Nope...interested though.

Do the have a price?

I've never heard of MTek before.

Have they been around for a long time?

Been around a while yes, they have been making ballistic upgrades to helmets for a while

Rails appear proprietary.

Wonder if it's compatible with Ops Core ARC accessories like the Crye and Revision ARC rails?

NVM.
I see they are M-LOK rails.

I dig the shape - really like how it wraps around towards the nape and conforms to the back of the head.

One of my greatest things that detract me from the TW is how the back juts outward.

Only hope is that it will fit other suspension harnesses found on the market.

Why? Why in the world would they make another helmet in this price range. If they could come out with a Carbon helmet below the price of a Wendy LTP but a bit higher than a Base Jump they will dominate everything. I would gladly buy two right off the bat if they were in that price range no questions asked.

I don't exactly trust my Base Jump's shroud long term, but I also don't feel the need to pay nearly triple the price to get a Carbon. I hate to say it but those China clones are starting to come out with some really high quality clones. I could buy a clone, strip the helmet down to the shell and put real rails, shroud, pads and a suspension system and it will still come out to half the price of the real thing.

Ops Core or Team Wendy needs to offer me a Polymer helmet that can take a 3 hole and they will have all my money. All of it.

Sort of wonder from what size helmet they got that weight from.

If it's from a size large I will be very impressed. In comparison the Ceradyne Ballistic Bump is 1.32 lbs for the finished shell - pretty sure this just means a painted helmet shell but perhaps I'm wrong and includes the rails and shroud.

And we all know they won't beat Wendy in terms of pads. That is just not going to happen.

While I 100% completely believe they will have made a good product and offered advances in some area - if you notice it's lacking a suspension system. I don't even believe a Camfit would be able to be attached to it. Going back to a plain old chinstrap seems a bit like a regression to me The potential for weight savings is there or they might have merely been quoting their medium size helmet, which would put them at par with everything else. We will wait and see. It just looks like we are getting another option as opposed to breaking new ground.

On the intellectual property front - No real way to defend that... But they are made for kids who can't and don't want to afford them. The shells have increased in quality and the vast, vast majority are marketed as Airsoft and Paintball helmets. The thing that worries me is China is marketing PASGT and FAST Helmet clones as ballistic rated, whereas there are Youtube videos of 9mm penetrating both the front and exiting the back of that specific helmet. Those need to be shut down before they get someone killed :/

Back on topic-ish, I've also been toying around with doing something like this. This helmet makes me tingly in many ways.

On the first link in the thread the ballistic helmet is quoted at 2.2lbs, that is what I went off of when I made my statement. when I googled "Ops Core Ballistic" first page on Ops Cores website I ended up on was the Maritime, which is quoted at 2.42lbs on it's Small/Medium helmet and 2.47lbs for the M/L. I realize my mistake now and I half assed it as there is the Sentry and High Cuts and they weight more... but even when you factor in the Wendy it still works out to a difference of 100-200 grams. Not much at all, but I respect that it adds up.

But if to gain that 100-200g savings you have to sacrifice a suspension system, which going by the pictures it appears not to support one? I wouldn't. Photos of the interior don't show any mechanism for it (actually it shows the chinstrap is easily detachable via clips) and none of the photos would suggest a knob, dial or any way to adjust those chinstraps(EDIT: adjust as in from a suspension system standpoint). They seem pretty much, well, like a chin strap. On top you have very, very stiff competition from Team Wendy who built their entire reputation on making the things inside the helmets before they went on to make the outsides of them.

When more details come out if it turns out I'm wrong? I'll come back here and admit it. I might even purchase one. Anything discussed here right now is purely speculation based on incomplete information. If it turns out to be 1.9lbs instead of 2.2lbs it starts making a substantial difference.

Tangent Conversation:
The reason why the PT Bravo interests me is the price. Go back into the Helmet gallery and you'll see the skate helmets evolve. PT Bravo came out as a lower cost alternative to running ballistics or a 220+ Base Jump. And it takes a shroud.

The fact I know it's possible to add ARC rails and all the goodies that come with it (I figured given the shape it wouldn't be possible), that I can also replace the pad system out for a more comfortable one, replace the basic Nape chinstrap with a CAMFIT (Seen it done on another PT Bravo), and set it up properly? It fills that niche of a 300~ dollar helmet that doesn't have an integrated shroud. It's a shell that has been reliable and has seen wide use by this forums users, and now I know it's possible to eliminate all the drawbacks and downsides that helmet has historically had over Ops Core and Team Wendy offerings.

Yup I was referring to the Ceradyne's weight. Man what I'd do for one.

Definitely wouldn't be interested in the MTEK if the suspension system was just straps AND used a different bolt pattern than the ACH. They've basically just bent themselves over at that point.

On the one hand, I sort of feel as though we're reaching a point of "option overload" when it comes to lightweight ballistic and "bump" helmet options.  

One thing I'd like to see is some sort of standardization for accessory mounting - are we going to go with the ARC pattern?  M-LOK?  TW?  If nothing else, I think it would streamline the "add-on" market to have some sort of stable standard, though I know that it's unlikely.  

I suppose to a certain extent the ARC pattern is more or less de facto standard because of its wide organizational use, but that's neither here nor there.  That's just a minor gripe.  

On the other hand, I'd be interested to see someone develop something like a "scalable" helmet system that has, at its core, a lightweight, ventilated bump, but can have applique "shells" based on the level of ballistic protection required.  

Things like the VS SLAAP and the Army's planned SPS are a step in that direction - but I don't necessarily see why it would be hard to have a lightweight plastic or even carbon "bump" helmet "chassis," whether in a "bolt-less" design or not, and have frag, LVL IIIA, and rifle rated applique "shells" that would slip over the bump based on the level of threat/need.  

The hardest part to figure out would be the shroud, but I'm sure that some of these bright design teams could figure something out.  

I guess the point is that I'm beginning to lose a little interest in "more of the same" from comparably priced helmet designs costing ~$1,000 or so fully equipped, without seeing much that's "different" being brought to bear.  

Then again... we are on AR15.com - and isn't that more or less what the AR15 has become?  

Bolt-less design is definitely cool, as is reducing weight while increasing protection rating, and more comfort is always better than less comfort... but I guess I'm just not getting "excited" yet.  

(I own no lightweight ballistic helmets yet - only ACHs and Ops Core BASE Jumps )

~Augee

Joe,

You make good points... but that's sort of my point.  

There's a reason I'm not a businessman... but IMHO, from an end-user standpoint, there's a point where I'd prefer manufacturer's simply bite the bullet and license a system that works well, rather than keep coming up with proprietary interfaces.  

Again, I know that's not necessarily the most business savvy decision, so I know it's a long-shot, but that's why my whole post was kind of "wistful."  

I'm not even necessarily saying that the ARC pattern should be the "dominant" one - only that it has somewhat become "de facto" anyways, Ops Core, Crye, and Revision now use it, and Ops Core and Crye in particular have institutional and organizational following.  Certainly it'd be nice if the design were simply "open sourced" like KeyMod, but that's neither here nor there - "Scorpion" notwithstanding - everyone already licenses MultiCam from Crye, not to mention licensing the M4 and M16, sometimes it's just what needs to happen.  

Again, I agree that modularity and scalability is not the direction manufacturers are going with new products - however - I believe that a good argument could be made that that is the way end-users are moving - I would point out again the Velocity Systems SLAAP and the somewhat laughable in its current incarnation, but conceptually (IMHO) sound Army SPS.  Moreover, even as the lightweight "ballistic bump" helmets are showing up - so are scalable facial protection options for already existing helmet systems - referencing again the Revision system, as well as "Motomandibles," "Chops," etc. available for... I guess we could call them now "legacy" (?) lightweight helmet systems.  








IMHO, the concept of a scalable helmet makes sense to me for a variety of reasons - one of the benefits, IMHO, of "bump" helmets is the ability to have ventilated shells - a combination ballistic/bump would largely eliminate this option, except for an Airframe-style ventilation, which renders much more difficult the "one piece" option.  

On the other hand - if you can make a one-piece helmet shell that's super light, but still has a respectable protection rating - you can make an applique plate that way, too - it need simply slip over the bump shell and add very little weight.  

This also makes the "buy-in" costs scalable - you can invest in a "bump only" and purchase protection a la carte, or you can invest in the "full system," with any number of combinations in between.  

Looking at it from an organizational point of view - you could have a basic issue of the bump shell and ballistic applique, while issuing heavier protection to organizations based on MTOE function (e.g. gunners).  

In a hypothetically perfect world (I know, I know ), this would also obviate the need to wear a ballistic helmet in situations where full ballistic protection is unnecessary, i.e. driving/riding in military vehicles, for example.  

Anyways, very little of this is related to the MTek Flux specifically, just some general thoughts on what I'd like to see in helmet design, which is kind of outside the scope of this post... and arguably this sub-forum...

...back to your regularly scheduled programming...

~Augee