[Zach H.]

While browsing Kult of Athena's armor section, I came across a simple cuirass that looks alright. I was just wanting a second opinion. $100 isn't bad for something that would work for munitions armor.

http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...te+Cuirass

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, doesn't look completely rubbish, but like modern products it has far too little vertical curvature. If you look at actual medieval and early Renaissance examples, solid plate cuirasses tend to bulge out considerably more than that around the chest.

Another possible issue is the thickness. 20 gauge is, what? Just a hair under 1mm? If it's mild steel, that sounds terribly thin for a cuirass. It's the kind of thickness one is more likely to see in historical arm or leg armour, where there's more incentive to make some compromises in protection for the sake of mobility.

[Edward Lee]

That won't pass as munition grade armor. They were pretty thick at the center. I also doubt this armor is forged, it's probably pressed or something (excuse my lack of knowledge in such terminology). I used to own pieces like this, they literately dent by jabbing it with a stick.

[Philip Dyer]

Heck no, mild steel at 20 gauge can be punctured through with a butter knife. The breast at least needs to be 16 gauge. The weaker / softer the metal, in reenactment and in history, the thicker it should be and that thing is way to thin.

[Mark Griffin]

you might as well just wear a few extra shirts, that's shim. I could punch that out of shape pretty easily.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Being pressed rather than forged isn't really a major weakness in a cheap breastplate like this. If the thing had been pressed from thicker metal stock on moulds/jigs that gave it a more distinctly rounded/globose shape, it would have been just fine.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

If you are just looking for something as a costume, it's fine for 17th century stuff. Similar cuirasses are in Graz, only with tassets, usually. It seems to me the Royal Armouries have some similar cuirasses, too. Most 17th c. breastplates have a sort of overhanging 'beak' at the bottom center, but I don't think they all do.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Still looks a little wrong. A 17th-century cuirass would have had a rather flat shape like that, true, but it would also (normally) have a much higher waistline, giving the visual impression of a compressed torso atop a pair of disproportionately long legs to the modern eye.

[Michael Beeching]

Aesthetically, I think that's a fine looking cuirass...

However, I work with 20 ga. steel at work - I would not ever rely on low carbon steel of that thickness as a serious defense - only if you had nothing else at your disposal! If it was tempered (thus high carbon) steel, however, it might do the job as a defense against sidearms, namely swords, for that part of the body.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

[T. Kew]

The biggest problem with the length of most cheap modern cuirasses is that people of standard length can't bend over.

If you have a very long torso, it's fine. Otherwise, there's a reason they stopped so high up historically, and it's because otherwise when you bend over the breastplate is driven up into your throat - a sensation I don't recommend.

The other feature to watch out for is the width between the armholes. That's often too wide, which means if you bring your arms together, the edges will cut in to the inside of your shoulders.

Both issues are a result of trying to make it 'one size fits all'. Unfortunately, metal isn't really flexible enough to permit that approach.

[Edward Lee]

http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...auge+Steel

Maybe this will do, for the price.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]