Ballistic Helmets for Patrol

[jnc36rcpd]

We're researching the feasibility of issuing ballistic helmets to patrol officers for use during high risk incidents. Is anyone else doing this? If so, what are you issuing? Do you have any policy or lesson plans? Thanks and be safe.

[Coyotesfan97]

My Dept has been issuing ballistic helmets for 5+ years. I'm pretty sure they're still issuing Second Chance Commando IIIA. K9 is part of Tactical and we've been getting our helmets through SWAT .SWAT and K9 just got issued ops-core FAST helmets.

I'll look for our policy. I'm not sure about lesson plans.

[Sabre07]

We are looking into it also. Last year we started issuing plate carriers to the polyester platoons. We have no SOP on deployment for the hard armor. We are getting reps in them at the range.

[Chuck Haggard]

We were given a giagantor pile of K-pots from DRMO at my old job. Testing indicated they were roughly level II in performance. We gave them out to any of the troops that wanted them. Minimal policy, zero training outline or plan.

[Alpha Sierra]

Minimal policy, zero training outline or plan.

I was wondering if anything more than that is even needed?

It's a helmet. How much training is needed to put one on, besides telling someone to put it on straight and do the strap so it don't fly off your noggin when you move but also doesn't choke you.

Not everything needs a powerpoint to go with it.

[Chuck Haggard]

We did tell guys to not be an ass and wear them on car stops and such.

[Odin Bravo One]

Is primary/secondary fragmentation, and blast overpressure from explosives that big of an issue these days? Sure, there is some protection against blunt trauma, but those stories you hear about "lucky M-Fers" whose helmets stopped a bullet, are simply "lucky M-Fers".

Before I start adding extra weight, and equipment......I look REALLY hard at the facts, benefits, and drawbacks.

I would 1st: Define "High Risk Incidents"

Then based on that definition, find how many blunt trauma head injuries to LE have occurred in these incidents. How many explosive induced injuries, etc.

Ballistic helmets were designed to protect the skull from pri/sec frag, blast overpressure, and blunt trauma for soldiers on the battlefield where all of those are encountered as a routine aspect of the job. I guess I struggle to see the practical (meaning cost:benefit) application for a patrol officer to have it rattling around in the trunk, or stuffed into a gear bag for a "poison darts falling from the sky" probability of an officer actually needing & benefiting from such a piece of equipment.

The most effective, and best designed ballistic helmets come in at ~$1,000 a pop. Is that a prudent use of tax payer money?

Or you could go with DRMO mil helmets, which are beyond service life, and the DoD is specifically told by the manufacturers to not rely on them for protective purposes beyond that service life. Is that what we want to outfit our men and women in blue with? Now, you hand them sub-par, and beyond service life equipment......they get hurt/killed. What does that law suit cost you?

There is also everywhere in between......but I go back to my "For what, exactly?" question.

If there are answers, and practical applications to be had.......cool. I'm all for ensuring our LE folks are properly trained, and equipped to ensure they go home at the end of their shifts. But at the same time, getting shit just to get shit, or for the illusion of increased safety is a cancerous & dangerous mentality.

[psalms144.1]

I'm with Sean on this one - I HATE wearing the brain bucket, and will only do so when brow-beaten into it or I KNOW I'm about to do something where I'm likely to mash my grape against something hard. The protection a helmet offers comes at a steep cost in comfort, loss of hearing, etc. We had a large pile of these at my last team, and spent a day shooting them to see what they would stop. Bottom line - the helmet stops VERY little - as pointed out, it MIGHT stop handgun rounds, but anything launched from a long arm will perforate it handily.

There are good reasons why helmet designs are constantly moving to smaller (less protection offered) and lighter - but one of those designer buckets is going to cost A LOT, and still won't stop projectiles from rifles...

Regards,

Kevin

[jnc36rcpd]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

I'm looking at a Streicher's catalogue which lists a Potech Delta 4 full cut helmet for $399.99. The NIJ 0101.06 standards rate the helmet as offering IIIA protection. While this will certainly not protect against rifle rounds, more officers are murdered with handguns than long guns.

Mid cut and high cut helmets are approximately $50 more, but we are not using communications equipment that would require a higher cut.

I am not inclined to attempt to obtain DRMO helmets. I am uncertain if we could determine if surplus helmets are rated to protect against handgun rounds. Moreover, I suspect there would be political issues at both federal and city ends in obtaining surplus military gear at this juncture. I would rather we spend the money for helmets rated for protection from pistol fire.

I would define high risk as any situation in which the officer or supervisor considers taking fire a reasonable possibility. This includes, but is not limited to, active shooter response, searching for armed suspects, and planned arrests of armed suspects.

[Odin Bravo One]

So now....of officers shot during these defined events were shot in the head with a pistol? Of those, how many were shot in a location where the proposed helmet coverage would have saved them? I ask because as a former cop in those situations, and 20+ years wearing a helmet, and a tax payer....without tangible, factual examples of instances where such equipment saved lives, combined with a worn:saved lives ratio of percentage of times worn to times benefited.....knowing all of the downsides of wearing a helmet..... And the fiscal constraints facing domestic LE agencies...... Is that money not better applied elsewhere?