In the evolving landscape of law enforcement and military defense, the critical importance of body armour cannot be overstated. Yet, despite longstanding efforts to protect personnel from ballistic threats, the development and testing of female-specific ballistic body armour remain underexplored domains. Recent research spearheaded by Malbon, Knock, and Carr delves into a pressing question that has lingered within forensic and protective technologies: how can the testing of female ballistic body armour be refined and improved? Their comparison of traditional and novel simulant materials proposes a pivotal advancement with potential reverberations across forensic science, product design, and field safety standards.
Body armour is, at its core, a complex interplay of material science, biomechanics, and ballistics. Traditional testing methods have historically relied on standardized tissue simulants and synthetic models meant to mimic human anatomy and tissue resistance during ballistic impacts. However, as the protective equipment expands to cater to an increasingly diverse user base, including women, the validity and applicability of these simulants have come under scrutiny. The physical and anatomical distinctions in female torsos—ranging from breast tissue distribution to skeletal structure—introduce variables that can significantly influence the performance of ballistic body armour and its testing outcomes.
Malbon and colleagues draw attention to three primary simulants that are common benchmarks in ballistic testing: Roma Plastilina No.1, 10% ballistic gelatine, and SEBS (styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene) gel. Each of these materials presents unique properties and challenges when attempting to replicate human soft tissue during projectile impact tests. Roma Plastilina No.1, a type of modeling clay, has been extensively utilized due to its malleability and ease of use. However, its homogeneity and lack of biological fidelity pose limitations, particularly when the goal is to mimic the nuanced responses of female anatomy under ballistic stress.
In contrast, 10% ballistic gelatine stands as a more biophysically accurate simulant, renowned for its ability to reproduce the elastic and viscous properties of muscle tissue. Its widespread use in ballistics laboratories persists partly because of its transparency, which allows for the observation and measurement of projectile penetration and temporary cavity formation. Nonetheless, gelatine’s temperature sensitivity and preparation rigor complicate its use outside controlled environments, potentially affecting repeatability and consistency in female armour testing scenarios.
SEBS gel emerges as a promising alternative, combining elasticity with durability in a synthetic format that closely mirrors human soft tissue behavior across a range of temperatures and impact conditions. Its viscoelastic properties hold particular promise for simulating the behaviour of breast tissue and the layered structure of female torsos, features notoriously challenging to approximate. The ability of SEBS gel to maintain performance under diverse environmental conditions positions it as a candidate for more realistic and standardized ballistic testing for female-specific armour.
The study undertaken by Malbon, Knock, and Carr meticulously compares these simulants by subjecting them to controlled ballistic impacts intended to replicate typical operational scenarios. Through a combination of high-resolution imaging, indentation testing, and observational metrics such as cavity size and depth of penetration, the researchers assess each simulant’s fidelity and relevance to female ballistic testing requirements. The nuances captured in these tests are essential for validating the protective capability of armour designed with female anatomical considerations.
One of the critical revelations from this research is the apparent discrepancy in how these materials absorb and dissipate kinetic energy from ballistic projectiles. Roma Plastilina No.1, possessing a relatively rigid matrix, demonstrates less realistic energy dispersion, potentially skewing results by underrepresenting tissue deformation under stress. Ballistic gelatine, while acoustically and physically similar to muscle, is susceptible to inconsistencies due to variation in preparation and ambient conditions, which could affect its reliability in female protective gear evaluation.
SEBS gel, however, with its stable and reproducible viscoelastic characteristics, offers a synthetic medium that yields closer approximations of human tissue response, particularly in modeling the viscoelastic response of breast tissue—a critical factor often overlooked in female body armour testing due to anatomical complexity. This insight underscores the importance of selecting simulants that provide not only physical mimicry but also biomechanical responsiveness reflective of real-world female anatomical structures.
The broader implications of this research extend beyond laboratory confines. By establishing more accurate test mediums and protocols for female ballistic armour, developers and manufacturers can iteratively refine protective designs, enhancing coverage areas, comfort, and effectiveness without compromising mobility. The traditional “one-size-fits-all” approach to body armour has long been criticized for its failure to account for gender-based anatomical differences, often resulting in ill-fitting gear that impairs performance or leaves critical vulnerabilities exposed. Addressing these deficiencies through improved testing is vital for ensuring equitable protection in operational contexts.
Furthermore, this advancement carries significance for forensic science and legal medicine. Improved tissue simulants for ballistic testing can enhance the interpretation of wound ballistics and projectile-tissue interactions, aiding investigations and refining expert testimonies. The selection of an appropriate simulant directly influences the understanding of injury mechanisms and the reconstruction of shooting incidents, areas where gender-specific anatomical considerations have historically been neglected.
Technological progress in manufacturing techniques—such as additive manufacturing and material engineering—can now incorporate insights from such studies to produce tailored ballistic panels and inserts optimized for female morphology. Integrating these findings with wearability studies and anthropometric data facilitates the creation of armour that not only protects but also supports physiological comfort and operational endurance.
Looking forward, the pursuit to perfect female ballistic armour testing necessitates a multidisciplinary approach combining material science, biomechanics, gender studies, and applied ballistics. The work by Malbon and colleagues charts a crucial course for this integration, providing a scientific foundation upon which future innovations can reliably build. Their usage of established and novel simulants paints a comparative landscape that equips researchers and designers to identify which materials best replicate the complex interplay of biological tissues in ballistic events.
Moreover, adopting standardized testing protocols incorporating more realistic models like SEBS gel could catalyze regulatory and certification changes, pushing the industry toward higher inclusivity and accuracy. This shift would mark a departure from legacy methods heavily grounded in male anatomical models, signaling a transformative step toward gender-equitable protective equipment standards.
The capacity for SEBS gel to sustain consistent performance across different environmental conditions further positions it as an enabler for field testing and routine quality assurance, reducing dependence on laboratory-bound materials like gelatine. This practicality encourages wide adoption and enhances the fidelity of ballistic testing worldwide, fostering a cohesive framework for assessing armour performance on a truly global scale.
In essence, the research draws attention to a historically marginalized aspect of protective technology: ensuring that female body armour is scrutinized and optimized with the same rigor and scientific precision as its male counterpart. The potential benefits ripple through frontline protection, scientific research, and industry innovation, offering hope for protective gear that affords every individual—regardless of gender—the maximum possible safety.
These findings challenge and inspire current ballistic testing paradigms, inviting a paradigm shift from generalized assumptions to nuanced, evidence-based approaches. Integrating such knowledge into design and testing processes ensures that the diversity of human anatomy is no longer an obstacle but a critical factor in the evolution of life-saving technologies.
Malbon, Knock, and Carr’s investigation stands as a pioneering contribution that underscores the necessity of gender-inclusive research within forensic ballistics and protective equipment development. Their methodical comparison of simulants not only illuminates the path toward improved female ballistic body armour testing but also highlights the broader imperative to incorporate biological diversity into scientific inquiry.
This pioneering work heralds a new chapter in ballistic protection research, where advanced materials, precise methodologies, and inclusive design coalesce to redefine safety standards. As agencies and manufacturers heed these insights, the future promises body armour that is not only tougher and more effective but also empathetic to the anatomical realities of the women who wear it, marking a profound evolution in the science of personal protection.
Subject of Research: Improving testing methodologies for female-specific ballistic body armour using comparative analysis of simulant materials.
Article Title: HOW do we improve the testing of female ballistic body armour? – a comparison of roma plastilina no.1, 10% ballistic gelatine and sebs gel.
Article References:
Malbon, C., Knock, C. & Carr, D.J. HOW do we improve the testing of female ballistic body armour? – a comparison of roma plastilina no.1, 10% ballistic gelatine and sebs gel.
Int J Legal Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-025-03578-z
Image Credits: AI Generated
Tags: advancements in forensic scienceballistic impact testing methodsbiomechanics of body armourbody armour design innovationsfemale ballistic armour testingfemale-specific ballistic protectionimproving safety in military defencelaw enforcement body armour standardsmaterial comparison in body armourprotective technology for womenstandardized tissue simulantstesting synthetic models for armour
