Are Ballistic Helmets Bulletproof?

In any event, the PASGT helmet was adopted, and was received quite favorably overall.  There was some grumbling about its shape, with a brim which caused significant reductions of field of view when compared with brimless helmets, and there were numerous complaints about its webbing harness system, which was both uncomfortable and exhibited extremely poor blunt impact performance.

The Modular Integrated Communication Helmet (MICH) was a PASGT-derivative project spearheaded by USSOCOM that sought to correct those deficiencies.  It kept the aramid shell, but removed the brim, made slight changes to the overall geometry of the shell to better enable the use of communications gear, and replaced the webbing with foam padding.  The MICH was also slightly lighter than the PASGT &#; in part on account of changes to its geometry, and in part due to slight advances in aramid technology and composite processing methods that allowed for a lower volume fraction of resin. [7] The MICH was received extremely favorably, and, with some minor modifications, was adopted by Army as the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) shortly after its introduction.  The ACH became the Army&#;s primary combat helmet in the mid s.

The MICH and ACH, unlike the PASGT, were rated to stop handgun threats.  The ACH specification demands, as a condition of lot acceptance, that helmets stop the 124gr. 9mm FMJ at +50 fps.  Backface deformation limits were set at 16mm for the sides and crown, and 25.4mm for the front and rear of the helmet.  The ACH&#;s performance against fragments is improved by 10% over the PASGT, with a minimum 17gr. FSP V50 at feet per second. [8]

The ACH, MICH, and PASGT are all &#; like the steel helmets of old &#; generally incapable of reliably stopping rifle rounds.  The Army&#;s Inspector General, in a report to Congress on the performance and capabilities of the ACH, noted:  &#;The ACH is not designed to provide ballistic protection from threats more lethal (for example, higher velocity, or larger mass) than a 9mm FMJ RN. Field data indicate that the ACH performs well against its intended threats, but is penetrable from rifle threats that are most commonly seen in theater. A new product called the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) is currently under design and development to defeat threats more lethal than a 9mm FMJ RN.&#; [9]

The ECH program began in , with a mandate to produce a helmet with a 35 percent increase in fragmentation protection and protection from certain rifle threats common in Iraq and Afghanistan &#; at the same weight as the ACH.  [10] This was deemed possible with the utilization of UHMWPE fiber composite materials, which were at that time enabling very light armor plates, and had been in use in very lightweight French military helmets &#; such as the CGF Gallet &#;SPECTRA&#; helmet &#; for nearly two decades.

By late and through , many ECH helmet prototypes had been produced and submitted to the Army.  Overall, performance against fragments was 53% better than the ACH, performance against the 9mm FMJ was roughly 10% better, and performance against a certain rifle round was 153% better.  [10]  It must, however, be noted that these numbers are not perfectly unambiguous.   Against the 9mm FMJ threat, the ECH had to comply with helmet backface deformation requirements &#; that is, it had to stop the round with less than 16mm/24.5mm backface signature onto a clay headform.  Against the rifle threat, those backface deformation requirements were deemed &#;too restrictive.&#;  So there was no requirement at all, and testing was performed on a pass/fail basis where, even should the helmet utterly cave in, it would still &#;pass&#; if the projectile were stopped.

The ECH, at $840/unit, was also exactly three times more expensive than the ACH, which cost the US military $280/unit.

In light of these facts, the Operational Test & Evaluation Office of the Secretary of Defense (DOT&E) recommended that the Army not buy or field the ECH. They held that the unit cost is too high and that Soldiers wearing the ECH would have an unacceptably high risk of death or severe injury from excessive backface deformation from rifle threat bullets.  The Army Office of the Surgeon General &#; which, decades before, had spearheaded the Hayes-Stewart and PASGT helmets &#; concurred with DOT&E&#;s assessment and recommendations.

In a subsequent report on the state of the ECH program, the US Navy noted that &#;while the ECH protects against perforation by the specified small arms threat, it does not provide a significant overall improvement in operational capability over currently-fielded helmets against the specified small arms threat. The deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat impact exceeds accepted deformation standards across most of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH is therefore unlikely to provide meaningful protection over a significant portion of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH provides improved fragmentation protection compared to the fielded Advanced Combat Helmet and the Light Weight Helmet (LWH).

&#;[..]  It is unknown, definitively, whether the ECH provides protection against injury when the deforming helmet impacts the head. There is, however, reason to be concerned because the deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat exceeds accepted deformation standards (established for a 9 mm round) across most of the threat&#;s effective range.&#; [11]

The ECH was nevertheless fielded in limited numbers, and has been quite favorably received by troops and command.  Insofar as the single most common small-arms threat in theater was the 7.62x39mm MSC ball round, and insofar as the ECH is capable of stopping that round, the introduction of the UHMWPE helmet was a success.  That the ECH has extremely good resistance to high-velocity fragments must also be noted as a strong point in its favor.

The new IHPS appears to be to the ECH as the ACH was to the MICH.  It is a helmet system currently in development that appears to be intended for general issue &#; as a total replacement for the ACH &#; that incorporates most of the features of the ECH.  As of this writing (Nov ) it is being fielded in limited numbers.  Like the ECH, it is made of UHMWPE, and its ballistic capabilities are seemingly identical to those of the ECH.  The IHPS specification, like the ECH specification, expressly notes that backface deformation is to be measured when the helmet is tested against 9mm FMJ projectiles, but not measured when tested against rifle rounds. [12]

Goto longkui to know more.

I&#;m not terribly old. In fact, I feel, at best middle aged. But I am old enough to remember a time when SWAT teams did not always use Ballistic Helmetshttps://bodyarmornews.com/. In fact, when I first joined a SWAT team, we did not use ballistic helmets. Bean counters felt they were too expensive and many of the operators did not want to trade what they thought was situational awareness for the security of bullet proof headgear. It was shortly after I joined as a newer operator that some of the more seasoned and knowledgeable guys began to lobby for ballistic helmets. Back then it took considerable lobbying. Ballistic Helmets were a new concept, and the only thing in much use were the Kevlar helmets used by the military to protect against shrapnel and indirect fire. I still remember the administrator who approved the purchase of our first ballistic helmets. He seemed smug about the whole matter and seemed to feel like using such protection was a sign of weakness.

In prior days, many SWAT Teams used either helmets intermittently for debris or impact protection, or they used nothing at all. In retrospect, this seems as foolish as suggesting a helmet for motorcycling racing is a poor investment. However, like much lifesaving gear, the need is infrequent but the payoff of use is incomparable. You only really need the security of a ballistic helmet once, to make the purchase worthwhile. And that was the argument used to turn my agency around, and convince them it was a worthwhile piece of gear. Well, that and the proof that they worked.

SO HOW WELL DO BALLISTIC HELMETS WORK?

Turns out, they work very well. Take, for example, bulletproof helmets which will stop anything from indirect fire and shrapnel, like the PASGT Helmet or rifle rounds, such as the Armorsource AS-600. Currently Security Pro offers several ballistic helmets that are rated by the National Institute of Justice to stop handgun rounds up to and including the .44 magnum. Some of these include the aforementioned helmets as well as the SecPro Special Operations ARCH Ballistic Helmet, and the SecPro MICH ACH Advanced Combat Ballistic Helmet. That&#;s a very impressive feat considering the power and energy that the .44 magnum round carries. The current helmet models that mirror the Advanced Combat Helmet design, have been known to stop AK-47 rounds during combat. Just ask Iowa National Guard member Tom Alberts. Alberts is living proof (literally) that ballistic helmets work, and work well. Alberts was shot in the head by an AK-47 and his helmet stopped the round and saved his life. What this means is these helmets are designed and tested to stop common, small arms fire, including rifle rounds. So, it is possible for the operator to have a helmet that will provide the security of an armored vest with rifle plates. Your head gear and body armor will have similar levels of protection. Which makes sense. Both the head and chest are equally vulnerable to gunfire.

Want more information on Bullet-Proof Helmet? Feel free to contact us.

LEVELS OF BALLISTIC PROTECTION

Modern ballistic helmets provide different levels of protection. The levels are generally tested in accordance with the National Institute of Justice. The NIJ rates ballistic protection based on what rounds the item proved capable of stopping during rigorous testing. Levels III and IV will stop common rifle rounds. Levels I through IIIA are rated to stop various handgun rounds, with level IIIA having stopped handgun rounds including the .44 magnum. While other rounds are not always tested, there is a presumption that a ballistic helmet that will stop a .44 magnum round, will also protect against a .25 auto or some other lessor powered ammunition.

ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES THE BALLISTIC PROTECTION?

Of course, there are other reasons to wear a ballistic helmet besides stopping bullets. Ballistic helmets provide safety from impact. For most soldiers and service members deployed overseas, this is not a grave concern. For Law Enforcement and Security personnel, this is very important. Cops and Security Forces are just as likely, or more likely to encounter impact weapons, thrown projectiles and other head strike hazards as they are likely to encounter gunfire. Having the safety and security of a bullet proof helmet, that will also provide impact protection is critical.

Today&#;s ballistic helmet is an essential part of the modern police of security force safety gear. They are not just for military use. The ballistic helmet is suitable for any organization that might need impact protection and will benefit from ballistic protection as well. For example, not just SWAT teams, but riot control forces and even patrol officers who might respond to active shooters should have the security of a ballistic helmet.

In the past, frequent arguments against ballistic helmets included the weight and comfort level. The modern helmets have very advanced suspension systems that not only make the helmet all day wearable, but also are part of the impact protection package, helping minimize the forces that come in contact with the head. Another common argument was the notion that ballistic helmets would impair peripheral vision of adversely impact ambient noise perception. Both these ideas have been thoroughly debunked. A properly fitted helmet does not interfere with vision at all and they allow for normal hearing. Many ballistic helmets are also designed to allow for hearing protection such as electronic ear muffs. These can actually increase safety by amplifying speaking and other normal noises while shutting out high decibel noises such as gun fire.

It is hard to imagine a modern Law Enforcement agency, or a Security Agency that does not use or allow use of ballistic helmets. It would be like curtailing the use of body armor. Ballistic Helmets are well developed in the stream of commerce. Security Pro offers a comprehensive selection of helmets for every budget and need, as well as ballistic face shields for the ultimate in head protection. If you use a bulletproof vest, you should also consider having a ballistic helmet as part of your protection package. It just makes sense to protect your head like you protect your body.

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit UHMWPE Fiber.