british gs mk6

[Greg Pickersgill]

Here's an interesting thing I found on Ebay a few weeks ago. Its a 1984-dated Mk6 from a maker I had previously not known about, TRITON OLIVER LTD, who seem to have been active in the West Midlands up until the middle 1990s when they closed down or were absorbed into something other. They were in the plastics moulding business apart from anything else, and were obviously one of the other few companies like NEI who produced early runs of the GS Mk6. I guess we will have to wait (and oh how I hope to live long enough) for Marcus Cotton's fabled book on BRITISH HELMETS to find out more, which I hope will include a full list of Mk6 makers. I live in hope, which is why I keep buying lottery tickets.

Anyway, this is pretty much a Mk6 EXCEPT for the the fact that like other very early runs from NEI and perhaps indeed the main contractor NP, it does *not* have the extra breakthrough holes on the side-wings for the face-shield brackets.

But wait, there's more....this one felt a little light so I did a weight comparicon with this and a much later NP Mk 6 (yes, same size in case you wonder) and it is actually 40g lighter. Now that's hardly anything at all but I did notice it. Another thing I *felt* rather than saw or measured was that the profile of the dome seemed *strangely different* and indeed while weighing this Triton Oliver and having it placed on its head so to speak I noticed that it did not roll around or settle at an angle as do almost all other examples I have tested. This implies (though I cannot prove it) that the top of the shell is very very fractionally flatter than later production helmets. Whether this is an accident or an actual variation resulting from Triton Oliver production practices I do not know. Surely someone out there...perhapos even that Mr Cotton (and sometimes I do wonder whether he actually exists) ...can tell me, us.

[James C]

fitted with the anti mine shield my many thanks to forum members james and vicky (spitace and edelweiss)and andy (kradspam )for helping me to complete this helmet

[Tango]

James I have never seen an anti mine visor before.. I'm not sure it is the same as Riot visor looks a little bigger than the one's I have seen before..Sometimes in Belfast if there was any trouble out came the visors... & we sometimes took the DPM cover off.. More to catch light if the crowd were to throw petrol bombs etc.....Cheers Terry.

[James C]

thanks terry thats an interesting bit of info on the visor mate

[Greg Pickersgill]

Now, we all know that the Mk6 comes in two flavours, the shiny shell and the rough shell, to put it simply. There are questions regarding these two finishes.

The first one is the simple one; when did the shiny finish stop production and the rough finish take over? This ought to be at least approximately established by looking the dates of helmets with either finish. From my own collection the latest dated smooth shell I have is 1986, and the earliest rough shell is label dated 1988/89. So we can reasonably assume it happened somewhere between.

There is a bit of a problem with accurate dating because many helmets have lost their manufacturers labels and dating is then difficult without taking out the liner and seeing what date is embossed on the inside of the shell - and that of course is a problem because there is no umlimited supply of CN8415 99 130 6035 Rivet Mk6 to put the liners back in again.

But wait - there's more! - I have a correspondent who reckons that part of the refurbishment and refit that we know many Mk6s have had when they're too ratty to use any longer is that the shell itself is coated with a textured resin (or something) thus transforming an original smooth shell into an apparently new textured one. His reasoning seems based on the idea that what is effectively a 'coat of paint' is an easy way to make on old helmet look as good as new.

There's a whole separate question here as to what sort of label - if any - is applied to this refurbished object. And would it reflect the original date of manufacture or the date of refurbishment?

I'm not especially drawn to this idea. I tend to believe (without proof it is true) that the rough texture of the later production Mk6 is actually an artifact of the moulding process and not a separately applied coating. I don;t know, though, whether even cutting a shell in half would prove this one way or the other as the juncture between moulding and coat (if it exists at all) would be next to invisible without better kit than I have to hand. Unless of course it could be made to peel off...

Its a genuinely confusing problem. Does anyone here have any ideas?

[James C]

thanks greg as always for your valued input now you mention im sure ive had a mk6 which had been originally smooth but had the textured coating applied ,i can only remember seeing missing sections of the paint showing smooth underneath ,now the question is where is this lid ,perhaps traded off ,i really dont know ,can you explain in more detail about these rivits ,ive never looked over them in great detail ,is there no way they can be removed without completely destroying them ,are they tapered and pressed into place ? i cant see the harm if a very cheap mk6 comes onto the market in which to dissect for the greater good

[Greg Pickersgill]

For details of the rubber rivets see this useful webpage - Composite Helmet, Ballistic helmets, Military helmets UNITED KINGDOM, UK HELMETS, BRITISH helmet, Kevlar helmet - scroll down to section headed "Mk6 - some details of the liner" . If anyone knows of a non-destrucive way of withdrawing them then really I do need to know! Right now!

Your memory of a possibly 'painted' Mk6 shell is interesting. I do find it hard to believe that older smooth shells get a textured coat as part of refubishment, and that the coat is actually a paint of some kind. But then I have been wrong before (a list would be endless). My correspondent, who seems to strongly believe in the paint theory, says he has contacted Morgan Composites, the present incarnation of NP Aerospace helmets, so we'll have to wait and see if anyone answers him at all and also if they actually have any useful records of previous activities (the first probable, the second only a possibility in this day when archives are often seen as a waste of time, space and money).

SOME LATER THOUGHTS

I've been looking quite hard at a few textured surface Mk6 and even with a USB microscope I can't tell for certain whether I am looking at an applied coating or a texture that occurs as part of the original moulding/pressing. So it could be either.

On the other hand... I have a couple of photos of shiny Mk6 (only pics, not the real things to hand) where the surface coat is definately scaling off in small areas with a distinctly different material showing beneath. This cued me to recheck my sawn-through shiny Mk6 shell, and the surface (inside and out) has a most definate boundary between itself and the main thickness of the shell. Don't even need the microscope to see that, once you start looking for it.

On the third hand... if the texturing *is* an applied coating - as may indeed be the smooth surface - then there's no reason at all for it not to be applied to refurb helmets. Apart from anything else to cover scratches and other blemishes. It makes sense.

Hmm, given the fact that the surface of the shiny is apparently (definately?) an applied one then reasonably we might assume that the textured surface is also, so then plausible for it to be applied as part of a refurb process. Really, there ought to be a simple answer to this, but it involves being told something by Morgan Composites. Or someone who *knows*.

[James C]

Just an update on the Gs Mk 6 and to finally bring closure on a 3 year old thread I managed recently to add a few extras to the helmet ,a dpm face protector which simply pairs up with the helmet via velcro strips already in place inside the helmet rim ,I also swapped out the later 2007 visor for a 2001 example and fitted an OD visor protection cover to complete

[Jerry B]

Now, we all know that the Mk6 comes in two flavours, the shiny shell and the rough shell, to put it simply. There are questions regarding these two finishes.

The first one is the simple one; when did the shiny finish stop production and the rough finish take over? This ought to be at least approximately established by looking the dates of helmets with either finish. From my own collection the latest dated smooth shell I have is 1986, and the earliest rough shell is label dated 1988/89. So we can reasonably assume it happened somewhere between.

There is a bit of a problem with accurate dating because many helmets have lost their manufacturers labels and dating is then difficult without taking out the liner and seeing what date is embossed on the inside of the shell - and that of course is a problem because there is no umlimited supply of CN8415 99 130 6035 Rivet Mk6 to put the liners back in again.

But wait - there's more! - I have a correspondent who reckons that part of the refurbishment and refit that we know many Mk6s have had when they're too ratty to use any longer is that the shell itself is coated with a textured resin (or something) thus transforming an original smooth shell into an apparently new textured one. His reasoning seems based on the idea that what is effectively a 'coat of paint' is an easy way to make on old helmet look as good as new.

There's a whole separate question here as to what sort of label - if any - is applied to this refurbished object. And would it reflect the original date of manufacture or the date of refurbishment?

I'm not especially drawn to this idea. I tend to believe (without proof it is true) that the rough texture of the later production Mk6 is actually an artifact of the moulding process and not a separately applied coating. I don;t know, though, whether even cutting a shell in half would prove this one way or the other as the juncture between moulding and coat (if it exists at all) would be next to invisible without better kit than I have to hand. Unless of course it could be made to peel off...

Its a genuinely confusing problem. Does anyone here have any ideas?

Useful info on the date of the changeover from smooth to textured for the Mk6. I wonder if the same date period applies for the same changes for the para lightweight as well?

[Composite]

....mmmmmm....'makes ya think......

Re Gregs issue of whether its just a coating or a totally new mould (or at least, that's what I think he's saying)....surely a re-coat could be made to detach...either physically or chemically whilst a re-mould would be as permanent as....errrr....a permanent thing.....????

I suspect Greg's cutting one in half as we speak....it's what he does.....