to not wear the armor and have no (B) A 9-year-old vest,
protection.” 9 12-gauge shotgun rounds
from 6 ft; 00 buckshot
(left) and rifled slug
Demonstration (right), with no vest
penetrations.
To provide confirmation and a visual demonstration of (B)
this concept, we acquired and tested three NIJ Level IIIa
ballistic vests that had been decommissioned from po-
lice duty, and were 6, 9, and 27 years old. One panel (C) A 27-year-old vest,
of the 6- and 9-year-old vests was shot multiple times .40 caliber handgun
at close range (6 feet) with 9mm, .40 caliber, and .45 round from 6 feet, with
caliber handguns, using police duty issue ammunition no vest penetration.
(Figure 1). The other panel of each vest was shot with (C)
a 12-gauge shotgun at the same range using police duty
issue buckshot and rifled slug ammunition. The third
vest, which was 27 years old, was shot at the same range protection is only one strategy and provides only partial
with a .40 caliber handgun using police duty issue am- risk mitigation.
munition. The vests were disassembled and examined to
determine whether any projectiles penetrated the protec- Protective equipment including in-date body armor is
tive layers. All of the vests successfully defeated all of required for all LE and tactical medical personnel whose
the ballistic threats without penetration of the protec- duties include entering areas where an active threat is
tive layers (Figure 2). present. However, body armor is not mandatory for
medical providers who are providing rapid response to
patients in areas that have already been cleared of an ac-
tive threat and are under armed police escort or protec-
tion, as currently recommended.
We do recognize that the availability of ballistic protec-
Figure 1 tion may facilitate the development of rapid-response
Demonstration setup.
programs at the agency level, where it can serve as one
component of risk-mitigation measures, and that body
armor may make some individual responders more com-
fortable and better able to provide care at these inci-
dents. If resources are available, then new body armor
that is within manufacturer’s warranty period and cus-
tom fitted to individual providers is ideal for agencies
that would like to deploy it. If resources for this are not
available, then in concert with NIJ data and recommen-
dations, body armor in good condition that has been
Discussion
“retired” from active police duty can be a source of per-
Risk mitigation is a critical component of rescue and fectly serviceable ballistic protection at minimal cost in a
medical care in any high-threat environment. There are mass casualty incident or active threat response.
several strategies to reduce operational risk, including
coordination of maneuvers, speed of action, strong tacti- Several possible downsides of using decommissioned
cal movements, overwhelming force, armed escorts, and body armor have been expressed; these merit careful
ballistic protection. It is important to note that ballistic consideration by agencies that may want to consider

38 Journal of Special Operations Medicine Volume 15, Edition 3/Fall 2016