Industry profile · NAICS 336992

Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing

Workplace injury rates across 51 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.

51
Employers
3.7
Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
848
Injuries

The industry picture

Employers in Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing average 3.7 recordable injuries per 100 workers, 1.1 times the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.

3.7
avg TCR · reporting employers
3.3
BLS national benchmark
51
employers reporting
848
recordable injuries

OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.

What Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing Safety Data Reveals

The Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing sector (NAICS 336992) encompasses 51 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 848 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.7 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year. Because OSHA's ITA mandates submission from establishments with 250+ employees plus all high-hazard industries at 20+ employees, this dataset represents a structural slice of U.S. workplace risk rather than a voluntary sample.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate national benchmark TCR of 3.3 for this NAICS code, derived from the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Comparing the two, the ITA-reported rate of 3.7 is higher than the BLS benchmark, a gap that typically widens when the industry contains many large, high-exposure establishments required to file ITA reports. Employers in the table below are sorted so you can see how far individual establishments deviate from both the industry average and the national benchmark.

The practical value of industry-level safety data is threefold. First, jobseekers can gauge whether a prospective employer is better or worse than its industry peers, not just absolute injury counts, which tilt toward larger payrolls. Second, insurers and workers' compensation carriers use sector TCR as a baseline for experience-modification adjustments. Third, safety professionals benchmark their own programs against the cohort median. Use the grade-sorted employer list below to identify specific establishments within Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing that outperform or underperform the sector average, and click through to each record for year-by-year injury, illness, and fatality breakdowns.

Employers in this industry, by injury rate

Page 1 of 2
Employer LocationGradeAvg TCR
JBM Sherman Carmel, Inc. Bennington, VT F 15.5
Lapeer Industries Lapeer, MI F 12.3
Lenco Industries Pittsfield, MA F 11.3
Osprea Logistics Charlotte Charlotte, NC F 8.1
Square One Armoring Services Miami, FL F 7.9
Fidelity - OEC Reading, PA F 7.2
MDT Armor Auburn, AL D 5.8
Upi Manufacturing Eagle, WI D 5.6
Loc Performance - Lansing Lansing, MI D 5.4
Underground Pipeline Inc Eagle, WI D 5.2
General Dynamics Land Systems - Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (JSMC) Lima, OH D 5.1
Bay Shore Steel Works Charlevoix, MI D 4.9
AMPV Services Killeen, TX D 4.8
JWF Defense Systems Johnstown, PA D 4.7
Loc Performance - Lapeer Lapeer, MI D 4.7
General Dynamics Land Systems - Lima Lima, OH D 4.5
Tecmotiv (USA), Inc. Niagara Falls, NY D 4.5
Modification and Distributil Facility Temple, TX C 3.9
Howe & Howe, Inc. Waterboro, ME C 3.5
Scranton Plant Eynon, PA C 3.5
Battelle - Hilliard Operations Hillaird, OH C 3.4
Choctaw Defense Manufacturing Contractor - McAlester Mcalester, OK C 3.2
Battelle - Hilliard Operations Hilliard, OH C 3.2
Plasan North America Walker, MI C 3.1
Smith+Griffin Byhalia, MS C 2.9
Deprocessing Yard Fort Hood, TX C 2.9
BAE Systems Elgin, OK Site Elgin, OK B 2.5
Amphibious Vehicle Services San Jose, CA B 2.2
Creative Composites, Inc. Rapid River, MI B 2.2
General Dynamics Land Systems Anniston operations Anniston, AL B 2.2
BAE Systems Forge Facility Anniston, AL B 2.2
Horstman Inc. Sterling Heights, MI B 2.1
BAE Systems Inc - Anniston Forge Anniston, AL B 2.1
Integris Composites Hebron, OH B 2.1
Fort Hood Killeen, TX B 1.9
Rochester Welding Company, INC Oxford, MI A 1.6
BAE Systems - Vehicle Upgrade and Overhaul Complex Anniston, AL A 1.6
Field Services Killeen, TX A 1.5
Choctaw Defense Manufacturing LLC. Mcalester, OK A 1.4
Kongsberg Protech Systems USA Johnstown Johnstown, PA A 1.4
Artillery, Recovery and Maneuver Fort Hood, TX A 1.4
BAE Systems - Platforms & Services - Combat Vehicles - York, Pennsylvania York, PA A 1.3
Equipment Training Services Killeen, TX A 1.1
Field Services Enterprise, KS A 1.0
Sterling Heights Complex Sterling Heights, MI A 0.8
BAE Systems Inc. Aiken, SC A 0.7
Raytheon_El Paso_TX_ Briggs Army Airfield El Paso, TX A 0.5
Bae Systems Sterling Heights, MI A 0.1
AM General Technology and Engineering Center Auburn Hills, MI A 0.1
EOS Defense Systems USA, inc Huntsville, AL C 0.0
Page 1 of 2 Next →
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial

Verify with BLS →

Verify with OSHA →

Working in Armored military vehicles (except tanks) and parts manufacturing?

This sector averages 3.7 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.

Sector figures use the credible-subset mean across reporting employers; a benchmark is not any single establishment's measured rate.

Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.