|
faulkn22 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Everyone here is bashing Dragonskin, yet the Army banned it before even testing it. When you do something shady like that, it makes you look bad. Not the liberal media.
How about the Army already didn't have enough body armor for all of the soldiers and they can't afford to issue dragonskin? That sounds more realistic to me. Anyone arguing against this fails epically.
Noojtxeeg (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
if the generals are that hard-headed, I say we pull of something like "Live free or die hard" ... we sell large quantities of dragonskin to the terrorist!!!! PROVE THE FUCKING DIMWITTED GENERALS THAT DRAGONSKIN IS BETTER!!!
necrofever (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
dragon skin is a better at protecting about anything that comes with a bang or that comes with any good power on the other hand the interceptor is good at blocking light fire and other light fireing weapons if u get hit by shrapnel or friggin other grenades or shells dragon skin will help your ass out and the basic interceptor will fail epicly and you will end up in ribbons or pieces all together its better oh and deadwood223 you have people cover your flanks and you never let yourself open
hatsmackdog (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
the dragonskin armour is actually heavier ans does not have a quick release strap,in a burning humvee or in the water dragonskin will kill you , the current body armor is pretty good but wont stop a grenade which is unlikely to be thrown anyways
countess1900 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Do not invest or purchase anything tied to the BUSH name. For the last 75 years that name has been tied to EVERY disaster, calamity, and war in America and they have profited greatly.
AmericanSpiritArms (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
ok,... except for the forward release, and adaptable rail systems, collapsible stock they really are. Performance wise they are the same gun. Its time for a change. I am not saying they arent good rifles. There are just better ones to be made.
billybobpeach (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
they arnt the same guns they were 40 years ago they change them
Kenzofeis (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
The Kevlar would not be a problem with regards to temperatures below, say, 150°C, the ceramics, well, hey - it's ceramics, it takes ten times that over time.
Which leaves the resin.
Which can be exchanged for a better one in a matter of hours or days.
So, I fail to see why Dragonskin should be a failure.
Only one thing: they should make the disks with slanted sides so as to better deflect sideways incoming projectiles.
Just my 2 cents.
irishrage590 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
wow. go back and read my post, because that is exactly what i was arguing
CosantoirArmach (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Dragonskin weighs more than IBA.
It doesn't hold up to high temperatures or exposure to diesel fuel.
It's being pushed by a corporation that wants millions of dollars in government contracts and is pissed off that it failed the military tests, and a liberal media organization that thinks jihadi "insurgents" are swell people just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Stop drinking the Koolaid.
IBA has saved hundreds of lives.
Dragonskin is a scam being pushed by douchebags. |
