>>64204643
>But there's literally zero proof.
That's the thing with helmets. Most IIIA helmets that don't publish test reports are the same way against much lesser threats. The NIJ has no CPL for helmets, no standardized way to measure BFD, and no official ratings above Level II under 0106.01. This goes for all of them unless they adhere to a military or some Euro standards like VPAM.
>I'm gonna assume that the Highcom is "rated" for M80 Ball...
Fair assumption, given that all IIIA helmets and nearly all rifle-rated helmets except the ECH adhere to inconsistent mutations of a standard that hasn't been updated since 1981. Like I said before, the non-military helmet scene is a shitshow.
>even though the helmet collapses from one side to the other,
The difference between weaker rifle helmets and the RCH against 7.62x51mm M80 is 650ft/s. Because Highcum releases no test reports I cannot prove this, but it is not unfeasible that they could have improved on the ECH in sixteen years. Would be their first and only innovation in that timeframe, but the point stands.
>There's NOTHING to justify that helmet's price over the ECH
The hopes and dreams of being able to stop 7.62x51mm M80 at full velocity, all resting on Highcom's mixed reputation? I mean, people paid more for LTC 28595s hoping they could stop M993. People paid more for Hesco 4800s thinking they were no-strings-attached Level IVs. People bought 4800LVs thinking they were standalone.
>It's dogshit
By this measure, so is every other IIIA or "III" helmet that fails to abide by a modern standard other than mutated 0106.01. Technically, that makes the RCH king of the shit pile and therefore world class.
Because you cannot prove the RCH ineffectively stops M80, and I cannot prove it effectively stops M80, it's at an impasse that rests entirely on how much people trust Highcum. Annoying, isn't it?
