Mr. Parnevik whats going on with the twin sister? I'm a good guy, I won't cheat like some other people.

I love this woman if she wants revenge let me know.

Damnnnn man you caught now. That's why you don't mess with psycho chicks man. I learned that lesson back in college. Sorry about your damned luck.

@PPGMD Again I just let to see our guys get the best stuff. But I would point out that the Military Channel ran down the top ten combat rifles, guess which was number 1, the AK 47, the M16 is number 2 which suggests that its not just my opinion but that of many expects. As for the IMD killing people as I said the Marine report said that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was ineffective and had it been effective it would have saved their lives. The AK74 made it even better. It seems like even the military channel states that everything about the guy is excellent except accuracy as I said but given its fire rate I'm pretty sure that is ok. So again there you go its not just me.

@PPGMD Now the armorers are in on the cabal against the army. I don't know what else there is then. Well have a good flight

@PPGMD If you shot 2000 round without cleaning your AR either one you were not in any adverse conditions, ie a swamp or desert because is a known fact the AR do not form a tight seal and lots of dirt and grime get in or two you were not properly maintaining your weapon but got lucky. I have the field manual for the m16 and m16A1 right i front of me and in the forepages and warning it say "If there’s water in the barrel, don’t fire the rifle, It could explode" I would also direct your attention to page 2-12 "Clean and Iubricate rifle after firing approximately 200 rounds of ammunition (p 3-28)." So how you fire 10 times that amount without mishap is as i said poor maintenance and lucky. You can tel me about how that's a book and not reality and whatever else but when I was taught to shoot at Ft. Lewis I was told similar by a drill instructor. Its again a known fact that the M16 has a problem with rust and jamming due to exposure and being out in the field in water or sand which the Ak does not. If you deny that I honesty need to question your knowledge. The AK is also cheaper, has a greater rate of fire, is more reliable and requires less maintenance. Further the m16 has a heavier barrel which throws off the balance of the weapon; its only benefits is its slightly lighter and is more acrate to a further distance which in reality most solider can't aim out of and even if they could in urban combat its has no purpose. At every few occasions is someone shooting more than 300 yards at anyone and if you are you have sharpshooter for that because the average shooter may not be able to make the shot. They are fighting in cities, villages caves and deserts not great distances like WW1 and 2. And the point is if you are ambushed the AK has a better rate of figure and you can put down more cover to get yourself out of a jam.

Now that's not to say that either is perfect but when we sink billions into military spending I would think the army would look and say hey these AKs best our system in so many ways why not take them modify them a bit or design a better weapon based on them. Why you ask because they don't care.

Again I don't see how 90% of the tactical press, generally the ones who apparently think freely and not up the COC are just lying. Their has to be some proof or they wouldn't have readers and they would b out of business. These are big publications not little blogs, defense review military times Janes etc.

And you can give whatever reason you want for the special forces to use Aks but they do. And two things 1. again they would not put themselves in danger with a faulty weapons system for the sake of blending and 2. let me tell you if you are close enough to see the guys gun you are close enough to know the guy is some kind of American, white, black or whatever is between and not one of you, esp. when the guy's accent and dialect is not perfect so I don't buy that. The point is you use what they use because what they use works.

As for testing the point remains if the military cared why set testing standards for our guys who are in imminent danger of rifles rounds shrapnel fragmentation explosions and all kinds of other hazard lower than that which is used for the civilian world where the real danger is most likely a less powerful hand gun? Does that sound like a military that cares to you? To the original point Dragon skin passed the the multi hit test and NIJ testing which you just said was tougher. And still the point remains CIA uses it for its special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many CIA officers have been killed? I can tell you in total all time is around 76 ( I can't think if the top of my head but its less than 100, there is a star of the wall for each one killed). So if it kept those guys safe in the dessert under special ops conditions why not the avg private who is not going through as much?

Finally when I said army I mean military in general yes the tanker was the USAF and not the army but the politics, COC and bureaucracy and point remains the same, the DOD had to supersede the military when it came to light and was apparently clear the military was not providing the best equipment for our airmen in this situation. Same with the lack of armor of the hummers that got so many people killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Operation Gothic Serpent and the Battle of Mogadishu. The point is the military does not have a good record. They are conservative and don't like change and the world changes around them, in fact there is push back from the use of remote operated shooters to clear dangerous areas go figure, they rather send some 18 year old to get shot loose his legs or life than allow robots which would save our soldiers limbs and lives.

@PPGMD I don't See your point at all. So because I do not have personal experience I am disqualified but those who are professionals in the industry are also disqualified because you don't like their opinion. And what experience do you have may I ask? Because you seem to be sitting behind a keyboard too.

The fact is the AK have a significantly lower fail rate, they are the most popular gun in the world. They are used all over even by our special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I rather a gun that will shoot after a sandstorm then one that will jam and put my life in danger. I hate to break it to you but the world of the US Army is not that of God, they are wrong ALOT and they have an agenda. You seem to blindly support anything the army says without critically thinking. Still you can not produce 1 study to prove anything you say, just some good soldiers who do what they are told. I'm a little smarter than that, I take the information given an make a decision, not let someone tell me. if 10 studies say the Dragon skin is better but 1 study done in a facility that is not even up to civilian specs, done by a general who was forced to retire due to bias. I mean honest, its an interesting debate but a mute point whatever we say here won't change the world but personally I trust the independent studies and the report Gen Moran held that said that the Dragon skin did meet specs but buried than the one he put out as a precursor. In fact I'll give you a great example of the Army messing up, remember the airbus/ boeing contract for the refusing tankers, what happened there? The official report said one thing and the army swore by it same as this, but then after an official complaint, and independent investigation it turns out that Boeing was right and the army tried to screw them out of the contract with a false report. Go figure the army lied and was not providing the best equipment. Sounds like another story.

@PPGMD The AR is a better system seriously, how many special forces units use ARs? How many guys in Afghanistan use AK? How many armies around the world use Aks vs. the ARs? I mean there is no doubt about it that the AK is a better gun, if you don't know that you are ill informed. How many jams do AKs have vs. Ars? How about cleaning? How about just general maintenance? What exactly makes the Ars system much better? I will say the accuracy is better on the AR and the the range is better but in urban combat you don't need that.

I can't say if anyone will be using the Dragon skin in a year especially since the Army blackballed them but in the same way the Army does not have the best Humvees or a lot of other equipment. But who knows, like I said I just like to see our guys get the best and keep them safe. Anyway Happy Thanksgiving, enjoy.

@PPGMD Ok so you say I know nothing, right because you clearly know everything. I give you coherent articles with fact based realities and you come back with what some so called buddy of your told you. Right you sound very credible.

The fact remains the same, 1. the AK 47 is a MUCH more reliable gu than the M16 series and they are cheaper. Now There are other reasons such as range and accuracy to use the M16 but the fact is most soldiers are good enough to hit something outside of 200 yards so what the point. Obviously since its the most used gun in the world, in deserts, swaps, jungles and everythng else the AK is dong something right. if the M16 was such a better gun why don't more countries use it? Oh I know its because what your 3rd cousin's best friend told you right that it was the best gun on the market and for the record before you start with that yes I have fired both extensively stripped them cleaned then on 3 continents in the winter in the dessert in a jungle and in a swamp, the AK- is a more reliable gun hands down. Now if you don't know that they you clearly know nothing.

Second. When someone give you peer rated journal articles to prove their point you don't counter that with oh well my buddies are the ones who told me so I'm right. Who are your buddies that you know? Give your source of your information if they exist. Considering I have given you or referred to at least 3 different defense journals in reference to my point I think that's the least you can do. But you can't I know top secret right. And you think your unprovable facts trump mine that are in black and white. Please show me one peer reviewed study other than than the army's BS study at the one facility that everyone knows is rigged that shows that the Dragon skin is inferior. Just one please one you have the vast knowledge of al your buddies in all kinds of special units please show me one study that proves your point.

Third you still can't explain why the CIA, VIPS the NINE generals in Afghanistan which is more dangerous than the Greenzone or Iraq n general wear Dragon skin if its so dangerous. If it doesn't work and they have access to what ever hey want why would they wear it? Why put the lives of top me in danger. You brush over that fact as if it doesn't exist why? Please just explain what you would put top people's lives in danger but protect those at the bottom. Next you keep saying you buddies don't have it an I explained why, because if they use it they loose their death benefits and can be disciplined. that simple. Bottom line not because its inferior.

Again one just one study not from the army that shows its inferior. Or is it that the whole world is somehow in the bed with Pinnicle and against the army? They want our soldiers to die. If the interceptor works so well what do you tell the 4000+ families of dead soldiers, how many of them died with Dragon skin again you never answered that.

And finally why would they all of these authors have nothing to write about if the interceptor was better? Is there really nothing else then this, did they take on the army over the XM 307? or the XM8? they just desired for some reason this is the thing. Ad oh the point remains Pinncle still in business still selling their stuff Gen. Moran forced to retire, go figure. Oh andby the way one of my best friend works with weapons systems at the DODI checked with them and they confirmed the isue was more about cost. If you knew much of anything you would know that its cheaper (In army think) to destroy weapon than transport them back home so often weapons are destroyed in country not shipped back. If that's possible then why do you care about whether these things will last 5.7 or 6 years?

And one more thing, if the Dragon skin was so bad, and the army had specific problem areas that needed to be address and it wasn't pretext to reject the system, why not tell Pinnicle and ask them to fix it. The clear point is the Intercetor is not working and people are dying, so why not fix it? Whether is Dragon skin, an upgraded, or they next product fix it make it lighter make it strong the system is outdated. Don't believe it this is from Wiki, On May 4, 2005 the United States Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor combat vests made by DHB's Point Blank unit after news reports about the vests' inability to stop 9 mm round and "as many as 42% of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest." 9MM not a big round a 9mm, why? is that more safe? I have never seen a 9mm penetrate Dragon skin. At very least if the army cared why not use the MTV the Marines use? And th IOTV weighs 36lbs which is just about up there with the dragon skin btw. And the main different the Dragon skin can take multiple hits with out shattering and becoming inoperable. If they system was broken its a better starting point why not just fix it why use something that's less effective? All questions that go unanswered but it seems good enough for those at the top.

One last this finally if the dragon skin is so bad, why can't civilians buy it? It is very hard if possible at all to buy and yes you can buy other body armor so long as you are not a felon.

That is all I have to say.

@PPGMD Again you are the expert, all I'm saying is if its good enough for the CIA, VIPs and SWAT its good enough to me. I mean the facts are the fats, there is a report in defense watch, that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was as effective as the dragonskin, while the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the "best body armor in the world." There is something wrong there to me, The Army threaten soldiers who purchased it to use that their death benefits would be removed if they were KIA and they may face disciplinary hearing. That's why those units don't use them. Again its body armor, that the generals used for themselves, which suggests to me they don't want the kid with dragonskin to survive while one with a similar hit from an interceptor die and they get all the flak for it. I mean NINE of the generals stationed in Afghanistan wear/wore Dragon skins but its not good enough for PFC whoever? Who is more important (in army terms) a random PFC or a general. Whose life do you think they value more? But they would let the general put on shorty body armor and give random PFC the good stuff. take a look at this article alone. I don't know where you are getting your information but from what I read and from people I know in the defense community any number of PMCs and special forces uses use dragonskin, they are the only one the army gives it to. I would ask you this, what is the casualty rate for those operators who use dragonskin vs the interceptor. I would bet the dragonskin one a scaled one for one basis does better. Take a look at this article alone And th point remains you don't need a level 3 vest the SOV2000 level 3 is 16.5 lbs if you want to wear something lighter then downgrade but when your life is on the life an extra 5-20lbs not a big deal. It just confuses me that you would think they would risk the lives of the 9 generals and the VIPs and the CIA officers all of whom have greater strategic value with inferior armor but would draw the lime on some enlisted man. I mean if the interceptor was so great when the Sen. or delegation get off the plane if they don't have any available they could take the interceptor off the back of any of the men out there and put in on the VIP but they don't hey go out there way to find a the dragon skin and put that on them? Why? Because they want to show the world they put inferior armor on VIPS so the Taliabn know they VIPs are easy marks? Not because its more effective. I mean honest it makes not difference to me, I would just like to see our guys get the best they can but fact is I don't own stock in Pinnicle, I have no vested interest and if you think you are right that is what it is but I will say the same thing again, give me what they put on the VIPs the Generals and the CIA. I could be wrong but I still believe the issue is cost, politics and kickbacks. Gen. Moran is gone now isn't he and why? Pinnicle is still in business so somebody is buying their stuff right. So who won that? Like I first said every independent test done says the dragonskin is better except, Pinncle left an open invitation to publically test them side by side he army won't why? If they are right they have nothing to loose, but they won't and the haven't, they just buy a few pieces and put them aside for those special folks. And finally if the army is so concerned about testing and quality why do they still use M16s and variants? You know the gun that jams a lot, has a hard time in the and and the wet and every place else, why not use the AK, one of the most durable guns in the world? Because its not about quality its about politics, influence and kickbacks. I mean the thing that bothers me is they are p!ssing on people's head and saying its raining. I rather they just be honest the Dragonskin cost more and the M16 is the army's choice because of sweetheart deals.