Letter from the CEO…. Hello everyone, I am not sure if the various agencies on our list are aware of this, but the NIJ standard is changing, and I wouldn’t say for the better.
I have been in this industry for 33 years now and the NIJ 0101.07 standard makes the 6th edition I have personally participated in as a manufacturer of armor, and as a laboratory technician. The prior standards have never really been that great and lag times from passing of a model to listing date is usually 6 months. Here are the issues with the new standard I want to make everyone aware of:
~ In the rifle threats they haven’t definitively distinguished a viable threat level, they have RF1 and RF 2 with the same rounds and velocities with really only the M855 as the upgraded level.
~ The Fit audit is just a paper pushing firm that charges a lot of money to do what the NIJ should be doing.
~ The ubiquitous use of clay as a medium that is supposed to be a constant in the test and resemble the body during a ballistic event on body armor. Factually it never has.
Over the coming weeks I have decided as one of my final tasks in this industry prior to retiring probably in 2027 is outline the issues with the NIJ standard, and offer a more common sense approach to testing body armor that serves law enforcement better.
In order to do this I need your help, and specifically I would like to invite questions and comments about the standard, as to what you think it does, or any ideas that might help with this task. I think everyone wants the same thing here, the question is do we just go with the new standard, or do we say enough of bad practices and let’s do something about it. One thing I will say is that NIJ standard is heavily integrated into specifying practices that favor those who have a vested interest in money, such is the case in many areas of the commercial market, but that shouldn’t be a practice when it comes to officer safety, and part of officer safety is testing armor in a way that can be repeated, which has never been the case.
Interested participants can contact me at a.bain@stealtharmorsystems.com or 346-212-6318 (cell)
Allan D. Bain
CEO/CTO
I know the dude in that photo!
I believe that the NIJ 0101.07 (and previous) standards are based on a largely irrational threat matrix, fail to appropriately classify differing threats into distinctive classification tiers and have fostered an unscrupulous market environment. Let me explain.
The state of current technology is remarkable impressive. Prime example of this is the current US Military ESAPI Revision G standard (released in 2018) that included threats from Peer and Near-Peer adversaries. The requirements have continuous evolved over the years and pushed manufacturing technology to protect not just against more common lesser threats but full throated monsters as well (e.g. WC projectiles). ESAPI “Rev G” requires nearly full “edge-to-edge” protection, multi-hit capable against all listed threats (lead core, hardened steel core and tungsten carbide (WC) from both intermediate and rifle threats.) This makes for a very robust and durable plate….obviously.
By comparison the NIJ standards leave much to be desired in way of cartridge selection, hit location and hit number is nonsensical at best. Simple put, the NIJ standards just have not kept pace with the state of the possible, let alone advanced the industry in a meaningful way.
??First, lets look at the obvious deficiency and give away to unscrupulous armor manufacturers that is the “edge” shot placement. NIJ .06 and .07 allow for 2.0” from edge of plate for their “edge” shot performance. This is as shady as it gets and has allowed for “cheat ringed” plates to enter the market for over a decade. The Draft .07 standard does nothing to address this outright malfeasance. Edge means edge.??
Second, the obviously lowering of the bar for pure UHMWPE plates. I have been saying this everywhere I can, but the NIJ 0101.07 RF1 standard is hot garbage. To rate against M193 but not M855 borders on criminal. M855 has been domestically manufactured and stockpiled in the BILLIONS of rounds for 40 years and is currently imported by the MILLIONS every year and to have a plate rated to stop one kind of very common 5.56 but not the other is simply allowing industry legal top-cover to defraud unwitting customers through vague and intentionally misleading marketing terms and claims. NIJ should know better.??
Thirdly the the rational for the RF2 to be multi hit rated and yet keep the HIGHER rated plate RF3 to be single hit rated in borderline insanity. Perhaps there was a material science issue with this capability back in the early 2000s but the US Military SAPI plate Revisions have had Multi-Hit capability against M2AP since 2007 when they announced the initial creation of the ESAPI Rev A standard. The NIJ needs to stop using antiquated standards to allow unscrupulous manufacturers to skimp on production costs.??
Fourthly, there needs to be some enforcement mechanism for requiring some level of QA/QC on plates, especially considering they are a PPE item (especially plates from imported manufactures.) IMHO – Importing cheap plates from some no-name Chinese company, slapping a new Tacti-Cool label on them and rebranding them should very much be illegal. There is literally ZERO way anyone could ensure proper QA/QC with China (please note the millions of dollars we are spending in that helps to build out its defense industrial base it will eventually use against us.)??
Lastly the tiered rating system of NIJ 0101.07 (and previous standards) lacks a wholistic approach to threats and instead have a myopic US mil-surplus view. Have they never heard of imported ammo (legal or not…cartels anyone?). 7.62×39 Mild Steel Core is a good start but they are still missing a whole lot of threats.??
Proposed Solutions:?
1) I will give some credit to the NIJ for adopting conditioned plates and soft armor. This should be continued (everyone likes durable plates) and I also encourage some heat and cold extremes testing. Folks in Arizona and Alaska need armor too and they need to know it works on the hottest and coldest of days. ?
2) Obviously the low hanging fruit is some common sense changes in “Edge” placement and removing the OEM from specifying the exact distance from edge. Give a 0.25-0.50 inch window from anywhere on edge and the NIJ gets to pick shot placement within that window. No OEM cherry picking locations for best results. Keep everyone honest. ?
3) Next would be Multi-Hit rate everything. 5-shots is a nice common sense standard and should be applied to all tiers of plate ratings equally.?
4) Higher on the difficulty scale would be to rethink the rational behind the tiered rating system. Standards should include tiers looking at both cartridge type (Intermediate, Rifle, Magnum) as well as core composition (Lead Core, Hardened Steel Core and Tungsten Carbide/WC). There should be more that 3 tiers of plates because there are more than 3 conceivable tiers of threats. ?
Recommendations for tiers RF categories:?
-RF 1: Intermediate Rifle Cartridge, Lead Core and Mixed Steel Penetrator/Lead Core (M855, M855A1 due to being so common, 7.62×39 MSC, Multi-Hit)
?-RF 2: Full Rifle Cartridge Lead Core and Mixed Steel Penetrator/Lead Core (M80A1, 6.8mmNGSW future cartridge, 7.62x54R MSC, Multi-Hit)
?-RF 3: Magnum Rifle Cartridge Steel Core (Include M2AP and Magnum velocity >3000fps, foreign Steel core threats at magnum speeds, Multi-Hit)
?-RF 4: Full Rifle Cartridge Tungsten Core threats. (M995, M993, Multi-Hit)?
-RF 5: Special Tungsten Threat (to be beyond RF4 possible designed by OEM [Examples: .338 Norma Mag SOCOM Future MG projectile or .50BMG AP])??
Obviously Levels RF 4 and RF 5 would be challenges for industry and would allow for innovation and future proof the draft NIJ 0101.07 standard. It would be the NIJ throwing down the proverbial gauntlet to industry and the Military would certainly take notice with inclusion of the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) and SOCOM future Machine Gun cartridges being added to the list -pending their adoption of course.??
The NIJ has the ability to really challenge industry, separate the good from bad actors and move a currently stagnated industry to a new level, I certainly hope they do, we talking about life saving equipment after all.
Seamus, thank you for saying what needed to be said. I only hope your influence grows and you can help implement some of these very needed changes.
Just an interested observer here, so take this as what it’s worth. Can’t disagree with almost all of what’s said. The one thing I have to wonder about on your RF levels- based on what I’ve seen ,which is limited, there’s going to be huge overlaps . Plenty of armor out there that can stop M80 but not 855, and some that stop 855 and 762msc but won’t touch 855a1 . I would imagine the same would be true for future 6.8’s round being pretty close in some mediums to RF3. It’s a complicated issue and I understand you have to draw the line somewhere. Can’t help but think the EPR rounds might not be making armor much heavier than needed in the long run.
Seamus,
While you have some really great ideas here, I think you might have some unrealistic expectations for the NIJ when it comes to testing for ballistic threats. While I would absolutely love to see more comprehensive and strenuous ratings, you need to keep in mind that the NIJ is a Civilian/ Domestic LE rating system. It’s meant for Civilians and Police officers to protect against common domestic threats. Your suggested ratings here seem like they’re really designed for the military to counter near peer or peer to peer threats, which I think are unnecessary for Conus. Another thing to keep in mind, is the more test subjects you want, the higher the cost will be, which will in turn be passed onto the end user/ consumer. Each and every single test round is custom loaded to ensure sufficient velocities. The NIJ’s current velocities are already generally the realistic worst case scenario. I think the one thing we might be forgetting here is how big of a factor cost is for domestic consumers and LE customers.
In my opinion, it would be better to have more rating levels, with fewer test round types. For example, testing for 7.62×39 API and M855A1, instead of M855, 7.62×39 MSC, M855A1 and 7.62×39 API. M855A1 and 7.62×39 API are greater threats than MSC and M855 therefore it should be unnecessary to also test for those rounds. It should give sufficient overlap.
Additionally, I think having ratings for M2AP or foreign hardened steel core threats at >3000 FPS is unnecessary. The current NIJ .06 Level 4 rating already accounts for Hardened Steel Core M2 AP at 2880 +/- 50 FPS. This velocity is actually already higher than what you’d normally see out of surplus M2 AP. The NIJ hand loads these rounds and shoots them out of a 22” barrel to achieve their velocities. Additionally, for foreign threats, I’ll just use 7.62x54R 7N13 as part of the Russian BR5 rating as my example, which is a 148gr hardened steel core projectile that they test at 2723 +/- 49 FPS. This is going to be a similar threat to M2 AP, and I think its unnecessary to test against other foreign AP threats that are going to have similar performance and be incredibly uncommon to encounter in the US.
So with that being said, here’s what I would personally propose instead. This is keeping in mind common CONUS threats. (This is just a rough idea).
RF1: M80 ball (6x 2780 FPS), M193 (6x 3250 FPS), M855 (6x 3150 FPS)
RF2: M80 ball (6x 2780 FPS), M855A1 (6x 3150 FPS)
RF3: 7.62x54R FMJ (3x 2760 FPS), .30-06 FMJ (3x 3000 FPS), M855A1 (6x 3150 FPS)
RF4: .30-06 M2 AP (3x 2880 FPS)
My thinking is RF1 would cover mild steel core and FMJ threats. I do agree with you, the prevalence of PE plates not being able to stop M855 is worrisome. The use cases are incredibly niche, and most people purchase these plates not knowing it won’t stop steel core.
Continuing, my thinking is RF2 would be a “light AP” rated plate (I know A1 isn’t AP), my thinking is RF3 would be a “light AP” plus FMJ hunting rifle/ large caliber rifle protection, and then RF4 would be comprehensive AP protection.
I’m torn on whether or not RF3 is necessary and if it should just be grouped under RF4.
Your listed rounds of 7.62×39 MSC and M855 would be covered under RF1 and above. Your listed round of M855A1 would be covered under RF2 and above. Your listed round of 6.8mm NGSW (FMJ) would be covered under RF3 and above. Then 7.62x54R MSC, M80A1, and M2 AP would all be covered under RF4.
In my opinion your RF4 and RF5 threat profiles are unnecessary for CONUS. M995 and M993 out of shorter barrels (16”) can already often be stopped by domestic Level 4 plates. If we are speaking about velocities of 3200-3400 FPS, then that would not be stopped, however I feel like that would likely be unnecessary. The current ESAPI Rev J is rated for 3 shots of M995 at 3,350 FPS, however its only the XSAPI that is rated for M993 at 3200 FPS. (I believe the LTC 28595 is as well, but I’m not sure).
RF5 would be incredibly niche use. 50 BMG plates actually do exist stateside, they were originally made for Helicopter pilots and static defense by Ceradyne. Those were rated for 50 BMG FMJ. Now, the Russian GOST BR6 rating does cover 12.7x108mm API, but again that’s a military rating system, and I don’t think that’s entirely necessary for CONUS use.
The threat ratings that you are describing would be great if we merged our Military and Civilian armor rating system together, however I don’t think that is too entirely feasible or a wise choice, as both will face very different threats.
You mentioned that our industry is currently stagnated, the civilian industry is, but this is really mainly due to cost. The truly innovative armor systems out there are incredibly expensive (you can bet that companies like Ceradyne or LTC are innovating). You can only do so much with low cost materials such as Aluminum Oxide Ceramic, Fiberglass, Aramid and lower cost PE. As I mentioned before, cost is a huge barrier for the civilian armor industry, most civilians and police officers alike cannot afford the armor that the military pays for. Therefore, the low cost materials we have to work with are limited.
If Honeywell and DSM suddenly lowered their prices of PE, or Cerco, Bitossi and Coorstek suddenly lowered the prices of their Boron Carbide and Silicon Carbide, I’m sure we’d see a lot more innovation in the civilian industry. However currently, the juice is not worth the squeeze due to cost and the resulting low demand. Also there really are only so many ways to make a ballistic plate at the moment, the next leap in innovation is going to have to come from materials. We’ve been using (for the most part) the same materials since the 70s and 80s. Sure the individual components have gotten better, like we have Dyneema HB212 now, or SB117, and better manufacturing processes for the ceramics, as well as better reinforcement techniques for the ceramics. But those all wouldn’t give a massive jump in performance.
I’ve been doing some reading on new potential materials, such as Boron Suboxide, Aluminum Dodecaboride, and AlMgB14, I’m not a material scientist, so this was just reading for fun however it seems like the general consensus at the moment is these materials show promise, but are too expensive and difficult to synthesize to be commercially viable at the moment. (There’s a nice short blog post from Diamond Age on this).
Now to address the points that I absolutely agree with you on (because there are quite a lot).
1. I wholeheartedly agree about the “Multi hit” protection. NIJ .07 changed the requirements for M80 ball to 3 shots, and set the round count for M855, 7.62×39 MSC and M193 at 3 shots each and then just increased the amount of test panels required. I think they should’ve stuck to 6 shots each.
Now NIJ .07 (draft) RF3 allows you to certify up to 3 shots of M2 AP, however I think 2 should honestly be a bare minimum. This is really mainly to prevent people from improperly building ceramic plates without a proper adhesive bond between the ceramic and the backer (ahem AR500…).
2. I completely agree about lowering the Minimum shot from edge distance. Now I can actually understand their reasoning behind this initially. The edges on a ceramic plate are going to have reduced performance, especially with AP rounds such as M2 AP. This is mainly due to the fracture conoid (Hertzian crack), not having enough room to properly develop, therefore reducing the amount of ceramic material the penetrator core has to interact with. Its just too bad that this was abused. I think it should be lowered to 1”, and a requirement made about full edge to edge ceramic coverage.
3. Quality control and ACCOUNTABILITY.
This is something that I have been shouting about for over a year (and people seem to ignore me). REBRANDING CHINESE PLATES SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. REPEATED NIJ AUDIT FAILURES (FIT FAILURES) AND RECALLS SHOULD HAVE REAL CONSEQUENCES. Its absolutely astounding how some companies (won’t name names) seem to legitimately not care about their end users at all.
Currently with certified plates, there is some level of accountability with NIJ Follow Up Inspection and Testing (FIT) but I don’t think it happens often enough (only once per 2 years for ISO certified companies) and there aren’t real consequences when there are strings of NIJ audit failures and recalls. A lot of people don’t even know the NIJ advisory list even exists, im sure some people would be incredibly astounded when they see the frequency that some brands are failing FITS.
If you’ve stuck around this long, thank you for listening to my ramble. Overall, I think I agree with most of your points. I just disagree with your proposed testing rounds, I think those would be more suitable for a military rating system.
Just realized I had a typo. My proposed RF4 I meant to write 2900 FPS, not 3000.
Excellent contributions here from Seamus & Mr. Sun. I agree with most of the points you guys make, but — in keeping with the spirit of “more test subjects you want, the higher the cost will be, which will in turn be passed onto the end user/ consumer” — I think that things can be simplified.
To be more specific, I think that the most sensible system need have only two levels.
The first level should be suitable for peacetime, for policing, and for counter-insurgency operations. This should include:
– M193 at 3300 fps.
– M855 at 3150 fps.
– .270 Winchester at 3050 fps.
The second level, suitable for wartime use against a peer or near-peer threat. This need be only:
– M993 at 3100 fps.
To start with the first level: M193 and M855 are the two most common rifle threats in America. 7.62x39mm is right behind them, but that one is an easy threat to stop. In fourth place: Hunting calibers. In recent years, .25-06, .243, .270, various 6.5mm loadings, and .30-06 ball have all been used to kill police officers in the USA. Many of those can be way harder-hitting than 7.62x51mm M80 Ball. .270 Winchester, pushed to a high velocity, is representative of a “worst case,” but realistic, hunting caliber threat.
And it should go without saying that anything that’ll stop .270 Winchester at over 3000 fps will stop 7.62x39mm at 2400, or M80 Ball at 2800.
So with that first level, you’ve got all of your bases covered. It’s incredibly unlikely that your armor will be over-matched on US soil. Unless you decide to attack Buffman or something, lol, in which case I don’t think I like your odds anyway.
Which brings me to my next point: The .30-06 M2 AP is not a realistic military threat. Every peer or near-peer adversary is already issuing tungsten-cored AP rounds, and many of those have, unsurprisingly, been engineered to penetrate ceramic armor plates. Regular M993 is a tough threat, but some of those emerging .30 AP threats are tougher. That said, they’re also unobtainable in the US, even if you run a test lab with ties to the Department of Justice.
…The solution is to test against M993 at an enhanced velocity. Instead of the 2985 fps that it’s often tested at, it should be pushed to 3100 ± 30 fps.
A plate that can stop M993 at 3130 fps and 0° obliquity should be able to stop just about anything under more variable real-world conditions. (Where many if not most impacts are at an angle. In a study where helmets were analyzed for their ability to protect against frag, only 6% of impacts were at 0-10° from normal, and 26% were at a 30-40° angle of obliquity.)
Having said all of that:
– Just as there are “Special Threat” plates today, there can still be “Special Threat” or “Reduced Threat” plates in the future, under any rating system. I sincerely believe that all-poly “RF1″ plates fill an extremely, extremely useful niche. But it is just that: A niche. The .30-06 M2AP-rated plate fills a niche of its own, though a much smaller one.
– As a concession to armor manufacturers, the BFD limit should be increased to 55-60mm, in line with what the military has already done. This is reasonable because:
(A) There are no accounts of deaths, and there are very few reported serious injuries, on account of body armor backface deformation. This is true even in real-world incidents where BFD seems to have been over 100mm.
(B) Most armor plates, these days, are worn inside armor carriers that include padding on the body side, reducing true BFD. Sometimes this padding is very thick. When the 44mm BFD limit was developed, it did not take armor carriers into account at all.
(C) There are trauma pads and other foam pads that can reduce BFD further… if desired.
(D) Deformation is a kinetic energy absorption method for metals and fiber composites, and allowing more deformation implicitly allows for a better performance-to-weight ratio.
– A real problem in BFD testing is that clay is not consistent. I’m presently working on a replacement material that should be more reliable.
– The other real problem in BFD testing is that a lot of behind-armor injuries are induced by the pressure wave secondary to ballistic impact, rather than by blunt impact itself. This is not quantified in current testing protocols. I’m not sure whether or not it ought to be, but if you’re trying to build a complete picture of behind armor blunt trauma, it must be taken into account.
– The shot-to-edge distance of 2” is reasonable because the performance of ceramic materials drops near tile edges and intersections. A ceramic armor plate with a monolithic strike-face will be weaker around the edges, to some extent, because the ceramic tile won’t be able to form a complete fracture conoid upon impact. (This is, incidentally, why tile-array plates tend to be substantially weaker than monolithic plates where performance-to-weight ratio is concerned.)
I say keep the shot-to-edge rules in place. There are other ways to prevent cheating. For instance, the NIJ can simply require plates to declare their “area of protective coverage, in square inches” on the label.
I am glad to see that there is an agreement that the NIJ standard(s) have significant problems, but I also see a lot of suggestions that don’t make sense either, For example:
This is a standard for law enforcement, never mind the fact that the M855 and M43 are mixed in, by and large the M855 has made a civilian transfer based on velocities and use in short barreled weapons that are very popular with the civilian gun culture. A real military M855 is cruising at 3250 Ft./Sec. referenced to the loaders at Quantico. Remembering that the LEO’s still have to wear this product I suggest something more in tune with what they really face.
RF1 – M67, M193 – (this will make a great lightweight solution that is a good bump up in protection than a 3-A, which by FBI statistics from the last the five years is becoming more or less a default but not a solution to the growing rifle threats. Inspiring manufacturers to make a lightweight solution to basic rifle rounds used by the active shooters and gang bangers should be the goal. All the statistic and anecdotal evidence really points to these types of rounds most of the time in the inner city)
RF2 – M43, M855, M-80 Ball – (No question this is a bump up for most materials. Steel already would need to go to 5/16th to work against the M193 and M855, clads and UDPE need to be much thicker to meet this next level, and they represent the type of rounds in some jurisdictions. It’s a clear threat level increase with no overlap)
RF3 – I know that there were a lot of suggestions about rounds like the .30-06 at 3000 Ft./Sec. and the 7.62 x 54, but a well made plate for RF2 will defeat those rounds and they are SUPER rare as it pertains to officer’s being shot in the field, or even for civilian warfare in the gangs.
So RF3 should be the APM2
John Son said that he thought going to 3 shots was wrong, and I have to disagree, this is one of the issues that actually was researched very well. unlike pistols, in the last 60 years NO ONE has ever taken more than 3 shots on rifle plate. It’s also super rare. Fear not though manufacturer’s in 07 have the option to increase the shots to 6 per plate to save money on the extra plates that will be required to conduct the test. We intend on making our plates take 6 shots, so instead of 8 plates for the V-0 portion per caliber of the test we will use 4. I think that’s right, don’t quote me, but I am pretty sure you can elect that in the test.
BFD – has a double meaning here to something that has absolutely been the dumbest thing since the first standard went into effect. If I remember correctly only one officer has died from BFD and he was shot in the chest with a 45-70. Ouch! For the longest time the majors during the NIJ 0101.03 and .04 used horse blanket sized NIJ test panels and labeled them XL, and that practice was to lower the BFS on a lighter system. This allowed practice ended up causing one of the biggest debacles of all time in the gear industry, ZYLON. The move to the NIJ Interim 2005 standard changed the test template to something resembling a real vest panel with side panel areas. That one move caused armor to rise 10% in weight to pass in comparison to the NIJ 0101.04. But remember that with exception of Zylon over 4500 officer’s lives were saved by vests that would fail badly against the NIJ 0101.06 test standard.
BFD on clay is a scam, perpetuated by the goat experiment in 1975. We have become so indoctrinated in measuring BFD, that to not do it, but say test on a more life like medium like a Plastisol Vinyl, which is what Punching Bob’s are made of would seem wrong. But is it? Here are the facts:
1. Officer’s wearing armor that would fail on BFS in todays test still saved 4500+ officer’s flawlessly in the field. And to date no one has died of trauma from a pistol round that the vest was meant to stop.
2. The .03 & .04 standard only shot 24 bullets per caliber.
3. Moving to the .05 standard forced much smaller test panels, which caused the weight to go up on systems that passed on the same number of rounds (24) per caliber.
4. The .06 standard increased the number to 120 bullets per caliber for the V-0 portion of the test.
5. The .06 also allowed some BFD to exceed 44mm, but no more than 50mm as long as the average on the day of all required readings is 44mm or less. So there is some acknowledgement that clay is not a constant, finally?
So, with the increase in the number of bullets to 120 per caliber for pistols which is 5 times as many as prior standards, why is BFD important to read or even care about. Factually, with that many rounds if the vest is substandard or lacks a true V-0 at reference velocity it will show up in the test as a penetration. There is no need to measure any BFD and as far as I am concerned BFD in this test standard means Big F’ing Deal.
I know many of you are going to get on me about this as being wrong, but clay is a scam, so recommend something different that really is better and we can talk about that.
I guarantee if you can stop 120 rounds at velocities that are over what you buy on the shelf it’s safer than the 03 & 04 vests and those vests worked perfect. The true change in threats over the last 10 years is rifle fire, rifle pistols, ect..
We are going to suggest in the new standard we are writing to use a molded test mannequin with proper mounting. Good for one complete sequence. This also insures the armor is tested as it is worn, NOT FLAT.
If you look at the slowmo on the punching Bob you will see ripples of shockwave dissipation, just like gelatin, but you won’t see that in clay! The clay is used for an entire year of testing and despite their handy dandy calibration test and experienced armor tester off record will tell you that the clay is not the same over time despite that calibration. I was at one of the NIJ test labs and on one shot we went to see the result and the indentation has some sticking in it. It was a steel core from testing from another day. Particulates no matter how good the cleaning job is will always accumulate over time. Clay is simply not a good medium to test armor on.
Body armor should be tested on a medium that acts like the body and in a manner in how it’s worn. Period!
Look forward to more input on this subject.