So I decided to cut down a MSA MICH helmet and allot of people said the cut edges would not or might not stop a bullet. So I decided to test one of the ears I cut off on both the factory edge and cut edge.

The helmet



I shot it with a suppressed mpx sbr. I shot the factory edge with a 115fmj round nose at 1150fps and the cut edge I shot with a 124JHP which is my major 9mm load going about 1400fps from a Glock so maybe a bit more from the mpx.


It faired very well and no penetrations.

How is that helmet better for your purposes?

Not sure I completly understand what you are fishing for with a question that can be taken so many different ways.

I have no purpose for it really, that is partly why I cut it down. It has been sitting on a shelf collecting dust and I wanted something to tinker with. I doubt I will ever use it for more than mounting my NODs and even then I prefer my bump helmet cause it's lighter.

The point of this post was for entertainment value and in a very far stretch informational. I am not and will not advocate for anyone in the line of fire to modify their helmet in any way in which would compromise the integrty of the helmet to function the way it was designed.

Thanks for shooting the remnant.  Just this morning I was wondering how ACHs actually perform against small arms fire.

Awesome thread.  Thank you!

I don't know exactly what thread or conversation you might be referring to, so I cannot say with 100% certainty, however, I'm thinking you may have misinterpreted what folks were saying.

It's not that the cut edges of a helmet won't stop a bullet, it's that cutting into a ballistic helmet without the right equipment may cause a variety of issues that might degrade the level of protection that the helmet gives you (aside from the obvious issue of coverage).

This could be anything from moisture getting in that causes the material to degrade, to structural integrity problems. In addition to not being addressed by your "experiment," these issues are ones that could take some time to develop--and might not be immediately apparent if a helmet were tested immediately after modification.

For this reason (and for the potential liability reasons that might come with it), modified ballistic helmets are not recommended for professional use, but plenty of people do and have use them for some training uses, or just to have a helmet. To a certain extent, a ballistic helmet, even one that might not be 100% is still potentially a better bet than a bump helmet or no helmet, so they're a viable cost cutting approach in some circumstances--but the usual advice is for armed professionals with a higher than "normal" risk of actually being shot at are recommended not to attempt to modify ballistic helmets.

Ultimately, the big complaint with many about the ACH/MICH is compatibility difficulties with comms/hearing protection--which is why high cut helmets have become popular.

I too have and use high cut helmets, however, at the same time, it's worth pointing out that the "MICH" in fact stands for "Modular Integrated Communications Helmet," and was specifically designed for using over the head comms under the helmet. I would submit that most folks who say that they cannot fit comms under the earcups of a MICH/ACH, are in fact wearing a helmet that is improperly sized/adjusted for them, even if it was issued by the military (CIF guys in a rush to issue items don't always size things perfectly, surprise surprise).

~Augee

Makes perfect sense! If I was a professional, which I'm not, that gets shot at then I would most defiantly drop the money on a opscore, crye, or mtek without blinking.

That said I did reseal the edges that were cut on the helmet. The pieces that were cut off were not treated with anything and had been sitting in my humid garage for a while. The helmet was also army surplus and kinda beat up. Does this make any difference maybe yes maybe no.

Again this was just for information purposes and every helmet is different, every cut is different, and every condition is different. So I am NOT stating that one test on one ear is conclusive in any way. Only that on my one test sample under my conditions it performed how I'd like it to.

Just out of curiousity, how did you cut it down? Like what tools, method, etc. I have commercial IIIa PASGT style helmet that sits and I'd like to cut it down to be able to use ear pro and mount NVGs. Also, I need another project

I put the ear part in a vice and used a fine tooth "bi-metal" blade on a jig saw. I used a fresh utility blade to start peeling the edge of the rubber off and finished peeling it with my fingers. Traced the parts I wanted cut off with the rails and a sharpie. Then slowly cut through it at the pace the saw wanted to go. I used a tube of pressure epoxy glue called fiberfix that is 2500lbs flexible hold supposedly, it's in a red tube and box at lowes, to put the rubber edge back on. I used an extra amount on the cut part to make sure it sealed the edge. It's a pressure cure that cures in 30 seconds under pressure. The jig saw seems to be the easiest and cleanest cut. A sawzall causes too much force and cut of disc just doesn't work as well as I liked.

Thanks for the info and the test. I'll be off to Lowe's to get some stuff.

A guy I've known for 30+ years took a single small arms round to his ACH helmet (may have bounced off a wall first) while serving as a turret gunner in Iraq.  The little gouge was enough that he issued a replacement.  He bought the damaged helmet and brought it home. The gouge was about 3/8" by 1".  When asked why it was replaced he said they told him the structural intrigrity was compromised.

I liked this thread because I've been curious about the perpendicular ballistic capabilities of the helmet since.

ETA:  He was serving with an ARNG unit. The helmet was hit above the ear cup in a (front to rear) direction. He was up in the turret while driving down a narrow road with masonry type structures on both sides.  He called it a "bullet funnel".

Gary, an angel was certainly watching your friend that day.

I'm not surprised that the helmet did it's job with a ricochet/deflection, the luck was that it wasn't a direct hit (assuming some kind of rifle).

It is SOP to immediately replace any body armor that has been damaged via bullets and shrapnel. Other conditions include excessive salt water, chemicals (gas/diesel, bleach, oils, etc), and impacts (drops, ran over, etc). Always better safe than sorry.

Modern armor is quite resilient, I've seen ESAPI and helmets dropped from at least 6 feet that did not crack or appear damaged beyond surface scratches. Chemicals, OTOH, I'm sure will destroy composite armors (UHMWPE, ceramics), but likely won't do much to AR 500.

To the OP, thanks for sharing the test. I am surprised it did stop that hot little gem on the cut edge, I would expect certain failure in that case. The more centered hits, I would expect to work as they did. Granted having only one sample to test does make it more anecdotal than scientific.

Your finish work with the epoxy seems adequate given the testing results. However I do question the possibility of the chemicals in the epoxy being able to break down the helmet materials.

What did you do with the other cut off? That might prove interesting to test at a later date if you apply the same epoxy and wait a couple months (to ensure any chemical reaction will have occurred).

Good idea on the other ear. I was thinking of doing something with it.

I seriously doubt it would be an issue. They use an epoxy to seal at the factory. Forgot exactly what it was, but it is some sort of epoxy.

Since I'm not a chemical engineer...

It seems very possible it could happen. Although I doubt they really use some super secret high speed epoxy, it's probably off the shelf stuff. Also, I would expect them to design it (chemically) to not get too messed up from more/less common chemicals.

OP, what kind of suspension system are you using in your modified MICH?

Not OP, but that's an Ops Core OCC dial.

Great thread, I never had any doubts with my Cut Mitch helmet used for 2 Afghan tours.

I saw a Romanian SF team cut all their helmets, and by the end of the tour a few of them had warping and bubbling in the layers above the cut.

I can believe it, ......Long before the Ops Core.
I had seen quite a few US SOF who had cut helmets and just taped the edges thinking that was good enough.

The key is what you do after you cut it...
Marine Epoxy is what I used, it dried hard as rock and sealed up tight.
I think my Helmet is going on 4 years now since I cut it ....still solid.

This is probably from a thin cover skin that goes over many foreign ballistic helmets.

If you don't remove it and just seal it Air gets in and the skin bubbles out but it's not the kevlar shell itself bubbling out.

I've seen this on a Geflechtshelm I cut n sealed

There seems to be much angst about this subject.  It is a personal choice.  And opinions do vary.  I have modified three different helmets like this so far.  A MSA, a Revision, and a Gemtech.  I did it first of all because of the substantial savings, also for the challenge, and to proof the process.  

Like anything else, you can fuck it up, or you can do it right.  If you "do it right", I think it is a perfectly viable choice, although like I said, there are those who believe doing anything like this is wrong.  If that's you, then buy the factory, unmodified part.  If you believe, like I do, that many things in life are inherently risky, and worrying about the integrity of the cut edge of your helmet is just not high on your list, then consider a helmet mod.  That is a choice.  You have to make it.  Weigh the different opinions and decide for yourself.

So up front, there are those in a high threat environment or job description.  They want every edge their equipment can give them.  So they use the best.  They don't muck about with helmet mods, in fact they are probably issued state of the art.  Or buy it themselves.  That is one choice.

Then there are those, in the same boat, but are more free-spirited, who like to R&D their kit.  I have a buddy like this, and he told me he knew many guys who ran modified helmets on combat deployments, just as others have mentioned.  This is also a choice.

And then we get into the rest of us out there.  There are many "preppers" who as the title suggests are preparing for possible hard times.  In this case, we are (usually) on limited budgets.  If I can make a viable helmet for around 3-500 bucks, versus 1-1,500, yeah, I'm gonna do it.  Sure it's a compromise between coverage and weight.  But if done correctly, it won't effect the helmet integrity.  And here's another choice.

Now we get into "other use" category.  Collectors, mil-sim, competitors, whatever blows your skirt up.  Here you have guys in complete load-outs that would do DevGru proud, down to humble johnny homemaker set ups.  Since this is probably the biggest category, numbers-wise, I would think helmet mods would be pretty popular amongst this crowd.  And likely as not, never be any factor to their intended use.  This is also a choice.

To the OP, I think this is an interesting test.  It doesn't fully prove that a modified helmet edge won't fail, but neither does prove that it will automatically do so.  To the larger issue, a 9mm round on the edge of your BA, wherever that may be, is a potential problem.  Combat may be a matter of inches, one way or the other.  You either view that as an acceptable risk, or not.  Whether you mod your equipment, or not, may or may not have anything to do with it.  This is your choice.  

Within the context of a civilian self-defense group, I think modified helmets are well worth the risk, in terms of affordability, weight, and the likelihood of use.  But this is just me and my personal decision.  What you decide, is what you decide.

Thinking more of the OP, it's impressive, period.

That sample took TWO hits, that it's barely rated for. IIRC they are rated for 9mm ball at 1200fps. I speculate OP's major load is hitting at least 1500 coming from the sbr barrel as opposed to his glock.

The hotter round was the second shot, so it made contact with already compromised material (remember, they're only designed to work once). It still didn't penetrate. To add to it, neither edge had epoxy, which would in theory strengthen it.

It inspires a lot of confidence in me.

Yes it is very impressive.  The issue is whether that is repeatable over a wide sample base.  I suspect that it is, but have no scientific "proof".  

I think this sort of thing rankles a lot of feathers because people have various opinions, agendas, prejudices, etc.

I have seen this kind of thing time and again within the industry.  The mfg's, dealers, and their friends will caution against doing any kind of product modification.  You have to decide if that is bullshit or not.

In a similar vein, you see surplus police Kevlar vests at gunshows.  Kevlar is retired after 10 years of service regardless of what shape it's in.  I just bought a surplus helmet with an '05 mfg date, which I suspect was retired for the same reason.  Anyways, I have shot 10 year+ surplus Kevlar and it performed just fine.  I suspect my helmet will perform as well.  I might shoot the cut off "ears" myself.  

I have cut down wrap-around vests into plate backers, taped the edges, and sewn new covers to use as in-conjunction-with soft armor.  I have cut ACH's down to gunfighter helmets.  I would use this gear in a gun fight without reservation.  

Other folks will tell you this is crazy, for a variety of reasons.  Legalities, liabilities, economic gain, a false sense of pride or professionalism, etc.   I have always sought to improve, modify, optimize my kit, whether by economic necessity, or just because I enjoy doing it.  Since I am not a professional, I feel free to do whatever the fuck I want, without regard to insurance pay out or whatever.  And I have always voided any mfg warranty in about the first 5 minutes on any piece of kit, so that's not an issue either.  As always, YMMV.  

I applaud the OP for his work here.

You see too many people scared to be proven wrong. Example, the grease thread in maintenance and cleaning. I suggested the people with dissenting opinions just go try it, exactly 0 have reported back to provide supporting evidence for either side.

OP said fuck it, and shot the scraps. He probably would've been happy to post the results if it had failed with 1 shot from a 22 pistol. OP has actually helped the community by going out and doing it. OTOH, I do agree with how many variables there are in armor like that, a repeatable test may be difficult.

I've got a guy that doesn't believe 5.56 will fragment at <30 yards in common wall materials. We'll see how that one goes on Saturday, we will also sample buckshot, 9mm and 45.

Fuck Yeah!  There it is.  I mean you can read all you want, judge the sources, etc.  But performing the testing and eval yourself will tell you a lot.  Some will say it's uncontrolled or whatever.   Well, ya, sure.  But you ain't doing this for retail sale, so piss on what the group-think is, and drive on.  Lots of things work without government approval.    

This guy went out and did something that frankly most folks will never do.  And then he shared it here.  That took balls.  He deserves our thanks, but he will get scorn, ridicule, and sarcasm.  In other words, business as usual.

The bottom line here is that this mod, if done correctly, will not affect the integrity of the helmet.  Any helmet, stock or modified could take an edge round and fail.  Or not.  I believe that is the simple truth.    

The larger purpose of the helmet is to protect from fragmentation.  Being sort of 9mm rated is good, but the real threat I'd like pro from is rifle rounds.  I have heard of anecdotal evidence of helmets stopping deflected AK rounds, which is as good as we are probably going to get.

The cut down helmet is a choice between weight and coverage.  Between likelihood of use.  Or just wanting a gunfighter helmet, for whatever reason.

I don't know the spec of a USGI helmet (I assume they afford the same protection, it's weight, coverage, and features that differ). I did look up a CVC helmet, and they have 3 kinds, no rating, <1000fps, and <1250fps IIRC.

I've heard first hand of marines being hit by AK rounds (unknown whether 5.45 or 7.62x39) in combat. The projectiles DO make it through, but get deflected and make a scalping cut around the head, likely fracturing the skull. The bullet apparently does NOT enter the skull, unless it's a no-shit direct hit (almost impossible given the curvature).

Do I entirely believe this? No. I do believe it has some truth, though. I'm positive that it has happened. Whether or not the engagement was <50 yards, or 400 yards, we don't know. We don't know if those bullets did get deflected first, or if they were perfect direct hits. We don't know if that helmet got dropped off a humvee the week before, if it has been soaked in diesel, or if it was brand new issue.

We do know that no 2 shots are the same, and bullets do crazy shit and have a mind of their own once they impact a target.

Hell, this past weekend we saw variation of crater depth averaging 1/32" in 1/2 mild steel using 308 180gr soft points at 300 yards (federal 308B from a 22" barrel) and probably 1/64" variation on same target/distance with 5.56 55gr (federal AE223M).

Yeah that's pretty much it.  Guy's experiences with BA in combat is wide-ranging; trying to make generalizations can be hazardous.  Who knows if having armor will make any difference to the outcome.  Who knows how that armor will work when hit with whatever.  And finally, who knows if an armor mod will make any difference in the outcome.  A government testing lab may use the best protocol thought to cover the most likely events and some new threat will then be discovered.   A guy may go out and test this stuff under his conditions and make his own conclusions.  They may be just as valid as official testing.          

The issue at hand is whether a "cut" edge of an ACH still has ballistic integrity.  After cutting a few of them up, I am very impressed with whatever epoxy matrix they use to bond and shape the helmets.  It does not de-lam or separate easily after grinding, sawing, and sanding.  In fact, if you immediately re-seal it with a good epoxy and rubberized coating, I don't think there will be any difference in performance from the factory edge.  Now the problem arises when this mod is not done properly.  If in fact this edge is not sealed, there is a possibility that moisture and/or other substances could contaminate the material.  Or not.

As an aside, I have cut up a few Kevlar vests and in this case, the problem might be more important.  Since aramid fiber layers are not usually saturated in an epoxy coating, they will fray when cut.  So unless you have a high pressure water cutter, you will experience some fraying of the edges when modifying soft body armor.  In this case I will usually cut oversize, and then tape and seal the edges, so that the frayed edges are compacted back into the solid woven layers.  You could make a case that these cut edges affect the integrity of the armor, since there is no epoxy matrix to hold the fibers in place.  But since it is a backing layer for a hard armor plate, it's importance is less than a stand-alone layer, and I accept that risk.

How do soft armor inserts come from the factory? I've never cut one open.

Are the edges of the individual layers heated to hem up the frays?

Are they folded back and sewn? Doesn't feel like it with my issued stuff.

Sewn together as a whole? Heated as a whole?

They definitely didn't glue them, or the edges would be rigid...

I've opened up about a dozen factory Kevlar vests, from Safariland, Second Chance, American, etc.  In every case it was a just raw cut edge.  Depending on vendor, some had more or less rows of stitching to hold everything together but no special edge treatment, other than cutting optimized for aramid fibers which minimized fraying.  After 10 years (the strike date), they all showed some fraying, depending on how much use it saw.  If you do good cutting, you are basically re-setting the clock to a fresh edge.  If not, you may effect the ballistic integrity somewhat.  But yeah, raw edges on all the stuff I saw from years ago.  Maybe that has changed but I doubt it.  As long as the Kevlar is encased in a tight fitting cover, it will pretty much stay in place.

The sewing varied widely.  American did a nice 3" quilted pattern, others just a centerline to hold all layers together.  But nothing was used to laminate the layers together.    

American did some R&D with epoxy resin impregnated Kevlar awhile back but it was stiff, hot, heavy, and unpopular.  Although today it might be different, with higher threat levels.

Was concerned about that as well

Thanks you for posting your test results

Thanks diz.

I forget which helmet, but Old_Painless did test one (modern kevlar) against various rounds. It's on TBOT.