You are right that it does lack in tactical application, for a few reasons, but here are my thoughts. It's much better than a ballistic blanket, because it holds its own shape and can make somewhat of a fortress that is free standing and provides a decent IIIA shield. This could easily replace the ballistic blanket and make it obsolete (mostly for protecting kids in schools, etc). It is very light and small for something that provides that much coverage.

Here is where it lacks, tactically speaking, and why I personally wouldn't want one.

1) It kills your mobility and pins you to one place (Old Cosmo hit the nail on the head), and marks that place as a target. Mobility is king in a gunfight - I want armor in two places - over my vitals (plate carrier) and over my noggin (helmet). I want my armor kit to be light and mobile. I'll make it hard for my adversary to hit me, not because I'm completely armored up, but because I move fast and smart, and use available cover/concealment in the best ways. If I get hit in an extremity, or outside my vitals, I'll be okay - and can still fight through that stuff. A tourniquet is my "armor" for my extremities, and the capability of high mobility is my number one priority. This shield makes me immobile, and it marks my place (the big black barrier) that I am hiding behind. I DO NOT want that - as shown in the video below, with good Vehicle CQB tactics, even though my adversary may know I am behind the car, I can make it a heck of a challenge for him to engage me, by using multiple points of cover and depth of field to engage from different angles and areas. With that black barrier, it makes hard edge lines (does't have the "16 points" of cover that a car does), and anywhere you'd stick your head and rifle/handgun out from behind the barrier to engage, you'd have a hard black edge that makes it easy to see where you are poking out from - no shadows, no depth of field, no "under, over, through" areas to help conceal and engage from. (see how easy in that video it is to ID the officer's head when he pokes above the hard black edge? That is bad, and compare that to the VCQB video where they engage from beneath the car, then behind, then above - shadows and depth of field created by the vehicle help immensely in preventing telegraphing where you appear and engage from - the shield doesn't give that advantage). And if in a gunfight, I want to move from cover to cover.

2) It only stops handgun rounds. In situations where this would likely be deployed (active shooter), there is a good chance the bad guy will have a long gun, and probably a rifle. That makes it even worse, because you'd make it easy to ID where you are when you deploy it, and you'll still get lit up behind it as the rifled rounds tear through. Concealment (that would not qualify as cover) only works if the enemy doesn't know you are behind that concealment - cover works if they do know you are behind it, because it stops bullets - but concealment, to work properly, can't be that easy to ID. If they know what these look like and what they are, they can open fire on the shield with a rifle and you're toast. And when rolling up to an active shooter call, you don't know for sure if they have a handgun or long gun. If you grab the shield and they have a handgun, you are okay, if you grab it and they have a rifle, you wasted energy and effort on something that won't help. By grabbing my helmet, plate carrier, and active shooter kit, it doesn't matter what gun the bad guy has, and my tactics are exactly the same. IMO the situations for this are limited (too big for warrant service and fugitive recovery, applications where modern hard shields are used) and with modern hard shields, you can manipulate a handgun from behind the shield on entry, with this soft shield, you couldn't.

3) Ultimately, the students did a stellar job of designing and creating this thing - but just lack a bit on the understanding of the tactics. If you give me an adversary in a building with just a handgun, I still don't want one of these shields. My goal is not to be protected from every bullet that flies my way - it is to be faster and more skilled, and tactically engage (using available cover and CQB principles) to eliminate the threat before he eliminates me. I just want my standard kit - helmet, rifle plate carrier, and firearms. Ultimately, it is "Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action" that win gunfights, and the shield takes away the first two principles in that motto, speed and surprise. Give me my speed and surprise any day before a shield, the speed and surprise give me a better chance to win the gunfight and get home.

While I've done a lot of CQB tactics, and active shooter training, my forte is Vehicle CQB (VCQB). This video shows some of the basic stuff, but watch the advantages from fighting behind a car, vs fighting behind that shield. Especially from 1:33-2:15 in the video, it shows some good tactics - note how many positions you can engage from while using the major points of cover (pillars, wheels, engine block, etc). Especially note the force-on-force training with sim guns, essentially playing ring-around-the-rosie around the car, but compare that to someone coming up to that barrier - on a vehicle, you have that depth of field that a shield does not. I'll roll up on a hot call with my patrol car (which does not have ballistic glass or panels) and my VCQB training, and IMO I'd be much more effective using the car and training together, than I would be with the shield. The car, while not 100% ballistic cover, is a great shield with the proper training.


Watch this video on YouTube