Are bullet-proof helmets effective?

Ballistic helmets, also known as tactical helmets or bulletproof helmets, are designed to offer crucial head protection in life-threatening situations. When crafted with state-of-the-art materials and rigorously tested to meet stringent safety standards, these helmets provide adaptability, comfort, and life-saving protection.

longkui Product Page

In this comprehensive guide, we delve into various aspects of ballistic helmets, including the stringent testing methods overseen by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). We'll help you differentiate between helmet ratings, understand what types of ballistic helmets are available, and discuss what the U.S. Military uses for head protection.

Additionally, we'll guide you through the process of selecting, setting up, and caring for your helmet, and answer some common questions we get. Let&#;s get started!

Level IIIA Military Helmets / Level 3A Combat Helmets

A military helmet designed for combat scenarios must pass strict testing measures to certify its effectiveness. The NIJ (National Institute of Justice) is the governing body that sets the standard for ballistic helmet performance.

Guidelines for helmet testing follow the NIJ standards .01 & the .01. NIJ standard .01 details how the helmets should be set up for testing. The more rigorous NIJ standard .01 provides updated classification requirements for all types of body armor, including helmets.

Helmets must withstand various calibers at a certain velocity to fall within certain ratings. Helmets are rated from I-III depending on what size rounds they can stop completely. An NIJ Level IV helmet would theoretically provide protection up against rounds as powerful as .30 caliber armor-piercing bullets. However, there are no true level IV helmets that have been tested according to NIJ standards. 

Although there's a common notion that higher levels such as a ballistic helmet NIJ Level IV would offer superior protection, keep in mind that a true bullet proof helmet level 4 helmet would be substantially more expensive and would only offer additional protection from rounds that aren&#;t common.

Whether or not a level 3 tactical helmet is even safer is up for debate because of the risk of backface deformation. Level IIIA helmets offer an optimal balance of weight and protection, making them the preferred choice for many military/law enforcement organizations.

What is the difference between Level 3 and Level 4 Helmets?

When comparing a level 3 ballistic helmet with a level 4 helmet, the key difference lies in the level of protection they offer. A Level III ballistic helmet is designed to protect against some rifle rounds and offers NIJ Level III protection. On the other hand, a Level 4 ballistic helmet is something to be wary of, as NIJ Level IV protection for helmets does not exist. The same goes for level 3+, as sellers offering a level III+ helmet have not actually been certified by the NIJ.

What Are the Different Types of Ballistic Helmets?

Choosing the right ballistic helmet is a bit confusing given the variety available. The three most common types of helmets are PASGT, MICH/ACH, and FAST helmets. Each design offers unique advantages tailored to different combat and tactical scenarios, and each of these helmets is suitable for a specific type of person. Let&#;s look at the fundamental differences:

PASGT Helmet

The PASGT (Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops) helmet is a smooth classic design, often seen in old military movies. It offers good coverage and Level 3 protection, but is heavier and offers less adaptability and customization than newer models. This will generally be the cheapest option.

MICH Helmet / ACH Helmet

The MICH (Modular Integrated Communications Helmet) or ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet) is an improvement over the PASGT in terms of weight and utility. It provides Level 3 protection and offers better compatibility with add ons and communication devices.

FAST Helmet

The FAST (Future Assault Shell Technology) helmet produced by Ops-Core is the newest of the three. It has a distinctive high cut, with no ear coverage, and provides the benefits of Level 3 (RF1) protection via polyethylene. This helmet allows for the most customization options, such as mounts for night vision goggles/other accessories. 

What Helmets Does the US Military Use?

The bulletproof helmets USA chooses to employ in the military varies a bit and depends on the branch and mission requirements.

US Army Ballistic Helmets

The U.S. Army primarily uses the ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet) which offers Level 3 protection and is an upgrade over the older PASGT helmets. Known for its modular design, the ACH is a standard-issue army helmet that balances weight and protection efficiently. 

The ACH is currently being phased out by the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH), AKA the &#;ACH II&#;. The ECH uses polyethylene rather than ballistic fibers to enhance protection and reduce weight. Both helmets will ultimately be phased out by the Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS), which was introduced in . The IHPS helmet is 5% lighter and less restrictive on hearing, with improved ballistic and blunt force trauma protection.

Navy SEAL Ballistic Helmet

Navy SEALs often opt for FAST helmets, prized for their light weight and adaptability. These helmets are customizable with various accessories, making them well-suited for covert and maritime operations. Two common types are the FAST SF and FAST Maritime. These two helmets are similar, but the FAST SF is slightly lighter and is designed to be comfortable than the Maritime. 

For an in-depth look at the military&#;s use of body armor, read our article on what body armor the military uses.

Are Ballistic Helmets / Tactical Helmets Worth It?

Whether a helmet is a worthwhile investment largely depends on the situations you expect to encounter. On top of being more expensive, helmets are much more cumbersome and less concealable than a bullet proof vest. For this reason, helmets are less common, and are usually only used by military personnel, law enforcement, and security professionals.

Regardless, trauma to the head is almost always more immediately life-threatening than trauma to any other part of the body, including the cardiac box. Trauma to the skull/brain can result in rapid loss of consciousness, severe brain injury, and potentially irreversible neurological damage. For civilians concerned with personal safety, a body armor helmet can easily prove to be invaluable when in a life or death situation. 

Blunt force trauma to the head remains a significant concern, even when wearing specialized protective gear like ballistic or tactical helmets. The force of from bullets or blunt force can still be transmitted to the skull and brain, potentially causing concussions, traumatic brain injuries, or even fatal outcomes.

The energy from these impacts, even when dispersed by the helmet, can lead to internal bleeding, brain swelling, or bruising, resulting in long-term or irreversible damage. While helmets will stop a bullet from penetrating the skull, they are not foolproof against all types of head or brain injuries. 

A good helmet incorporates multi-layered composite materials and  designs that aim to disperse the energy from blunt force impacts more effectively. Some helmets feature multi-directional impact protection systems (MIPS), which allow the helmet to rotate slightly upon impact, thereby reducing rotational forces that can cause brain injuries. Others use specialized foam or gel liners that can absorb and distribute the force of an impact more evenly, minimizing the risk of localized trauma.

Will Ballistic Helmets Stop Bullets?

While ballistic helmets can significantly reduce the risk of penetration, they are not entirely "bulletproof" in the sense that they can stop all types of ammunition. A ballistic helmet level 3 is designed to provide protection against handgun rounds and some rifle rounds. A full tactical helmet may offer additional coverage but adheres to the same protective standards.

Additionally, a ballistic helmet isn't usually tested to stop bullets being fired within inches of the head. Despite not being perfect, wearing a good ballistic helmet is considerably safer than wearing no helmet at all. Furthermore, modern helmet technology is able to provide an impressive level of protection and can save lives in a wide range of scenarios.

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit Bullet-Proof Helmet.

What Are Ballistic Helmets Made Of?

Ballistic helmets are typically made from Kevlar®, the same material that is in bulletproof vests. This high-grade composite material forms the core of many modern helmets. Kevlar fibers are woven into multiple layers to create a composite capable of absorbing and dispersing the energy of a ballistic impact.

While Kevlar is a staple in many designs, some helmets also incorporate additional materials like thermoplastics or advanced ceramics to further enhance performance. 

How Do I Set Up a Ballistic Helmet?

Getting your helmet properly configured is important not only for comfort, but for safety as well. First, adjust the inner padding snugly so that it fits your head. Make sure there are no pressure points that could cause discomfort during extended wear.

When putting the helmet on, check that the chin strap is properly adjusted. You shouldn&#;t be able to place more than two fingers between the strap and your chin.

Lastly, look into mounting options for any additional gear you'll be using. Communication devices, night vision goggles, or facial shields can all be mounted to a helmet. Most modern helmets come with pre-drilled holes or mounting systems for such accessories. 

How Should I Clean and Store My Ballistic Helmet?

Maintaining your helmet's integrity is as important as its initial setup, if not more. 

For cleaning- Mild soap and water works great. You want to avoid harsh chemicals that could degrade the material. We recommend using a soft cloth to remove the dirt without scratching the surface. 

For storage- Keep your helmet in a cool, dry area, away from direct sunlight, which can sometimes weaken its structural integrity. Use a helmet bag or a padded box to protect it from accidental drops or bumps.

FAQs

Is there a Level 4 helmet?

No. Level 4 helmets would be designed to withstand .30 caliber rifle rounds. A true lvl 4 helmet would be quite heavy on the head, and the blunt force trauma from a hit with a round of that size and speed would be deadly.

Are ballistic helmets legal?

In most jurisdictions, owning a ballistic helmet is legal for civilians. That being said, It&#;s typically prohibited for convicted felons to own/wear most body armor, among other exceptions. Visit your local sheriff's office to get a complete overview of your area&#;s laws regarding ballistic helmets, or read our article on body armor laws.

Are ballistic helmets rifle rated?

Not all ballistic helmets are rifle-rated. Most commercially available options are designed for Level IIIA protection, which is effective against handgun rounds. For rifle rated protection, look for a level 3 helmet.

Can a ballistic helmet be used with other protective gear?

Absolutely! Ballistic helmets are almost always part of a broader personal protective equipment system. We offer a wide range of protective gear, giving you plenty of choices to match your unique safety needs. Want to make an informed decision? Check out our expert guide: "How to Pick the Right Body Armor."

How do I measure for the best ballistic helmet fit?

First, measure the circumference of your head about an inch above your eyebrows. Most helmet manufacturers provide sizing charts to ensure a proper fit. A well-fitted helmet should maximize both comfort and protection.

Does Premier Body Armor Sell Ballistic Helmets?

Yes, Premier Body Armor currently offers theFortis Ballistic Helmet as well as a helmet bag for secure storage.

Written by Ben Bryner

&#; The ballistic helmet was never designed to offer protection from small arms fire.

&#; The steel helmets of WWI and WWII &#; which were in use by the US Military until the early s, and by European forces well into the s &#; were developed to protect against indirect fire, such as mortar and shell fragments.  These helmets were not officially rated to stop any handgun or rifle projectile.  

&#; The first aramid helmets such as the PASGT were more effective at stopping fragments and shrapnel, but were likewise not rated to stop any small arms threat.  It was, however, discovered that these aramid helmets would stop service handgun ammunition, like the 9x19mm FMJ.  

&#; Correspondingly, the ACH helmet &#; an improved aramid helmet introduced in and designed to build upon the successes of the PASGT whilst discarding the design flaws that were uncovered over more than a decade of use &#; was specified to stop 9x19mm FMJ service ammunition at up to fps.  The US Military&#;s Inspector general noted in a report to Congress that &#;[t]he ACH is not designed to provide ballistic protection from threats more lethal (for example, higher velocity, or larger mass) than a 9mm FMJ RN.&#;  

&#; The ECH helmet program, begun in , was instituted to see whether a helmet can be developed that would stop the prevalent rifle threats in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Results have been mixed, as will be described further herein, but the project has met with success for the most part.  

&#; Near-future advances in helmet engineering will enable helmets to stop even steel-cored rifle threats.


An understanding of the combat helmet&#;s ballistic properties can only follow from this: That the combat helmet was developed as a military tool.  Military planners knew well that indirect fire from mortars and artillery can inflict terrible casualties, and the first helmets were designed and issued to counter those particular threats.

In WWI, explosive or fragmenting munitions were responsible for roughly 60-70% of all combat casualties. [1]  At the battle of Verdun, fragmentation and shrapnel from artillery bombardment caused at least 70% of the approximately 800,000 casualties that both sides suffered.  The remainder were, for the most part, inflicted by relatively heavy rifle and machine-gun rounds which even the best helmets of today would not be able to stop. [2]

The first helmet of the war to enter mass production and see widespread use &#; and the first modern combat helmet &#; was the French casque Adrian.  This was made of mild steel, 0.7 to 0.8mm thick, with a tensile strength of at least 415 MPa and moderate ductility.  (18% tensile elongation.)  This helmet was capable of resisting a 230-grain, .45 caliber ball round at 400-450 feet per second, which is roughly half the .45 ACP&#;s muzzle velocity.  But notwithstanding this poor performance against bullets, it is estimated to have defeated 75% of all shrapnel impacts from airburst munitions, and it had, therefore, an immediate positive impact on troop casualty rates and morale.  In the Adrian&#;s wake, every other participant in WWI &#; except for Russia &#; hastened to develop and issue steel helmets of their own.  Like the Adrian, these helmets had very poor resistance to small arms impacts, but were highly effective at protecting their wearers from shrapnel and fragmentation.

These same steel helmets, with minor modifications in some instances, were employed by all American and European forces through WWII.  And here they proved even more vital, for whereas fragments and shrapnel accounted for approximately 65% of all WWI casualties, they accounted for 73% of WWII&#;s wartime wounds.  The widespread use of the steel helmet shifted patterns of wounding and was highly effective at preventing fatal head injury.  When the war was over, it was calculated that of all hits upon the US military&#;s M1 helmet 54% were defeated and, in fact, of all incapacitating hits upon the body, the M1 helmet prevented 10% of them. [3]

Needless to say, all of the helmets of the war were totally incapable of stopping 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54mmR, or .30-06 bullets at most engagement distances &#; and in fact they would, invariably, fail to stop 7.62x25mm Tokarev handgun/submachinegun rounds within 100 yards under normal ballistic test conditions &#; but that wasn&#;t their intended function.

So it is interesting that these steel helmets were often tested against down-loaded handgun rounds for quality control purposes.  [4] For although helmets were designed to defeat fragments and shrapnel, solely, the use of fragment simulating projectiles was not yet practical.  Simulating fragments and shrapnel is a difficult problem which requires specialized test projectiles, and the appropriate methodologies had not yet been developed at that time.

The M1 was typically tested against .45 caliber ball ammunition.  Its ballistic limit against 230gr. .45 caliber ball ammunition with a gilding metal jacket and soft lead core was 761 to 911 feet per second, and it was noted that the front of the M1 helmet should reliably stop such ammunition at 35 yards.

Against 230 grain .45 caliber ball ammunition with a copper-clad steel jacket and &#;hard&#; lead core, the M1 helmet&#;s performance was considerably reduced, so that it&#;s ballistic limit was between 542 and 735 feet per second, depending on location of impact and other factors.

Against 124gr. 9mm FMJ ammunition with a muzzle velocity of feet per second, the M1 was reliably penetrated out to 130 yards and possibly beyond.  The test range that the Military used at the time didn&#;t extend any further than that. [5]

Interestingly, the soft, large, and extremely heavy .45 ball ammo that was used as the test projectile for the M1 couldn&#;t possibly have been more different from the fragment-simulating projectiles (FSP) used to test helmets today.  The FSPs are much lighter &#; ranging from 2 to 64 grains &#; and they&#;re made entirely of AISI steel heat-treated to 30 HRC.  With no jacket, no deformable lead core, and much lighter weights and lower diameters, they&#;re a qualitatively different threat in every respect.

In any event, despite objectively poor performance against handgun threats, the M1 steel helmet was standard-issue for US soldiers for decades.  Remaining in service until the early 80s, it is by a wide margin the longest-serving US military helmet.  But serious efforts to replace it with an improved helmet had begun in the s, and ran through the s.

At first, different bulk materials like titanium alloys and polycarbonate were considered, and hundreds of prototypes were made.  The titanium helmets were deemed too expensive &#; and their performance, though better than the extremely cheap M1, wasn&#;t considered a significant enough improvement.  The polycarbonate helmets, though relatively impressive in terms of performance, were removed from contention on account of their poor resistance to solvent and chemical exposure.  Ultimately, these projects and many others did not result in any helmet material that might replace the M1&#;s WWI-vintage Hadfield steel.  (Incidentally, many of these efforts &#; including the polycarbonate helmet &#; were performed under the LINCLOE Project, which ultimately resulted in the ALICE gear system.)

Fiberglass helmets were also prototyped and examined, and although they exhibited superior ballistic properties in comparison with the M1 helmet, they lacked durability and were prone to delaminating in salt water.  They were not adopted by the US military, but the first ballistic police helmets were of fiberglass and were modeled upon these early US military experiments.

In the late s, Brigadier General George Hayes, working at the Office of the Surgeon General, spearheaded an effort to replace the M1 with a nylon-laminate helmet of a closer-fitting and somewhat more streamlined design.  Prototypes of this new fiber-composite helmet were produced in the Army&#;s Edgewood Arsenal by a Mr. George Stewart, and the so-called Hayes-Stewart helmet was slowly evaluated over the next several years.  Its ballistic properties were not improved over the M1, its area of coverage was only a slight improvement, and it was &#;not properly human factors engineered&#; particularly in that it made wearing a flak jacket uncomfortable.  For these reasons, the helmet was not adopted by the Army and work ceased by .

But the Hayes-Stewart helmet spurred general interest in polymeric fiber composite helmets, and in this respect it can be seen as a fore-runner to the PASGT helmet, which was developed later in the s.

In the mid s, duPont chemists working on materials for automobile tire reinforcement identified a high-modulus polymer fiber which was first named PRD-49-IV was later trademarked and sold as Kevlar® 29.  This material was of immediate interest to the US military.  For at the time of its production it was 2.5 times as strong as any other textile fiber, and its performance was 60-100% better than ballistic nylon on a weight basis.  Little time was wasted in replacing the nylon and fiberglass flak jackets with more protective and lighter Kevlar vests. And, taking a page from the Hayes-Stewart, Kevlar-laminate helmets &#; stiffened with about 20% by weight of a polymeric (PVB-phenolic) resin &#; were developed.  Both the vests and the helmets were introduced as the PASGT program, and were issued to the troops in .  Some U.S. soldiers wore PASGT helmets in Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) in , Panama (Operation Just Cause) in , and in the Middle East (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) in -.

Unlike the M1, the PASGT helmet was tested against real FSPs, and, with a V50 against 17gr. .22 caliber FSPs at feet per second, exhibited considerably better performance than the M1, which had a V50 of around fps.  [6]  Against the entire range of FSPs, from 2 grains to 64 grains, the PASGT&#;s performance was anywhere from 42-79% superior to the M1.  [3] The PASGT, though not officially rated to stop handgun rounds, was also demonstrably capable of stopping 9mm FMJ service ammunition at typical muzzle velocities.

All of this is tempered somewhat by the fact that the PASGT helmet is markedly heavier than the M1.  A size XL PASGT weighs 4.2 pounds; a size XL M1 weighs 2.85 pounds.  (The M1 was only offered in one size, which corresponds to an XL in dimensions and coverage.)  Were the M1 made 47% heavier, thicker, out of a more modern steel alloy, it stands to reason that its protective capabilities could have kept pace, at a much lower cost and with superior performance against small-arms projectiles.  Indeed, we know that this is the case, for a modernized steel helmet &#; the Adept NovaSteel &#; is simultaneously lighter than the PASGT and performs better against both fragments and handgun rounds.  It is frankly surprising that something along such lines was never attempted or, seemingly, considered.  As things stand, it could be argued, and very convincingly, that the introduction of the Kevlar helmet was a mistake.

And that&#;s without taking into consideration the fact that the PASGT was perhaps an order of magnitude more expensive than the M1, which cost the military $3.03/unit in the early s. ($1.05 for the manganese steel shell, $1.98 for the liner.)

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]

The exact ballistic capabilities of the ECH and IHPS have not been disclosed to the public, but it is believed that both helmets are capable of stopping 7.62x39mm and lead-cored 5.56x45mm ball rounds at muzzle velocity, and also offer standoff protection from 7.62x51mm M80 ball.  Both the ECH and IHPS are readily available on the military surplus market, and some units have been subjected to impromptu testing.

Neither the IHPS nor the ECH will stop rifle rounds with a hard or semi-hard steel core.  This includes the common 5.56x45mm M855, the 5.56x45mm M855A1, the 7.62x54mmR LPS, the 7.62x39mm API-BZ, the 5.45x39mm 7N6, and many other projectiles which are presently in use with military and paramilitary forces worldwide.  In fact, the standard-issue rifle rounds of all developed countries are steel-core rounds.  Fiber composite materials, when used as standalone armor materials, generally offer limited protection against such threats, whether they are used in body armor, helmets, or static barriers.  [13]

The primary differences between the IHPS and the ECH are aesthetic.  The ECH was built to look like the ACH, whereas the IHPS is a novel design with a totally proprietary accessory-mounting system.  (And, though outside the scope of this particular article, which focuses on ballistic characteristics, the IHPS also has a slightly higher blunt impact rating than any other military helmet ever fielded.  Its more efficient padding system gives it a small performance advantage over the ECH and ACH.)

ECH-style helmets are currently being produced for the civilian and police market.  The Ops-Core FAST RF1 [14] and the Highcom/XTEK Striker Arditi [15] are examples of this.  The performance characteristics, material construction, and weights of these new helmets are broadly in-line with those of the ECH and IHPS.  They are likely tested in the same way, i.e. with no backface deformation limit.  Under the circumstances, this is not inappropriate.

Just as the MICH and ACH cured the deficiencies of the PASGT, near-future future helmets are going to solve the two major gaps in the performance of the ECH/IHPS:  The backface deformation problem, and the steel-cored bullet problem.  How they are going to do this is trivially self-evident: The solution can only lie in the use of hard, but very lightweight, ceramic materials affixed to the helmet&#;s outer surface.  This ceramic layer will disrupt or shatter incoming steel-cored projectiles, to such an extent that the underlying helmet shell will be able to catch and absorb whatever remains of them and their residual kinetic energy.  Helmets have already been produced that have stopped the 5.56x45mm M855A1, with its hardened steel penetrator, at over feet per second with backface deformation measured at under 10mm.  On the inner surface of the helmet, exceedingly stiff materials limit shell deformation to within the levels set down in the ACH specification, even when those helmets are struck by high-energy rifle fire.

Such solutions are already commercially available, e.g. in ceramic up-armor tile kits that are already commercially available. [16] This sort of system design reliably stops steel-cored rifle ball rounds, and, at the same time, helmet backface deformation upon impact is not excessive &#; it is, in fact, within the limits set for the ACH against 9mm FMJ handgun rounds.

So here we have the evolution of the ballistic capabilities of the combat helmet: The tale begins with steel helmets with moderate fragment resistance and very little resistance to small arms projectiles.  Later, aramid helmets with improved ballistic and anti-fragment capabilities were introduced.  (But these helmets were significantly heavier and much more expensive &#; and a similarly weighty steel helmet likely would have offered similarly improved ballistic performance.  These facts should make the introduction of the aramid helmet, in the first instance, somewhat controversial.)  These aramid helmets are capable of reliably stopping 9mm FMJ at fps, as well as all lesser handgun threats.  Very recently, UHMWPE has supplanted aramid as the helmet material of choice, and helmets made of this material offer much better resistance to penetration from fragments and small arms threats &#; including rifle threats with lead or mild steel cores.  These helmets do, however, deform excessively when struck by rifle rounds, to such an extent that the helmet shell can come into contact with the skull at high speed, so the actual degree of small arms protection they offer is, as yet, unknown.  Future helmets shall extend small arms protection to steel cored rifle ball rounds, and will mitigate, to some extent, the severe backface deformation seen in most of today&#;s &#;rifle resistant&#; helmets.

Combat helmets, traditionally, are not exactly bulletproof &#; but they&#;re getting closer all the time, and helmets capable of stopping all common small-arms threats are right on the horizon.

For more UHMWPE Fiberinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.