Plastic VS Ceramic VS Steel Body Armor || What's the Best Armor?

Published on April 25, 2021
Duration: 16:49

This video compares the performance of Level 3+ AR 550 steel, Level 4 ceramic, and Level 3 UHMWPE body armor plates when subjected to multiple 5.56x45mm (223 Remington) rounds. The testing focuses on spalling and total plate defeat. The UHMWPE plate demonstrated superior performance in preventing spalling and withstanding numerous impacts, while the steel plate showed good resistance but some spalling and cracking. The ceramic plate exhibited significant spalling early in the testing and was deemed less effective in this regard.

Quick Summary

In a comparison of Level 3+ Steel, Level 4 Ceramic, and Level 3 UHMWPE body armor, the UHMWPE plate demonstrated superior performance by preventing spalling and withstanding multiple impacts. The ceramic plate showed significant spalling early on, while the steel plate offered good resistance but eventually cracked.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Testing Three Popular Body Armor Types
  2. 00:21Armor Plates Tested: Caliber Armor Level 3+ Steel, Level 4 Ceramic, Level 3 UHMWPE
  3. 00:43Testing Protocol: 5.56x45mm (223 Rem) from 18-inch Barrel
  4. 00:53Focus 1: Spalling and Anti-Spall Capabilities
  5. 01:11Focus 2: Total Destruction - How Many Rounds Until Defeat?
  6. 01:39Range Setup: Plate Carrier and Spall Target
  7. 02:12Ceramic Plate Testing: Round 1-3
  8. 03:01Ceramic Plate Testing: Round 4-6 - Increased Spalling
  9. 04:14Steel Plate Testing: Round 1-3 - Minimal Spalling
  10. 05:08Steel Plate Testing: Round 4-6 - Some Spalling Observed
  11. 06:18Steel Plate Inspection: Cracking After 9 Shots
  12. 07:00UHMWPE Plate Testing: Initial Rounds - No Spalling
  13. 08:16UHMWPE Plate Testing: More Rounds - Still No Spalling
  14. 09:15UHMWPE Plate Testing: 9 Shots - Minimal Impact
  15. 10:00Comparing Ceramic vs. Steel vs. UHMWPE After Testing
  16. 11:19UHMWPE Plate Performance: Balling Up and Containment
  17. 13:11Armor Plate Categorization: Price and Weight Comparison
  18. 14:04Ceramic Plate Analysis: Poor Anti-Spall Performance
  19. 14:18Steel Plate Analysis: Consistent Performance, Outperformed by Poly
  20. 14:36UHMWPE Plate Analysis: Ridiculous Performance
  21. 15:06Body Armor Limitations: One Round Standard, Subsequent Rounds Unpredictable
  22. 16:14Conclusion: Options Exist, Proper Manufacturing Matters

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the key differences between steel, ceramic, and UHMWPE body armor?

Steel armor is typically the most cost-effective and durable against blunt force but can be heavy and prone to spalling. Ceramic armor offers good ballistic protection and is lighter than steel but can be brittle and also suffers from spalling. UHMWPE (Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene) is the lightest and offers excellent multi-hit capability with minimal spalling, but is generally the most expensive.

How did the ceramic plate perform in the body armor test?

The Level 4 ceramic plate performed poorly in terms of anti-spalling capabilities. Significant fragmentation was observed early in the testing, with pieces of ceramic and projectile material impacting the spall target after just a few rounds.

What was the performance of the AR 550 steel body armor in the test?

The AR 550 steel plate demonstrated good resistance, with less spalling than the ceramic. However, after multiple impacts, it showed signs of cracking and some minor spalling, indicating it can be defeated under sustained fire.

Which type of body armor performed best in the test?

The Level 3 UHMWPE plate exhibited the best performance, showing minimal spalling, excellent containment of projectile fragments, and the ability to withstand numerous impacts without significant degradation or perforation.

More Tactical & Gear Videos You Might Like

More from The VSO Gun Channel

View all →