RMA Defense

I have been researching level “III+” armor options and have repeatedly come across RMA. Similar stated threat protection from Hoplite and Hesco cost 50%-150% more, so it seems that the RMA products may be too good to be true. I also noticed that they are only NIJ tested, which adds to my suspicion. What is the general opinion of RMA by those in the industry who know the armor game?


Regular Member
Well, by malicious or fine print, the 1189 plate had a foam ring, so only 8 x 10 protection. I feel enough people have bought newer products since this event.

As far as the CPL thing, not every company does. AMI is on the CPL with one in house plate and a bunch of Tencate plates, but only the TACs plates are in size tolerance to the Tencate Cratus roster. (D Prefix plates are Tencate) so I assume AMI's plates are custom Tencate or Rebranded factory rejects that did not meet height or weight spec. (Ryan, you can call me back anytime)

Velocity Systems has Shado Work plates, not NIJ but either in house or Tencate sub/near Spook plates.

So the NIJ is not the end all be all, RMA has a black eye but I think they grew past that.

Just my 2 cents.

Matt Landfair

Matt Six Actual
Staff member
Their marketing strategies that include bashing competitors with little discussion of their own product is telling.

I remember serious discrepancies with their claims and the white papers they provided.
Edit: Since I spend more than fives minutes on editing......

I am not sure on Hesco prices or such, but Hoplite I am familiar with.

Hoplites 19513 is priced at 350 per plate, while being a 9.5 x 12.5 multi curve. The RMA 1092 can be had for a single curve (cheaper) and some other variations. If you follow Hoplite on instagram, they are running sales with 10-20 percent off. So the price isn't too different. Aslo, Hoplite gets their plates from LTC, while RMA manufacturers their plates. Again, can be the reasons why the price is different.

After speaking to multiple armor testers, who go to the labs to evaluate armor. RMA seen as quality and are recommended.

Matt, do you have a source for this discrepancy?