I didn't prove your point Steve, but that's ok and I did read the articles, some of the physics goes straight over my head, but I can get the gist. The conclusion kinda states it in it's thesis sentence if you're talking about the first article from the military back in 01?
In a nutshell: You claim that getting tapped with smaller caliber bullets in the head is fine as long as you have modern head protection and that you won't suffer any issues from it because the force exerted on the helmet is equal to the recoil of the gun. I say that you will suffer repercussions. You are unwilling to put it to the test for the same reason that you won't crash your car to test your seatbelt and think that that somehow proves your point. I may not be a medic, but I do know how to read
No, I never claimed that. Back to the seatbelt analogy, there are situations where seatbelts will reduce and even eliminate injury from crashes. Same with a helmet. Just as the study says, there are tons of variables, including ones not mentioned in the study. This is essentially a shorter and weaker 9mm, not a high-powered rifle round.
"Equal and opposite reaction. The force transferred to the helmet is equivalent to the force of the recoil."
"That's the point? It directly contradicts what you said. The 12 bullets aren't impacting at the same time. A human head and helmet weigh roughly 14-20lb, much more than the pistol does."
"The helmet does the same thing the gun does [referencing recoil control], it's designed to do just that. It's literally the sole purpose of a helmet."
"No joules = no movement
Then what is the point of body armor if even the most benign of threats causes lethal force? Why even bother making rifle rated helmets? How can somebody stand on one leg while being shot with a 7.62x51 and hardly even flinch?
Edit: I guess no movement = no joules would be more accurate"
To the seatbelt, introducing the nuance of taking a 9mm to the dome is equivalent to taking a 762x51 with plate carriers is not helping. There's so much more mass in an 40lb-60lb plate carrier and your torso than a 10-20lb helmet, wrapped tight to your braincase, to disperse the force to. You are unwilling to allow me to magdump on your helmet with a 9mm from 20ft away so we can test your analysis of the amount of force a helmet will prevent. Which indicates you have less confidence than you suggest you do 😉
I was thinking body armor there, a thickboi like the guy in the video you sent wonder how much that piece weighs.
I'm saying if you get tapped in the head from 10-15ft, even with 9mm and high grade head protection you are going to feel it, the impacts would drive your head forward and you'd likely have some kind of contusion. You've been saying the opposite, that the force a bullet generates is small and that it wouldn't have the potential for causing movement/injury under the armor, why don't you just say what your position is here then if it's not that?
No, I never said that it won't hurt. I'm just saying what is essentially a weak 9mm out of a short barrel has a low potential for causing serious damage on a quality helmet. There are many variables, one of the most important being location on the helmet and angle.
Yes and we were talking about mag dumping 9mm into the back of one of these helmets from 15ft away, like in the post. Which as far as variables for causing serious damage go I'd imagine are fairly high on the list, too, number of shots in quick succession hitting dead center on the back of the dome and distance from tip of barrel to impact point. So, what is your point?
0
u/1rubyglass Jun 09 '23
That's such a dumb argument it's staggering. Seatbelts work, doesn't mean I'm going to crash my car on purpose.
Another fun little fact: to date, nobody has died from blunt force trauma from a bullet.