Quoted:
Do you have NVGs?

Quoted:
If you're taking the sort of classes where you may choose or be required to wear body armor, then a helmet should also be included. Your head is generally thought to be fairly important and fragile.

Quoted:
People voting "no" should post their reasoning. I'm guessing something along the lines of "they're uncomfy and hot", but it's good to have information on both sides during the decision-making process.

Quoted:


Well, the poll is sorta poorly worded.

No really covers 2 categories:

No - You don't *need* it, but it is a good idea.
No - You don't want one at all, they suck.

Quoted:
I voted No

I understand that in combat situations they will probably stop shrapnel, not bullets though, if your training and its required then go get it, if your loadout includes military gear for like lets say an AK47 and you have an imported chest rig, a helmet that matches works

If your in the city in a SHTF martial law shootout tinfoil hat wet dream you could probably use one too

But if your not wearing it, your mainly tiring yourself out faster

Quoted:
I see a lot of people here that talk about them and have me wondering. Should I get one or is it not needed?  

Quoted:


Well, the poll is sorta poorly worded.

No really covers 2 categories:

No - You don't *need* it, but it is a good idea.
No - You don't want one at all, they suck.

A Heads-Up About Helmets
By C.J. Chivers

Nearly 60 years ago, a researcher with secret government clearance at Johns Hopkins University reviewed a set of military casualty statistics that confirmed something combat soldiers and military surgeons had long sensed intuitively: the human head suffers a disproportionate amount of trauma on the modern battlefield.

An analysis of nearly 600,000 injuries to American infantry troops in World War II found that while the head makes up about 12 percent of the typical infantryman’s body area, it suffered 21 percent of the reported injuries from bullets and shrapnel. Moreover, because of the head’s fragility and the dangers inherent in trauma to the central nervous system, head injuries accounted for 47 percent of deaths in the infantry ranks.

These were important findings. The author of the study, Norman A. Hitchman, worked for the Operations Research Office, which was under government contract during the early cold war and made many independent recommendations about military equipment decisions. One conclusion from the data was self-evident. There is no better investment in battlefield safety equipment than a good helmet.


Mr. Hitchman estimated that the M-1 helmet worn in World War II had saved 76,000 American infantrymen from serious injury or death. He further noted that the helmets available in the 1950s weighed 3 pounds, and that “to effect about the same decrease in total battle casualties” provided by this helmet, more than 20 pounds or armor would be required elsewhere on a soldier’s body.

I dug up Mr. Hitchman’s now-declassified report a few years ago while scouring archives and military libraries looking for materials related to the evolution of infantry tactics and military small arms. Like many largely forgotten military studies, Mr. Hitchman’s study is germane today.

Why? Because beneath the din of news from Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the constant conversations heard among soldiers and Marines in the field revolves around questions of protective gear. How much is enough? What constitutes too much? What can be left behind? What is being lost by wearing what is worn?

American troops today are issued and usually required to wear a full suite of protective items – helmets, flak jackets with plates that can stop the bullets most common to the battlefield, ballistic eyewear, ear plugs, fire-resistant uniforms and gloves. Some soldiers choose to add even more. Over-the-counter knee pads, to be worn during the rough and painful work of searching buildings and bounding during contact, are a common sight. Turret gunners often wear fire-retardant undershirts and hoods.

Almost every experienced unit has members who have been spared death or serious injury by this gear. Naturally, many soldiers are grateful to have it.

But others question whether the perceived benefits are overstated. The objectors point to the perpetual trade-off of a combat soldier’s life: weight versus mobility.

When a contemporary American foot soldier slips into battle gear and then adds the other equipment typically needed for a mission – weapons, ammunition, fragmentation and smoke grenades, first aid kits, food, water, compasses, G.P.S. units, radios, batteries, night-vision equipment, flashlights, flex-cuffs, maps, pens, paper, cameras – the total burden can quickly exceed 70, 80 or even 100 pounds.

And a soldier carrying this poundage, step by step, hour by hour, dash by dash, is slow, prone to dehydration, vulnerable to exhaustion and arguably less effective on patrol than a soldier more lightly equipped. Soldiers and Marines know this. They discuss it endlessly. Some officers advocate drastically lightening loads.

The sentiments are far from unanimous, but I cannot count how many times I have had grunts in the field, from privates to lieutenant colonels, tell me that they wish they could wear less gear, and thereby cover more ground, and more difficult ground, and more quickly and for a longer period of time.

How are they ever to keep up with insurgents, they ask, when insurgents often wear nothing more than clothing and sneakers, and are burdened by only a rifle and a few magazines?

The question fuels an argument that has raged for decades.

For those units that do choose to shed some of their protective gear on certain missions, Mr. Hitchman’s study, compiled from a larger sampling of casualty data than what is available from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, suggests one thing. The helmet should be the last item left behind. Put another way, it is the best piece of protective gear – by weight and by the nature of the area it protects — that any soldier has.

Quoted:
If you're taking the sort of classes where you may choose or be required to wear body armor, then a helmet should also be included. Your head is generally thought to be fairly important and fragile.

Quoted:


No, they DO stop shrapnel and they CAN stop bullets. Just because they aren't rated for a perpendicular impact at 0m doesn't mean they're tissue paper in combat. Modern helmets are quite effective at stopping lesser rounds too, such as the much-overestimated 5.7x28mm.

I'm not sure what your second point is; if you aren't wearing the helmet how does it tire you out?

Quoted:



Because you still have to lug it around on your pack

Quoted:
I voted no.

Pro: NODs mount
Nugget protection

Con: Limits hearing
Pain in the ass while doing damn near anything.
Not really needed unless youre kicking in doors or doing crazy shit in a vic.

If you have a real need for one, its probably going to be issued to you already. Not always, but 99 time out of 100.

Quoted:
actually helmets are being recommended here during tornado season in shelters. so they would have a practical use there. most fatalities even in shelters were found to be from head injuries.

i have a pt alpha i bought for my NV. it works but lets be honest... they are WAYYYY over priced for what they are. a plastic shell with cheap foam liners. i'd likely go with a decent skate helmet next time at 1/2 the price.

Quoted:


I bought a surplus steel pot (helmet, liner, cover, chin strap) for $19.99 at a surplus store.

Quoted:


Just don't rely on it for ballistic protection. A skate helmet would offer similar impact protection at far less weight, unless you just like the M1 steel pot and it's a personal choice.

I got a skate helmet that fits me perfectly at a goodwill for three dollars. Best three bucks I've ever spent.

Quoted:
Took me a second to figure out where your comment was, haha. In my opinion, yes certainly. It will protect your dome against largely the same threats as the steel pot, but at much les weight so you'll be more likely to wear it and it will cause less fatigue. The helmet on your head is the only one that counts, having a super-whamodyne helmet sitting in the trunk when you need it does you no good.

The only thing I can think of where I would prefer a steel pot over a skate helmet (sized and fitted, obviously - one that fits wrong can be worse than no helmet at all) would be if I was playing William Tell with someone armed with .22 - that's about the upper limit of the steel pot's protection. I have no doubt I could shove the spike of my tomahawk right through it far enough to ruin someone's day.

Very interesting that in the absence of shrapnel the pot might actually be worse than nothing...

Now, what if I gorilla-glued 1" bathroom tiles all over it like a disco ball and sprayed it with Rhino Liner?

I'm kidding.

Quoted:
A helmet is not in my plan, as a civilian. I basically stack up like this: I wear earth toned clothes designed for work or hiking on a regular basis. This means because I'm not wearing camo, I don't stick out, but because of the colors I'm not as easily spotted in the wilderness than if I was wearing a yellow shirt or something. On this I wear a holster on my belt, 2 pistol mags, and I can quickly throw 1 rifle pouch on there. I also keep a multi tool on my belt, a flashlight in my pocket, and a small altoids survival kit in my cargo pocket. Easy to carry stuff.

If the world really went out of control, I throw on a simple plate carrier that has front/back protection, 3 rifle mags, and an IFAK. It's unlikely I would carry an IFAK on my person on a daily basis doing standard things like grocery shopping, running errands, etc...so I keep it with the 2nd line gear as any situation needing a rifle is where that would probably see use. This takes about 10 seconds to put on, and can be done over the holster etc...

Helmets I've seen cost anywhere from $500-$700 dollars. That's about my ammo budget for the year, so I have a choice: shoot and practice, or just have guns that get no use but have a helmet. If I had extra money for a helmet, i'd probably first spend that on going to a class.

If I was independently wealthy, then yeah I'd get a helmet along with night vision, an ACOG, a laser, and a whole  bunch of other cool stuff. For a standard civilian on a regular civilian's income, you're better off spending that money on ammo and training.

No reason to spend that kind of coin on a helmet, you can find surplus PASGTS for <$50 and surplus ACHs for <$200.

Unless you are the kind of person who needs the newest/coolest you don't need to spend that kind of cash.

No reason to spend that kind of coin on a helmet, you can find surplus PASGTS for <$50 and surplus ACHs for <$200.

Quoted:


Can you point me to where I can get a surplus PASGT for less than $50?  Lowest I've found is $115 here.