Sad helmet incident

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:41:08 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:30:40 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.


Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.


Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I demonstrated how a fully lead non-jacketed .308 caliber (7.62 NATO)bullet would go right through a steel M1 helmet and liner. Most people were quite shocked at the ranges that would happen at.

Cheers

What velocity are you shooting all lead bullets at? And why? Don't you
get a lot of leading?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 3:41:11 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:30:40 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.


Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.


Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I demonstrated how a fully lead non-jacketed .308 caliber (7.62 NATO)bullet would go right through a steel M1 helmet and liner. Most people were quite shocked at the ranges that would happen at.

Cheers

That is now considered a sniper round. While dummy John is telling us about number of rounds to kill ratio all that does is explain the reason for the .223 that most troops carry. Ammunition is cheaper and lighter.

Do you suppose he has a subscription to one of those soldiers of fortune magazines?

I was the one in the actual line of fire. If we were hit it would have been a miracle if I could have escaped the plane but if I did I sure as hell wasn't going to be some dummy stumbling around in the forest.

I spent a large period of my youth walking around in the forests and salt marshes. My friend was a Japanese American who grew up in Roosevelts concentration camps. His father died there and his mother remarried a man who after that decided that Japanese culture was more important than American. So Ron and his father didn't get along. And him and I very seldom saw other humans were we went. Lots of snakes, lizards, toads and salamanders though. At that time people still hunted to put food on the table so anything bigger than squirrels was pretty rare.

So in the AF I spent time on the range and could put everything on the target at 150 yards with those old trashy M1A1's. I had good eyes then. Those rifles that had so many jacketed bullets fired through them that the rifling grooves were pretty much worn out. I'm sort of surprised that you could hit the broad side of a barn with them. I figured hitting a 3 ft circle was good enough. Those old iron sights totally covered the target so you had to guess where center was. Because of the range the bead was above the rear sight.

Pretty funny is that I can't hold on a target now. I'm too shaky. I went down to Arizona to ride with my good friend down there who was retired NCIS and Federal Investigator. Because of the work he did and the people that went away because of him, he always has a gun on him 24 hours a day. There was a laser rifle range upstairs at a sporting goods store and he dragged me up there kicking and screaming. Since he has to qualify every year and sometimes twice a year, he figured he was going to give me a shooting lesson. And if it were pistols he probably could have. But these were rifles. Finally after I was hitting everything I aimed at and he could only hit 30% he wanted to leave. His wife was with us so I was sure to really rub it in. I had completely forgotten that I also trained on moving targets and you don't have to hold on the target.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than
mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-.../this-lighter-
stronger-combat-helmet-is-headed-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is
not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before.

Is that from the testing lab chair polishers or the people on the ground
under fire?

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining. The
MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle helmet
that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff we have
now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much impact
resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 23:40:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than
mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-.../this-lighter-
stronger-combat-helmet-is-headed-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is
not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before.

Is that from the testing lab chair polishers or the people on the ground
under fire?

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining. The
MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle helmet
that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff we have
now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much impact
resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

see
https://www.military.com/kitup/2019/...-revealed.html

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

My freshman-year English teacher would have marked that as a
grammatical error because it doesn't say 100% of *what*.

It was on the final:
Correct "Crumpet Creek butter is definitely better".

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:50:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

My freshman-year English teacher would have marked that as a
grammatical error because it doesn't say 100% of *what*.

"100% greater blunt impact protection"? "Blunt Impact" is something,
see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

" Blunt trauma is physical trauma to a body part, either by impact,
injury or physical attack. The latter is usually referred to as blunt
force trauma. Blunt trauma is the initial trauma, from which develops
more specific types such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and/or
bone fractures. Blunt trauma is contrasted with penetrating trauma, in
which an object such as a projectile or knife enters the body. "


It was on the final:
Correct "Crumpet Creek butter is definitely better".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:31:49 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some
idea of the things that were being used in the 80's

80's, Recent?

I worked at Sandia National Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs which is
next door in the 2005 time period and the improvement of the old tin hat
started in the 1980's with improvements every couple of years and enough
improvement to make full scale changes about every 5 years. That means
that the latest improvements have gone on-line about something in the
last five years.

But the stuff I was hearing about is still at least 10 years off.
Through with the papers I have recently read I can see pretty much how
it will be done.

What have you done with your time besides posting here?

You wouldn't believe it.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:38:56 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 23:40:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining.
The MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle
helmet that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff
we have now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much
impact resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of
plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

see
https://www.military.com/kitup/2019/...-armys-newest-
combat-helmet-revealed.html

"100 percent greater blunt impact protection "

So it has doubled the past protection from being hit over the head by a
4x4?

the irony from this articles is that they been chasing lighter and lghter
helment, but also come uo with a new system to attach junk/weight to it?

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than
mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-.../this-lighter-
stronger-combat-helmet-is-headed-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is
not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before..

Is that from the testing lab chair polishers or the people on the ground
under fire?

My 2c is does it come fitted with a multiphase shock asorbing lining. The
MSR (bicycle) helmet I had had such and it was the only bicycle helmet
that could take real damage unlike the plastic and styofoam stuff we have
now.

So I'm wondering if in seeking a lighter military helmet, how much impact
resistance/protection they have thrown away. Plus, being made of plastic,
there is also the age question as all plastic hardens and that
brittleness turns lack of resiliance. Anyway.

At another forum the usual helmet crap came up and someone had a reference to how well helmets compared to the international standard. It turned out that most of the expensive helmets came in around 1.2 times better than the standard. These helmets met this simply by making the thickness of the Styrofoam a little more than necessary. The cheap Chinese helmets like Schwinn etc. had 1.5 or even more that of the standard and again that was simply by making the helmet marginally larger and adding additional Styrofoam.

Specialized I believe had the best of all performance. They did this not by adding more Styrofoam or making the helmet larger but have very high quality controlled Styrofoam with very carefully controlled bubble size in the foam.

Of course being three times as effective was measured simply by how far you could drop it with a head weight in it and maintain the deceleration rate in the standard. Since this rate is too high, almost all of these helmets were worthless standard or no.

Interestingly, the Trek/Bontrager helmets met the International standard despite having a deceleration rate much lower than the Styrofoam helmets. All this means is that as the Q-Cells collapse they meet a point at which they have smashed together so much that they then decelerated at the normal standard speed. This is hardly the point since the initial deceleration rate of 2/3's or so that of Styrofoam is the important part.

This testing didn't even mention that surprising reduction of deceleration and hence the improvement of concussion rates of 48 time lower brain damage..

IF you wear a helmet I would really recommend the Bontrager Q-Cell standard helmets. When they tested the MIPS they found no improvement but they do provide a MIPS liner for those who believe that it decreases injuries.

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:31:49 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some
idea of the things that were being used in the 80's

80's, Recent?

I worked at Sandia National Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs which is
next door in the 2005 time period and the improvement of the old tin hat
started in the 1980's with improvements every couple of years and enough
improvement to make full scale changes about every 5 years. That means
that the latest improvements have gone on-line about something in the
last five years.

But the stuff I was hearing about is still at least 10 years off.
Through with the papers I have recently read I can see pretty much how
it will be done.

What have you done with your time besides posting here?

You wouldn't believe it.

Be3cause you're a smart ass that ****es me off doesn't mean that I wouldn't believe you. I do think that you can discuss things intellectually if the time is right.