There has been some controversy about Dragon Skin.  The evidence shows that Dragon Skin is everything that Pinnacle Armor claims it to be - the finest body armor in existence, bar none. 

 

On September 28, 2007, we participated in a preliminary administrative hearing at the Department of the Air Force on the debarment of Pinnacle Armor.  We want the opportunity for a full hearing where we can present evidence of the superior quality of Dragon Skin, and where we can confront and cross-examine those who have made untrue claims about Dragon Skin. 

 

At this first hearing we were required to show that there is a genuinely disputed issue of material fact as to the government's allegations.  To that end, we offered evidence to challenge the government's three-tiered position that: 1) the labels on certain Dragon Skin body armor improperly certified the body armor as NIJ certified Level 3 compliant; 2) the ceramics were defective in certain Dragon Skin body armor; and, 3) that certain Dragon Skin body armor failed testing.  This record will be supplemented by October 27, 2007.  It is unknown when the Air Force will make its ruling on this issue.

 

If we successfully prove that there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact, then under the rules of debarment, the Air Force will be required to provide a full hearing for Pinnacle to prove it's product is everything that it claims it to be.  Pinnacle looks forward to its day before an impartial hearing officer where it can fully present its case.

 

Summary of the debarment issues:

 

The labels speak for themselves - that the manufacturer (Pinnacle) certified that the particular Dragon Skin was tested through the NIJ and that they did not fail level 3 (the ability to defeat a specified number of M-80 rounds).   Contrary to the government's position, the labels did not indicate that NIJ certified the vests - rather, Pinnacle certified the vests.  NIJ does not test body armor - there are two NIJ certified laboratories that tested the product - H.P. White and U.S. Laboratories.  Both labs tested the product for level 3 compliance  - and in every instance it did not fail.  At the relevant time, NIJ did not have a procedure or protocol to test flexible body armor; regardless, M-80 rounds did not penetrate the vest. 

 

The labels are truthful - the vests were tested through the NIJ's certified labs at level 3 and they did not fail.  Additionally, NIJ agents told Pinnacle they were to label the vests in a manner that stated the certification was by the manufacturer, which they did. 

 

The government shot level 3 Dragon Skin vests with level 4 rounds and then claimed that the vests failed testing.  When the government told Pinnacle that the ceramics failed, it did not state that they shot the vests with level 4 rounds.   The moment Pinnacle was told that these vests were defective, Pinnacle offered to take all the vests back and remedy the problem.  It was only later that Pinnacle learned that the government improperly tested these vests.  Pinnacle later shot tested the suspect ceramics and determined that the actual ceramics defeated level 3 rounds as warranted.  Pinnacle acted quickly and appropriately when confronted with a potential problem. 

 

The government indicated that it conducted four separate shot tests of the level 3 Dragon Skin and that each shot test resulted in failure.  However, in each test the government failed to properly conduct the test or shot the vest with level 4 rounds. 

 

In one test, government data indicated that the Army (Aberdeen) improperly attempted to de-tune the vest by throwing it off a building and then running over it with a Hummer.  Though the vest survived this ridiculous test, this was improper use and would void the warranty.  None of these methods of testing are proper procedure or protocol as delineated by SAPI, ISAPI, ESAPI or under any NIJ Standard. 

 

Dragon Skin is an "in conjunction" body armor - Pinnacle requires that the inner ceramic component (the Dragon Skin) must be used in conjunction with the outer tactical vest (which is rated Level 3A) in order for the body armor to defeat level 3 rounds.  Use of the product in any other manner voids the warranty.  The government removed the outer tactical vest and shot the Dragon Skin with the M-80 ball, claiming that it failed the test.  Again, this is misuse of the product and a claim that the test results are a failure is absurd. 

 

The contract with the air force demonstrates that the Air Force did not purchase full-body wrap-around body armor, which was available if they wished to purchase it.  In another test, they fired rifle shots through the webbing between the front and rear body panels, claiming a failure of the vest.  The label on the vest clearly indicates that level 3A protection is offered by the outer tactical vest and that level 3 protection is offered in the location of the Dragon Skin plates when used in conjunction with the outer tactical vest.  Claiming a failure of the vest by shooting it through the outer tactical vest with rifle rounds alone is disingenuous.

 

The remaining claims of failed tests occurred with level 4 rounds being shot into level 3 vests.

 

 

 

In September, 2006, the NIJ finally created a procedure and protocol to test flexible body armor.  In December, 2006, the NIJ found that the Dragon Skin SOV 2000.1 complied with Level 3.  In June, 2007, the NIJ revoked the Notice of Compliance claiming that there was not sufficient proof that the product would last the warranted six years.  That is a case of first impression - we believe that no other body armor manufacturer has ever had its product removed from the compliance list due to lack of proof of warranty.  Oddly, NIJ has no procedure or protocol to test flexible body armor to determine whether it will last any particular period of time.  NIJ's premise is wrong - a warranty is a guarantee by the manufacturer.  Simply, Pinnacle Armor guarantees its product for six years. 

 

 

 

George Gingo

Counsel for Pinnacle