FirstSpear TV

SOFIC 2014 – Polaris Industries

This was a real shocker. Polaris Industries recently started working with a composites company named M9 Defense. Aside from vehicle armor, they also came up with a new helmet in response to a USSOCOM Broad Agency Announcement.

20140520-164850.jpg

The Lightweight Tactical Helmet boasts an aerial density of less than 2 lbs psf, yet defeats 7.62×39 threats with a Back Face Deformation of <25.4 mm front and back and 16 mm side and crown. www.xshellhelmets.com

Tags: ,

12 Responses to “SOFIC 2014 – Polaris Industries”

  1. D says:

    Looks like progress. Is Opscore going to throw a fit or did they bless off on the (proprietary?) shape of the shell and the reference to the FAST helmet in the product descriptions?

    • Eddie says:

      I’d say it’s a safe bet to assume the latter. Who should be throwing a fit is Mikhail Kalashnikov seeing his unstoppable battle rifle be countered by ballistic genius. :3 That coffin is going to be rocking indefinitely. (No disrespect of course)

  2. orly? says:

    Here come the naysayers…

  3. Mick says:

    INteresting. Anyone read their conclusion that chin straps make injuries worse?

    http://www.xshellhelmets.com/chin-straps—trauma.html

    Mick.

    • bloke_from_ohio says:

      They have been claiming that since the 40’s if not earlier. The science did not back up the claim about the steel pot back then. I doubt it would back up the same claim about more modern helmets now.

      I want to see an actual study or some data to back up the claim. Your link has neither.

      • Mick says:

        Very true; I just thought it was an interesting, bold claim to make… and they claim to have the data, which of course is missing from the site…

        in the absence of good data on this point, does that make their other claims less plausible?

  4. SolidStateDrive says:

    Let’s say these helmets were adopted by the Army… what pattern would the cover be, should they use them by, let’s say, 2016?

    If you catch my drift, Soldier Systems…

    • SolidStateDrive says:

      Let’s say these helmets were adopted by the Army… what pattern would the cover be, should they use them by, let’s say, 2016?

      If you catch my drift, Soldier Systems…

  5. Chris says:

    manufacturer claims are made daily on great “advances”. let’s see how this all shapes up to independent testing.

  6. Chris K. says:

    Maybe they do but it helps if you can keep the helmet on your head long enough to protect your head. Seat belts technically cause injury but it’s the better of 2 evils.

  7. pbr549 says:

    My FO was killed in Afghanistan when the M1151 he was in hit a 3 tripple stacked AT mines and his head was slammed into the back of the drivers seat. Forehead was split open and he was killed instantly, He had his chinstrap unfastened and his ACH kicked back on the back of his head.

    • helmet research says:

      Data on chinstraps is related only to ballistic impacts and has no bearing on the other safety functions of any helmet. The data supports the claim that a helmet strapped tightly to a clay head-form will back-face more deeply into said head-form then a loose helmet. This is why all labs are required to strap the helmet down as a lose helmet will show a lower deformation result. this concept isn’t disputed in the helmet testing community. The safety of a loose helmet for blunt trauma is a good argument to keep a chinstrap tight. It does not however invalidate the claim that a lose helmet will cause a lower transfer of energy to a clay head-form.