Post
by woodsghost » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:16 pm
I"m thinking IIIA is still pretty legit.
If muntant biker gangs are out marauding on the roads I think rifle armor would be better.
For those in civil wars around the world, rifle armor would be better.
For those in the US and Canada, I suspect most threats are armed with pistols and shotguns. I simply have not seen much indicating rifles are in wide spread use among criminals, which is why the focus on "getting assault weapons out of the hands of criminals" has questionable utility.
Now if the threat is our neighbors, things can start to change depending on locality. The primary threat then would be hunting weapons, some of which exceed the stopping ability of most armor out there. I"m thinking of 220 Swift and maybe 7mm Magnum or 300 Win Mag. But then things might be seen in another light:
So you are bugging out, or bugging in. When are you most likely to need armor? When threats are close, I suspect. If they are far away, they are either executing you, or you have time to find cover. If they are near, they can ambush you. But what weapon do you expect to be used in a near ambush? Probably a pistol. A rifle, particularly a hunting rifle, is too large to conceal, and so they are less likely to get you in a near ambush. If you see someone walking around you with a hunting rifle, your guard SHOULD be up. It SHOULD be difficult to ambush you.
Those are my thoughts on why IIIA armor is still relevant. I"d prefer to wear III+ or IV plates, but I think IIIA is still relevant and viable.
Of course, this is rather academic for me. I don't have armor yet. I hope to hit the sales next year, if possible.
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet

*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.