Always seems like there are big parts of the chest not covered by the Kevlar. I get that there maybe aren’t organs up by your shoulders, but, seems like it makes it easier for bullets to come in from the side. Why not just have more coverage?
In: Engineering
The whole point of body armor is to make someone relatively safe from dying and restrict their movement as little as possible. So, yea you could make someone way safer by adding more protection elsewhere on the body, but then both the weight and the shape start to restrict movement to a point that isn’t acceptable for a lot of people. Basically it’s better to take a shot to the arm while running away than to be weighed down by your vest so you can’t run.
All armour is a trade off.
Generally the stronger and more protective the armour is, the more constrictive and heavy it will be. The more constrictive and heavy, the less you can move and the more trouble you will have responding.
So the aim is to find a good balance that protects the vital organs (clustered in your chest and abdomen), while leaving your other limbs free. It is also notable that while they can often be life altering, bullets to the arms, shoulders and legs are much less likely to be fatal – again this is just the designers deciding what needs prioritised and what can be left out to gain back other advantages.
So the reason you usually see the best shape with cutouts at each shoulder is because that shape covers the important vitals, and benefit of having your shoulders fully mobile outweighs the risk of getting shot (or that shot being fatal).
Latest Answers