![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/19.jpg\")
All around the world, intimidation is the chief weapon of the mercenaries who serve the ruling class.
\nIf there’s one thing that police officers prefer to hitting people with sticks, it’s shooting blunt objects and chemical weapons at people. Arms manufacturers are constantly developing new ways to assault people from a distance—and taxpayers keep buying new toys for their oppressors.
\n\nThis article offers an overview of less-lethal projectiles—both chemical weapons and impact munitions. The police themselves don’t bother distinguishing the two. We’ll cover chemical weapons like tear gas and pepper spray. We’ll cover impact weapons like baton rounds, rubber bullets, and pepper-balls. We’ll cover the systems police use to apply these weapons, including air guns, sprays, grenades, grenade launchers, and shotguns. We’ll cover the ways that police mark people for arrest—and the ways they probably don’t. Other articles in this series discuss batons and other police weaponry. One of the most useful articles to read in conjunction to this one is our “Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons.”
\n\nThis can be a scary subject. But remember—their goal isn’t to strike us with plastic bullets or spray us with chemicals. Their goal is to make us live in fear. They want us to stay home, disconnected, leaving their authority absolute and unchallenged. They fail to achieve goal every time we take the streets together. They fail every time we refuse to let that fear dictate what we do.
\n\nIn this article, we’ll touch briefly on how to protect ourselves via gas masks, armor, shields, and the like. Other articles explore those options in detail. But the chief thing that can protect us against the police is solidarity. We are the ones who must keep each other safe. One shield on the front line of a demonstration can protect many people. One medic willing to treat those in the line of fire can protect many people. A few people who risk jail time to push the police back can protect many people. Our best protection against riot munitions is each other.
\n\nCourage is not the absence of fear. It is acting despite fear. Together, we can overcome fear.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/hungrybowtie/status/1344916089436655618\n\n\n
We have found no evidence that there is any federal or state oversight of what weapons police are permitted to use to quell civil disturbances. According to an anarchist lawyer who specializes in this field, each of roughly 18,000 agencies in the US maintains its own use of force guidelines detailing internal standards regarding what its officers can do to people. We’ve found no body that certifies the chemistry employed in chemical weapons. Any given chemical weapons manufacturer chooses their own binding agents and chemical additives; it appears there is no easy way to know what chemicals we are being exposed to when police target us with these weapons. While this shouldn’t cause us to back down and accede to authoritarianism, it’s important to remember that these weapons are only “less lethal” in comparison to live ammunition.
\n\nThere are only two factors contributing to standardizing these weapons. The first is that weapons that use existing projectile systems (such as 37mm launchers) are more likely to be widely adopted than oddball systems that require entirely new training and weaponry. The second is that manufacturers tend to copy each other’s innovations.
\n\nWhile the federal government apparently does not provide oversight, it does occasionally offer advice and suggestions—for example, in this somewhat-outdated 2004 manual of less-lethal weaponry.
\n\nPolice fire a wide range of blunt force projectiles from a variety of weapons. Manufacturers and police departments sometimes call these “Blunt Impact Projectiles” (BIPs) or “Kinetic Impact Projectiles (KIPs). “Rubber bullets” are only one of many variants. They vary in size, force, composition, delivery methods, and lethality.
\n\nThe sales pitches that manufacturers make to law enforcement agencies emphasize the ability to obtain compliance from subjects via projected force with minimal risk of injury or death. All of the academic studies—not to mention our lived experience—show that neither of these claims is correct: impact munitions regularly maim and kill protestors and they rarely succeed at breaking up demonstrations. They’re even less effective at stopping social movements. Often, when one of us loses an eye or suffers a fractured skull, more people come out to the streets.
\n\nSome of the more common impact munitions include baton rounds, large plastic, foam, gel, or even wooden projectiles that are fired from a multi-launcher or occasionally a shotgun; rubber bullets, metal projectiles coated in rubber or PVC; bean bag rounds, woven bags filled with either silica or lead, usually fired from shotguns; pepper-balls, which are essentially paintballs filled with pepper spray; FN303 rounds, a combination of pepper-balls and regular impact munitions; rubber balls, which are rubber or plastic or foam pellets packed into grenades to explode like shrapnel or shotgun shot; and, of course, the venerable gas canister (bearing chemical agents or smoke), which is not designed to be fired directly at protestors—but regularly is.
\n\nContrary to popular supposition, most modern impact munitions are designed for “direct fire” rather than “skip fire.” Direct fire munitions are for shooting directly at individuals, while skip fire projectiles are designed to be skipped off the ground into the crowd. Tear gas canisters are generally intended for skip firing at close range or firing at a 25-30 degree arc into the air for maximum range; they are not rated for direct fire. Some styles of baton rounds that split into multiple projectiles are designed for skip fire to distribute the projectiles more widely, while others are designed to be fired over the heads of protesters in order to rain chemicals down. Full-size wooden baton rounds and some rubber bullets seem to be designed for skip fire as well, but in general, skip fire is less accurate and less common.
\n\nBaton rounds, stinger grenades, and beanbags hurt. They injure people. Occasionally, they maim or—even more rarely—kill people. Yet of all the tools used by the police, they are some of the least effective at stopping demonstrations. Unlike a cop within mêlée range, a baton round cannot arrest you. Unlike a cloud of gas, it can’t force you to disperse. Ranged impact weapons rely primarily on pain compliance. While this may work on individuals, pain alone usually cannot force a resolute crowd to comply. Standing around getting shot at isn’t always the right move. But the effects of impact munitions can be mitigated by protective equipment including shields, armor, helmets, goggles, barricades, and even umbrellas. Impact weapons rely on fear above all—and through mental preparation and mutual support, we can defend ourselves from fear. We can choose not to comply with fear.
\n\n All around the world, intimidation is the chief weapon of the mercenaries who serve the ruling class.
\nImpact munitions are ostensibly designed to hurt people and cause compliance without causing significant injury. But there’s nothing safe about them.
\n\nIt’s been difficult for us to parse the available data to work out which parts are applicable specifically in the United States. The largest study, from 2017, includes information from many other studies around the world. But a good portion of its data—about 41%—describes the use of rubber bullets. Rubber bullets account for a vastly disproportionate number of the serious injuries in the study, and a slightly disproportionate number of deaths. The study found that 3% of people injured with impact munitions die as a result, but that is not a useful number to understand in the context of a demonstration of the US. People do die as a consequence of impact munitions—but it will not be anywhere near 3% of those who are injured by them. We have not been able to confirm whether rubber bullets are currently in use in the US (as they are easily confused with rubber ball ammunition), but if they are, they are not the predominant impact munition in use.
\n\nThe 2017 study found that the majority of serious injuries and deaths were the result of impacts to the head or neck. A smaller study from 2000 found that the majority of deaths were the result of impacts to the chest (causing ribs to break and puncture the heart or lungs).
\n\nAfter the type of munition fired, the most significant factors determining the severity of injuries are the distance from which it is fired and the speed with which the victim can access medical care. Attacks from within ten feet caused the greatest number of broken bones, for example. Also, street medics save lives.
\n\nThe most common injury from impact weapons is intense bruising. And despite police lacking competence and acting with impunity, it does seem like most impact munitions are aimed where they are supposed to be aimed, at the abdomen or lower, where serious injuries are less likely to occur.
\n\nOccasionally, injuries and deaths occur when an officer fires breaching rounds (projectiles designed to break through barriers such as doors) directly at people, presumably by accident.
\n\nThree weeks into the George Floyd uprising, the American Academy of Ophthalmology reported at least 20 serious eye injuries at protests caused by impact weapons (including baton rounds, bean bag rounds, and pepper-balls), tear gas canisters, and, in one case, the probe of a Taser. These included seven instances in which people lost an eye as a result of such an incident, with many more people awaiting surgery, unsure if they would keep their eyes. In one case this year, a journalist suffered a serious eye injury after a projectile broke the protective lenses of his gas mask.
\n\nAcross the world, medical specialists continue to call for the abolition of impact munitions in policing.
\n\nBased on street experience and the analysis of studies, the most vital areas to protect are the head, eyes, neck, and chest. Helmets, gorgets, sports armor breastplates, and impact-resistant goggles, face masks, or gas masks can protect against this, potentially combined with shields. The neck is the most complicated of these areas to protect; most people have never heard the word “gorget,” let alone imagined wearing one while protesting against the police. Basically, a gorget is an item of neck armor worn by fencers. None of us have ever seen anyone wear one at a demonstration.
\n\nWe will discuss shields in a later article. Here, suffice it to say that, to protect against impact munitions, a shield must be strong enough to resist penetration of the round, rigid enough to distribute the force of impact across a large surface area, and be backed by foam wherever the wielder’s body is in contact with it. Plywood 3/8” thick serves well enough, though 1/2” can hold up to more weaponry. Traffic barrel plastic resists penetration well but distributes the force poorly, though it is substantially lighter than wood. No shield makes you invulnerable.
\n\nMost injuries occur below the waist. It appears that the most effectively trained police prefer to shoot demonstrators in the kneecaps. In view of this, it may be worth considering wearing kneepads or more complete sports armor, not so much to avoid permanent injury or death as to remain mobile, effective, and uninjured.
\n\nShields and barricades can help mitigate all of these potential injuries as well.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/gravemorgan/status/1295116634583994369\n\n\n
To understand impact, we have to understand kinetic energy.
\n\nKinetic energy, often called muzzle energy in ballistics, is measured in joules (or in foot-pounds, if you’re not feeling metric). It’s derived from the velocity of an object and its weight, with velocity being exponentially more important. The formula to determine the kinetic energy of a projectile is Ek = (1/2)mv2 with Ek representing energy (kinetic), m representing mass, and v representing velocity.
\n\nNone of us are engineers, but we consulted a couple in the course of writing this article. Basically, we can understand joules measuring the answer to the question “How much did I get hit with?” A baseball thrown at 90 mph might have 120 joules. A baton round might have 240 joules, hitting you twice as hard as that baseball. A .22 rifle might also deliver projectiles with 240 joules, but the baton round is a blunt impact whereas a bullet is designed to penetrate. A 9mm pistol might deliver bullets with 470 joules, an AR-15 with 1850, while a slug from a 12-gauge shotgun could approach 4500. If a 180-pound person fell from a height of 15 feet, they’d have around 4000 joules when they hit the ground. A speeding car? Easily 200,000 joules.
\n\nYet most of us would rather get shot with a baton round than a .22. As one contributor to this text put it, “I’d rather be hit with 200 joules of marshmallows than 200 joules of baton.” Joules are far from the whole story about the damage a given projectile can inflict. The surface area it hits you with (the joules per square meter), the angle it hits you, where it hits you, and the object’s composition (a wooden baton round will absorb less of its own impact than a gel baton round, for example) all matter more. In one study, it took only 375 joules to break bones when pressure was applied at certain angles, while it took 9920 joules to break the same bones when pressure was applied at other angles.
\n\nBecause velocity is more important to energy than the weight of the projectile, the energy with which a projectile strikes a target drops off quickly at distance. A faster object will often carry more kinetic energy than a slower, heavier object.
\n\nIt is useful to start with the energy various weapons can deliver and the impact testing to which various pieces of protective gear are subjected. We’ve found one military document that refers to a “internationally recognized lethality limit” of 75 joules. But these factors do not give us enough information to know how a given projectile will affect a given target. While we are testing various impact munitions against various items of protective gear, we’d like to hear any anecdotes or research you can share about the effectiveness of different forms of protection against projectiles.
\n\nBaton rounds come in multiple shapes, sizes, and materials, but they’re basically big chunks of painful object. They tend to be large-caliber (37mm and 40mm), so that they impart as much force as possible while remaining too blunt to penetrate skin. Many baton rounds also include some kind of payload, such as chemical agents or marking dye.
\n\nMost projectiles that get called “rubber bullets” are probably baton rounds. It’s not necessary to correct people pedantically, but for the purpose of this article, we’re going to make the distinction and call them baton rounds instead.
\n\nThe most common materials for baton rounds are plastic, foam, gel, and wood. While there are far too many varieties list at length, and different manufacturers use different materials for different purposes, the general idea seems to be that foam rounds tend to be intended for short-range fire while plastic and wood are intended for longer range applications. Gel rounds are advertised as being useful at short or long range, as are “collapsible head” plastic rounds. Of course, it’s hard to imagine the police really thinking through exactly which round they want to use for which tactical purpose, especially in chaotic situations, and it’s safe to assume that they are firing all of these at any range they want.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/9.jpg\")
40mm foam baton round.
\nBaton rounds often contain multiple projectiles within each shell that are designed to split apart.
\n\nSome baton rounds have rifling built into the shell or into the barrel of the launcher to spin-stabilize the projectile for accuracy. Most appear not to. While every baton round is rated to a different range, most seem to be designed for use between 2 and 40 meters; only a few varieties are designed for up to 80 meters.
\n\nDirect fire baton rounds are supposed to be aimed at the navel, thighs, buttocks, or knees—though as previously mentioned, it is a mistake to expect police to limit themselves thus.
\n\nMost people struck with baton rounds just come away with a nasty welt. However, baton rounds have maimed and killed people, especially when they strike people’s faces. In July, Portland police shot a 26-year-old protestor in the face with a baton round while he had his hands up. We believe that round to have been a Sage International 37mm KO1 round. The blow fractured his skull, nearly killing him and necessitating surgery.
\n\nThere are also 12-gauge shotgun baton rounds. Most of these are various rubber projectiles that have fins and look like tiny missiles or rocket ships. One, for example, the stabili-shock, weighs 6 grams and is meant to fire at 426 fps for a total of 51 joules of force. We found one video of someone loading the round wrong and shooting it at three times that velocity. We have seen some evidence of police using these at protests in the US.
\n\nAnother make is the Lightfield Superstar, a colorful sea urchin of pain. It is a close-quarters weapon, considered safe for direct fire at as close as two meters. We have found no evidence of law enforcement using these in the US.
\n\nBaton rounds seem to have been invented by the British for use in their colonial project in Ireland, because the rubber bullets they were using at the time were killing too many people. Plastic baton rounds still killed colonial subjects, but at a slower rate.
\n\nModern baton rounds often contain one or more chemical weapons, including OC (Oleoresin capsicum) and CS (common tear gas) most commonly, though CN (which is more dangerous) is used as well. Some baton rounds also contain marking compounds.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/11.jpg\")
37mm wooden baton round.
\nRubber balls are fired individually or, more often, packed into shotgun shells, multi-launcher shells, or hand-thrown grenades. They shoot out wildly and injure people unpredictably. Brand names include Stinger, Sting-ball, and Hornet’s Nest; they are sometimes generically described as rubber buckshot. We’ve found a few common calibers of balls: .32 caliber and .60 caliber (which is to say .32” and .6”), are common in grenades and larger canisters, while “rubber buckshot” seems to come in 00 buckshot size: .33”. Some shotgun rounds are packed with one to three .68” rubber balls.
\n\nAccording to one manufacturer, rubber ball weapons are considered a weapon of last resort when other less lethal options have failed. This is probably because rubber balls are unpredictable in who they strike and where.
\n\nIt’s possible, though we have not been able to confirm it, that most of what people describe as rubber bullets in the United States are the larger caliber of rubber ball. Combined Tactical Systems Sting-balls are in common use in Portland—they are presumed to be the means by which police broke someone’s finger in August. Anecdotally, a lot of them seem to misfire, as demonstrators have found a large number of improperly-deployed canisters.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/17.jpg\")
A sting-ball grenade.
\nThere is speculation that expired rubber balls lose some elasticity over time and become more hazardous.
\n\nRubber balls are also packed into grenades that for all other purposes function as flash-bang grenades: disorientation devices that use sound and light to distract people. One hand grenade we looked at, the ALS Hornets Nest Sting Grenade, holds 180 .32 caliber balls and produces a flash of 1-2 million candela and a bang of 130 db at five feet.
\n\nRubber balls move very chaotically; grenades detonated on the ground can easily send projectiles towards our faces and eyes.
\n\nThese grenades are absolutely not safe to handle and should not be caught or thrown back.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/12.jpg\")
12-gauge stinger balls.
\nBeanbag rounds are bags full of metal (such as #9 shotgun shot) or silica (sand). On average, they are for closer-range use than baton rounds; they more often used inside buildings—specifically, in jails. Every manufacturer and every round will be different, but most seem to be intended for use between 20-35 feet. Some beanbag rounds are “drag stabilized” with a bit of cloth that hangs off the back to keep it accurate its entire effective distance. They are fired from 37mm and 40mm launchers and 12-gauge shotguns.
\n\nManufacturer’s guidelines suggest that it would take 2-3 shots with a beanbag round to incapacitate a target. When they are used in riot situations, they are not usually employed to incapacitate people so much as to inflict a psychological impact on the crowd.
\n\nWe saw one police officer on a forum telling the story of a man on PCP surviving 34 shots with beanbag rounds (though one round shattered the bones in his hand). Police on internet forums often boast about how they shoot rookies with beanbag rounds to haze them.
\n\nWe found Safariland beanbag rounds for retail at $30 or available on eBay for $10. Other manufacturers charge around $6-7 per round.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/10.jpg\")
40mm beanbag round.
\nThus far, our research into rubber bullets has been less conclusive than our research into the other rounds. Historically, rubber bullets for crowd control come in two forms: metal projectiles coated in rubber, as British occupiers used extensively in Northern Ireland, and hard pellets made of a homogenous mixture of roughly 20% rubber and 80% silica, as commonly deployed by the Israeli colonial occupation in Palestine.
\n\nWe know that the police in the US are shooting people with rubber balls, and there has been some speculation that in 2020, DC police have used the steel-cored variety that have killed so many people over the years.
\n\nAs metal-cored projectiles were disproportionately responsible for death and maiming in the 2017 study of less-lethal weapons, this warrants further investigation. If you see police fire rubber balls at people, try to grab some. Measure them, cut them open, and send us pictures.
\n\nThere are also bullet-shaped rubber bullets designed to be fired from 9mm handguns and, presumably, every other common firearm caliber. But as these are fired from regular firearms, they do not seem to have found their way into the police riot control weapon arsenal. So far, the only manufacturer we’ve tracked down that makes this style of bullet is in Canada: Lamperd Less Lethal. It’s safest to assume that the rifles and handgun you see police carrying hold live ammunition.
\n\nMore and more commonly, less lethal munitions are fired from .68” caliber airguns—which is to say, paintball guns. A few styles that we have not confirmed to be in use in the USA are covered above under “rubber bullets.” The more common styles are pepper-balls and FN303 rounds.
\n\nWhile both are used as impact munitions, they are unique to their individual platforms, so we’ll cover them under “launchers” below. However, fascists have lately adopted the paintball gun as a favored tool for street conflict. Rumors abound that they are using frozen paintballs, but we suspect that they may be using rubber balls.
\n\nFrozen paintballs are nearly mythical in the paintball world because local media outlets falsely claim they are favored tool of Halloween vandals. Paintballs frozen in a home freezer for 48 hours do not freeze solid; they only become slightly more brittle and tacky, and they thaw quickly. Paintballs frozen in dry ice are much more solid and potentially dangerous, but unwieldy to shoot. Liquid nitrogen frozen paintballs are as hard as ice, but so brittle they are nearly impossible to load and fire. All cold paintballs become less accurate—as the shell becomes tackier—but sting more.
\n\nIn parts of the world where access to firearms for self-defense is less ubiquitous, airguns are sometimes used to deliver near-lethal force, firing pellets including solid rubber and rubber- or PVC-coated steel balls such as those covered under rubber bullets above, sometimes referred to as “glass breaker” balls. These projectiles are certainly available to US law enforcement as well as civilians; they can be fired from any paintball launcher.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/28.jpg\")
“Glass breaker” balls.
\nAnti-fascists leaking far-right communication logs in Portland in 2020 revealed that at least one far-right militia member discussed using frozen paintballs but noted their lack of accuracy. He suggested instead using glass breaker balls, as detailed above.
\n\nThere are also self-defense rounds for airguns that use a D-shaped round like First Strike. First Strike is a style of paintball round fired from a magazine instead of a hopper, designed for greater accuracy. The same system has been adapted to shoot rubber projectiles with enough force to be deadly. We’ve seen no evidence of their use by police, besides the Pepperball VXR rounds covered under pepper-balls, below, and the FN303 rounds.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/3.jpg\")
FN303 rounds.
\nBarricade rounds are projectiles that are designed to penetrate barriers as tough as glass windows (12-gauge), hollow-core doors (37mm), or thin wallboard or plywood (40mm) and release chemical agents from their nosecone upon impact with said barrier. They are not as effective at breaking through double-pane windows or getting past heavy drapes. The rounds are not meant to be fired at people; they have killed multiple people who were struck directly by them.1
\n\nThey carry OC, CS, CN, or inert liquid or powder. The liquid-carried ones are heavier and penetrate barricades more effectively, while powder carriers are more effective at dispersing gas. Liquid rounds come with red dye that mark where they hit.
\n\nPolice have access to a wide variety of tools they use to project force at a distance. The most common of these include .68 caliber airguns (essentially, paintball guns), 12-gauge shotguns (referred to and usually marked as less-lethal shotguns, but effectively interchangeable with any other 12-guage shotgun), grenades, and 37 or 40mm “multi-launchers,” which are functionally grenade launchers. They also disperse chemicals with sprays, hoses, and smoke candles.
\n\nThese weapons are not particularly inaccurate, manufacturers’ promises notwithstanding. Studies show that when the operators of less-lethal weapons are under stress, their vertical accuracy past 30 meters is significantly compromised. Other factors include fatigue, the weight of the launcher itself, which is significant when loaded, and the recoil of the rounds, which tend to “pull” the round up when fired. These minor differences multiply in effect over distance. What would be a one-inch variance at close range can become a difference of several feet at a longer range. This means that even if an officer chooses to aim a crowd control weapon at someone’s lower body, he could easily hit his target in the head—or hit someone else entirely. There is not a surefire way to shoot any weapon into a crowd of people and be certain to hit your intended target.
\n\nPolice use what amount to paintball guns to launch chemical agents, impact munitions, and marking rounds at people. These are .68 caliber air-powered rifles and handguns. At one time, these were used almost exclusively to shoot pepper-balls and paintballs at protestors, but it wasn’t long before one manufacturer added impact munitions to the projectiles by forgoing a round ball and making fin-stabilized projectiles that contain both chemical agents and enough metal to hurt.
\n\nThere seem to be two primary manufacturers of .68 caliber “less lethal” weapons and ammunition: Pepperball and FN Herstal. We will focus on each one’s flagship rifle as an example, but police might be armed with older models of these weapons, the pistol versions of these weapons, or systems from other companies entirely. The pistol version of the Pepperball system seems to be even less accurate than other options.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/20.jpg\")
Pepperball pistol.
\nThere are also a large number of “riot ball”-style munitions designed to be fired from air rifles/paintball guns (including .68 caliber and .50 caliber), though we have not collected evidence of their use in the United States. These might be anything from solid rubber balls to PVC- or nylon-coated steel pellets to D-shaped projectiles that use “First Strike” paintball guns for increased accuracy.
\n\nThere is a lot of anecdotal information about paintball players suffering eye damage from ordinary paintballs. These smaller projectiles may be especially dangerous in demonstrations. That’s a good reason to wear goggles.
\n\nOf the two weapon systems known to be employed by US law enforcement, the FN303 seems to be substantially more dangerous in terms of pain, injury, and death, while the Pepperball system is more tactically versatile.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/2.jpg\")
The FN303.
\nThe FN303 is a gun that uses compressed air to fire rounds at targets. While the actual barrel is small, firing a .68” projectile like other paintball and pepper-ball guns, the FN303 looks a bit like a grenade launcher from some angles because the compressed air tank sits above the barrel and can be mistaken for a larger barrel itself. It fires polystyrene projectiles that are fin-stabilized for accuracy. Each projectile has a front section containing tiny pellets of bismuth and a rear section containing the payload. Bismuth is essentially a non-toxic alternative to lead. The front section is designed to deliver trauma without skin penetration; but tests on ballistic gel imply that it often penetrates skin regardless, and protestors in Portland have found that the rounds can penetrate bicycle helmets. Bismuth pellets can penetrate skin and stay embedded for weeks until manually removed.
\n\nThe FN303 has a 10” barrel (shorter than a rifle) and a 15-round drum magazine. The air tank can fire up to 110 shots before it needs refilling. The safety is inside the trigger guard. The entire device can be removed from its stock and mounted underbarrel on a rifle, although fortunately, we have not seen any evidence of civilian police doing so. It is also available in a pistol format, with a six-round magazine that contains a disposable carbon dioxide cartridge that powers the gun.
\n\nEach FN303 projectile weighs 8.5 grams. There are five versions on the market, each color-coded. White projectiles contain inert powder and are used for training; clear projectiles have no rear payload and are only used to hurt people; orange projectiles contain PAVA powder (synthetic pepper spray—see below); pink projectiles contain a pink, water-soluble, washable paint for marking targets; yellow projectiles contain a yellow, latex-based, indelible paint for marking targets that cannot as easily be washed off. The projectiles have a shelf life of three years when kept in their original, foil-lined packaging.
\n\nIn 2004, a Boston police officer used an FN303 to shoot and kill Victoria Snelgrove. The officer was allegedly aiming at someone else in the crowd. The pellet entered her eye, breaking through bone and injuring her brain. She died of her injuries a few hours later. Studies indicate that an individual FN303 loses accuracy after a few hundred rounds have been fired through it; the FN303 was the weapon used in the aforementioned study showing how inaccurate less lethal weapons are in the hands of an operator in a stressful situation. The city of Boston discontinued the use of the FN303 as a result, as did several other cities. Boston apparently melted theirs down to make manhole covers. As of this writing, Portland police continue to employ the FN303, as many other departments around the country presumably do.
\n\nIn Luxembourg, in 2009, police using FN303s for the first time shot and broke a journalist’s finger.
\n\nIn 2020, Portland police shot a National Geographic filmmaker with an FN303 round; it broke the plastic lens on his Czech M10 gas mask, lacerating his eye and necessitating surgery. Weeks later, the bismuth pellets were still embedded in the skin of his face, looking like small blackheads that he has been removing himself with a needle.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/1.jpg\")
In July 2020, federal agents shot Trip Jennings, a videographer who has worked with PBS and National Geographic, in the eye with a less-lethal round in Portland, Oregon.
\nThe Pepperball VKS (Variable Kinetic System) is essentially a paintball gun designed to look and function like an AR-15 and to fire paintballs full of pepper spray or other rounds. The user can switch between feeding them via a rifle-style magazine (which can hold pepper-balls or shaped rounds) or a paintball-style hopper (that holds only pepper-balls) by rotating the barrel. They can also use two different compressed air sources: the stock itself is a compressed 13ci HPA air canister or a remote air line can connect to any compressed air tank. Online forums suggest a wide range of how many shots one can get from a 13ci tank, estimating between 80-250. The AR-style safety switch has three modes: (S) Safety, (F) Fire, and (D) Disassemble. A velocity adjustment screw sits above the trigger on the right side. The VKS comes in black-and-yellow, black-and-orange, and all black.
\n\nThe manufacturer’s guidelines say that the weapon is not to be fired at the head, face, eyes, ears, throat, or spine.
\n\nPolice departments use pepper-balls for direct impact as well as area saturation. A Denver PD trainer says that the police use pepper-balls to saturate an area that would otherwise be dangerous to approach, to draw suspects out from hiding or cover.
\n\nThe rifle fires two types of ammunition: round pepper-balls, loaded from the hopper or magazine, which are accurate up to 20 meters, and the newer form of ammunition, VXR-shaped projectiles, which are only loaded from the magazine. The VXR projectiles are accurate up to 50 meters, as they are fin-stabilized.
\n\nThis rifle can fire projectiles at speeds of up to 425 fps. For comparison, most paintball fields limit guns to 280fps for safety.
\n\nEach round is color-coded. The shelf life of ammunition is 3 years.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/21.jpg\")
A pepper-ball launcher with a hopper.
\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/24.jpg\")
A “less lethal” shotgun.
\nA large number of less-lethal projectiles are fired from 12-gauge shotguns. Beanbag rounds are the most common, but rubber ball rounds exist, as do baton rounds, as do muzzle blasts—a means of dispersing chemical agents directly from the barrel of the gun, shooting a cloud of dust 10-15 feet or so.
\n\nNote that the title “riot shotgun” does not apply to dedicated less-lethal shotguns but instead describes shotguns that are designed for defensive fighting, in contrast to a hunting shotgun for hunting or a tactical shotgun for offensive combat.
\n\nWe have not found evidence that there is any oversight in the US that requires police departments to use dedicated less-lethal shotguns, though most departments do. Dedicated less-lethal shotguns are generally designated by the use of bright orange, red, or other color furniture (i.e., the outer parts of a firearm) on the stock and/or the fore end (the part you pump on a pump-action shotgun). While some models of shotgun are sold specifically for less-lethal use, many departments retrofit existing models to color-code them instead. This makes it hard to offer specifics about what shotguns are in use.
\n\nMost police shotguns are pump-action shotguns, as these enable them to fire a wider variety of ammunition. A semi-automatic shotgun usually uses the blowback from the shell to chamber the next shell, and that amount of force is irregular if different types of ammunition are used, causing feeding problems and jamming.
\n\nMost police shotguns appear to have either 14” or 18” barrels. It is illegal for a civilian to own a 14” barrel shotgun without filing federal paperwork for a short-barreled shotgun. Most pump-action shotguns hold between 4 and 8 shells. One less-lethal 18” shotgun we found held 6+1: that is, six shells in the magazine tube and one chambered.
\n\nHowever, we have received reports on the ground of police using full-length hunting shotguns, presumably with barrel lengths of 26 or 28 inches. One comrade in Cleveland reports that these were being carried primarily for intimidation purposes, while the same department fired actual less-lethal rounds out of 18” barrel shotguns instead. The longer the barrel of a firearm, the more accurate it will be, but also the faster the projectile will go and more powerful the impact will likely be.2
\n\nBarricade rounds can be launched from a 12-gauge shotgun. They are not designed for firing directly at people. Despite this, since they are loaded into less-lethal shotguns, officers have killed multiple people with direct shots, presumably unintentionally. Relatedly, “breaching rounds” are designed to destroy locks and doors. These are shotgun rounds generally comprised of small metal shot, or metal powder, often lead, suspended in a medium like wax. The idea is that the round maintains rigidity until impact, expels energy into a hinge, lock, or doorframe, then fragments into a powder after impact.
\n\nWith both barricade rounds and breaching rounds, the injuries result from the initial impact, which can transfer a lethal amount of energy into a target.
\n\nSeveral manufacturers of police munitions sell “grenade launching cups” that attach to the muzzle of 12-gauge shotguns, enabling police to launch grenades that are ordinarily thrown by hand. These are used by attaching the cup to the end of the barrel and loading special launching cartridges into the gun.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/13.jpg\")
12-gauge beanbag round.
\nThe majority of riot munitions—including tear gas canisters, muzzle blasts, baton rounds, flash-bangs, and marking rounds—are fired from devices designed as grenade launchers. For the purpose of disambiguation, we’re going to refer to them as “multi-launchers,” as some sites call them, because they fire a wide range of devices, not just grenades. These are also sometimes called “riot guns” or “less-lethal launchers,” but “riot gun” is often used in the US to describe lethal “riot shotguns.”
\n\nThere are two common calibers of multi-launchers, 37mm and 40mm. Traditionally, 40mm launchers are seen as “military” and 37mm launchers as “civilian,” but the police employ both and the differences between the two seem to be minor. It can be legal for a civilian in the United States to own a 37mm launcher so long as the munitions they use with it are not anti-personnel; flares and fireworks are legal, while baton rounds are not. There are also 38mm munitions, and most 37mm less-lethal launchers we’ve seen are advertised as firing 38mm munitions as well. 38mm munitions might be more common outside the United States.
\n\nAll 40mm grenades used in protest situations seem to fit the “40x46mm” NATO standard for low-velocity grenades, which is the standard used for handheld launchers, unlike the 40x53mm high-velocity grenades that are generally fired from mounted and crew-served weapons (i.e., guns that are designed to be operated by two or more people at a time). The ammunition is not interchangeable between these systems.
\n\nMany multi-launcher projectiles are fired with black powder, rather than more modern gunpowder, which causes sparks and smoke. This is done because these projectiles are more fragile than most modern ammunition. Some are available in “smokeless” models that, presumably, use EC smokeless powder, a slightly more modern variant of black powder that produces less smoke.
\n\nWhen people report with shock that police who work at public schools have “grenade launchers,” this likely means multi-launchers. The police probably don’t plan to fire live grenades at students; rather, they plan to poison them with chemical weapons that are explicitly banned for use in war by the Geneva Convention.
\n\nPistol-style launchers exist, but are generally designed only for muzzle blasts.
\n\nFull-size launchers are usually either breech-loaded single-shot guns (in which the barrel hinges away from the handle and a single round is inserted) or drum-fed versions that look like gigantic revolvers. These revolvers are usually advanced by a pump action, rather than a trigger as in a conventional revolver. These tend to hold between 4 to 6 rounds, depending on the model. Some are rifled to spin projectiles for better accuracy. Internationally, many have wooden stocks and look more like traditional rifles, while most of what we’ve seen in the US are “tactical” style guns with pistol grips in addition to stocks as well as vertical fore grips—a style that is not legal for civilians without special permission.
\n\nLaunchers can also be mounted under the barrel of a rifle, rather than operating as standalone devices. This style is in common use in military situations but does not seem to be common among law enforcement.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/25.jpg\")
A multi-launcher.
\nFor the purpose of this article, we are distinguishing “canisters,” designed to be fired from launchers, from “grenades” that are designed to be thrown by hand. In reality, there is no such clear distinction. Some weapons are designed to be thrown or rolled by hand, while others are designed to be loaded into multi-launchers—but some are designed for both.
\n\nGrenades are often used to disperse chemical agents and/or impact munitions, particularly rubber balls. Other grenades are “distraction devices,” generally referred to as flash-bangs. Many combine these functions.
\n\nWe’ve found at least three body styles for police grenades. There is the ball grenade, which looks like a classic baseball-style military grenade, designed to be thrown or rolled. These often contain rubber ball impact munitions, possibly paired with chemical weapons, while others are traditional pyrotechnic tear gas grenades. There are the “low roll” body grenades, which are cylinders with large hex-shaped ends that minimize the distance the grenade will roll. Then there are the regular canister grenades, which appear to be the most common style. These can be of any diameter, but 37/38m, 40mm, 45mm, and 60mm seem to be the most common.
\n\nGas grenades and canisters can disperse chemical agents through a number of methods. The most common is the classic pyrotechnic dispersal, which works by creating a fire inside the canister that releases the chemical agent as smoke. These canisters are very hot and can spark and start other fires.
\n\nAnother dispersal method, used more often by OC canisters than CS canisters, is aerosol dispersal (sometimes called “flameless expulsion”). Releasing something more akin to a mist than a smoke, these are more commonly used indoors, where pyrotechnic canisters would be less convenient. As best as we are able to determine, these are generally not used as much outside because they produce less dense concentrations of chemical agents.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/26.jpg\")
An instantaneous blast grenade.
\nFinally, there are instantaneous blast canisters, which explode all at once and release their payload as a powder. These are designed for inside or outside use, but as the dust is easily dispersed by wind, they are intended primarily for use against dense crowds of people, when pyrotechnic grenades are less effective, either owing to throwback potential or the risk of starting unintentional fires. These canisters are easily identified after the fact because they are split open along the sides.
\n\nGas dispersal canisters are often designed to separate into a number of sub-munitions, like the “triple chaser” from Defense Technology that splits into three smaller tear gas canisters. This is done to make it more work for us to throw them back or douse them with water.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/14.jpg\")
The “triple chaser” from Defense Technology that splits into three smaller tear gas canisters.
\n\nhttps://twitter.com/comradecamera/status/1352152555933978627\n\n\n
Less-lethal grenades are generally equipped with fuses like any military grenade: the user pulls a pin, which makes it possible to release a lever that is gripped in the hand. Once the lever is released, the fuse is ignited. While fuses could be of varying length, we have found two second delays to be common: a 1.5-second delay before the fuse is ignited, then .5 seconds for the fuse itself. On at least some models, the fuse assembly ejects itself before the payload is ignited so that it does not become a projectile.
\n\nSome grenades come with additional safety clips that prevent the fuse from being pulled while the grenade is being carried. Some come with water-resistant bodies for high-humidity environments. Some, particularly flash-bangs, are reloadable. People have reported seeing police combing the area after protests and picking up certain spent munitions. It’s possible they are doing this to conceal the use of some particularly egregious weapons (such as DM gas), but it’s also possible they are recovering reloadable grenades.
\n\nGrenades can also be “command initiated” instead of lit by a fuse. This system seems to be more common in tactical situations, such as house raids, rather than at demonstrations that are more dynamic. This system involves attaching a tube to the grenade to allow for instantaneous, remote detonation.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/7.jpg\")
A federal officer using a fogger to assault a legal observer from the American Civil Liberties Union in Portland, summer 2020.
\nIn addition to firing canisters that release chemicals as smoke, police also spray people directly with chemicals with handheld devices. The two chemicals we’ve found in our research are OC (pepper spray) and CS (a tear gas), but almost any chemical agent can be aerosolized and sprayed. Depending on the manufacturer, the chemical irritant, and the spray pattern, these can employ any number of propellants, such as compressed air, nitrogen, or the refrigeration chemical ominously named 134a. There are numerous spray patterns, from the simple “stream” pattern to cones, fog (or “vapor”), and even foam.
\n\nChemical sprays, unlike pyrotechnic dispersal methods that disperse a powdered irritant, generally aerosolize a liquid form of the chemical. This can be water-based or oil-based; consequently, chemical weapon protection should be rated against oil-borne particulates (P100 filters instead of N100 filters). Foggers use a liquid formulation as well, but aerosolize this liquid pyrotechnically (the way a fog machine does) rather than by using an aerosol gas.
\n\nChemical sprays come in a range of different concentrations and it would be difficult to anticipate which is ones law enforcement are utilizing without research. To make matters more complicated, the strength of OC (the most common sprayed irritant) is notoriously difficult to identify. Manufacturers’ claims are not regulated, and there are many different types of capsaicinoids that might be present in a given variant of OC gas. There is probably internal consistency within each manufacturer’s line of weapons, but that’s about it. One manufacturer’s 2% spray might be more powerful than another’s 4% spray. Those numbers are almost meaningless on their own.
\n\nSmall handheld canisters with a button on top seem to be accurate from 10-12 feet, while larger canisters with a trigger assembly seem to be accurate up to 15-20 feet, although this differs from manufacturer to manufacturer.\nMany spray systems also contain visible or UV reactive dyes to mark targets. UV dye is particularly common in civilian self-defense spray, while police in Seattle and other cities are known to use visible dye to mark demonstrators for arrest.
\n\nThere are larger canisters that operate on the same principles as the smaller ones. These often look more like full-size fire extinguishers. Then there are backpack devices with separate spray nozzles and tanks—the “Ghostbusters” variety, as some have called them. These can operate with either powder or liquid chemicals; at least one model has an effective range of 45 feet. Portland police have been seen to conceal backpack chemical foggers inside an unmarked black backpack with a spray nozzle attached to a hose protruding from the bottom.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/PredatorFiles/status/1287725556453187590\n\n\n
There are also devices that look like a cross between a fog machine and a leaf blower that are gas-powered and are designed to fill large areas with poison. Like the backpack foggers, these are generally designed for use in prisons, not at demonstrations. As we’ve seen recently, however, riot police will often use any weapon available to them.
\n\nFinally, chemical weapons are sometimes mixed with water and dispersed through fire hoses or water cannons. None of us had seen this method in use in the United States until the 2020 protests in Portland. Chemical burns on a nearby tree were consistent with chlorine poisoning, which could be the result of expired chemistry. This means of chemical weapon dispersal has been used in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Turkey; it is presumably possible in any country that uses water cannons against demonstrators.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/6.jpg\")
Federal troops poisoning downtown Portland with a fogger, summer 2020.
\nA hundred years ago, when chemical warfare was first emerging, some poisonous gasses were dispersed by “candles,” which would burn and release gas. Functionally, this is the same thing as a modern tear gas grenade, which uses pyrotechnics to disperse chemical powder; the phrase “tear gas candle” could be used to describe any pyrotechnic tear gas canister.
\n\nYet in the summer of 2020, we saw either police or federal agents walking through the streets of Portland holding a burning object at the end of a stick. This looked, for all the world, like a censor at a Catholic mass with smoke pouring out of it.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/15.jpg\")
Officers distributing tear gas in Portland, summer 2020.
\nWe don’t know for certain whether this was a chemical agent (probably) or inert smoke, but it feels noteworthy that the only tear gas we’ve come across that was designed for dispersal in “candles” like this is DM gas, the vomit gas that protestors believe is in use in Portland. This would mark a major escalation in the form of chemical warfare employed against protestors.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/23.jpg\")
A civilian pepper spray.
\nAs with all many other less-lethal weapons, the distinctions between categories of chemicals are actually quite blurry.
\n\nConventional parlance divides chemical weapons in two categories: tear gas and pepper spray. While these distinctions exist, they’re not clear-cut. If we imagine “tear gas” as clouds of smoke or dust and “pepper spray” as chemical sprays, this is really a question of methods of dispersal, not the actual chemicals being used.
\n\nWe will discuss seven different chemicals herein. Although something like fifteen varieties have been developed, we will focus on the most common ones that are either known to be used against demonstrators or at least widely suspected of being used thus. Of those seven, five of them are usually dispersed as gas, while two usually appear as a chemical spray. But it’s possible for almost any chemical to be dispersed by almost any means, and we have seen quite a bit of crossover.
\n\nThe five tear gasses, in brief, are:
\n\nThe two pepper spray chemicals are:
\n\nWe will largely conflate these two throughout this article, as we’ve had a hard time identifying any significant distinction between them.
\n\nThe first self-defense sprays were actually filled with CN gas, but OC is generally more effective at disabling a target. There are sprays filled with CS, CN, and OC. There are also tear gas munitions filled with OC and PAVA.
\n\nFor the ostensible purposes of crowd control, OC (or PAVA) is the most effective tear gas agent. It is the fastest acting, the most debilitating, and the least toxic, and its victims recover faster. CS gas is in second place; it is more traditionally used, and the most widely available.
\n\nBy any measure, no other tear gas agent besides OC or CS has any use even from a statist point of view except to punish and poison people. They are outdated and cruel technologies. We don’t say that in order to ask for sympathy or to appeal to the moral judgment of the state, but simply to point out that the cruelty is the point.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/22.jpg\")
Common pepper spray.
\nChemical weapons are used for a number of tactical purposes. As we’ve found with impact munitions, police employ them in many ways that they were never designed to be used. In general, tear gas is designed to control the movement of crowds, or to disperse crowds. Tear gas clouds are meant to discourage people from occupying particular areas. Police can use tear gas to direct a crowd much the same way that lines of riot police can: most people will avoid the gas and will move in the direction of clear air. The same crowd control effect can be done, on a smaller scale, with pepper-balls and the focused remote deployment of chemical weapons.
\n\nSprays tend to be used closer up. Outside of demonstrations, they are used to subdue individuals. Inside of demonstrations, they are often used indiscriminately, to disperse, intimidate, or incapacitate a crowd.
\n\nTear gas and other chemical weapons are specifically not designed for punishment: they are not designed to be deployed against a trapped crowd or a restrained individual. Police use them this way regularly, of course.
\n\nTo prevent the police from accomplishing their crowd control goals, we simply refuse to be crowd-controlled. This can necessitate a certain amount of advance preparation.
\n\nTo mitigate the effects of chemical weapons, personal protective equipment is in order. Our guide to gas masks and goggles gets into this in detail, but the short version is:
\n\nUmbrellas can block chemical sprays. On the day Trump was inaugurated president, in the fabled “umbrella charge,” a single umbrella protected dozens of anarchists as they escaped from a police kettle, eight felonies, and a years-long court case.
\n\nJanuary 20, 2017: the umbrella charge.
\nIn light or moderate chemical weapon attacks, it’s usually sufficient for a few people to deactivate or throw back the canisters while medics and others treat those affected by sprays. It’s also possible to keep moving, so long as this doesn’t interfere the goals of the demonstrators.
\n\nUnfortunately, the heavy use of chemical weapons will tend to thin out a protest of people who are less prepared. Having wet bandannas (stored in individual ziplock bags) or other PPE available for distribution can be useful to enable the crowd to stay around longer.
\n\n\n\n\n“It is never polite to throw back the tear gas…\nBut sometimes love\nSometimes real love\nIs fucking rude.”
\n\nAndrea Gibson, “Etiquette Leash”
\n
Protestors regularly return tear gas canisters to those who have deployed them. Since tear gas is pyrotechnically deployed, most canisters are quite hot—hot enough to start fires or burn your skin. Anyone hoping to handle gas canisters should wear insulated work gloves made from fire-resistant material. Cheap hardware store gloves are not adequate; canisters have burned protestors through them. Synthetic materials, if not specifically designed to be fire-resistant, can melt into a person’s skin. Leather work gloves are often the simplest and best choice, though those who choose not to wear leather should be able to find heat-resistant synthetics.
\n\nPeople have also employed lacrosse sticks and hockey sticks to return tear gas canisters without touching them.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/plsnotmike/status/1286951807168598018\n\n\n
\nhttps://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1285110589606334465\n\n\n
Police may employ pepper spray without putting on gas masks, but if they are going to gas an entire area, they will almost always put on masks or rotate in a new line of officers wearing protective gear. This is important: it means that if you keep an eye on the police, you should be able to tell in advance when they are preparing to gas you. It follows that, if anyone must be subjected to tear gas, it should be the people who are best equipped for it—the ones who deployed it in the first place. Of course, we’re not lawyers, and laws about which burning objects one is allowed to throw at the police likely vary by locality.
\n\nYou should only throw canisters when you are aware of your surroundings and have an open space behind you. Before you throw a canister, take note of which direction the wind is blowing and where people are likely to need to go shortly, as well as where they currently are.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/Gian_Neon/status/1268060951846281216\n\n\n
In recent years, protestors around the world have been learning to neutralize gas canisters rather than simply tossing them back. These methods have the advantage of being a bit less confrontational.
\n\nSince most canisters are pyrotechnically deployed, it’s enough to simply put out the fire inside the canister. One rudimentary method, which does not require touching the canister at all, is to put a road cone over the canister and then pour water in through the hole at the top of the cone until it is doused.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/hkfp/status/1158399008261464064\n\n\n
A more refined method involves picking up the canister with gloved hands and putting it in a large water bottle or a bucket of water. In Chile and some other parts of the world where communities in revolt have honed their practices, extinguishing canisters has become a distinct role in street protests. People playing this role bring a water jug with a wide mouth, containing a little baking soda, dish soap, and/or vegetable oil—3 tablespoons of each to 1 liter of water. When a canister arrives, they drop it in the jug, and shake the jug while covering the top with one hand just enough to keep the gas from getting out. If you try this, don’t seal the bottle—you don’t want it to explode.
\n\nHow to extinguish tear gas canisters.
\nFailing all else, if you aren’t prepared to neutralize the canister, it could be enough to simply cover it with something like a cooking pot or an orange road barrel. Some gas will leak out, but this will diminish its ability to hurt people.
\n\nIn theory, riot control agents are designed to be as uncomfortable and debilitating as possible without causing permanent damage. They irritate the lungs, eyes, and skin. They are lachrymatory agents, causing your eyes to water. Your nose might run. You might have trouble breathing. You might be unable to open your eyes. Some chemical weapons take effect almost immediately; others can affect you minutes after exposure. Some continue to irritate you long after you move to fresh air; others dissipate faster. Some are more toxic than others; some can cause permanent damage. We’ll discuss the specific effects of each chemical separately. But in short: sometimes exposure to riot control agents can be painful and debilitating, especially when you’re directly exposed to them without protection. In other cases, they may be simply irritating.
\n\nShortness of breath is a specific and common problem resulting from exposure to chemical weapons. When this is combined with the shock of getting gassed, the overall stress of the situation, and irritated lungs, some people may feel as though they are going to pass out.
\n\nIf you are experiencing this, try to get out of the area where the gas is deployed, sit up or stand with good posture to open your lungs, and try to breathe deeply. Even if your breathing is still restricted, the additional oxygen will lower your ambient stress level, enabling you to address some of the effects of anxiety and decreasing your heart rate. If you see other people who appear to be on the verge of passing out, try to get them to somewhere safe outside of the area of deployment and encourage them to breathe as deeply as possible.
\n\nThe other thing that chemical weapons are intended to do is intimidate us. They are used to keep us out of the streets, to keep us from accomplishing our goals. If you are still building your experience in the streets, we recommend that you speak with coolheaded people who have considerable experience in public order situations about what to expect and how to handle the stress of chemical weapons attacks. If you are experiencing large-scale police violence for the first time, and you have the option, it can be a good idea to pace yourself, leaving a stressful situation when it becomes overwhelming, in order to slowly, steadily build a skillset for dealing with it levelheadedly. If you are aiming for longevity as a participant in social movements, it’s better to err on the side of caution at first than to ask too much of yourself, have a bad experience, and withdraw from the struggle.
\n\nSome of us have been hit by everything under the sun over the years and survived. The fact that we have and the experience of being among comrades who have persisted in spite of intense police violence have both done a lot to demystify the weaponry of the police.
\n\nAsthmatics and others with breathing difficulties should be particularly careful about exposure to chemical weapons. This could mean bringing a gas mask or being prepared to leave the area as soon as you see police preparing to deploy gas. It appears that asthmatics account for most of the deaths caused by these chemical agents. To be clear, while these agents do occasionally kill people, being gassed as an asthmatic is rarely fatal.
\n\nAccording to Sven-Eric Jordt, Ph.D., a tear gas researcher, children are particularly vulnerable to tear gas because of their smaller lungs, which have a very different surface-to-volume ratio than adults. This has not stopped federal officers from employing tear gas against migrant children at the US border.
\n\nRumors abound about immunity to CS or OC, particularly in military circles.
\n\nSome people do appear to be naturally immune to CS gas, or at least more tolerant of it. It is indeed possible to build up the mental capacity to continue to function despite the pain and other effects. But there is no evidence that it is possible to develop a physiological immunity to CS or OC. In fact, on the contrary, repeat exposure to CS gas is known to cause sensitization—the opposite of tolerance.
\n\nUS soldiers are exposed to CS gas during basic training as part of “mask confidence training,” aimed at demonstrating the effectiveness of their gas masks. During these trainings, it appears that some small portion of the population (perhaps 2-5%, according to speculation we’ve seen) is naturally resistant to the effects of CS. On one forum, we read that a soldier who was highly tolerant of CS gas let someone pepper spray him, erroneously believing that pepper spray (OC) is the same thing. It turned out that he was not immune to pepper spray.
\n\nThe other common rumor within the ranks is that drill sergeants develop immunity to the gas as a consequence of repeated exposure. What is likely happening, instead, is either that the officers who display some naturally occurring tolerance of CS are put in charge of the CS exposure chamber, or that these instructors have developed a mental, rather than physiological, tolerance for the pain and discomfort that the gas causes.
\n\nIn any case, it is ill-advised to routinely expose yourself to CS gas in hopes of building up a mental tolerance to it. Exposure to CS gas can cause a number of long-term health problems. Nor is there any evidence that eating hot peppers or the like can increase your tolerance of it.
\n\nSome police academies apparently teach racist myths about pepper spray, suggesting without evidence that Latin American and East Asian people are more tolerant of pepper spray—and therefore, it is implied, need to be sprayed longer—because of exposure to spicy food. This is just the latest in centuries of white supremacist pseudoscience justifying cruelty.
\n\nDepending on the agent, most of the effects of chemical agents will clear up after about 30 minutes of fresh air. Avoid rubbing your eyes. If you have contacts in, remove them as soon as possible.
\n\nRinse your eyes with water—or, ideally, have someone else rinse your eyes. The best way to rinse someone’s eyes is to take a sports-style squirt water bottle and spray water into their open eyes. Bring a bottle for this purpose and use it only for flushes; do not drink from it, lest you contaminate it with saliva. You can open someone’s eyes with your thumb and forefinger; wear clean gloves, if you have them. It is enough to open their eyes just a little bit. Start rinsing from the inside of the eye, near the nose, and work your way to the outside. Do one eye at a time. Ask them to blink; remind them to not touch their face. Repeat as many times as necessary.
\n\nSpray the water from the sports bottle with some force: the goal is to flush the chemicals off the eye. Rinsing your eyes will not immediately alleviate the burning, but it will enable you to begin to recover.
\n\nTo get tear gas and other contaminates off your skin, wash with soap and water. If the gas has dried as a powder on you (which is especially possible with expired tear gas), brush the powder off your skin and clothes before rinsing. While it’s been suggested that water “activates” the powder form of chemical irritants, experience has shown that removing it with water, or soap and water, is effective.
\n\nWhen you meet people after being gassed, if you are still wearing the same clothes or have remnants of the gas in your hair, warn them. You may not be affected by traces of gas that could still provoke a significant reaction in them, especially if they have asthma or similar conditions. This can also be a concern if you are entering enclosed spaces with others. Treat the risk of exposing others to tear gas secondhand as a consent issue.
\n\nWhen you have exited the conflict area after exposure, take off your outer clothes and double bag them until you have a chance to wash them. Shower, scrubbing your skin vigorously with soap. Be careful when you wash the chemicals out of your hair: if any get into your eyes, your genitals, or open wounds, it will hurt.
\n\nTo deal with your clothes, wash them thoroughly, possibly through multiple cycles. Run the washing machine without anything in it afterwards to wash the inside of the washing machine itself. Drying your clothes outside on a line is preferable, so that any lingering effects can dissipate.
\n\nTear gas makes your nose run, and bodily fluids are effective vectors for COVID-19 infection. Concerned with minimizing the spread of a deadly disease, some medics who would otherwise be administering assistance to those exposed to chemical weapons have begun advocating that people treat themselves for chemical weapons exposure if they are able to. Failing this, you should wear gloves, eye protection, and a mask of your own when you are treating a person for chemical weapons exposure. Take care to clean and decontaminate as soon as you can.
\n\nLaw enforcement use Sudecon wipes for decontaminating people from pepper spray and tear gas. Medics we’ve spoken to report that they haven’t seen a side-by-side comparison, but believe that Sudecon wipes might work at least as well as soap and water on skin.
\n\nRosehip Medic Collective in Portland, Oregon has published a recipe for DIY decontamination wipes that were in wide use in the chemical-soaked streets there during summer 2020.
\n\nBegin with:
\n\nMix this well, then combine it with 21 fluid ounces of baby shampoo and mix it gently. Soak high quality paper towels in the mixture, and pack them into ziplock bags a few of them at a time. These should keep for a few days, or a few months in a refrigerator.
\n\nMedics in Portland have been manufacturing these with the help of a small rolling machine to distribute the moisture more evenly; they hope it will enable the wipes to keep longer. It also helps the medics to manufacture them more quickly.
\n\nPeople use many different remedies and treatments for chemical weapons—everything from milk to antacids and herbal concoctions. Based on our conversations with street medics and doctors, we recommend just using water for flushing out eyes and soap and water for washing skin. Why? After all, the doctor we spoke to pointed out that it doesn’t usually hurt, medically speaking, to use milk to flush out someone’s eyes.
\n\nWe advocate for water because it’s readily available and it’s less likely to cause allergic reactions. We recommend it because it isn’t gross—getting arrested soaked in milk isn’t a pleasant experience—and because it doesn’t leave telltale white residue like antacid does, which appears more visibly on darker skin and has been used (for example, by police in the Ferguson uprising) to mark suspects for arrest. Perhaps most importantly, we recommend it because it demystifies chemical weapons.
\n\nThe idea that we need some sort of special remedy to treat exposure to chemical weapons adds to their mystique and the fear they can inspire. But there’s nothing arcane about these irritants. Wash them off and get to fresh air. Even if you disagree with us that water is best, please do not interrupt experienced street medics who are applying water eye flushes. That is not helpful behavior.
\n\nThere is an outdated protest technique (referred to as MOFIBA) that uses mineral oil to cleanse the skin of contaminants, but it has largely gone out of use because, if administered wrong (whether as a consequence of inexperience or of being applied in a tumultuous situation), it can do more harm than good. We won’t detail it here. Soap and water are effective for cleaning the skin. Decontamination wipes are good—possibly better—if you have them available, but they are not necessary.
\n\nAdditional care can sometimes be useful, both medically and emotionally. As one street medic put it, they rub arnica lotion onto handcuff bruises because when someone shows you the bruising caused by police handcuffs, they’re showing you the physical evidence that they were assaulted and kidnapped. When you examine those bruises and apply a lotion, you’re showing that what happened to them matters and that the consequences are worth treating with care. The arnica lotion likely helps with the bruising, but the act of showing care matters too.
\n\nSome protestors in Chile have taken to spraying a room-temperature tea (made by boiling laurel leaves) into the eyes of those who are suffering from pepper-spray, and it seems to be effective. This is not a mechanical flushing of the eyes, but rather applied with a squirt bottle as an aftercare treatment to alleviate burning and to calm the person.
\n\nSome protestors in Hong Kong have carried spray bottles containing three teaspoons of baking soda for every 8.5 ounces of water. While the efficacy of this has not been directly studied, it lines up with the findings of a 2003 study to the effect that CS molecules are unstable and basic fluids like baking soda might accelerate that process of molecular breakdown.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/nicole_froelich/status/1231084763412357121\n\n\n
Perhaps you’ve heard that the use of tear gas in war is a war crime, banned by the Geneva Protocol (which is distinct from and predates the Geneva Conventions). This is true. It’s not just that tear gas was accidentally swept up in a broad agreement not to employ chemical weapons, either. It’s in there explicitly by name.
\n\nIn 1925, after the chemical horrors of the First World War, 38 countries signed the Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons. Most of the signatory countries assumed that this included tear gas and chemical herbicides dropped indiscriminately in remarkable quantities. The United States government decided not to share this interpretation. Throughout the 1960s, the US made extensive use of tear gas and herbicide (Agent Orange) in Vietnam.
\n\nToday, the Geneva Protocol makes it clear that tear gas is specifically prohibited.
\n\nHeads of state don’t want anyone else dropping chemicals on their civilians—but if that’s what it takes to maintain order internally, they’re all for it. So yes, international law explicitly forbids the use of tear gas in war, describing it as a war crime. But governments agree that it is fine to use it on us.
\n\nWe’ll review the properties and effects of the more common chemical agents here.
\n\nCS gas (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, C10H5ClN2) is the most common tear gas agent. Two US scientists, Corson and Stoughton, were the first to synthesize it; they named it after themselves. It was not weaponized into tear gas until the 1950s.
\n\nCS gas is found primarily in tear gas canisters, but it also appears in sprays, or laced throughout impact weapons.
\n\nCS gas is perceived to be substantially less toxic than CN gas, while being more effective at disabling people. It’s probably more toxic, and less disabling, than OC.
\n\nWe know that CS can cause heart and liver issues. We know that intense exposure can cause chemical burns and scarring. But there is more.
\n\nIn terms of immediate lethality, it is speculated that CS could kill in an enclosed space; protesters blamed several deaths in Tahrir Square during the uprising on CS. But this has not been confirmed. CS gas does seem to be less immediately capable of killing than other chemical agents. Its long-term effects, however, are troubling.
\n\nMost toxicity reports on CS are over fifty years old; new studies are somewhat rare. The US military is increasingly finding links between CS gas and persistent lung problems by studying the incidence of lung problems before and after soldiers are exposed to the CS gas chamber.
\n\nCS gas is clastogenic—that is, it can change your chromosomes. This primarily affects people who are capable of menstruation. Science has been slow to study these effects, but a large number of stories describe miscarriages, excessive bleeding, cramps, blood clots, and seizures after exposure to CS gas.
\n\nCS gas (unlike OC and the Russian tear gas MPK) is not generally considered as effective against dogs, bears, and some other mammals owing to different tear duct structure and some resistance from fur. It certainly causes discomfort, and studies have shown it is capable of killing dogs. Anecdotal reports from Turkey describe it killing birds by the thousands and blinding street cats.
\n\nAs with all chemical weapons, the police do not use CS in a “pure” form—and the other chemicals it is adulterated with can also be toxic. We believe that the liquid/spray version, at least the one that the UK police use, employs methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) as a solvent. MIBK is itself toxic and can cause liver and kidney problems.
\n\nAt least at the siege in Waco, the US government used CS aerosolized along with the solvent Dichloromethane, which has a sweet odor. It is carcinogenic.
\n\nSome comrades reported that at least some of the gas used during the G20 protests in Pittsburgh in 2009 smelled vaguely like banana candy.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/16.jpg\")
A CS tear gas canister.
\nPhenacyl chloride is a common chemical used in organic chemistry. When it is weaponized as a tear gas, it is called CN gas (2-Chloroacetophenone). It was first developed as a tear gas during the First and Second World Wars, though it is not known to have been used during them.
\n\nCN gas is commercially available through any number of police weapon manufacturers, although there is no reason why it should be, considering that it is substantially more toxic and substantially less effective than CS gas. It is less common than CS or OC, but can be found in tear gas canisters, sprays, and laced throughout impact weapons.
\n\nCN gas was the active ingredient of “Mace,” the first brand of self-defense spray, before OC was developed.
\n\nCN gas has killed at least five people via heart damage or asphyxia. It has also caused contact dermatitis—sometimes permanently—in an unknowable number of police officers whose chemical weapons have accidentally leaked onto them. If it can injure police in that manner, it can injure us as well.
\n\nCR gas (dibenzoxazepine) is a tear gas agent that is suspected but not confirmed to be in use in the United States. It was developed in the UK in the 1960s and earns its nickname “fire gas” for its capacity to not just hurt your lungs and eyes, but to make your whole body feel like you’ve been thrown into a patch of nettles. It is said to smell sweet.
\n\nCR gas is allegedly 6-10 times more potent than CS gas, and while all the documentation we’ve found says that it is “less toxic” than CS, it is known to be capable of killing people by asphyxiation or pulmonary edema (liquid filling the lungs).
\n\nOne of the worst things about CR gas is that it is substantially harder to decontaminate than other riot control agents. It can persist on surfaces for up to 60 days.
\n\nWe have not found any manufacturers who advertise any products that contain CR gas.
\n\nSome protestors in Portland conjecture they might have been exposed to CR gas because some gas they were exposed to reacted particularly strongly to their sweat. The theory is that federal agents, tired of gas-masked protestors, utilized a weapon that causes suffering even to those who are masked. These federal agents might have access to old stores of CR gas, or perhaps do not need to go through public-facing commercial channels the way local police generally do.
\n\nHowever, CS gas (and perhaps especially expired CS gas, which might cause larger flakes that persist longer on the skin) also reacts to sweat to cause burning, and can be dispersed through sweet-smelling solvents. Chemists and others are currently trying to work out whether CR or DM have been in use in Portland.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/27.jpg\")
One mysterious green gas officers utilized to assault protesters in Portland has been identified as HC gas.
\nDM gas (Adamsite, Diphenylaminechlorarsine) is another largely outdated and particularly vicious tear gas agent. Chemists in both Germany and the US developed it independently in the 1910s. It was originally burned in “candles” to disperse the gas.
\n\nDM gas is particularly ineffective as a riot control agent, as its effects take 5-10 minutes to set in. It would only be useful for inflicting punishment—for which purpose it would likely be effective, as its effects can easily last 12 hours. It starts like other tear gasses, with irritation to the eyes and lungs, but this develops into nausea, headache, and persistent vomiting.
\n\nDM gas was most notoriously used in the United States against the “Bonus Army,” a demonstration of 45,000 veterans of the First World War and their allies in DC in 1932. Eyewitnesses say that the gas suffocated two young children, though historians have been unable to confirm this.
\n\nSome people conjecture that DM gas was in use by federal agents in Portland in the summer of 2020, but it remains unproven. There were rumors describing green smoke that might have been DM gas, and reports that some tear gas had made people vomit. So far, no one has been able to prove or disprove this, though some green gas utilized in Portland has been identified as HC gas.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/8.jpg\")
Toxic DM gas was used to target World War I veterans who participated in the “bonus march.”
\nOC (oleoresin capsicum) is the only organically derived riot control agent we are aware of. It’s derived from capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers.
\n\nAs far as the ostensible purpose of riot control agents go, OC seems to be the most effective: it is substantially more irritating and incapacitating than CS or CN gas, with a faster onset time than either, while apparently inflicting substantially fewer long-term adverse health effects on those exposed to it.
\n\nOC was first introduced as pepper spray, but has increasingly found its way into tear gas variants as well, appearing in tear gas grenades (both slow-burning and instant clouds of dust) and laced throughout impact weapons.
\n\nLest we paint too rosy a picture of OC, it, too, can kill people—specifically, those who are exposed to a great deal of it, such as when police torture restrained arrestees with it, which is a common enough procedure. In particular, it can kill asthmatics by blocking off their lungs to air by “severe acute bronchospasm.”
\n\nOC in spray form is often suspended in propylene glycol, which is comparatively harmless by itself.
\n\nPAVA (Nonivamide, pelargonic acid vanillylamide) is a (usually) synthetic form of OC that is more common in Britain, where it is the most common form of pepper spray, than in the United States. The only use of it we’ve identified in the US so far is in pepper-balls and FN303 rounds.
\n\nPAVA does appear naturally, but manufacturers generally synthesize it. It is more heat-stable than OC. It is edible in the same way that OC is. We have yet to find any particular differentiation between the toxicity of PAVA and OC.
\n\nMost PAVA spray is suspended in aqueous ethanol. This is sometimes called PAVA 1. In other cases, it is suspended in a mixture of mono propylene glycol, ethanol, and water referred to as PAVA 2. PAVA 1 is flammable, while PAVA 2 is not. Neither are made of chemicals we know to be particularly toxic.
\n\nWestern readers are unlikely to ever be exposed to MPK (N-nonanoylmorpholine), a tear gas used in Russia that is reported to be effective against dogs and people who are too intoxicated to be easily incapacitated by other chemical weapons. It is not as strong as other chemicals, so it is generally mixed with CS or CN gas. It is presumably less toxic than the chemicals it is mixed with, as it is reportedly sometimes used as a food additive as well.
\n\nMany canisters the police employ are just smoke grenades. Police use smoke grenades to mark areas with colored smoke, to hide their own positions and actions, to cause panic in the crowd, and, possibly, to refract lasers pointed their way (we are unsure of the efficacy of this, as there is a great deal of mixed information about lasers). Most chemical weapons manufacturers also offer smoke grenade versions of their various canisters and grenades.
\n\nMany military-style smoke grenades, called HC or HCE grenades, contain Hexachloroethane. Hexachloroethane is toxic through skin absorption, depressing the central nervous system; it is presumed to be a carcinogen. In mid-2020, federal agents in Portland, Oregon used outdated grenades containing HC. According to one researcher, HC is no longer manufactured in the USA, but is harvested as a byproduct of other chemical processes. While it is toxic, it seems considerably safer than the other chemical weapons police employ.
\n\n“Saf-smoke” grenades, the style manufactured by Defense Technologies, are advertised as less dangerous. The actual contents of Saf-smoke and other competing brands of smoke grenade are proprietary and not immediately available for review.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/18.jpg\")
A “Saf-smoke” grenade.
\nThese devices, which manufacturers call “distraction devices” or “disorientation devices,” are more commonly known as flash-bangs or stun grenades. They produce an intense flash of light and a loud bang as well as some concussive force. The light (upwards of 8 million candelas—as bright as eight million candles) blinds viewers for approximately five seconds and causes severe afterimages. The volume is around 160-180 decibels, substantially louder than any gunshot you are likely to ever hear; this deafens those in the vicinity, disrupting the fluid in the inner ear and sometimes causing dizziness.
\n\nPolice occasionally use these in conjunction with baton charges or other impact weapons when they wish to knock demonstrators off guard. But at the end of the day, like so many police tactics, these are methods to intimidate people into complying, not methods that directly force people to comply.
\n\nFlash-bang grenades are generally made of solid steel or aluminum, designed not to fragment as a result of their detonation. Many of them are reloadable or refillable.
\n\nSome flash-bang grenades are “aerial warning/signaling” munitions designed to be fired into the air to explode over a crowd. These can come with or without chemical payloads; each round has a different range, ranging from 50 to 300 meters. There are versions for 12-gauge shotguns as well.
\n\nAt least one manufacturer says that there should be a clear area of 5-6 feet around the site where a flash-bang will detonate; still, police regularly throw, fire, and roll these into crowds. While some are packed with rubber ball munitions, most are designed not to cause harm via impact. Yet they can maim or kill people, usually through burning. They’ve also been known to start fires, particularly when deployed indoors.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/4.jpg\")
Flash-bang grenades.
\nSince there is so little oversight and so little information available about the weapons that taxpayers pay for police to shoot us with, protestors have taken to documenting spent shell casings to see what is being fired at them. Collecting spent munitions can contribute to useful pattern analysis. Some cities have people who are willing to come pick up munitions for this purpose. If your city doesn’t have anyone pursuing this, consider taking it on yourself.
\n\nThe National Lawyers Guild is interested in knowing what people are being shot with; they are collecting information. So are we. Please contact us with photos and information.
\n\nPolice in Portland seem to be convinced—or are trying to convince people—that picking up spent munitions is a crime and they have threatened to fire more munitions at anyone caught doing it. They have not managed to figure out exactly what crime it is, and we are not currently aware of anyone facing charges for doing so.
\n\nPolice munitions are often found unexploded or unfired. It’s unclear to us if this is because these cartridges are firing without deploying properly, if they’re jamming the gun and being ejected unspent, or if police are simply dropping munitions on the ground by accident.
\n\nWhen opening a bag of spent munitions, it is possible to experience secondary effects from gas residue. Consider storing them double bagged in ziplock bags. Only handle them in open-air environments while wearing gloves and protective clothing.
\n\nThe police sometimes attempt to mark those participating in demonstrations or suspected of crimes in hopes of arresting them later. In some cases, they may simply use marking to frighten us by making us believe that they will come looking for us, in hopes of limiting what we choose to do in the streets. We know of far more times that the police have used marking than times that this marking was later used to identify people for arrest or was presented as evidence in court. We would love to hear from anyone with more information about marking, whether through experience or research.
\n\nThere are reports of police using pepper-ball rounds for marking at least as far back as the 2003 protests in Miami against the Free Trade Area of the Americas ministerial and the Iraq War protests of the same era.
\n\nWe’ve been able to identify at least seven means by which police mark people:
\n\nIt is probable that colored, visible dye is used as well. These are often paired with other effects, such as 12-gauge beanbag rounds loaded with florescent green powder or FN303 rounds that add paint or dye to impact weaponry. We have also received reports that police in Portland have shined green laser pointers from the rooftops to mark protestors as targets for impact weapons or arrest.
\n\nThere appears to be only one malodorant round on the market, the 40mm BIP Malodorant from Security Devices International, Inc. It is intended to mark people by smell and also to serve as a crowd deterrent. The smell was described by Fox News as “egg salad meets trash” and is said to disperse fairly quickly. None of us have heard of it being used at demonstrations.
\n\nMarking powder, paint, or dye can be applied via any means that chemicals are administered. Paintball guns, shotguns, and multi-launchers all have marking rounds available, and we’ve heard reports of police adding paint or dye to their water cannons.
\n\nWe have yet to find information on the exact makeup of the paint or dye commonly included in marking rounds. Some manufacturers divide their products into “washable,” “indelible,” and “UV” or into “powder” and “liquid.” Security Devices International, Inc., for example, claims that their liquid marking round leaves a “semi-permanent stain” that “remains on the target and clothing up to 24 hours.” The data sheet for that particular round refers to its contents as a proprietary blend of inert materials. Other companies are no more forthcoming.
\n\nThe easiest way to deal with a mark on your clothes that identifies you as a suspect is to get rid of the clothes. You should make this decision according to how important they are to you and what you fear you might be arrested for. A court case is usually more expensive than a windbreaker. You may also be able to leave an item of clothing somewhere—for example, in a bush or trash can—and come back later to see if you can recover it.
\n\nWashable paint and chalk should be the easiest to remove. It should wash off of skin with water, or soap and water and scrubbing. One way to remove water-based paint from clothes is to let the paint dry, then scrape off as much as you can with a butter knife or the back of a spoon; then hand-wash the item, passing warm water through the fabric from behind the stain, blotting it with a rag or paper towel; then mix half-detergent and half-water and rub that into the stain. Then rinse, and repeat the last step until the stain is gone or you are no longer drawing paint out of the clothes. In a worst-case scenario, try using small amounts of acetone (nail polish remover) or rubbing alcohol—but be advised, this might damage the item.
\n\nOil-based paint, which might be used in the “indelible” paint, can be removed from skin by mixing olive oil and dish soap, lathering up your skin, and rinsing it off, repeating as necessary. You can remove oil-based paint from clothes by putting your clothes inside out on a stack of rags or paper towels and then pouring turpentine or another paint thinner onto the fabric from behind the stain, blotting it with rags. Once no more paint comes out that way, rub dishwater detergent into the stain and then leave the clothing in hot, soapy water overnight. Rinse it thoroughly in the morning, then throw your clothes into a washing machine.
\n\nUV ink can also be removed from both skin and clothes. In some ways, it may be easier to clean than other inks because it doesn’t really dry except under UV light (we are unsure if the UV light in sunlight will cause it to dry). Most UV ink appears to be alcohol-soluble, so using rubbing alcohol or even hairspray should help remove it from skin. Other recommendations we have seen include washing with diluted bleach water or scrubbing your skin with an abrasive mixture of sugar and dishwashing liquid. Still other people maintain that hot soapy water and plenty of abrasion will do. You could try washing your clothes repeatedly in hot water, checking with a UV flashlight as you go.
\n\nThere are cheap, small flashlights available that come with both regular and UV LEDs. Usually, they are used by employees working door security to look for hand stamps—or by people who are checking their bedding for bedbugs.
\n\nThere’s paint, there’s invisible ink, and then there’s… DNA marking. Actually, there are two different things that are called DNA marking. The first is a chemical weapon, usually a spray, that contains a unique blend of different metals and other materials, acting as a sort of chemical fingerprint that can be identified later. This type of tagging uses the word DNA only as advertising jargon. Each can, or shipment of cans, might contain its own unique fingerprint, though we have not been able to confirm this.
\n\nThe other style of DNA marking uses DNA, literally. This DNA marking is a system that marks a target with synthetic DNA that can live on clothes or skin for several weeks. Both systems of DNA tagging work the same way: if someone is identified later by way of these tags, this can provide concrete evidence in court connecting them to potential criminal behavior.
\n\nThere is every reason to believe that police are using one or both of these methods, though it is hard to know which one and precisely when they are using it. The 40mm DNA Forensic Marking round, for example, made by Security Devices International, Inc, uses a “botanical encrypted taggant in water” which we believe refers to actual synthetic DNA.
\n\nAll the DNA marking materials that we’ve been able to find seem to be suspended in UV ink for dispersal, although we know of no reason that they would have to be.
\n\nAs of this writing, we have not heard of any arrests or court cases related to the 2020 uprising that involved DNA marking. Most after-the-fact felony arrests of protestors seem to hinge instead of livestream footage and social media posts. This does not mean that it is not in use or that it will not be used in the future.
\n\nOn Twitter, Minneapolis police have openly discussed using DNA marking spray, although they have not specifically claimed to have used it on protestors. It’s possible that they were conflating “UV marking” with “DNA tagging.”
\n\nSince all available evidence suggests that DNA marking is carried in a UV dye, it seems probable that it can be removed in a similar way as one goes about removing UV dye. Most manufacturers claim that the marking lasts for “days,” or “several washes,” although at least one claims it lasts for “weeks.”
\n\nOne manufacturer, Security Devices International (SDI), claims that it lasts 3-5 days on a person but 2-5 years on clothing.
\n\nRumors from Portland suggest that the synthetic DNA is degraded by UV light. Some people have suggested that any clothes that one might not want to destroy or throw away—for example, body armor—should be left in the sun for several hours, with someone turning them regularly to make sure all parts of the items are exposed. Sunlight is bad for the plastic polymers of armor, especially soft bulletproof vests, so this might not be recommended for some materials. People also suggest using alcohol or hydrogen peroxide to break the DNA tag down, but this might degrade the material as well, especially in the case of hydrogen peroxide.
\n\nIt all depends on how important it is to destroy the evidence that you were in a particular crowd at a particular time. Depending on the severity of the risk, you might replace all of your affected clothes and spend considerable time washing and exfoliating—or you could simply wash everything a couple times, take a few showers, and check yourself with a UV light.
\n\nPerhaps the first company to develop synthetic DNA marking for police use was SelectaDNA in the UK. SelectaDNA sells DNA spray, gel, and other devices directly to consumers for the purpose of home security. They also sell less-lethal .68 caliber air-powered weapons, a rifle and a pistol, to shoot DNA marking rounds at rioters. Both of these guns have an effective range of 30-40 meters and use 8-round magazines and a 20-round disposable CO2 cartridge. They are semi-automatic and can fire six rounds in a second. Each comes equipped with a camera. It’s unclear if the SelectaDNA pellets can be fired by other .68 caliber air guns.
\n\nEach pack of 16 pellets is uniquely coded. In theory, this means that police can do more than argue “this person was at the demonstration where we shot everyone with green paint, you can tell by the green paint”—they can claim “this is someone I shot with one of these 16 pellets, as registered on the timestamp of my rifle camera.”
\n\nThe synthetic strands of DNA are carried by a UV ink substrate. It can be detected on a suspect with a UV light or smelled by specially-trained dogs. Presumably, the dogs are smelling the UV ink, not the DNA itself.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2021/01/04/5.jpg\")
SelectaDNA has already caused controversy in the UK.
\nDefense Technology’s barricade rounds, called “Ferret” rounds, come in 12-gauge (with 2.5” shells), 37mm, and 40mm. The 12-gauge rounds have a velocity of 1000 fps and an effective range of 50-100 meters. The 37mm reputedly has a velocity of 450 fps an effective range of 50-200 yards (though we question this 200 yard claim—it seems like a typographical error). The 40mm variety has a velocity of 325 fps (liquid) or 375 fps (powder) and an effective range of 54 yards. ↩
\nOne chart we found compares a 22-inch barrel with a 28-inch barrel, noting that a round will fire at 1304 fps from the 22-inch and 1331 fps from the 28-inch, but this may not map to the difference in velocity of a beanbag round. ↩
\nThis guide details the kinds of batons that police use, how they employ them, what kind of damage they can do with them, and some of the ways that demonstrators have historically protected themselves against baton attacks.
\n\nThis is the fourth article in a series, following our guides to helmets, gas masks and goggles, and body armor. The contributors have spent countless hours gathering experience, data, and anecdotes and speaking to professionals in these fields. We will be updating this document on an ongoing basis as more information comes in. If you can offer suggestions or corrections, please contact us.
\n\nCops often hit people with batons. Looking at footage, you’d think that the prospect of doing so is what gets them out of bed in the morning. Historically, batons are the bread and butter of policing to such an extent that the baton is often referred to as the officer’s “badge of office”—though lately, Tasers have supplanted batons as their go-to weapon.
\n\nInstructional videos and pamphlets give the false impression that police are martial arts masters who carefully study all the ways to injure people with big wooden sticks. If you go to demonstrations, though, you generally see the same few moves over and over. They swing wildly at people they already have on the ground. They jab people with the end of the baton, often without provocation. They hit people with wild overhand swings, often in the head—although in theory, they’re not supposed to do that unless they’ve been authorized to employ lethal force. They put one hand on each end of the stick, hold it horizontally at chest level, and shove people back while grunting “move”—often regardless of whether the people they are shoving are able to move and regardless of whether they were already moving.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/justrinidad/status/1335660826363977728\n\n\n
Fundamentally, batons are compliance tools. They’re not specifically designed to kill or injure people, though they are capable of doing so. They are designed to hurt people in order to force them to comply with an officer’s command. Of course, police often continue to use them after a subject has complied, just to emphasize the power relation between the subject of the state and the mercenaries it employs.
\n\nNot everyone loves batons. Some officers don’t carry batons unless ordered to do so by their department. One ex-cop on YouTube points out that the overlap of the Venn diagram of “effectiveness” and “legality” is very small indeed. However, police are rarely held to any standard of legality. Batons are often the primary means by which police seek to control space in close quarters, especially against demonstrators.
\n\nDuring protests, police use batons to accomplish a wide range of tasks. There are baton charges in which large numbers of police charge, swinging and shoving, to disperse a crowd and incite fear. Officers use batons to clear a path for a snatch squad to enter a crowd to carry out arrests. Officers use batons to advance a police line, shoving people to keep them moving, often while pepper-spraying them for good measure. Officers use batons to injure people once they have them immobilized on the ground, out of pure vengefulness or cruelty.
\n\nThere is a misconception that batons are only used against individuals who are not complying with police orders. In fact, police employ them against anyone they suspect might hinder them from accomplishing whatever their goal is, regardless of whether the target is breaking any laws or failing to comply with their orders.
\n\nPolice use-of-force guidelines generally dictate that using a baton to strike major nerve centers on extremities is “intermediate force,” while striking someone on the head, neck, or clavicle is “deadly force.”
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/15/1.jpg\")
This is the cover illustration from a 1967 law enforcement training manual published by the FBI and the United States Department of Justice. This is how the authorities want police to see themselves.
\nWe’ll look at three types of batons: the fixed-length baton (or “straight stick,” including the riot baton), the collapsible baton, and the side-handled baton.
\n\nA riot baton is a style of “straight stick” baton. The most common example is 36” long and 1.25” in diameter, made of polycarbonate or hardwood—usually hickory, but sometimes cherry, ash, or another wood. Some police are adopting thicker sticks, such as a 1.5” diameter baton, to apply more force. If you hold a 1.25” baton and a 1.5” baton in your hands, the difference in weight and girth is greater than you might have anticipated.
\n\nThe thicker sticks are not inherently better weapons, but they are sturdier. We put sticks of both thicknesses into the hands of an experienced stick fighter, who was able to break the 1.25” baton against plywood shields but not the 1.5” batons. This person applied substantially more force than the average officer would be able to bring to bear.
\n\nWooden batons are either clear-coated or painted black. Polycarbonate sticks are black. Riot sticks come with a variety of grips, such as rings or grooves carved into one or both ends, or a crisscrossed “knurling” grip. Some of these grips are designed to offer better retention if the baton is pulled, while others are intended to offer better retention in the case of twisting motions. Most come with a simple leather thong for retention. A well-trained officer is supposed to hold the thong in such a way that he can let go if the stick is grabbed and pulled into a crowd, but many cops hold them incorrectly, in such a way that if the baton is pulled, the officer will come with it whether he wants to or not. Polycarbonate sticks deliver more impact than wooden sticks but are substantially more expensive. Some police complain that polycarbonate sticks can warp in the summer or shatter in the winter.
\n\nThe riot baton is used to strike people, jab people, and shove people. Broadly speaking, police use batons to strike people who are resistant or combative, while they use batons to shove people who are in their way, approach too closely, embarrass them, or look like they can be intimidated into leaving an area. They jab people for both of these purposes. In crowded environments, police are trained to fight with one hand on each end of the stick, for weapon retention.
\n\nOfficers think about weapon retention in crowd situations quite a bit. Their training focuses on this. They are afraid that someone might grab the baton and use it to control the officer.
\n\nIt would be hard to overstate the role of riot batons in intimidation. Police wield large sticks when they want to look scary; in some cases, they employ wooden batons to contrast with their uniforms, with the intention of inspiring fear. They hold them in two hands in police lines to look unapproachable. They use them unpredictably in order to keep people on edge.
\n\nThe chief difference between the riot baton and the traditional fixed-length baton is that the latter is 26” or shorter. Many departments employ tapered sticks for everyday use, with a wider striking surface at one end and a smaller, more controllable handle. These provide greater leverage for striking blows. Learning to distinguish between these types of batons can help demonstrators figure out what tactics police are considering: if they are wielding the longer riot batons, they expect to employ more violence.
\n\nMore and more police departments are using extendable batons as the everyday carry baton on their service belt. These batons are also called collapsible batons, or ASPs after the brand ASP. Extendable batons usually measure between 16”-31” with 16”, 21”, and 26” being the most common lengths. Most of them are made of steel, while some lighter-weight models use an aluminum alloy. The grip can be foam or plastic, or use some other texturing. Closed, they’re roughly the size and shape of a small lightsaber and they look a bit like one on a belt. Cops open them by flicking them and letting centrifugal force slide the segments into place. Most are held open by the friction of each steel segment against the next and can only be closed by slamming the tip onto concrete or some other hard surface. Some newer models have a push button lock that makes them easier to close and more effective for jabbing as well as swinging. One of the other reasons that police are moving to the push button lock is that a baton that is closed on concrete will quickly end up with a roughed up tip, which will occasionally cut those who are struck by the baton.
\n\nPolice complain about extendable batons breaking when they are used to beat people all day—at unruly demonstrations, for example—and many cops who make heavy use of their batons treat them as disposable. Police literature explicitly mentions the intimidation factor involved in opening an extendable baton as an advantage of the weapon.
\n\nExtendable batons are somewhat common for civilians interested in self-defense. We’ve seen them most commonly among those who are in violence-prone situations and prefer not to defend themselves with bladed weapons or firearms. Their legality varies from state to state.
\n\nThese are straight batons with a short handle protruding from the side about six inches up from the base. This is the Western adaptation of the tonfa, a Japanese weapon—though the tonfa wielder usually employs two of them. Side-handled batons are considered a more “defensive” weapon; they became common after the bad media exposure resulting from all the police violence against civil rights protestors in the 1960s.
\n\nCops can hold these batons by the side handle, so the length of the baton runs down the forearm to the elbow. This position is used for blocking blows and executing pain compliance holds. They can also hold them at the base, so the side handle serves as a sort of a hilt that could stop counter-strikes. Most famously, these batons were carried by the Los Angeles Police Department and employed in the widely viewed assault on Rodney King in 1991. That episode shows that this “defensive” baton is just another stick, used the way police have always used blunt impact weapons, and its reputation as “defensive” is just a matter of branding.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/15/4.jpg\")
A police officer employing a side-handled baton to attack demonstrators during the protests against the beating of Rodney King.
\nWhile side-handled batons are not designed to use the side handle as the point of impact, many of us have seen police hold them by the end opposite the handle and swing them like hammers. This concentrates more of the weapon’s force at a single point, inflicting worse injuries.
\n\nOver the past two decades, side-handled batons have fallen out of favor as the everyday carry batons for police in the United States, replaced by extendable batons. Many cops disagree with this transition; some still choose to carry their beloved “PR24”—a generic name for a side-handled baton named after the standard Monadnock PR-24 baton, which is 24 inches long and made of polycarbonate.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/15/2.jpg\")
Twenty-five years after the Rodney King uprising of 1992, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer fondles his side-handled baton as he recalls how police behavior contributed to the unrest.
\nWe have not found many studies on the lethality of police batons, but it’s no secret that hitting people in the head with sticks can often kill them. Most of the information we were able to find was published in the UK. This is not surprising: their police often do not carry firearms, instead injuring or killing people the old-fashioned way, by bludgeoning them.
\n\nAccording to one doctor, a large number of baton injuries are fractures of the forearm resulting when a person raises an arm to protect their face. Blows to the head and, to a lesser degree, the chest are far more dangerous than blows to limbs, however, as these can cause internal brain bleeding, concussions, and fractures.
\n\nBroken ribs are common in situations in which police are swinging from the side into the target’s torso. Some of us have seen people end up with fractured hands and wrists from trying to catch baton blows. Two-handed stabbing strikes targeting the diaphragm can cause loss of breath; combined with shock and stress, these can make people lose consciousness or vomit.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/15/3.jpg\")
\nTo avoid sustaining bludgeoning damage in melee range, you have three basic options.
\n\nPolice use violence for at least two purposes: to control space—dispersing us, herding us, preventing us from reaching our destination—and to subdue individuals. Sometimes, the simplest solution is to run away from a cop with a stick: to stay out of melee range by retreating. In other cases, the consequences of this approach are not worth it. You may not wish to abandon other demonstrators. You may not wish to abandon the objective that brought you out into the street in the first place. You may not wish to positively reinforce the assumption that all it takes to keep people in a condition of fearful servility is to brandish sticks at them every once in a while.
\n\nSo another way to stay out of melee range is to compel the police to retreat, or at least keep them from closing the ground between you. Historically, protestors have accomplished this by using projectiles of their own—bottles, rocks, paint bombs, and the like. This can be effective, but its efficacy and advisability is situational—it depends on the objectives of the police and the factors limiting what they can do. Police in the United States are better equipped and less likely to back down than police in many other countries, which is one of the reasons demonstrators rarely employ this strategy here unless the stakes are high. When everything is on the line, however, people sometimes summon up the courage to do unbelievable things.
\n\nAnother solution to this problem is to build barricades. To serve their purpose, barricades have to be suited to blocking the particular threat that they are intended to address; obstructing vehicles and hindering officers on foot are two very different objectives. Historically, some demonstrators have made barricades more difficult to pass or dismantle by setting fire to them; but once a barricade is burning, it will eventually consume itself, unless there is an unlimited supply of fuel. Common-sense fire safety measures apply; so may local laws. Even if it doesn’t impede foot traffic, the right kind of barricade might give officers something else to focus on, which is another way to keep them at a distance. As long as the situation is unpredictable and they have to keep an eye out in all directions for new developments, they may choose not to engage in a way that would leave their backs open.
\n\nThe second strategy is to prevent police from being able to see you clearly enough to hit you accurately. Protesters have employed shields, umbrellas, smoke bombs, and sometimes even fire extinguishers to this end. We’ve seen protestors carry banners that are so tall that they block the view of officers on the other side—though even if you add eyeholes, these will also prevent most protestors from seeing what the police are doing, too. Police hate not being able to see what’s going on; this can cause them to step back and regroup, but it can also provoke them to escalate senselessly. If they can’t see clearly, officers may simply strike at random—which may not be an improvement.
\n\nDecember 2020: Demonstrators in Portland employ a fire extinguisher and projectiles to compel the withdrawal of police who had arrived to carry out a violent eviction.
\nFinally, if nothing else serves, there is the possibility of protecting directly against baton blows. This usually involves armor, shields, mobile barricades, reinforced banners, or other barriers. Armor designed to protect against bludgeoning impact is generally designed with a “shell/soft” framework: a hard shell disperses the impact of the blow across a greater surface area, while soft padding absorbs that impact. Nowadays the shell is usually some kind of plastic, though steel was used traditionally and wood may serve in some cases; likewise, the soft layer is usually comprised of foam, though in the past, padded clothing might have served. If you are considering wearing any sort of armor, start by thinking about a helmet. The more normalized wearing helmets becomes, the harder it will be for police to target individuals for choosing to protect themselves.
\n\nHead injuries are serious business, and repeated concussions can be exponentially dangerous. Even if you feel all right after experiencing a head injury, the risk of sustaining subsequent blows to the head increases significantly. People in the streets who suffer a blow to the head should consider themselves at heightened risk for up to a week afterward; a second concussion following an unhealed first concussion can lead to death. Consider avoiding danger for a week.
\n\nSports armor is readily available from secondhand stores. By and large, it is designed for protecting against the same kind of impact police batons can inflict. Hockey and lacrosse pads are available used; they’re light, low-profile, and are designed to maximize mobility while protecting vital areas. Soccer shin guards can also serve as forearm guards. Being struck by a baton is never a good experience, but armor can mean the difference between a broken arm and a hairline fracture. Choose where to focus on protecting according to your threat model: knees are common targets for less-lethal munitions, groins are vulnerable areas, forearms are often used to block baton blows, the chest and abdomen are often vulnerable to jabs from batons or blows from impact munitions. The more you want to be able to stay on the front lines regardless of what happens, the more you should consider what kinds of armor will protect you.
\n\nHistorically, some movements have employed “padded bloc” techniques to defend crowds against police violence—building incredible costumes out of foam, inner tubes and other inflatable swim devices, and whatever other large soft things they can access. This severely limits individuals’ mobility, but it may hinder police from breaking up a crowd. It can also create striking optics. The most famous example of this approach is the Tute Bianche in Italy.
\n\nShields can be somewhat more flexible, tactically speaking. A person with a shield can often protect the people on either side of them as well. A group of people with shields can form a shield wall, which is much more effective than a lone shield.
\n\nMobile barricades are effectively multi-user shields carried by several people. These can be especially useful at the front, sides, or rear of a crowd to provide cover and prevent police from easily attacking or dispersing the participants. A simple example would be a large piece of plywood with multiple handles or a single long handle bar along the back. In a pinch, demonstrators have improvised mobile barricades out of ladders and other freely available objects—for example, at the 2010 protests against the Olympics in Vancouver. We’ve seen other mobile barricades constructed from see-through steel grating or roofing stretched across wooden frames. We’ve seen them with stands on the back so that they can stand freely on their own when set down.
\n\nTo make a reinforced banner, take a vinyl or fabric banner and line it with wood, plastic, or another hard material. Reinforcement is useful simply to make banners easier to carry, but they can also be used tactically to defend the edge of a crowd.
\n\nPVC pipe is easy to purchase, but breaks easily upon impact. As a means of reinforcing banners, it has repeatedly failed, perhaps most famously in Washington DC in 2005 during protests against the second inauguration of the second President George Bush. If you’re in a hurry, green bamboo may serve—it’s surprisingly light and flexible enough to be somewhat resilient against blows.
\n\nMind you, armor, helmets, shields, mobile barricades, reinforced banners, and other protective gear can make you stand out—and it’s rarely a good thing to stand out at a demonstration. There is no airtight protest scheme, no tactic that is guaranteed to work, no gear that solves every problem or is ideal for every situation. Think about what you want to accomplish and how the police might try to prevent you from accomplishing it. Be pragmatic. Mobility, speed, initiative, the element of surprise, and the sense to quit while you’re ahead will usually serve you better in the streets than any item of equipment could—so make sure your gear doesn’t impede or distract you from making the most of any of those.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/15/5.jpg\")
\nTo understand police tactics and mindsets, it can be helpful to peruse their training manuals:
\n\nOver the past four years, police and fascist violence against demonstrators has escalated around the United States, with well over a dozen demonstrators murdered in 2020 alone. This is not the consequence of Trump’s presidency, but the result of intensifying social pressures that will not be relieved by another politician taking office. Unfortunately, ceding the streets to fascists and police will ultimately only increase the dangers to all of us. By taking the proper precautions, we can mitigate the risks while continuing to take action to build a better world. This guide reviews a wide range of protective gear, exploring the advantages and disadvantages of each so you can pick out what’s best for you. The life you save could be your own.
\n\nThis is the third article in a series, following our guides to helmets and to gas masks and goggles. The contributors have spent countless hours gathering experience, data, and anecdotes and speaking to professionals in these fields. We will be updating this document on an ongoing basis as more information comes in. If you can offer suggestions or corrections, please contact us.
\n\nWe’re going to focus on three styles of armor: sports armor, for mitigating impact weapons like bean bag rounds and batons; soft ballistic armor, or “bulletproof vests,” which defend against handguns; and plate carriers, which are designed to protect your vital organs from rifle fire.
\n\nOur threat models—the risks we are seeking to protect against—are changing constantly. A few years ago, protest armor was intended to protect against Nazis with knives and sticks. At the beginning of the George Floyd uprising in the US, the chief threat model involved police using various impact weapons. By the end of summer 2020, police were still shooting baton rounds and pepper-balls, but fascists shooting live ammunition had become a more pressing issue.
\n\nAll armor involves pros and cons. Most armor reduces mobility, which is one of our primary advantages against police who are weighed down by both bureaucratic command structures and heavy gear. Most armor makes us stand out, rendering arrival and departure more difficult. Some armor incurs the risk of legal penalties. Being the only person wearing armor is often a bad idea unless it can be concealed. Still, normalizing wearing armor can make it easier for others to do so, and the more people do, the safer we all will be—both from direct attacks and from police efforts to target us for protecting our bodies.
\n\nWhich kind of armor is appropriate will vary from one situation to the next. In many situations—for example, when speed or optics is paramount—it may still be best not to wear armor.
\n\nArmor can easily give the wearer a false sense of security. Shortly before we published this, there was yet another incident in which a fascist shot a counter-protester; the survivor was wearing body armor, but the bullet entered their body at a point that was unprotected. No one is invincible, no matter what they wear.
\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/mollyjsmith1/status/1287568008173371397\n\n\n
If you want to protect yourself primarily against batons and other police impact weapons, get a skateboard helmet, some hard-shelled knee pads, some children’s shin guards to wear on your forearms, and possibly motocross chest armor or a plastic fencing breastplate. If you want to add more protection, consider a shield, full leg armor, and a HEMA gorget—plastic or padded neck armor for people who fight with swords for sport. A guide to shields will appear later in this series.
\n\nIf you want to wear something that protects you against handguns, get a wraparound IIIA vest, either from the leftist armorer Red Star Defense or from eBay. If you are buying from eBay, consider purchasing a surplus vest to save money. If you’re worried about knives, pay a bit more for a vest with stab resistance.
\n\nIf you want to protect yourself from rifle rounds, get a plate carrier and a pair of III+ ceramic plates from Red Star Defense or elsewhere. This is heavy and harder to conceal.
\n\nNot all that long ago, the chief threat that many demonstrators faced in the United States and Europe was the blunt impact of police batons. In response, some demonstrators—notably the Tute Bianche in Italy—took to wearing helmets and padding and reinforcing massive inflatable inner tubes and other flotation devices to protect their bodies from the fists and clubs of the police. Some demonstrators in the United States embraced these tactics, which came to be known as “padded bloc.” A widely distributed zine, Bodyhammer, explored helmets, body armor, shields and shield walls, and an array of defensive tactics and formations in this vein.
\n\nToday’s demonstrators still stand to learn a lot from the tactics developed at that time, especially where they can be deployed in contexts where there is little threat of lethal violence or fascist attacks. Essentially, padded bloc tactics are most effective as a sort of militant civil disobedience aimed at slowing or inconveniencing an adversary who is not prepared to escalate to potentially lethal force. They are more useful for distracting and delaying than for winning offensive victories, but they can play a valuable part in a larger ecosystem of interlocking tactics and strategies.
\n\nIn this guide, we will focus chiefly on forms of armor that can protect against knives and guns, in order to expand the range of options at the disposal of the modern protester.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/26.jpg\")
Anti-capitalist demonstrators opposing the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy in 2001.
\nDemonstrators from around Europe opposing the summit of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Prague in the year 2000—including some employing the tactics of the Tute Bianche.
\nWe’re not lawyers. You should do your own research.
\n\nIn the USA, it is federally prohibited for violent felons to own or wear armor designed to protect against bullets (referred to herein as “body armor”), except by special dispensation from an employer.
\n\nIn addition to the federal law, each US state has its own laws regulating armor. In most states, it is illegal to wear body armor while committing a crime; being caught doing so could occasion additional charges. In Kansas, wearing body armor is prohibited at demonstrations, too. In Connecticut, you cannot have it shipped to your home. We have yet to obtain a solid answer regarding whether minors can own or wear body armor.
\n\nThe legality of body armor varies widely from country to country. In some provinces in Canada and some territories in Australia, you need authorization or a license to wear it. The UK seems to have no laws restricting civilian use of body armor. The European Union bans body armor that is for “main military usage,” but this implies that certain forms of body armor are legal. It appears that body armor is legal in Japan and Hong Kong but prohibited in Argentina, Brazil, and Thailand. If you can share information about the laws in your country, please contact us.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/16.jpg\")
Motocross armor.
\nAs of this writing, ballistic armor is hard to come by. The deepening political crisis has all sides scrambling to protect themselves; most retailers of both soft armor and hard armor are reporting delays on orders of at least two months. This makes it difficult to recommend specific products or retailers. We suggest learning about what you need and keeping an eye out for deals—or even just for notifications that a product is in stock.
\n\nAt the same time, as the crisis appears to be deepening, it’s probably worth ordering now rather than waiting.
\n\nWe know of one left-wing armorer, Red Star Defense. They manufacture their own ceramic III+ plates for a good price—currently $300 a pair—and retail IIIA soft vests for a very good price ($225), as well as selling plate carriers and tactical gloves cheaper than you can find elsewhere. They currently have a 4 to 8 week lag on armor orders. We recommend Red Star Defense because their goal is not profit but to protect the bodies of working-class revolutionaries.
\n\nMost body armor retailers aim at some combination of three markets: police and military personnel, right-wing paramilitaries, and private security (and, by extension, those involved in illegal capitalism). A few retailers also focus on protecting civilians and schoolchildren, promoting “bulletproof backpacks” and similar products that cash in on rampant gun violence in the United States.
\n\nThe best market we’ve found so far for fast-turnaround body armor orders is eBay. New IIIA vests can be sourced from the UK and Canada ready to be shipped; surplus vests from the US should ship quickly as well, though the stock of those varies. Most surplus vests are surplus Kevlar inserts placed within new vests.
\n\nOpinions vary about surplus vests, but for the most part, they are considered acceptable. Because Kevlar degrades from UV exposure, it comes with an expiration date—usually five years from manufacture. Police departments replace their gear after five years. But the armor remains effective long after—in every test we’ve seen, expired Kevlar vests continue to defend against all the threats they were rated to protect against. It’s impossible to recommend using expired vests, because there’s no way to guarantee their safety—but used vests perform favorably and are substantially cheaper than new vests. In addition, ironically, retailers of police surplus vests tend to be the retailers who least aim their sales at right-wing and police markets.
\n\nYou can purchase vests, especially surplus vests, in person at army surplus stores. We have heard from people who negotiated good deals for bulk vest orders by sending one person—whoever is likely to be most agreeable to the owners—into a store with cash in hand, ready to purchase.
\n\nThere is also a market for body armor on Armslist, which is like Craigslist but for guns. It appears that some enterprising folks, anticipating the current crisis, have stockpiled a lot of gear and are selling it directly. There are reportedly a lot of scammers on the site; if you’re purchasing anything online, it’s best to pay with a service that offers buyer protection, like PayPal, rather than through Venmo, which does not. If the seller doesn’t want to pay for buyer protection, that itself is a red flag.
\n\nThere are rumors that people using ArmsList have been set up for robberies. Consider meeting in a well-lit, public place during the day and bringing someone with you, especially someone who can legally conceal a firearm. You may wish to make sure that your clothing and vehicle do not give away your politics or other details about you. If you are purchasing with cash, pay only after you have obtained the item. When possible, buy from verified commercial sellers vetted by ArmsList.
\n\nSports armor remains readily available. You can often acquire it secondhand for very cheap, although COVID-19 has made it more difficult to obtain it cheaply at yard sales and secondhand stores. You may be able to find quality knee and elbow pads at gun shows, as decommissioned military gear from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is flooding the market and driving down prices.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/1.jpg\")
A level IIIa vest.
\nSports armor offers a cheap and reasonably effective way to protect yourself from impact weapons, police batons, and, to some degree, knives. It offers no protection from gunfire. You can usually source it secondhand; much of it can be concealed under clothing. It will probably look better in court than ballistic armor. It’s legal for more people to wear it—it is less likely to occasion additional charges if you are arrested the way ballistic armor can. In the few instances we’re aware of in which people received “possession of criminal tools” charges for wearing padding, the charges were ultimately dropped.
\n\nThe fundamental principle of sports armor is the “shell/soft” model of protection. A hard external shell (usually plastic) takes the impact of a weapon, preventing penetration and dispersing the force of that impact over a broad surface area. Beneath the shell, soft padding absorbs the impact. Effective armor requires both of these parts. Steel medieval armor, for example, relied on a thick layer of quilted cloth to reduce the impact of the blows. Some modern sports armor lacks a hard shell, including padded shirts and pants and boxing helmets; these are less appropriate for our purposes.
\n\nWhile ballistic armor is designed to protect your vital organs from gunfire, sports armor is designed to protect more of your body—for example, your shoulders, forearms, or joints, depending on the armor. Against police impact weapons, this can be crucial. Police are trained to aim most impact weapons at the navel or below; they often specifically target knees or limbs. Yet they also regularly shoot people directly in the chest, back, or head with impact weapons, and jab batons into the chest or abdomen or else swing at people’s backs or heads.
\n\nThe top priority is to protect your head. After that, you can consider kneepads, as impacts to the knee are more disabling than strikes to much of the rest of your body. When impact munitions kill people, it is usually because they strike a person in the head or chest; chest injuries can break a rib, which can puncture a lung or heart. This is very rare, but protecting your chest isn’t a bad idea. Some people who anticipate close encounters with club-wielding attackers—such as far right demonstrators or police—also wear forearm guards, often repurposing youth shin guards. These can be used to block blows from a stick or a baton, although such guards hardly guarantee safety.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/10.jpg\")
Fencing chest protection.
\nIt is possible to make your own effective armor, although secondhand sports equipment is often available so cheaply as to render this unnecessary. When making do-it-yourself gear, make sure it follows the shell/soft model. For the shell, plastic is the lightest and generally best, but sheet metal can also work—as can rubber, wood, or even thick magazines. We know one protestor who wears forearm guards made out of old license plates. While not particularly rigid, orange road cone material is better than nothing and often readily available. You can repurpose the plastic of barrels or buckets in a number of ways. We’ve come across one particularly promising method of creating simple breastplates from 5-gallon buckets that we’re excited to try, though for our purposes it would require foam padding on the back.
\n\nFor the “soft” in your shell/soft armor, closed-cell foam is usually the best thing. Yoga mat material is often cheap and effective. The blue foam from the $5 camping mats from WalMart is considered cheap and good by people who make their own sports gear. Even packing foam can work. Try attaching it with spray adhesive or, better, contact cement.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/6.jpg\")
Blue foam mat.
\nSome people have used the following method to make custom armor for free. Recover mattresses and 5-gallon buckets from the trash; cut the buckets into strips roughly matching the part of the body to be covered (thighs, shins, arms, and so on) and put the strips into an oven at low temperature. Don’t melt the plastic—just soften it a bit. Some people prefer to use scavenged ovens for this purpose rather than an oven they use to cook food. Meanwhile, rip foam out of the mattresses and tape that temporarily over the part of your body part to be covered. Take the plastic out of the oven and mold it over the foam; once it has cooled, use spray glue or contact cement to attach the foam to the inside of the plastic.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/8.jpg\")
Contact cement.
\nIn our experiments with making DIY plastic knife-resistant armor, we discovered that any hard plastic plate will be substantially slash-resistant, but that armor requires fairly thick plastic to be stab-proof. One of our testers was not able to get a knife through most sheet plastic, but another tester was able to get a knife through almost every piece of plastic we put in front of them. Still, most stabs in a tumultuous brawl will not be full force and a hard plastic layer will provide substantial resistance even if it is not knife-proof. This degree of protection might still be the difference between a painful cut and a punctured organ. We have yet to test sports armor specifically against knives and impact weapons.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/9.jpg\")
Cut-resistant sleeves.
\nMedieval armor was generally designed according to the same principle as modern sports armor: a hard shell backed by padding. Those who wear medieval armor for sport today have done a lot of work updating medieval armor for modern purposes. Most of this can be adapted to protest use.
\n\nSteel armor tends to weigh more than plastic armor; its primary advantage over plastic armor is cut and slash resistance. This is less important to demonstrators who are looking to protect themselves from blunt impact.
\n\nTwo modern groups that wear and understand medieval armor are the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) and those who study Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA). Both tend to wear a combination of steel and plastic armor, but the SCA in particular has developed DIY plastic armor designed to protect all parts of the human body. Their designs are likely to be effective for demonstrators.
\n\nWe cannot recommend steel for helmets, as the impact munitions police use deliver far more force than hand weapons do and deformation (denting) of steel helmets could endanger the wearer. We have researched this hypothesis, but have yet to test it.
\n\nMedieval armor makes for interesting optics. If you wear it overtly, it is bound to attract attention. Of course, both historically and in the modern era, armor has often been designed to look like clothing or be worn beneath it. The idea that people used to run around in shiny tin cans is largely ahistorical.
\n\nMedieval armor is not bulletproof—nor even particularly bullet resistant. To withstand bullets effectively, steel must be at least 1/4” thick and composed of an almost unworkably hard alloy.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/27.jpg\")
A demonstrator expressing opposition to the courts extending de facto impunity to murderer and former St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley on September 17, 2017, in St. Louis.
\nSoft armor vests are lightweight, concealable, effective against handgun rounds, and variably effective against knives. Ideally, you want a vest rated IIIA, although level II vests are often more available in surplus and are better than nothing. Level II protects against the average 9mm round—the most common handgun round in the US—but not against the “self-defense” 9mm rounds that gun enthusiasts commonly use. Vests can easily be very expensive (some can be had new for $250 or so, but most are $400+). Used or surplus vests (which are still usually $200+) might offer less protection than new ones, although this is both debatable and difficult to test with any given vest. Soft armor probably offers the best balance of protection, weight, and concealability for most demonstrators who are concerned about handgun fire.
\n\nSoft armor employs many layers of strong plastic fabric. Each layer absorbs more and more of the ballistic energy of the bullet until eventually it becomes caught in the fabric itself.
\n\nMost soft vests use Kevlar (a brand name for aramid fibers, a type of plastic fiber), but Dyneema and Spectra (brand names for UHMWPE, another type of plastic fiber) are a newer and stronger material that is becoming more common in various types of armor.
\n\nThis principle has been used in armor for millennia. The medieval gambeson was a quilted fabric made of many layers of linen; while those who could afford to do so wore it under other armor, some combatants—such as peasants in revolt—wore it alone. It was particularly effective against arrows, as layered fabric is specifically good at stopping penetration.
\n\nWhen you choose a soft vest, you must choose between a “wraparound” vest, which has large protective inserts that protect your sides as well as your front and back, and a vest that only protects you from the front or back—functioning almost identically to a plate carrier, except with soft fabric armor in place of the plates. Wraparound vests are preferable in almost every way except price—most of the cheapest IIIA armor only protects your front and back.
\n\nLike plate carriers, soft vests often come in both “covert” and “overt” styles [see below]. But since one of the primary advantages soft vests have over plate carriers is that they can be concealed, there seems to be little reason to consider an overt soft vest.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/14.jpg\")
A IIIa wraparound vest liner.
\nSoft vests come in two different types of plastic fibers: aramid and UHMWPE. You can’t go wrong with either one. Aramid fibers (like Kevlar) are a slightly older technology; they are heavier for the same level of protection. UHMWPE fibers (like Dyneema) are fancier, newer, lighter, more UV resistant, and less resistant to temperature changes—this means they are less capable of stopping a “contact” shot, when a gun is held directly against the vest, as the fibers can melt. There is some debate about whether this is a significant problem.
\n\nAramid fibers are the most common type of plastic used in bulletproof vests. The most popular brand is Kevlar, made by Dupont. Aramid fibers were the first plastics strong enough to make into ballistic armor. One other brand of aramid fiber used in armor is Teijin Aramid (previously known as Twaron).
\n\nAramid fibers break down from UV exposure. The outer shell of a bulletproof vest generally protects them from this.
\n\nUltra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE, sometimes simply called PE) is a plastic fiber that is increasingly common for armor of all types. Soft vests are made of layered fabric; hard plates are often backed with it or made entirely from it; modern military helmets are made from it instead of aramid fibers. It is stronger by weight than aramid fibers, so that armor can be made slightly thinner and lighter.
\n\nThe two most common brand names of UHMWPE fiber used in armor are Dyneema (made by DSM) and Spectra (made by Honeywell).
\n\nWhile UHMWPE is not inherently UV resistant, it can be made so reasonably easily and Dyneema is considered substantially more UV stable than Kevlar. We have not been able to find comparable information about Spectra besides the fact that it is advertised as more UV resistant than many other fibers, presumably including aramid).
\n\nUHMWPE has a much lower melting point than aramid; some speculate that it degrades from heat as a result. We found footage of one manufacturer lighting their vests on fire for a full minute, then testing them and finding that they continued to stop bullets. The same manufacturer also tests contact shots against their vests, although we don’t know whether all UHMWPE vests would produce the same results.
\n\nIn any case, it is generally unadvised to leave any soft vest containing UHMWPE in any environment that might exceed 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and they are still considered more vulnerable to contact shots than aramid fiber vests.
\n\nPlate carriers are practically the only game in town if you are looking to protect yourself from rifles. For a plate carrier, you need two things: the carrier—a fabric vest with sleeves to hold hard plates—and the plates. Generally, you want plates rated III+, ideally ceramic or a combination of ceramic and PE (polyethylene, usually the UHMWPE mentioned above). Side plates are likely overkill and needless weight and expense, as are level IV plates, the most protective armor. Hard plates are ostensibly more knife-proof than other forms of armor, but an overt plate carrier is so obvious that a determined attacker would simply aim where you aren’t protected.
\n\nPlate carriers are only designed to protect the most vital areas of your chest, an area sometimes referred to as the “kill box.” Most shooters are trained to aim for “center body mass” because it presents the largest target and offers the most vulnerabilities. With the exception of head wounds, wounds elsewhere on the body are less likely to kill you, so most armor systems do not prioritize preventing them.
\n\nPlate carriers come in “covert” and “overt” models just as soft vests do, with covert ones designed to be worn beneath clothing and overt ones designed to be worn over it.
\n\nIt’s considered good form to pick your plates first and then match your carrier to them, though you can do it in the opposite order as well.
\n\nThere are several things to consider regarding plates, including composition, size, cut, and curves.
\n\nPlates comprise a range of things that stop bullets. We’ll cover soft plates, steel plates, ceramic plates, and PE plates.
\n\nSoft plates are made of layers of the ballistic fabric discussed above in the section on bulletproof vests. If you’re looking for modularity, you could keep a pair of soft plates that you can insert into your plate carrier instead of hard plates when you want a lighter armor. Advantages: light, flexible. Disadvantages: poor protection.
\n\nSteel plates are the most common, but are going out of style. Steel plates are slabs of steel, about .25” thick. The most common alloy of steel is AR500, a particularly hard steel. It’s used primarily for armor, plow blades, construction and mining gear, and the like. Steel plates are easily 8 or 9 pounds apiece. (There is also an armor manufacturer called AR500; they make armor of all types, confusing matters.)
\n\nSteel plates are less popular now that ceramic plates are becoming more affordable. Steel plates are substantially heavier. When struck at an angle, they can cause bullets to ricochet, and they’re capable of causing “spalling,” in which tiny shreds of steel go flying. Vertical spalling is the chief concern, as that can go up toward your face.
\n\nThe only steel plates worth considering come with a buildup of “spall coating,” which is usually the same stuff that truck bed liners are made of (such as the spray-on Rhino Liner), though we believe that some manufacturers use fiberglass sleeves instead. Many manufacturers come with options regarding how thick you want your spall coating to be. A thick (“build up”) coating is more important for the front plate than the back plate. Spall coatings will usually protect the wearer from two or three hits before there is more vertical spalling.
\n\nNow that ceramic plates are affordable, the main advantage of steel plates is that they are thinner than ceramic ones and more capable of handling more rounds at the same point of impact.
\n\nCeramic plates are sometimes called composite plates because they are not usually made entirely of ceramic. They work by breaking down upon impact, absorbing most of the force of the bullet, which is then stopped by a second layer. Once, this second layer was usually composed of steel, but nowadays polyethylene is most common. Ceramic plates are generally between five and six pounds and .75” to 1” thick; the cheaper plates tend to be thicker and heavier.
\n\nIn order of increasing cost and efficacy, the three most common types of ceramic are Alumina, Silicon Carbide, and Boron Carbide. Alumina has to be thicker and heavier to offer the same amount of protection as Boron Carbide, but is substantially cheaper. It might be better to buy multiple sets of Alumina plates to distribute to friends than a single fancy lightweight set of plates that only you can wear, although thinner plates are more concealable.
\n\nThere are fears that ceramic plates might degrade from rough handling, but current opinion is that this concern is overblown.
\n\nOne danger with ceramic plates is that to save cost and weight, most manufacturers use foam rather than ceramic along the edge of the plate. This is usually mentioned in the item description. One plate we handled had a full inch of foam around the edge—reducing an ostensibly 10x12” plate to dimensions of 8x10” in full effectiveness—although the PE runs edge to edge beneath the ceramic and it’s generally considered to be IIIA rated (enough to stop handgun rounds) on its own. Red Star Defense advertises “edge to edge” ballistic ceramic.
\n\nWe recommend ceramic plates because they are substantially lighter and don’t have issues with spalling. However, they will not survive as many shots as steel armor, and because they are less rigid, they are more prone to backface deformation (denting), which transfers more of the force of impact to the wearer. You can mitigate this danger by using trauma pads, which are essentially just extra padding.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/7.jpg\")
A ceramic plate after multiple impacts.
\nPE (polyethylene) plates are plates made entirely of UHMWPE. As with soft armor, it relies on multiple thin layers. Unlike soft armor, the layers are heat-laminated together. When a bullet strikes the plate, it breaks apart each layer one at a time, and this delamination absorbs force each time. Because this process can cause a fair amount of back deformation, most PE plates are backed by a layer of foam.
\n\nPE plates are substantially lighter than other hard plates—often less than three pounds. They’re also buoyant in water. But they are much thicker (1-1.25”) and therefore less concealable. Most importantly, we have not been able to source any plate rated higher than level III—it seems that armor-penetrating rounds cut right through the plastic layers. Because the AR-15 is the most common rifle threat in the United States and some available AR-15 ammunition options can penetrate level III plates, we cannot recommend them for safety.
\n\nAny hard armor containing PE, such as ceramic or standalone PE, should not be exposed to temperatures above 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/23.jpg\")
UHMWPE plates.
\nRoughly speaking, a plate should protect you from your collarbone down to a few inches above your navel and from nipple to nipple.
\n\nTo make everything as confusing as possible, there are two different sizing standards in use in the USA. We’ll call them civilian and SAPI.
\n\nCivilian plates, which are what we are most likely to encounter, are available in 8x10”, 10x12”, and 11x14” dimensions. The 10x12” size is the most common.
\n\nSAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) is the military acronym for protective plates. SAPI plates come in a very specific cut (the SAPI cut), but in five different sizes: extra-small (7.25x11.5”), small (8.75x11.75”), medium (9.5x12”), large (10.25x13.25”), and extra-large (11x14”).
\n\nThe best way to size a plate is to measure your body, then choose the plate size that closest fits you. Of course, you may not have access to all the possible sizes.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/11.jpg\")
A full cut plate.
\nPlates come in a number of different shapes: full cut, SAPI, shooter’s, and swimmer’s. The differences between these are minor, and each cut (besides SAPI, a military standard) differs from manufacturer to manufacturer. While most plates are sold in pairs, many people mix and match, with a regular SAPI cut back plate and a deeper shooter’s or swimmer’s cut front plate.
\n\nFull cut plates are essentially rectangles with the corners rounded off. They are not common but can be used for side plates or back plates. They may not fit in many carriers.
\n\nSAPI plates are the standard military hard plates. They have a nearly-45 degree angle cut from each part of the top. SAPI plates work well and offer a good deal of coverage. Actual military SAPI plates are not sold directly to the public, but manufacturers sell plates in “SAPI cut.”
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/20.jpg\")
Sapi plates, shooter’s cut.
\nShooter’s cut plates are similar to SAPI plates but have slightly more of a cut away at the corners. Some manufacturers sell right-handed or left-handed plates and further accentuate the cut on the dominant arm for better mobility.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/21.jpg\")
Shooter’s cut steel plate.
\nSwimmer’s cut plates have substantially deeper cuts away from the top corners, forming a vaguely teardrop shape. This sacrifices protection for mobility. Some people with breasts or other curves find a swimmer’s cut most comfortable.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/22.jpg\")
Swimmer’s cut steel plate.
\nPlates can come in three different curve styles: flat, single curve, and multi-curve. Once again, each brand has its own interpretation of each of these.
\n\nFlat plates are just that—flat. Most people don’t like flat plates, though some people wear them, especially on the back. Sometimes flat plates are cheaper.
\n\nSingle curve plates are the most common. These are curved on the vertical axis to better wrap around your torso.
\n\nMulti-curve plates curve in multiple ways to better fit what the manufacturer believes to be their average customer’s body. These are generally preferable, especially for people with breasts or other curves. They’re often more expensive. Not all manufacturers offer this option.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/17.jpg\")
A multi-curve plate.
\nMost plates we’ve discussed are Stand Alone (SA or STA) plates. These plates are designed to perform at their rated level by themselves.
\n\nIt’s also possible to get In Conjunction With (ICW) plates. These are generally thinner and lighter but only perform at their rated level when worn in conjunction with a IIIA soft vest.
\n\nThe modularity of the latter system has a lot to recommend it, but you will have to source a bulletproof soft vest with plate inserts (which are often more expensive) or else wear a plate carrier over your vest. ICW plates are harder to come across. The whole system is likely to be more expensive.
\n\nThis style used to be the more popular military style, as it offers more protection, but current trends favor mobility over protection, and military forces seem to be shifting towards standalone plates.
\n\nWhen you buy armor, you might encounter “trauma pads.” This phrase actually has two different meanings. Before standalone plate carriers, In Conjunction With plates were called “trauma plates” and were inserted into sleeves on bulletproof vests to increase their ballistic rating. Now, however, “trauma pads” are usually non-ballistic foam inserts you put behind your hard plates in order to soften the blunt force trauma of an impact.
\n\nThe value of trauma pads is hotly debated. They seem to be more important for ceramic plates than steel plates. It’s also increasingly popular for people to make do-it-yourself trauma pads out of yoga mat foam.
\n\nWe don’t have enough information to come down hard on either side of this debate, but it might be worth getting or making trauma pads, especially if you have ceramic plates. It can’t hurt, and some people wear them just because they make the armor more comfortable, although they do add expense and thickness.
\n\nIt is possible to make DIY armor plates. It’s probably only worth doing as a last resort. YouTube is a magical wonderland full of people testing various DIY forms of body armor. Some are easy to make; others are labor intensive. Some are affordable; others are expensive. We have not personally tested DIY ballistic armor and cannot recommend it, but there are situations in which armor is needed and not commercially available.
\n\nWe’ve seen two common methods. The first involves laminating lots and lots of layers of Kevlar (better) or fiberglass (cheaper) with resin. This is labor intensive and not necessarily cheap, but it makes it possible to form the plates into various shapes. There are arguments about what kinds of resin work best; some people argue convincingly that using less resin enables the layers to delaminate upon impact and absorb more force.
\n\nThe second method, which is substantially simpler and often cheaper, involves layering ceramic floor tiles—using the hardest ones available—with various thicknesses of steel and rubber. This method seems to make stronger armor that is less subject to back deformation. Some people argue that ceramic mosaic tiles offer better multi-hit capability, while others say that single larger tiles absorb impact better. It’s possible that aluminum oxide ceramic panels can be sourced from commercial manufacturers, possibly from China.
\n\nSome people combine these various methods in various ways.
\n\nOne person made a thick, light plate out of DIY recycled HDPE from milk jugs that seemed to be roughly level 2 or 3A.
\n\nAnother person proved that thick slabs of non-laminated UHMWPE don’t do any good as armor.
\n\nThe cheapest and strangest DIY plate we’ve seen is a $12 plate made from items from the dollar store: baking pans full of rocks and glue with a hardcover book as spall protection. This stopped some rifle rounds but not many.
\n\nOne person we spoke to has had some success cutting steel plates from suitably strong and thick steel found in scrapyards. Steel that is too hard will shatter upon impact; steel that is too soft will allow penetration—and if bullets do pass through, they might leave additional jagged bits of metal. If you’re going to take this approach, it is absolutely crucial to get enough extra material to test these plates. You can cut the plates to the desired shape with an angle grinder. DIY steel plates should absolutely be backed with trauma pads.
\n\nIf you possibly can, you should get well-engineered, properly tested gear. Failing that, you had better carry out your own thorough tests on the gear you make yourself. One person who does so described the process thus:
\n\n1) Extensively research core concepts involved in the project, to understand considerations, potential points of failure, and potential reasons for failure.\n2) Develop a minimal viable product standard that you hope to accomplish.\n3) Determine the most basic test conditions possible, with as many variables eliminated as possible.\n4) Develop initial prototype.\n5) Test initial prototype.\n6) Disassemble prototype to determine what worked and what failed, and to determine cause of failure.\n7) Build next prototype with knowledge gained from testing.\n8) Repeat.\n9) Once you achieve a minimal viable product standard, start testing under increasingly harsh conditions—different temperatures, using different rounds, and so on—to determine resiliency and point of failure.
\n\nFor a project like this, make sure you have access to a workshop and someone who knows how to use the necessary tools safely and effectively. The proper tools will make production and testing faster; they can also help ensure standardized outcomes.
\n\nMany vendors will sell you the carrier and plates as a set, in which case you’re ready to go. Otherwise, you’ll have to pick a carrier for your plates. Be careful to pick a plate carrier that accepts the specific size and cut of the plates you plan to wear.
\n\nPlate carriers generally consist of two parts: the vest itself, which goes on over your head, and a cummerbund—a velcro belt that connects the front and back panels at your side.
\n\nPlate carriers come in two primary styles, covert and overt.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/19.jpg\")
The Slickster, a popular plate carrier.
\nCovert carriers are designed to offer the option of wearing them under other clothing. They don’t tend to come with as many pouches and loops and other tactical loadout options. For protestors, covert carriers are likely the best option. A black covert carrier under loose-fitting black clothing is unlikely to be noticed as body armor, especially in the dark or in a crowd.
\n\nThis has several advantages. First and perhaps foremost, police are less likely to tag you as a troublemaker and target you for arrest or other violence. Just as importantly, armed attackers may be less likely to target you. With firearms, one of the primary arguments for concealed carry is that a trained attacker will target known threats first. Basically, if someone walks into a store and starts shooting, they are likely to target anyone they see carrying a gun first. The same principle applies to armor: a shooter is substantially more likely to consider someone wearing armor to be a threat, and therefore to aim at them first. Furthermore, if a shooter knows you are wearing armor, they might intentionally shoot you somewhere other than where you are protected. Overt plate carriers are designed with soldiers in mind, whereas “operators” (spec-ops) are more likely to wear covert vests for the aforementioned reasons.
\n\nYou can wear covert vests modularly, with the option to swap in additional pouches and cummerbunds to switch the carrier to overt.
\n\nUnfortunately, the cheaper ceramic plates tend to be so thick that it is substantially harder to wear them covertly. If covertness is your top priority, consider saving up for more expensive, thinner ceramic plates. Although we cannot currently recommend steel plates, those are thinner as well.
\n\nBy comparison, overt carriers are designed to be worn as the outermost layer and to function as a platform from which to hang gear. Traditionally, this means guns, magazines, communications equipment, first aid supplies, and whatever else a soldier needs for their purposes. We’re not soldiers, we’re protestors.
\n\nOvert vests still have a place, of course, for some people and some purposes. They convey militancy and preparedness and they normalize the use of armor. Overt vests in bright colors are often worn by first responders and others who need to protect themselves but are trying to identify themselves as noncombatants.
\n\nPlus, the ability to hang gear off a carrier is convenient for many purposes, such as radio communications and serving as a street medic.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/18.jpg\")
An overt plate carrier.
\nMilitary and tactical gear is often easily identified by the loops of webbing sewn all over it. This is called MOLLE (Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment): a military system designed to allow the attachment of additional pouches, packs, sheathes, and the like.
\n\nSome MOLLE is laser cut, particularly on covert carriers: instead of webbing loops, slots are cut into the outermost layer of fabric.
\n\nHook-and-loop (i.e., velcro) attachment points are also common on tactical gear, which are used to attach morale patches or even small pouches. Morale patches include the various emblems and signs that the military use to designate units and that tactically-minded civilians use to express political and subcultural affiliation. What 1” buttons are for punks, morale patches are for tactical gearheads.
\n\nSome specific manufacturers use other styles of attachment points as well.
\n\nFor most covert plate carrier purposes, attachment points are not necessary.
\n\nFor anyone experienced in sewing, making a plate carrier is a reasonably simple affair, as it is not itself a ballistic product. We would recommend that any aspiring plate carrier maker get a simple plate carrier to copy.
\n\nYou can make straps from webbing; 500D Cordura seems to be the most commonly used fabric for the vest itself. Most guides suggest double or triple stitching every seam.
\n\nPlates load into the bottom of the front and back sleeves and are generally secured by a generous flap of hook-and-loop.
\n\nIf your plate carrier is well-fitted, the armor should sit at your clavicle. With your armor on, lift your arms and twist around to make sure the carrier moves with your body. Breathe in deep to make sure it’s not too tight; at the most, it should feel snug when your lungs are fully expanded. Then test the fit by doing a Burpee or some other athletic activity to make sure that it nothing on the carrier moves around or falls out.\n### Fitting Armor to Different Body Types
\n\nMost armor is designed to fit able-bodied, athletic cis men. The further from that category you are, the more trouble you may have fitting body armor. It can be particularly challenging to obtain armor in smaller sizes and armor for people with breasts.
\n\nSoft body armor vests are substantially more forgiving than plate carriers, but can still be less comfortable for those with more curves. Some armor manufacturers design soft armor vests specifically to fit curvier bodies. These are less likely to be found at lower price points, although we’ve seen some surplus “female” vests on eBay.
\n\nSmall vests in general seem to be hard to find on the surplus market, as surplus vests tend to come from police departments.
\n\nPlate carriers offer even fewer options for people with breasts. The best option we’ve been able to find is to get a multi-curve swimmer’s cut front plate and wear either a tight-fitting sports bra or a chest binder.
\n\nLikewise, plates simply aren’t made in sizes large enough for all people. It seems that most larger people wear the largest plate they can (usually 11x14”), even if it covers less of their torso.
\n\nThere is a lot of contradictory information available about what happens to the human body when you’re shot while wearing body armor.
\n\nWhen you’re shot while wearing soft armor, the impact of the blow still hits you and can damage you, although the injuries are generally minor as the impact is spread out over a somewhat larger area. According to one study, 85% of those who are shot while wearing a vest rated for the right kind of impact suffer no injuries or minor injuries such as slight bruising. Yet one EMT says that the police they have treated who have survived shots to their vests describe it as being hit with a baseball bat full force.
\n\nPlate armor is something else entirely. It’s hotly contested whether injuries and fatalities are common when someone is shot while wearing plate armor. We’ve personally talked to experts and seen tests and studies that contradict each other.
\n\nIn general, if you are wearing armor that is rated for the impact you experience, you are unlikely to suffer a major injury. Unless you’re caught off balance, you’re unlikely to be knocked back or over. Steel, in particular, is effective at transferring the force of the bullet across its large surface, minimizing the force that is passed on to the wearer. Ceramic armor defaces more dramatically, but this effect can be minimized with trauma pads; it should not cause grievous injury to the wearer.
\n\nThis is not universally the case, however. People do suffer cracked ribs and other blunt force injuries when bullets strike them while they are wearing armor.
\n\nPeople are likely to experience the same impact differently according to body mass. Larger plates disperse impact over a larger area.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/4.jpg\")
Chest anatomy as it relates to plate coverage.
\nBallistics is a remarkably complex subject. We’ve spoken to a number of engineers and tactical enthusiasts about how to understand the risk of penetration.
\n\nBroadly speaking, rifle shots penetrate substantially more effectively than handguns or shotguns. They’re also considered substantially more deadly—though gun violence is a highly politicized subject and data is often skewed to support one position or another, and we’ve found contradictory reports about lethality claims according to caliber. The only exception to this rule is that .22 caliber rifles, which are common for small game hunting and for beginning shooters, are closer to handguns in terms of their penetration capacity than they are to other rifles.
\n\nArmor penetration is very different from overall power (the kinetic force transferred to the target by the bullet), which is different from “stopping power” (the ability of the bullet to neutralize a threat). Penetration is greater for faster bullets with a greater “sectional density”—that is, bullets that are heavier in relationship to their width. Thinner bullets are sharper and penetrate more effectively than larger bullets of the same mass. Armor penetration and stopping power actually work against each other: bullets that mushroom or fragment upon impact cause far more severe wounds, whereas bullets that maintain their shape more effectively are more capable of penetrating armor.
\n\nMost armor piercing ammunition works by using a steel or other hardened core that survives impact more effectively than lead. This ammunition is not generally available to civilians in the United States, although it is available to the military and police. This makes it less likely that militia groups and other non-state actors will be using it against demonstrators. It is not in common use by the police for a number of reasons: first, it involves greater risk of going all the way through the target and hitting someone else unintentionally, in what is called overpenetration; second, hollow point bullets (which mushroom upon impact) are more effective at killing unarmored targets, like the people that the police are usually trying to murder. The most common exception is 7.62x54r steel core surplus ammo, which has significant armor piercing capability, and anything in the 50 caliber range, which we are unlikely to see in domestic civilian conflict.
\n\nThere are two types of bullets worth knowing about that are available to civilians and are likely to be carried by non-state actors who seek to harm demonstrators. First are steel-tipped (not steel-cored) bullets, generally referred to as “green tip” bullets. These were designed for the military to offer greater accuracy and penetration at long distance, but they are in common civilian use, especially in AR-15s. The second are the “+P” style of bullets, generally 9mm—the most common handgun round—though not all 9mm are +P. These are not designed for armor penetration, but pack a “hotter” load of more gunpowder that provides greater power and therefore more effective penetration.
\n\nBoth of these threats can be stopped by appropriate and available body armor, such as what that we recommend herein. It’s worth being aware of these threats in order to understand why you might need an appropriate level of armor. Older and cheaper soft vests might stop most 9mm rounds, but not the +P rounds that are commonly carried by self-defense and gun enthusiasts.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/12.jpg\")
Green-tipped .556 ammunition.
\nArmor can be tested against several different standards to determine its efficacy. For products available in the United States, the most common by far are the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards, which we use throughout this article. These were designed with US law enforcement in mind. Many other countries use the NIJ standards for armor that is available to civilians. There are other standards in use throughout the world, as well.
\n\nThe US army does not use level ratings, instead offering specific armor items that must meet a certain threshold. These tests are not as simple as “this armor protects against handguns” or even “this armor protects against 9mm handguns.” The ratings designate the specific cartridge, down to its composition and how much gunpowder it is loaded with.
\n\nAgain, in short, if you are looking for soft armor, you want it to be rated to IIIA. If you are looking for hard armor, you want it to be rated at least III+, or “III special threat,” if it is to protect you against the common steel-tipped AR-15 rounds. Neither of these are officially part of the NIJ standards.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/3.jpg\")
9mm Luger+p ammunition.
\nThe NIJ standards are revised from time to time.
\n\nLevel I: This level is no longer part of the standards. It protected against some .22lr (small game hunting rifle) rounds and .380acp (handgun rounds).
\n\nLevel IIa: This protects against some handgun rounds, including some 9mm, .40, and .45 rounds.
\n\nLevel II: This protects against more handgun rounds, including 9mm as well as some .357 rounds.
\n\nLevel IIIa: This protects against nearly all handguns, including more .357 rounds and .44 magnum rounds as well.
\n\nLevel III: This level is rated to stop most 7.62x51mm NATO rounds, a common military round. It is not rated against the AR-15, but will stop many AR-15 rounds (5.56 or .223, which are roughly the same).
\n\nLevel IV: This level is rated to stop 30.06 (thirty-aught-six) armor-piercing rounds—the rounds fired by WWII-era battle rifles, which remain common for hunting.
\n\nThe new NIJ 0101.07 standards will likely be released at some point soon. This revision will address the major holes in the current system, such as the gap filled by III+. It will replace the numeral system with two separate categories: HG (handgun) and RF (rifle). HG will have two levels HG1, which will map to the existing level II, and HG2, which will map to the existing IIIA. RF will have three levels: RF1 which will map to the existing level III, RF2 which will fill the hole currently met by III+, and RF3 which will map to the existing level IV.
\n\nPlease read our full article about helmets here.
\n\nMost ballistic helmets are rated to the IIIa level and are designed to stop handgun rounds. A few newer military helmets can stop some rifle rounds, sometimes, from long distances. There are also rifle inserts available for some helmets to increase the protection level of the helmet, although these are not in common use, as most soldiers seem to prefer weight reduction to an extra level of protection.
\n\nIIIA glass visors are also available, which attach to helmets and protect the eyes. These are made of thick polycarbonate, the same plastic used in the manufacture of bulletproof glass.
\n\nWhile we will cover protest shields at greater length in a future article, it’s worth touching on ballistic shields: shields designed to protect the user from gunfire.
\n\nMost ballistic shields are rated IIIA for handgun protection or IV for rifle protection. They can weigh anywhere from 15 to 40 pounds. It’s very difficult to wield them in the ways that an ordinary shield is wielded.
\n\nWhile they’re somewhat common equipment for police, they are not generally used by the military or militias, nor are they generally applicable to self-defense or community-defense situations. They seem to be chiefly useful for raiding buildings.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/5.jpg\")
A ballistic shield.
\nCut-resistant gloves and sleeves are available and affordable, but they are generally designed for the kind of incidental contact with sharp knives one might experience in a commercial kitchen. These are generally made of aramid (Kevlar) or UHMWPE (Dyneema) fabric, though some also contain woven wire. Cut resistance does not translate to stab resistance. A truly cut-resistant sleeve would be useful for defending against knife attacks, but the testing we’ve seen has not led us to believe the current products would be much help against determined attackers rather than workplace accidents.
\n\nCut resistance is measured in the USA by the ANSI standards rating scale, running from A1 to A9, and in the European Union with the CE/EN standards rating scale, running from A-F (previously, 1-5). The ANSI standard rates to a higher level of cut resistance than the CE/EN standard.
\n\n![](\"https://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/articles/2020/12/14/25.jpg\")
May we live to see a better future.
\n