Why We Don't Carry Hesco Armor

Updated: Apr 5

This is one of the most common questions we are asked “Why don’t you carry Hesco plates?”. We chose not to carry Hesco for a reason and we did not come to this decision lightly. Its an incredibly popular brand that frankly requires no marketing, however they have the most NIJ safety audit failures and recalls of any hard armor manufacturer. This is a difficult topic for me to speak on, as many people think I am slandering a competitor when in reality, we don't make armor and can choose to sell any company/ brand we choose. Trust me when I say this, it is a lot easier to make money selling whatever popular brands youtubers are promoting, rebranded Chinese armor and steel plates. I choose not to, because I am sick and tired of the deception and carelessness in this industry. I think its the responsibility of anyone who knows better to warn people about potentially poor choices or problems within the industry. Honestly... if people even knew HALF of what was going on within the industry behind closed doors, you would be shocked.

We were initially interested in becoming a Hesco dealer in late 2019 to mid 2020 and this is when I really started researching into this topic, reaching out to other members of the industry and piecing together bits and pieces of information myself. Hesco has failed 4 NIJ FIT safety audit tests (on the 3610, 3400, 4600 and 4400), subsequent re-tests resulted in the 3610 and 4600 being recalled. I don't think most people are aware of how serious this is.

Hesco is an ISO 9001:2015 certified company which means for NIJ FITs they are only subjected to One Test Per Plate Model every Two Years. In essence, the NIJ sends a third party to the Hesco facility and selects 4 plates for level 3 and 2 plates for level 4 to be sent off to a NIJ accredited laboratory for shoot testing. Plates must be made within 48 hours. The only way to fail the shoot test is for a test round to completely penetrate the armor panel. Even if your backface deformation goes above the NIJ accepted maximum of 44mm, it still is not a failure unless you suffer a penetration. Hesco failed this 4 separate times on the 4400, 3400, 4600 and 3610. After a FIT failure occurs, the NIJ issues an advisory publicly on its website (which is accessible by anyone) advising people that said plate model has failed routine testing and that the issue is being investigated. The NIJ temporarily suspends the product from the NIJ certified products list, and a root cause analysis is performed with Hesco to determine the reason for the failure. If they believe that the issue is one off and fixable, they submit for Re-FIT and test again. If it passes the Re-FIT, the product is reinstated.

From speaking to the President of Hesco, Jeremy Gray via email, the 4400 failure was due to an improper heat treat on the armor plate. Basically the 4400 is a monolithic piece of Alumina Ceramic with a fiberglass backer. They place the backer and the ceramic core in an oven with a sheet of adhesive between the two parts. This bonds the backer to the ceramic core and finishes curing/ hardening the Ceramic. An improper heat treat can leave inconsistent hardness within the armor plate. It was deemed that the 4400 was a one off failure. However, I have visited the RMA factory, and one thing I noticed was they had pallets full of discarded plates. When I asked them what those were from, they told me the majority of them were from improper heat treatments. This means this is the most common problem a ceramic plate can face during manufacturing, and proper quality control should catch these issues. The 3400 I do not know the circumstances on this failure. The model was reinstated, however Hesco replaced it with the 3401 and then the 3402. They claim they upgraded the material, but I'm not sure what really happened there.

The 3610 and 4600 failures/ recalls however are the more serious ones (in my opinion) and these show potentially more serious issues.

I also know the details of the 3610 failure from speaking with Hesco. For the first FIT, the plate failed on Shot #5 out of 6. A 7.62x51mm M80 ball round was poking through the rear of the backer which constitutes a complete penetration. While the round did not completely exit the plate, it still did penetrate the rear of the plate. They did a root cause analysis, shot 50 plates, found 0 penetrations and submitted the 3610 for Re-FIT along with that years batch of FIT tests. The 3610 failed a second round of FIT tests, this time Shot #2 out of 6 penetrated. Again, in the same manner, the M80 ball round poking through the rear of the plate. Again, constituting a complete penetration, however the entire round did not exit the plate. After this, the NIJ issued another advisory, telling people that the 3610 has been permanently suspended from the NIJ Certified Products List and that all users should discontinue use of the 3610 immediately.

As mentioned before, the 3610 Re-FIT was submitted along with other plates due for FIT that year. That was the same time when the 4600 failed its first FIT. I don't know the circumstances of the 4600 FIT failure (its honestly incredibly difficult to find the circumstances for FIT fails most of the time). However the 4600 later on failed RE-FIT as well, which lead to the same fate as the 3610. NIJ issued an advisory, warning people to discontinue use of the 4600 as there were ongoing and serious safety issues that could not be resolved.

Permanent suspensions from the NIJ CPL are an incredibly serious event. Permanent suspensions are only reserved for the most serious of issues. Generally some kind of design fault that cannot be resolved without changing some aspect of the plate (which requires recertification and a different model number). This actually does not happen very often for NIJ certified plates.

Now one thing that I was incredibly interested in was why there were those issues with the 3610 and 4600. With the 3610 as I mentioned before, it failed 1 initial FIT, then they tested another 50 plates with no issue, then it failed again. I can only imagine with the 4600 they did the same process and had the same results.

Speaking with a former Hesco dealer (who shall not be named) as well as doing some investigation on my own, myself and a few others came up with a hypothesis that Hesco has not been properly building in safety margins in their plates. In plate manufacturing there is always a variation in the ceramic core. It can sometimes come out a little thinner or a little thicker. This is why you need to overbuild your plates at least a little bit to account for this variation. If you do not build in this safety margin, manufacturing variation could cause your plates to fail. One thing we noticed was Hescos plates are often lighter or thinner (by a statistically significant margin), however there are only so many ways to make plates with the same materials. We noticed that the new 4601 to replace the 4600 was 0.2" thicker and 0.4lbs heavier. For a level 4 plate, 0.4lbs is not a small margin. This leads us to believe they built in the safety margin that was not present before. Additionally, I compared weights between their 4800 and the LTC 26300 and RMA 1192. (All sizes in Medium) the Hesco 4800 was only 5.1lbs while the LTC 26300 was 5.5lbs and the RMA 1192 was 5.7lbs. A 0.4lb difference between it and the 26300 is not insignificant. We know that the LTC 26300 is using a heat pressed boron carbide ceramic core with a top of the line HB212 backer. If the Hesco is using a slightly lower end backer, we should see an increase in weight. Higher end backers generally are a little lighter, but there is no better (that I know of) than Dyneema's HB212. So the logical conclusion for me, is they are using less material, or less ceramic and more backer. Not having a proper safety margin built in would also explain the inconsistent performance we saw with the 3610 during testing. The initial FIT was likely done with one batch, their 50 plate evaluation with another batch(es) and their Re-FIT with another. So manufacturing variation would explain the inconsistencies between the 3 batches.

Of course, this is my opinion, and my opinions on why the 3610 and 4600s have been recalled are simply my hypothesis or educated guess based on my knowledge of the industry and with the evidence I have to work with. I am not here to make any accusations, I am simply here to state the facts, and my hypothesis on why these issues are occurring.

One of the reasons why we carry RMA was due to their transparency and willingness to speak to me about topics that other manufacturers generally would not speak about. When I initially spoke to them in 2016, I spoke with Blake (the owner) and he was incredibly open and openly shared their NIJ certification results and testing reports. One thing I learned about them is they overbuild their plates on purpose. This is why sometimes their plates are a little thicker or a little heavier than competitors. This isn't because they don't know how to make a thinner or lighter plate, this is because they wanted to avoid underperforming due to manufacturing variation, then some more. With many in the industry, its a constant battle to have an edge over competitors in terms of specs and prices. However with our current technology, there is only so many ways you can do the same thing. If a plate is significantly lighter or thinner, there is a chance they are not using full ceramic coverage, or they are shaving off material (reducing reliability) to make their specs seem better and more enticing.

Hopefully this offers some insight for people who have been wondering. We really prioritize reliability and protection over all else. Its in my honest professional opinion that having a lighter or thinner plate does not matter at all if your plates cannot perform consistently or stop threats every single time. Many manufacturers sacrifice protection and reliability in order to have a thinner or lighter plate and gain an edge over competitors. Some companies market Special Threat Plates meant for concealment (that sacrifice a significant amount of protection and weight savings for a thickness reduction) as general use plates. I feel this is doing a great disservice to the customer/ end user and I refuse to participate in it. We’ll never carry a plate that sacrifices significant amounts of protection or reliability in order to gain a thickness or weight reduction.

7,160 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All