Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
4/10/2007 10:05:49 AM EDT
I have been thinking lately of all the head wounds coming back from the "sandbox".  Looking at the design of this helmet, I can see why.... no rear or side protection, of sorts.
Just looking at the picture that was previously on another thread, I downloaded it to prove my point.
 Notice, hardly any rear protection at all.  I would prefer to see the helmet design to go down to at least the bottom of the black flap of the webbing.  To me.... that is alot of area not protected.  Dont know.... maybe the DOD thought it was sufficient material, but not for me.  Could be I still think I am wearing the old "Steel PissPot" I was issued back in the '60's??  My fire fighting helmet provided more protection than these new designs do.!!
  Having not had to wear one of these newer helmets..... I might be wrong in my assumption on design flaws, but I would like to hear from others that have worn the new one and comment on it as to protection, etc.



4/10/2007 10:08:36 AM EDT
[#1]
I personally know people whos lives have been saved by the MICH helmets and I know that the army will be fielding a nape protector that attaches to the helmets retention system.  I agree the cut seems to pretty generously leave areas open and I dont see why they didnt just revamp the PASGT series
4/10/2007 10:12:06 AM EDT
[#2]
I like it. The retention system is better for ab ops and it has better padding than the k-pot. I personally think its more comfortable and doesnt fuck with your hearing as bad.
4/10/2007 10:13:58 AM EDT
[#3]
I tell you what.  Put on a PASGT helmet and a full IBA and then assume a prone unsupported firing position.  You'll understand instantly why that material is "missing" at the back.  If the officer wearing the ACH/MICH were also wearing his IBA it would be more apparent.  As was already said, there is a nape pad coming very soon to help fill that space, but the soft armor won't stop a rifle round anyway (neither will the helmet).
4/10/2007 10:20:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Their does seem to be a lot of open space their.
4/10/2007 10:22:30 AM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
I tell you what.  Put on a PASGT helmet and a full IBA and then assume a prone unsupported firing position.  You'll understand instantly why that material is "missing" at the back.  If the officer wearing the ACH/MICH were also wearing his IBA it would be more apparent.  As was already said, there is a nape pad coming very soon to help fill that space, but the soft armor won't stop a rifle round anyway (neither will the helmet).


+1-this was a problem that went back to the original PASGT vest & helmet combo; the PASGT vest "collar" would push the helmet down your forehead and block your sight.
4/10/2007 10:26:56 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I tell you what.  Put on a PASGT helmet and a full IBA and then assume a prone unsupported firing position.  You'll understand instantly why that material is "missing" at the back.  If the officer wearing the ACH/MICH were also wearing his IBA it would be more apparent.  As was already said, there is a nape pad coming very soon to help fill that space, but the soft armor won't stop a rifle round anyway (neither will the helmet).


+1-this was a problem that went back to the original PASGT vest & helmet combo; the PASGT vest "collar" would push the helmet down your forehead and block your sight.



While the IBA interference is the reason the cut of the helmet was changed, you are WRONG about the penetration.

The MICH is rated to stop 7.62x39 at 100 yds.  That is half the reason for the pads, they distribute the force of the round across the surface of the skull and helps to dissipate the energy of the round.

Will you be a happy camper?  No.  But you will live and probably even get to pop one into the SOB who shot you in the head.
4/10/2007 10:32:07 AM EDT
[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I tell you what.  Put on a PASGT helmet and a full IBA and then assume a prone unsupported firing position.  You'll understand instantly why that material is "missing" at the back.  If the officer wearing the ACH/MICH were also wearing his IBA it would be more apparent.  As was already said, there is a nape pad coming very soon to help fill that space, but the soft armor won't stop a rifle round anyway (neither will the helmet).


+1-this was a problem that went back to the original PASGT vest & helmet combo; the PASGT vest "collar" would push the helmet down your forehead and block your sight.



While the IBA interference is the reason the cut of the helmet was changed, you are WRONG about the penetration.

The MICH is rated to stop 7.62x39 at 100 yds.  That is half the reason for the pads, they distribute the force of the round across the surface of the skull and helps to dissipate the energy of the round.

Will you be a happy camper?  No.  But you will live and probably even get to pop one into the SOB who shot you in the head.


I didn't know that.  The SOF guys told me it was rated exactly the same as the old PASGT.  Either way, most of the snipers here are using 7.62X54R anyway.  It's always better than nothing.  
4/10/2007 10:32:11 AM EDT
[#8]
There was a rumor floating around after Just Cause about a PASGT helmet with the wearer surviving two 5.56 hits with the bullets embedding themselves in the helmet.
4/10/2007 11:20:24 AM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
There was a rumor floating around after Just Cause about a PASGT helmet with the wearer surviving two 5.56 hits with the bullets embedding themselves in the helmet.


There is a PASGT helmet in the 82nd Airborne Division Museum with a 7.62x39mm round embedded in it.  Not a rumor.

Of course, there are also coonfirmed situations where a M1 steel helmet save its wearer from a German 7.92mm in WWII (angle, angle, angle!).