Most people seem to do their off-topic-ish stuff on Friday. Personally, I need the distraction more on Monday so here it is.

Any security person worth his salt should be familiar with Bruce Schneier’s body armor analogy, which I was too lazy to go dig out my copy of Beyond Fear to quote, so I have to paraphrase:

Just because a security measure is effective does not mean it should be implemented. For example, bulletproof vests are a very effective means of protecting oneself from bullets. But they are also bulky, uncomfortable, and expensive. For most people, the tradeoff does not make sense.

But just how effective are they? Here’s a fun, picture-filled demonstration of what bulletproof vests can and can’t protect you from.

Their analysis:

1. Level IIIA armor stopped the handgun bullets tested, just as designed. Either JHPs or Ball.

2. Once again, “Rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols”. Rifles went right through, just as expected.

3. The armor stopped 00 Buck and Rifled Slugs.

4. If your adversery is wearing armor, don’t depend on pistols or shotguns. Go for a rifle. As Clint Smith says, “The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down”.

5. And, as always, shooting stuff is fun.

Happy Monday, everyone!