gatnerd said:

Amazing that the M2 is still such a viable AP threat all these years later.

The 7.62x51 mm M61 / P80 AP is using a 3.8-4.0 g steel core, while the APM2 is using a much longer 5.2 g steel core.

One of the best steel-core "7.62 mm" is still the old Soviet 7.62x54 mm R B-30, followed by the API B-32, then followed by the APM2.

Most NATO countries didn't really care about 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm AP capability during the Cold War, and adopted tungsten carbide-core ammo when AP capability was needed. The 1980-era PPI (now RUAG HC) is probably the only "modern" high performance steel-core AP round available.

stancrist said:

Is that statement based on independent testing, or are you just going by what is listed on the armor?

I didn't have the opportunity to test those plates, but from the ammo list, it looks like German SK4 level of protection, not NIJ level IV.

EmericD said:

...from the ammo list, it looks like German SK4 level of protection, not NIJ level IV.

Okay, but that does not necessarily mean the armor is not NIJ Level IV. 

The list may be just ammo likely to be encountered by Iranian soldiers. 

There would be no reason to list M2AP.

gatnerd said:

Does Pakistan still make M2AP?

Did Pakistan ever make .30 M2AP?  In a brief search, I found no indication they made M2AP.

But they did manufacture M2 Ball, at least until the late 1960s.  30-06 M2 150gr FMJ Ball POF

gatnerd said:

I had figured all these M2AP projectiles floating around were WW2/Korea warstocks that had been left over after the US transitioned to 7.62x51

I found there was one other producer of .30 M2AP ammunition.  30-06 AP M2 Armor Piercing

Nice find. Norwegian AP would be nice to stumble across at the gunshow. 

stancrist said:

Okay, but that does not necessarily mean the armor is not NIJ Level IV. The list may be just ammo likely to be encountered by Iranian soldiers.

It should not be really difficult for them to find 7.62x54 mm API B-32 (used by the Iranian army), instead of 7.62x51 mm P80 (which is not).

Or to load the P80 AP bullet to higher pressure / velocity than the 820 m/s reported on the plate.

Or to test the plate against Nammo M993 & M995, which is expensive, but wildly available.

EmericD said:

It should not be really difficult for them to find 7.62x54 mm API B-32 (used by the Iranian army), instead of 7.62x51 mm P80 (which is not).

Sorry, my wording was imprecise.  When I said the list may be just ammo likely "to be encountered" by Iranian soldiers, I meant likely to be used against them.

EmericD said:

Or to load the P80 AP bullet to higher pressure / velocity than the 820 m/s reported on the plate.

Why would they bother to load P80 ammo to higher pressure, since it would not be encountered in combat?

EmericD said:

Or to test the plate against Nammo M993 & M995, which is expensive, but wildly available.

M993 and M995 were only introduced in the early 1990s.  According to a contributor on another forum, this is old armor.  If it predates M993 and M995, they would have been impossible to test.

“Old” armour maybe, but I’m sure from looking at the inserts that it’s not 30 years old. I think you’re reaching.

Anyway, the inserts do not meet the NIJ Standard 0101.03 level III requirements: no penetration by 7.62 x 51 N 9.73g @ 838m/s.

DavidPawley said:

“Old” armour maybe, but I’m sure from looking at the inserts that it’s not 30 years old. I think you’re reaching.

I think it is not possible to be sure from appearance how old something is.  I have a set of Vietnam era jungle fatigues that still look brand new.

DavidPawley said:

Anyway, the inserts do not meet the NIJ Standard 0101.03 level III requirements: no penetration by 7.62 x 51 N 9.73g @ 838m/s.

Perhaps that is why "IIIA" appears in two separate places on that one insert? 

Perhaps the two plates are meant to be worn together for Level IV protection?

The trouble is, we are all guessing what it says because no one here reads Farsi.

Too many here are concluding that the listed rounds were the only ones tested. 

That's illogical.  I know of no armor which shows every round tested against it.

At best, there is a simple notation such as seen here:

stancrist said:

Sorry, my wording was imprecise.  When I said the list may be just ammo likely "to be encountered" by Iranian soldiers, I meant likely to be used against them.

7.62x54 mm APi B-32 is used by nearly every country in the middle-east, with the probable exception of Israel.

And the P-80 is not part of the IMI ammo portfolio.

https://elbitsystems.com/product/small-caliber-ammunition-7-62mm-series/

stancrist said:

Why would they bother to load P80 ammo to higher pressure, since it would not be encountered in combat?

A good point.

The most common AP rounds the Iranian could face are the 7.62x54 mm API B-32 and the less potent 7.62x39 mm BZ. The plate is rated against the later, but not the former... 

stancrist said:

M993 and M995 were only introduced in the early 1990s.  According to a contributor on another forum, this is old armor.  If it predates M993 and M995, they would have been impossible to test.

Another good point.

NIJ.0101.03 was issued in April 1987, and was superseded by NIJ.0101.04 in September 2000, so this armor plate could be 20+ years old, or needed to be worn in conjunction with IIIA soft body armor designed more than 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, none of the ammo listed on the plate are related to NIJ.0101.03 class IV test level (the 5.56 mm ball, 7.62 mm ball and 7.62x39 mm BZ are stopped by current lvl III plates), and the 7.62 mm P80 AP performances are... well, unimpressive.

So, the Russian army is starting to issue 20+ years old level III"+" Iranian surplus plates that could probably be defeated by every 7.62x51 mm APHC ammo currently used by western armies (and also by some 5.56 mm APHC for armies using them).

I would say that tells a lot about the state of the Russian Army, but not really about the relevance of the 6.8x51 mm.