#IHPS #7n21-1 #helmet It did not do well Basic test data: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/... Flag Range Operator my ammo source found here: / logic8368 linktr.ee/Oxide_does
Thanks to: elementrange.com/ in Holt Florida for helping me with test site and other stuff! FPS of the 7n21-1 was 1400 out of the vityaz. So it was going a little slower than it should to my understanding
The fact I used to live 5 minutes away from element then a month later finding this is pretty jarring. Never went unfortunately but always heard good things about element. Great video btw!
Besides the protection issue, the helmet just sucks. Got issued one via RFI and I still prefer the ACH. The IHPS has brittle plastic on it that breaks all the time, the NVG mount is out of spec and requires a ton of tape to stop ratting. Additionally with even just a pvs14 mounted it becomes super unbalanced and the strap adjustment is garbage. Why the army didn't just adopt a 3M highcut is beyond me, but it probably has something to do with some field grade's OER.
I think the issue is with your out dated nvgs my dude. I rock the an pvs6s which are dual tube with a double battery pack and I think it’s much more balanced and stable with the new helmet. I do agree that they should’ve just went with a highcut from opscore or 3m, but some general somewhere is thinking he made the right decision. At least the plate carrier we got is actually decent.
This is what NIJ armour protection levels are all about. A way to compare products not so much to be reliable. If we look for a product that is actually superior, we either ask for NIJ+VPAM combination or we look for "DOJ" standard. If we look at NIJ testing requirements for helmets we understand that it does not make any sense regarding saving your head, right? :)
I find it odd that Big army wants to improve its ballistic capabilities with the new 6.8 rifles with its borderline outrageous spec requirements but does a complete 180 with body armor and gives little thought in the Gen 1 helmet
Because these get approved for limited adoption for testing purposes, just like all 3 entries of the NSGW. And people then go out and say "look, its the new standard issue thing because the army said it was testing it." Testing for armor is different than rifles because we are testing the material, not a companies design. Its why if you look at the makers mark for military helmets you can find multiple logos within the same gen of helmet. We adopted these for testing, and we concluding it had issues. which is why you never saw these helmets in a front line unit ANYWAY. Hell you can find a dozen different variations of this style helmet, mandible, and applique armor, all of which "were the Army's Next Gen combat helmet" that never saw mass issue. ALLLLL the way back to the early 00s Future soldier program. We issue them to a unit, because then we can get end user experience, in conjunction with further ballistic testing. Which helps the DOD/Army/Navy/Marines/AF/ determine if there is some merit to furthering development to try and make a product that failed work, or just move on to the next.
@@claytonmachine12 It's millions of dollars of R&D, years of work, all to produce a really shitty helmet. It's a failure. Basic ballistic tests expose these helmets as garbage, they never should've made it this far in the first place.
@@claytonmachine12 I mean, with the IHPS yes. The NGSW trial is no longer a 3 weapon trial though, the Army did in fact decide they would be doing an initial issue of the Sig XM5 and XM250. These will be going to the close combat force at first and then there will probably be some changes and re-issue before ending up as a regularly issued rifle and MG.
@@03c12 which is how weapons trials always go. From here the Army chooses if it's gonna be limited adoption or fullscale. And considering the amount of fuckery suround the rifle trial everyone's pretty sure it's not gonna see full scale adoption
@@claytonmachine12 I personally think it will make it after a few changes. InRangeTV did a good video on it and the main coolant is weight but I've never known the Army to genuinely care about how much something weighs lol
The add-on rifle armor tells me everything I need to know about this helmet. I work in procurement for the government (not the U.S. but the same shit applies everywhere). It's super easy to sell something like this to the decision makers. You just says something like "It's lighter than a kevlar helmet, and with the add-on armor it's got better defensive capabilities." which is true. What this fails to mention is that it's only lighter without the armor and is less defensive in that case, and with the armor on it's heavier and bulkier. This helmet really hasn't solved any problems. I saw the same shit happen on a ship. There was a hard weight limit that could not be passed and a shit load of mission equipment that needed to be added to allow it to fill all the roles they wanted. Add all the equipment and the ship is too heavy. Solution? Mount all the equipment in removable containers on the deck. As registered the ship meets the weight limits but operationally it has all the equipment it needs. In this case it was more of rules lawyering type thing as the limit was due to some legal agreements but the idea is the same.
"Modularity" is the Word of the Day. "Oh no, our system totally meets requirements, it can be anything you want it to be!" Says the huge Company that gets the Contract, meanwhile two engineers in a shed could come up with a better solution, than what rushed Design by committee accomplished in the same time.
These were nice on my deployment, but I had doubts of its protection. Another cool feature of this helmet is when you jump with them, the plastic chinstrap retainers on the helmet snap easily making these almost unusable in Airborne operations.
Im not in the army but how often would you be shot at from point blank range unless it’s infantry? Its a real question bc most the videos iv watched on RU-vid seems like a good distance away if that’s true then it doesnt do bad for point blank range
@@serronserron1320 well i guess if this helmet is for more modern use we really aren’t in the flat dessert anymore so if we did go to war with russia or china then it would be more close range bc of the urban environments then it is a bad design i see what you’re saying. It would have done well in the Middle East bc that’s mostly the videos i seen and it was like what are they even shooting at i cant see lol. But i mean thats a lot of damage from a pistol round shooting shooting that’s supposed to be rated for rifles
Stumbled upon this channel eating breakfast, i can say that your systematic way of testing, live demonstration that is straight to the result is great, in a sphere of over edited content. I do appreciate the honesty when it comes to it is a small sample size, subbed.
Yep I'll stick with my ACH, that performance shows that whoever was involved in all the testing to get this helmet adopted wanted money not improved safety.
I'll stick with my M1 steel pot + ballistic nylon liner. That performs better than this piece of garbage. Plus you can use the steel helmet as a water basin to shave with. :P
@@cameronsams9183 I’ll stick with the Mjolnor Mk 5 armor suit. It’s bulletproof if you make sure your energy shield is charged up and you don’t take a .50 to the head
Fantastic new vid, a shame the IHPS had awfully similar poor performance to the 6B47, but I can't say I'm surprised. At least it still stops fragmentation... But that's a pretty low bar to be fair.
@@Seth9809 As Oxide said, it's good at stopping penetration but it's shit at minimizing deformation, so from what we can tell the material combo was not a good choice
@@Seth9809 you need to think like the general , american future enemy are china , war with them is just matter of time , lighter weight = better in a war vs the Chinese , the helmet just need to protect again fragment , as majority of kill in war vs near pier will not be from enemy gun and bullet but from arty shelling , bomb , drone strike , missile strike , atgm , that why the Chinese also didn't invest much in they helmet same for Russian they just made it light , have rail to mount stuff and enough protection again fragment and hand gun round .
Good to see people understand that such deformation is deadly. Thats why i wasn't too impressed with the ECH that Mikeb tested, yes it did stop 7.62x51, yes great, but the deformation already on the 9mm would have done real damage if not killed. So in the end on a battlefield, frag that an ACH could catch with minimal deform, the ECH could have the users skull caved in.
I spen nearly 22 years in they military. Shortly before my initial retirement we were issued the "new" kelvar helmets to replace our ols steel pots that were issue since WWII. There was certainly some resentment in the beginning. Then Iwas recalled for Kuwait and got to experience the new helmet in actual combat. Although there were some things it was not as useful for (such as bathing and heatin water) in combat it was far more useful in its intended roll. Especially when it came to fragmentation. I sincerely hope that before the military issues it's replacement Army wide they discover a helment that will resist small arms penitration to the point os solving deadly head injuries and deaths. Otherwise I pray that the military industrial complex resits the temptation to purchase something because its new and shiny.
I’m real excited for the PLA armor video, I don’t think I’ve seen it tested before, probably because they didn’t start issuing armor on a wide scale until 2015
And even then, PLA is so corrupt that commanders just straight up sell the body armor that their soldiers are supposed to recieve to the black market lmao. Same as Russian commanders straight up selling tank reactive armor plates.
@@thelieutenant7732 I remember there was a journalist who went over and interviewed a Chinese soldier and he basically said they were supposed to recieve body armor a few years ago but their commander keeps taking the shipments and sells them. Of course they can't do anything about it because of their rank. It's pretty much like during the early 2000s where Russian commanders would take off the reactive armor plates from tanks and sell them off. A lot of things in China are all talk no bite. Everytime a westerner talks about how advanced China is and how much better it is then America I laugh. I've been to China and the place is depressing. I'm Indonesian, China is actively trying to take over Asia and Southeast Asia and it sucks to see everyone fall for China's intimidation. Especially our neighbour the Philliphenes who just elected a president who's being such a push over for China.
@@xxxxxx5868 It's really funny that you say that since a lot of American's I know went to China expecting it to be the same as the Maoist era only to be blown away by the new skyscrapers and heavy capitalist influence. I've never been so I can't say much from personal experience, but China has definitely advanced. If it can compete with the US and surpass us in pure statistical data (not just militarily), then they're doing something right.
@@thelieutenant7732 Yes new skyscrapers in Shanghai or Beijing where all the tourists and rich people live, then you go outside of tourist area.... but I really couldn't give a damn about how advanced they are. The CCP and Xi Jinping is the devil. Take it from someone who actually lives in Asia and the South China sea.
Хороший видос, спасибо Oxide! У нас в России уже есть пара таких шлемов, сделаны хорошо, но стоит все таки проговорить пару аспектов: 1) 6Б47 - это исключительно противоосколочный шлем, в нашей классификации имеет самый низкий класс бронезащиты. Почему так сделано? В боевых операциях, когда у противника есть артиллерия, авиация и т.д., личный состав в основном несет потери именно от осколочных ранений, либо от пуль рикошетирующих/на излете, нежели от прямого выстрела. Касательно габаритов 6Б47, он сделан на размер больше, для минимизации запреградной травмы, т.е. M размер это L, L размер это XL у ACH. Поэтому взяв во внимание эти моменты, можно сказать, что IHPS, это задел на будущее,что по мысли создателей, американский солдат, с винтовкой M5 будет вести прицельную стрельбу (и в случае чего, получать в обратку) 2) Второй аспект заключается в том, что на сколько мне известно, в Американском стандарте защиты нет понятия запреградная травма, есть поставленная цель, что пуля либо пробила, либо нет, в отличие от американских стандартов, наши общевойсковые бронежилеты оснащаются КАПами(демпферами) и значительно гасят и распределяют ту оставшуюся энергию пули при попадании в бронеплиту. В Американских армейских жилетах, функцию КАП частично берет на себя слой кевлара, но очевидно, что для разных калибров и дистанций этого будет мало. 3) Поэтому, собрав всю мою супер умную мысль (нет) можно сделать вывод, что бронезащита у нас, строится из нескольких элементов и под другие задачи (поэтому Вам не особо понравился отстрел 6Б47, он попросту не предназначен для этого), Американская система бронезащиты строится на основании другого опыта и видения будущих войн, поэтому такие заделы по бронезащите. Хорошо это, или плохо - покажет время, но самое главное, что работы ведутся и это однозначно хорошо.
Не забываем что фишка 6Б47 в его малом весе, а значит возможностью носить длительное время что для солдата очень важно. С другой стороны по защите он уступает даже советской каске СШ-68 бородатых годов, которая совсем немного отличается от СШ-40 времен ВОВ.
I loved the assessment - but I'm also really happy you chose to start it off with some C&C Generals USA OST in the background, then following it up with Ed Harrison's Neotokyo soundtracks? I'm gonna redownload the whole album now. And damn, those tiny AP rounds look like a nasty ordeal to deal with.
Bro you've been to Element?! That's awesome! They have such a cool facility and ownership and I'm not surprised they let you do all this work there. Really happy to hear that.
In a world where the Ops Core FAST RF1 helmet exists, and is supposedly rated for 7.62x39 threats, why switch to something inferior? Also a FAST RF1 test would be neat. See if it could stop some of these more "exotic" threats.
US & NATO ARE going to OpsCore helmets esp over past 5+ years esp in active duty Infantry units. Not sure who this new (& hopefully very temporary helmet) will be for
@@TwizzElishus yeah people dont realize the effect that straight kinetic energy has.... bro people die from getting punched in the head so imagine hulk punching you in the head 😂
Just an old grunt from the days of steel pots and iron sights. The question I have about a helmet that will stop rifle rounds without deformation is, that energy has to go somewhere. Even if it works will you survive, best case be combat effective. How much weight will it have? Is it really worth it?
Got issued an IHPS in April (by itself, no face visor or appilque shell) and the only thing it seems to improve over the ACH is that it is more comfortable to wear a Peltor Comtac headset underneath it. The Army should've gotten with the program and followed in the Marine Corps footsteps (who allegedly receives worse equipment than the Army) and adopted the high cut ECH.
When I joined the Marine Corps I fully expected some serious hand-me-down crap. I got out in 2017, but I will say the gear I was issued wasn't terrible. We were an infantry batallion and I was pleasantly surprised. Marine Corps has been putting some money into it's grunts over the past decade or so.
I wish I had the resources to provide you with AP rounds or gear, I can't even afford to buy some 855A1 for myself lol Good work on this testing series though, I love the videos.
Great video per usual! Frustrating to see the Army adopt this helmet before letting it actually live up to expectations. Though from what you said, I'm getting similar vibes as with other military projects like the Osprey or F35, where it needs some more iterations/development before reaching true expectations, or even exceeding them. Fingers crossed they can get this sorted for the better.
@Random Pickle Oh I'm aware. It is now, after 10+ years of development, budget mismanagement, and setbacks. Do not take this as a criticism, more of an acknowledgment of how these things work in our wonderful and flawed bureaucracy. Thus I make the comparison, that they will continue to iterate, as was alluded to in the video, and improve, as they did with other military programs who initial fruits were rotten and unwanted. Such as it were, I am hopeful that our troops will get the helmets they need in time for when they need them.
@Random Pickle he's not wrong tho, it did take a LOT of iterations before we got what we have today, and some of those earlier models even went into service
Due to the fact that they're already making the Next Gen IHPS, the problems surrounding the helmet will likely be alleviated a lot sooner compared to the other projects that you mentioned... Either that, or I'm just coping.
@@Oxide_does_his_best It's all good man I'm not mad, but sure if you want to. I was using Tulammo or something like it. 123 GR FMJ, so the lead core may have been a factor, but still, It was pretty impressive to us. Again, great video.
Pretty surprising that Civvie FMJ 9mm can cause that bad of deformation on a modern military helmet. They should definitely explore more options with the NG IHPS to find some more acceptable results.
I want to see some sort of CTE or brain bleed test. The shock of the bullet is going to travel through the helmet, through the skull and slush the brain around like scrambling eggs. Spectators have died from brain bleed after getting hit by hockey pucks even though there was no outside damage to their head. A bullet is going to produce far more of a shock wave than a hockey puck.
Hey ox I think you forgot to add the audio for the army ad it doesn’t take a genius scene but other than that great insight to the army’s helmet and it shows that they really messed up. This helmet seems useless as they don’t really issue the neat attachments and the ballistic protection is bad. Reminds me of Russia’s ak12 where they add pic rails but they don’t issue good attachments and the new features are useless and even makes the gun worse.
I've literally been issued this helmet and it's on my clothing record, I wear it to the field regularly. It's very comfortable. Most people that have them now were issued them through RFI when we might have went to Afghanistan back a few months ago and when we got sent to Poland recently.
question for you, sir. What about the many active duty Infantry units already being issued & using (for past several years) the new, lightweight compact OPSCore helmet now common in both US military & most NATO infantry forces + in many other Non-NATO militaries (including piss poor nations in my region (LAtin America)????? Hope youve seen them around often & that they are now more integrated/used by more & more active duty US Infantry units. The older helmets shouldve been ditched 20+ years ago, (All branches). Compact, lightweight gear, HELMETS, NVGs, weapons & boots IS (& has been & shall remain) the GLOBAL military trend and we (USA) MUST be leading the way in this race for the best. Comments, observations, suggestions, etc etc???? Please advise. Thanxx
@@WhiteSuperMemeist true, as always but there ARE various different New helmets already IN USE as we speak by the almighty Beloved & elite US military (special Focus on US Army & USMC Infantry). Old heavy substandard kevlar "Fritz" helmets are long gone (finally) shipped off to other countries that could make use of them while we finally get far superior lighter compact better gear & weapon which WE most definitely NEED, WANT & DESERVE, more than Any other nation & NOW more than ever (2022 A.D.) esp with ongoing threats & conflicts worldwide (Ukraine, etc). We need to be more than ready for anything & thats where HAVING & using the RIGHT gear/weapons/equipment/vehicles etc etc ALL comes into play (along with several other factors), which make Huge differences in the end result
here's hoping NG IHPS fares much better. I feel like a lot of people see everything new with teething issues and use that as an excuse to remain completely static and complacent, often even ignoring the original teething issues of the stuff they already have.
"Let's just push the darn thing out. We'll worry about the ballistic protection later." - the Army basically Also, much love from the island of Guam! Keep up the great work!
The ECH outperformed this though, but it does so at the cost of weight without the modularity. There's a reason that they are making ECH's in midcut/high cut now
As a combat medic, looking at that deformation makes me cringe... definitely enough force to at minimum cause a subdural or epidural hematoma, which greatly complicates treatment especially in the field. There's a lot of fluids I wouldn't be able to push because of increased intercranial pressure, as well as a lot of medications- not to mention dealing with a patient who has a TBI is just... not fun. You gotta work your ass off to make sure that, at the least, they don't die.
When I was deployed one of my jobs was to initiate the death paperwork for KIAs. I can tell you the ACH did not stop the tiny shards of shrapnel, there were very few bullet strikes to the ACH that I saw. When a rocket explodes there are thousands of razor sharp shards that slice right through the ACH.
I'm not meaning to defend the helmet, I'm not invested in this particular helmet. That said, I question the reliability of a test on the helmet without a dummy head inside. If someone was actually wearing the helmet, their head and neck would be able to absorb much of the energy of the bullet - energy that, without a head inside, goes into deforming the material of the helmet. I happen to know a lot of Vicis employees and have attended many seminars about their work and it seems clear to me that testing a helmet without a head inside is a recipe for wildly inaccurate results. I know this would be expensive, but for future tests, I recommend a dummy head with accelerators inside for a better picture of how protective each helmet really is. I also recommend researching the methods with which helmets are tested in various industries.
Spectators have died from bleeding inside the brain after getting his by hockey pucks even though there was no outside damage to their head. A bullet is going to make a larger shock wave than a hockey puck. CTE is a real problem that would happen even if a helmet was able to stop a bullet without deformation.
Speaking of Chinese armour, theres plenty of polyethylene armour on sale on alibaba claiming to be Lvl IV. Might want to try testing a few of those as private individuals as well as militias and irregular groups wearing these are likely to be extremely common in the future.
Hey, I have a family member who is in Chinese ballistic material industry. I believe they are claiming China now provide the world around 70% of ULMWPE. Which means there are many of the plates or helmets in market might not derectly made in China but used UHMWPE. So I do have confidence to claim that most of IV helmets or armor can provide similar performance with those were made in US. BTW, be careful when purchasing those ballistic products, some of them might be graded under Chinese standards rather than NIJ. I wish oxide can test some of those out too :)
@@stukayou6735 Yep thats what Ive heard too, many American armour companies claiming 'made in USA' actually source their plates from China and either just coat it or stamp their logos in the US to claim place of manufacture. The plates are obviously still capable, but their clients are definitely not fully aware of the actual place of manufacture.
I'd like to see a test of the British Virtus helmet, it's another polyethylene helmet. I wonder if it performs as well as the ECH, or deforms like this.
I'd like to know as well. I imagine it would perform better, there are a number of ballistic pads surrounding the interior that I imagine would prove better at stopping these deformations. I'm sure its much more comfortable and overall a better helmet seeing as though there are little complaints over it; minor problems regarding build quality when it was first issued in 2016 have been resolved if I recall correctly.
My unit was issued these along with the Gen 2 MSV's for the Uber Big Dick Game in Europe when it started in February. I like the modern suspension system and rail options, but I do agree they are copes. I'm happy you made this video and I can't wait for you to test the new plates. I'm a tanker so mainly I use the IHPS with M113 headsets as a more comfortable and convenient package when I have to dismount. I really wish they'd issue mounts for comtec headphones instead of using the CVC.
@@Oxide_does_his_best No they just gave us the helmet. Nothing else. Granted I'm at a ABCT and not a IBCT. I'm guessing the Ranger Battalions have the rifle plates. The 82nd dudes I've worked with here don't have them either or the 101st guys.
@@Oxide_does_his_best Lol more than likely. I know they have AVS's from Crye. There were a lot of them at a Surplus store Hunter AAF around August-Sept 2021 when I was state side.
Yep. I’ve swapped mine back for the old model. That thing is literally bulkier, just as heavy, and doesn’t allow for any kind of thermal device mounting. I’ve been hearing the intention was to issue highcuts but the order was messed up. Probably just rumors.
Great video. The only thing I can see that might improve the test data is to include a head analog in the helmet. Since that would be how it’s designed to do it’s job. Still wouldn’t want that helmet for protection, looks rough.
I’ve been issued the helmet and I have to say, I don’t very much like it. It weighs just the same as my old ACH if not heavier, and wearing PELTORs is only a little more comfier than the ACH. I do like the chin strap system but there’s far better helmets that are more comfortable and more light that offer better protections(coughcough3MHighcutscoughcough)
Hey oxide if I was able to get hold of a buckshee virtus helmet (it's the British body armour and helmet) would you be interested in testing it's protective abilities I'll try include a mandible and visor though there not ballistic rated for some reason we use them in public order (riot training) pretty sure a brick would break the mandible.
@@Kav. You can import them. No laws against importing body armor as far as I know unless your state prohibits body armor. Only exporting U.S. body armor is where you can get into trouble.
I think you did a good job on this helmet. No need to revisit. I am dying to see you get into rifle rated helmet test, dear lord that's going to be exciting
5:35 To my understanding, what you are talking abt here, is essentially the same reason the US picked the m16 during vietnam, and ACU camo in the 2000's. The DOD has competitions for what new shit gets picked, and a lot of times it is super corrupt and backdoor deals are made. So we end up with more expensive and crappier equipment. (one reason is that more expensive stuff = the DOD needs more money. So the more they spend, the more they get. The more they get, means more raises, etc.)
More related would be the military fielding the M14 over the FAL, due to internal politics and basically stupidity. The M16 was a good change, just sabotaged by those who weren't happy about it.
Bit of an odd question (and it's fine if you don't want to answer it) but what are your thoughts on Garand Thumb's recent video that tested the IHPS? Specifically, his helmet seemed to have performed better in his testing compared to yours. Do you think it's because he tested out the new gen IHPS?
@@Oxide_does_his_best compared to the ECH he was also testing, it seemed to perform better. The only case where I think this wasn't true was when he tested a .44 magnum for the 2nd time against the ECH (1st time was around the helmet's edge, so it penned), and even then the back face deformation was comparable to the IHPS. Edit: performance of both were also equal with the 9mm, with Mr. Thumb seeming to have insinuated that both impacts were survivable.
@@Oxide_does_his_best fair enough on that. I still think the IHPS he tested performed better than the one in your test, but I may be clouded with bias since he was much more positive in his commentary with regards to the IHPS's performance. His commentary didn't seem out of place either, since the helmet did appear to have deformation that-while definitely not comfortable-was mostly better than the ECH: a helmet that's saved lives before. (Also thank you for taking the time to respond bby)
I've been to that range in Holt quite a few times back when it was called something else (I forget the name). Really cool setup, kinda creepy though because it's seriously in the middle of nowhere
It's a red herring to me that the designers and manufacturers of these helmets, accompanied by US government representatives and DoD representatives, did not even consider testing these helmets on this scale.
