Martinsville, IN – April 29, 2016 – MTEK, manufacturer of high-performance ballistic products, announces they are now taking pre-orders for the latest development in head protection- The FLUX Ballistic. This helmet is a lightweight modular design that has an array of technological advancements in the ballistic helmet space.
The FLUX features an undercut shell geometry, which allows it to closely follow the natural contour of the head when compared to conventional “flared-out” helmet geometries. The lightweight shell is molded in-house using high-performance ballistic material, which is formed without any darts or slits in the material. It’s also 100% boltless, or bolt-through-less, meaning no drilled holes or perforations anywhere throughout the shell, and no hardened-steel bolts or fasteners. The finished shell weight of 1.1 lbs (2.2lbs total system weight) in conjunction with unique geometry, allows the FLUX Ballistic to be as light and comfortable as a bump helmet, while retaining the ballistic performance of much heavier systems.
“We could have released a conventional helmet 2 years ago, but decided to keep pushing the boundaries to avoid any compromise of the intended design. This required a significant amount of time and energy in order to further develop the processing techniques in order to take this to the next level”, explained MTEK Vice President of Business Development, Ryan Bowser.
The suspension and retention systems were made to support the ballistic shell in the best way possible. The Fluxliner is designed for the additional coverage area of the helmet’s unique shape and to make it as comfortable as possible for wear during prolonged use. Complementing the “Bolt-through-less” FLUX design, the retention system utilizes Inverse Clip, which allows the user to expeditiously change the retention system for removal, replacement or upgrade. The FLUX helmet uses the MAGPUL MLOK negative mounting space for accessory attachment points. This allows for some unique options for interchanging accessories (such as cameras and lights) between the helmet and rifle. Additionally, a spacer can be removed from underneath the accessory rail and replaced with upgraded ballistic covers. This furthers the helmet’s modular concept while ensuring maximum “rail-estate”.
“In the beginning, we asked ourselves how do we improve on some of the fantastic helmets that are already available? The answer we found was certainly not an easy one, but, in the end, has resulted in a lightweight, comfortable helmet that is configurable to many different situations and individuals.”
All FLUX Ballistic Helmets come standard with FLUX MLOK rails, Battle Bungees, exterior Velcro Loop, and the industry-leading Wilcox Industries L4 Series Shroud.
*Ballistic Side Covers, Mandible, and ISOFIT coming Q4 2016.
See the MTEK FLUX Ballistic here.
Tags: MTek
Nice suspension system.
What does it stop? Meets ACH spec?
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2015/05/26/rampart-range-day-mtek-weapon-systems/
Wow, that is a lot and I mean a lot cheaper than I thought it was going to be. Good stuff!
Oops that is the special pre-order price.
Regular price on par for what I thought it would go for.
Hmm. Wow. We sure have come a long way since the likes of the M1, Adrian and Tommy helmets.
And the Picklehaube of course. Who can forget the picklehaube.
I’d love to see a modern Pickelhaube
Does the “inverse clip” allow for the retention system to be configured for left eye dominant shooters?
Help me out here. Aren’t most buckles way lower than the cheek? I’ve seen other helmet companies offer left eye dominant chin straps and don’t really see the need. Is it common for shooters to place their jaw on the stock so the buckle interferes when they look down the sights?
I’m not sure were you think the buckle is or how a shooter should shooter, but if you get a good, proper cheek-weld, the buckle absolutely will be in the way. The harness on my issued ACH got in the way on a number of weapon systems. I switched to an Ops-Core harness for left eye dominant shooters and never looked back.
In my experience with the USMC lightweight helmet and the terrible chin straps we ran the buckle sat closer to the jaw than the cheek. Shooting with iron sights and the ACOG the buckle location was never an issue for the lefties I knew. The strap junction on the other hand was a pain because it was closer to the cheek. The original question was just out of curiosity. We bitched about a lot but I never heard the lefties bitching about buckles. From my optic this is a case millennial entitlement and fabricated discrimination against the left eye dominant minority.
Well, there you go. What I thought was a simple case of the evolution of equipment to meet a specific demand is in reality a case of companies pandering to the entitled, millennial, lefty minority. When we will stop appeasing these sinister lefties?
Ha! Well played sir
I’m confused by the bolt-less thing. Are they saying that the chin strap is not secured to the helmet using bolts drilled through the shell? If so how exactly does the chin strap stay on?
Also on their website they show images of maxilofacial protection. Any idea what those are?
Correct. On their site, it shows exactly how but bassicly it has a polymer base that is bonded inside the helmet. The straps then slide into the base and lock into it.
Noone makes anything for small guys, and even when they do offer a size “small” it’s designed for some kind of stocky troll with a thint chest, short torso, and wide brows. I guess me and my tiny head don’t get to play, even if i had the money. The system looks great, even the mandable shown on the site is sexy.
Scratch that, the handy table at the bottom took a bit to figure out.
Someone needs to make a chart or something that compares the features and weights of all these lightweight gunfighter cut helmets. Off the top of my head we have:
-Ops Core FAST
-Crye Precision Airframe
-Team Wendy Exfil
-3M Ultra Light Weight Ballistic Bump Helmet
-MSA Gallet TC 800 Series
-Morgan Advanced Materials LASA AC915
-MICH 2001 with ARC rails
Revision………….
You are right on with your desire to have a rack & stack. I haven’t come across a good one yet. What you’ll quickly find though is not all is as it seems, as the super-lightweight “NIJ-IIIA” helmets like this and the 3m ULWBBH are fairly low in performance compared to others like the Ops-Core FAST/MICH 2001. Be careful when looking through the performance claims, if a test/threat is not advertised, it’s because the product can’t meet it. What you want to look for is a product data sheet that covers specific ballistic threats, impact attenuation and non-ballistic mechanical /environmental performance. A well rounded helmet will have a well rounded data sheet to go with it.
Also, I can’t harp on this enough, a plain NIJ-rated helmet is a joke. You can stop a 9mm FMJ or a 44mag round with very minimal material, and there is nothing novel in that. What’s lost in translation (and has been a slick marketing trick for years) is the lack of Backface trauma or denting data with these rounds. It’s great that a helmet is light and will stop a round, but if the helmet is so structurally soft that the impact causes huge trauma and massive skull fracture, then what utility does the product really provide? I think good news on this front in the near future is that ASTM and NIJ are working to adopt some form of backface trauma requirements in the new standard they are working on. Hopefully the marketing gimmick of an “NIJ-IIIA” rated helmet will go the way of the dodo.
Case in point, the Ops-Core/Mich 2001 helmets are rated with BFD data on the 9mm round, so you really know what you’re getting. As stated above, if there isn’t a spec/requirement listed, it’s because the product can’t meet it. My guess is this new helmet as well as some others on your list don’t include this type of data in their sell sheets because it’s too ugly to see the light of day.