Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Why New York Detectives Don’t Always Wear Bulletproof Vests

  1. #41
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    @J. J. Magnum and @Jeff22, you guys both worked in plainclothes and wore body armor daily?

    Or is this just something you're floating?

    I haven't found oversized clothes to help with concealement with guns nor gear. How the clothes are cut can make a big difference, but upsizing itself isn't the answer and is often a detriment due to extra material, IMO. For comparison to my previous post of me wearing the low-vis armor, I took some more pictures with more armor wearing the same clothes (the shirt is "dirty" and getting washed today, hence it looking like ass):

    Crye LVS:

    Name:  LVS.jpg
Views: 672
Size:  29.5 KB

    Point Blank IIIA concealment vest:

    Name:  IIIA.jpg
Views: 495
Size:  26.6 KB

    Same Point Blank IIIA but with an over-sized shirt:

    Name:  IIIAUpsize.jpg
Views: 486
Size:  25.4 KB

    Keep in mind that these are static pics, and the vests become 100x more apparent with any movement. The biggest issue is how the vests interact with concealment gear worn on the belt. Wearing our issued Raven Phantom with the Point Blank is completely impossible, whereas a Summer Special or AIWB is somewhat doable but has some real issued with access and impingement (the vest cocked my holstered SIG, for example). It's a whole different animal than wearing a vest with a duty belt.

    IMO, the only workable solution is a low-visibility, reduced coverage option like I posted earlier and what Gary posted. They still give you some protection for your vitals, don't interact with concealment gear, and are nearly as comfortable and agile as not wearing armor to begin with.
    Last edited by TGS; 03-20-2019 at 12:22 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Michigan
    I never wore armor (unless it was an outside vest) in plain clothes; but I did carry concealed all the time in civies. I quit wearing IWB holsters when my "Dun-lops" disease started to take over my waistline. Haven't cared for it since. Back in the day however the difference between size 40 pants and size 42 was enough to make things far more comfortable.

  3. #43
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Well, I think the thread is about wearing armor in plainclothes.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #44
    Member Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Considering that Level IIIa is the top of the line soft armor, I have considered getting a thinner, lower level vest. Realistically, do I need to stop ".357 Sig FMJ FN (Flat Nose) bullets traveling at a velocity of ~1470 ft/s and .44 Magnum SJHP (Semi Jacketed Hollow Point) rounds at a velocity of 1430 ft/s."?? Or could I go down to Level II and stop "9mm FMJ traveling at a speed of ~1245 ft/s", which is our duty load... and save 25% of the weight and thickness of the current vest. Much like the difference between concealing a G26 and a p365, a little thinner makes a huge difference.

    I have pulled so many guns off crooks over the years. The majority are using the cheapest wolf or white box ammo made. 95% of the time its ball. Very rare to see quality JHP ammo unless the gun was loaded with it when stolen.

    I just think I would be more inclined to wear a lighter thinner (ie Lower threat level) vest for daily work like surveillance.


    Side note: I was farmed out to the Secret Service for several months during the last election. My wife was asking why i was not wearing my vest under my suit at all these rallies and campaign stops. Uhhh, because my issued vest barely fit under my suit, and was incredibly uncomfortable (and there were metal detectors at the door of all the events, so we were more concerned with plastic or wooden shivs than guns on the rope line). Even back then, I considered a level IIa bare minimum vest would be better than skipping my vest all together.
    “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane

  5. #45
    Site Supporter LtDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central AZ
    I worked investigations for about half my career. Only knew one detective that always wore concealed body armor. He worked for a nearby agency. It was very obvious he was wearing armor. I kept an external carrier and vest in the trunk of my car.
    The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
    disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.

  6. #46
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    Considering that Level IIIa is the top of the line soft armor, I have considered getting a thinner, lower level vest.
    I've entertained this thought myself quite a bit, and, in fact, suggested it to my agency as an option (since NO ONE in my agency wears armor unless someone orders them to). I was told "not enough protection - we'd open ourselves to liability." Sigh...

  7. #47
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by psalms144.1 View Post
    I've entertained this thought myself quite a bit, and, in fact, suggested it to my agency as an option (since NO ONE in my agency wears armor unless someone orders them to). I was told "not enough protection - we'd open ourselves to liability." Sigh...
    Catch-22

    "Sir, nobody wears their body armor unless ordered."

    "Well, that's their choice."

    "How about we give them an option to wear armor that's more comfortable but slightly less protective, and in this way encourage its use? Not optimal but at least they'd have some protection."

    "Are you out of your mind, we'd be opening ourselves up to liability."

    "So, it'd be better if they just hit the streets with nothing and take their chances..."

    "Exactly."

    "Thank you, sir. It's all clear to me now."
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  8. #48
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    You forgot "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

    Have I mentioned I'm 341 days and a wake up from retirement eligibility now?

  9. #49
    Member Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by psalms144.1 View Post
    Have I mentioned I'm 341 days and a wake up from retirement eligibility now?
    Sooooo close to eligible too. Won’t go at 50, but nice to know I can pull the pin on a FU grenade and walk out if I had to.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane

  10. #50
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    In response to TGS's post above, no I have been wearing body armor under a uniform shirt every night at work for about 35 years . . . but on the rare instances when I've been in plainclothes, I found I had to wear a larger shirt than usual to accommodate the armor AND that wearing the armor greatly complicated my choice of holster and mag pouches & stuff.

    The bottom edge of the armor would make it really difficult (or impossible) to use an IWB or AIWB holster (not that I would consider it for duty use anyway), and you have to experiment to find a good OWB holster that works with your equipment.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •