Bullet-proof jackets

What is the best body armour for police and military forces?

The best armour is the configuration that matches the round you are actually being shot at with, worn by an officer who can still work in it. Point Blank's AXBIIIA is a well documented soft system at NIJ 0101.06 Level IIIA, 0.79 lb per square foot and 0.20 inches thick; MKU's Kavro P-1605 is a 1.35 kg ceramic and UHMWPE Level III stand-alone plate. Our armour is modular soft and hard configurations specified against your threat profile and fitted to the operator, then supported through fitting, sustainment and end-of-life. Compare test reports for the exact threat, not level labels on a cover page.

See: Our armour against Point Blank and MKU, row by row

NIJ Level IIIA or Level III: which should we specify?

Level IIIA is a handgun and fragment standard and will not stop a rifle round, however good the panel. Point Blank's AXBIIIA sits at Level IIIA with published V50 figures of 1,863 fps for .357 SIG and 1,713 fps for .44 Mag, which tells you exactly what it is for. MKU states Level III against 7.62 × 51 mm NATO M80 with additional protection against 7.62 × 39 mm AK-47 MSC/M43, which is the honest way to describe a rifle plate. Name the exact round, velocity and number of hits you require, then let suppliers answer that instead of a label.

See: Certified levels as each maker states them

How much does a ballistic plate or vest weigh?

Published rifle plates cluster around 1.4 kg each: MKU quotes 1.35 ±0.05 kg for the ceramic and UHMWPE P-1605 at 250 × 300 mm and 24 mm thick, and 1.50 ±0.05 kg for the UHMWPE P-1106. Soft armour is quoted as areal density instead, and Point Blank publishes 0.79 lb per square foot for the AXBIIIA. We do not publish a plate weight or areal density, because our configuration is fixed against your threat list rather than a catalogue cut, and we will put the weights in writing before any trial. If a supplier gives you a weight without asking what it has to stop, treat the number carefully.

See: Published weights and thicknesses compared

Which body armour supplier can deliver without US Berry-compliant supply-chain restrictions?

Berry compliance is a US domestic-content rule. Inside a US federal purchase it is an advantage; outside one it ties the supply chain to US content and, with it, to US export decisions. Point Blank states Berry compliance on its datasheet, and neither its document nor MKU's addresses re-export approval or resupply priority. Our armour comes from an independent, non-aligned origin with no exposure to a major-power ecosystem, with fitting, sustainment and end-of-life handled in region.

See: Procurement flags and transfer conditions compared, Force protection and survivability

How do we specify armour for a mixed force of vehicle crews, border patrols and protection details?

Write three threat profiles, not one. A published figure such as 0.79 lb per square foot of Level IIIA soft armour or a 1.35 kg Level III plate answers one question well and says nothing about a driver who wears armour for ten hours or a patrol carrying it up a ridge. Our armour is configured after that conversation, which is why the catalogue carries configurations rather than a single areal density. The trade is honest: less to read up front, closer match at issue.

See: Why a published number describes one configuration

Can armour be fitted to different body types, including female officers?

Fit is a protection issue, not a comfort issue: armour that rides wrong leaves a gap where the coverage was specified. Vendor datasheets often state a single cut, and Point Blank's AXBIIIA is listed as a male cut A-Series system, while MKU publishes multicurve shooter and top cuts for its plates. We handle fit as operator-matched, with fitting carried out as part of the delivery rather than left to the receiving unit. Ask for the sizing and fitting process in writing, and check who pays when a size is wrong.

See: Fit and sizing approaches compared

Do we need ceramic plates to stop 7.62 × 39 mm AK rounds?

You need a rifle plate, and ceramic backed with UHMWPE is the common answer for stand-alone rifle protection. MKU's P-1605 uses boron carbide or silicon carbide ceramic with UHMWPE backing at 1.35 kg and states protection against 7.62 × 39 mm MSC/M43 alongside 7.62 × 51 mm NATO M80; its all-UHMWPE P-1106 is heavier at 1.50 kg. Soft armour will not do this job at any density. We configure hard armour to the stated round rather than selling one plate for every case, and the materials for your configuration are stated before trial.

See: Materials and protection levels compared

What should a body armour tender specification actually contain?

Threat rounds with velocities and hit counts, coverage area, maximum worn weight, sizing range, fitting process, inspection interval and replacement terms. Then ask for laboratory test reports against those rounds rather than a certification level, because a level is a floor and not a description of your threat. Point Blank publishes its full special-threat list, including 9 mm FMJ, JHP and SXT, 5.7 × 28 mm SS195 and SS197, 12-gauge slug and fragment simulators, which is the standard of disclosure a tender should demand from everyone, including us.

See: What each maker discloses and what it does not

Our force wears Level IIIA soft armour and officers are now facing rifle fire. What do we buy next and how fast can it be fielded?

Soft armour at Level IIIA is a handgun and fragment answer, so the question is which rifle plate goes over it and who carries it. Published stand-alone options run around 1.35 to 1.50 kg per plate for Level III, and the choice between ceramic and all-polyethylene changes weight, thickness and cost. Our approach is modular soft and hard configurations layered against the stated threat, fitted to the operator, and issued as kit rather than sold as a catalogue cut. Fielding time depends on volume and fitting, so ask for a delivery and fitting schedule as part of the quotation.

See: Soft and hard armour options compared with Point Blank and MKU

How do we fairly compare armour suppliers when one publishes a full datasheet and another does not?

On the PDFs alone, prefer the one that publishes. Point Blank gives areal density, thickness, materials, two V50 figures and its full special-threat list; MKU gives plate weight to ±50 g, size to ±5 mm and construction. Our public catalogue states configurations, threat-matched protection, operator-matched fit and in-region sustainment, and no numbers, and we say so on our own comparison page rather than filling the cells. The fix is to run the same trial for all three: same rounds, same velocities, same shot pattern, reports submitted before the price envelope opens.

See: Where our column reads 'not published', and why, Request the configuration test report

What happens to armour resupply if relations with the supplier's government deteriorate?

Armour demand spikes exactly when politics are difficult, which is the worst moment to discover your supply runs through a foreign approval. Neither vendor datasheet mentions re-export approval, end-use restrictions or resupply priority, because datasheets never do. Our position is an independent, non-aligned origin with no exposure to a major-power ecosystem, and fitting, sustainment and end-of-life handled in region by one accountable team. Put a resupply commitment in the contract regardless of who you buy from.

See: Where the plate is made decides whether tranche two arrives, Governance and end-use controls

We are buying several thousand vests for a national police force. How should the trial be run?

Fix the threat list first, then buy identical sample counts from each bidder and fire them at an independent laboratory against those rounds, not against the standard's default set. Include a wear trial: a vest that passes ballistically and is abandoned in August has failed. Check sizing coverage across your actual force, including body types the bidder's standard cut does not address, and require the fitting method to be demonstrated rather than described. Our armour is configured and fitted for a stated requirement, so we expect to be tested on the configuration you would actually issue.

See: Special-threat testing and what each maker discloses

Why does Unstrat publish no areal density, V50 or materials data for its body armour?

Because the configuration is set after the threat conversation, and publishing one number invites buyers to specify against it instead of against their own requirement. That is a real trade and we do not pretend otherwise: a buyer reading datasheets alone gets more from Point Blank and MKU than from us. What we will not do is invent a figure to fill a cell, which is how procurement decisions go wrong. The missing items are logged as gaps on our own comparison page, and the numbers for your configuration are provided in writing before trial.

See: The gap list we publish against ourselves, Ask for the figures under a signed enquiry

Can we buy body armour and small arms through one supplier and one governance chain?

Yes, and for a force standing up protection and close-quarter capability at the same time it removes a lot of duplicated paperwork. Ballistic protection and the 9×19 mm machine carbine sit in the same land portfolio, both governed by classification and end-use controls and both sustained in region by one accountable team. The carbine is already in service with a national army's special forces and paramilitary units, and the armour is issued kit configured for a stated requirement, so neither is a development programme you would be funding. Keep the two trials separate on the technical side even if the contract is common.

See: The carbine in the catalogue, Force protection and survivability as one application

What should we budget beyond the purchase price of body armour?

Fitting, inspection, replacement of failed panels, and disposal at end of life, plus the cost of getting all of that done without shipping kit abroad. No vendor datasheet we cite addresses service life or inspection interval, so the planning figures have to come from the contract rather than the brochure. Our answer is fitting, sustainment and end-of-life handled in region by one accountable team, which is where the recurring cost sits and where it can be controlled. Ask each bidder for an inspection schedule and a replacement-rate assumption, then price the ten-year total rather than the first invoice.

See: Sustainment rows and the gaps we still owe, How a programme is delivered and sustained

What are Bullet-proof jackets?

Bullet-proof jackets are Unstrat's Land (Land Domain) capability: Modular soft and hard-armour systems engineered for protection without compromising mobility. Each configuration is matched to the threat profile and supported through fitting, sustainment and end-of-life across the engagement.

How do Bullet-proof jackets work?

Bullet-proof jackets deliver their effect through modular soft and hard-armour configurations, Protection level matched to operator and mission and Fitting, sustainment and end-of-life handled in-region, capabilities matched to the requirement and confirmed under briefing rather than published.

Who makes Bullet-proof jackets?

Bullet-proof jackets are built by The Ballistic Protection Manufacturer, whose focus is body armour & personal ballistic protection. Unstrat represents The Ballistic Protection Manufacturer to government and enterprise buyers worldwide as an independent, non-aligned prime vendor.

Why choose Bullet-proof jackets over a major-power alternative?

Bullet-proof jackets are sourced from an independent, non-aligned manufacturer, so they carry no major-power disclosure rules, upgrade-locks or political ramifications. Concretely: Threat-matched configurations, not one-size catalogue armour. The capability is accountable to you, not to a foreign vendor's government and its release schedule.

How are Bullet-proof jackets procured, and where can it be exported?

Best-of-breed ballistic protection without the political strings of a major-power supplier: matched to the threat, fitted to the operator, sustained by one team. Every engagement begins with a briefing, and export eligibility is confirmed per market under briefing rather than published. Where controlled capabilities are involved, the classification and end-user-certificate chain is confirmed first. Bullet-proof jackets are then sustained in-region by one accountable team from briefing through long-term operation.