# 7.92x57 rifle round vs. an M1942 Stahlhelm? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 19, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945 "2011-04-19T11:16:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/1 "2011-04-19T11:16:04Z")
…like it says in the title, could a WWII-era [7.92xm57 mm “ball” bullet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x57mm_Mauser#German_military_standard_ball_evolution) penetrate an[M1942 Stahlhelm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahlhelm#M1942), at a nominal range? When fired from an [FG42](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42), specifically, if it makes a difference. I’m running short of ballistics gel…and rifles…and helmets…at the moment, so I can’t test this out for myself, I’m sorry to say. Can anyone with some more expertise help me out? ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/2 "2011-04-19T11:36:53Z")
Helmets of that era were good for stopping glancing blows from most rounds, and were good at stopping shrapnel, but they weren’t designed to stop a direct shot from a rifle round. They just weren’t anywhere near heavy enough to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/3 "2011-04-19T11:41:15Z")
Given that the 8mm Mauser round could penetrate a couple feet of wood at 100 meters, I doubt the helmet stands a chance. WWII helmets were for protection from shell fragments; there was no expectation that they would stand up to a hit from a rifle round. Heck, the 5.56 round that NATO uses now will penetrate a steel helmet at 600 meters. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/4 "2011-04-19T12:16:33Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > WWII helmets were for protection from shell fragments; there was no expectation that they would stand up to a hit from a rifle round. Just pointing out, in case it’s not clear, that a helmet that stopped shrapnel only was still pretty valuable. More soldiers were wounded by shrapnel than by bullets in WWII. ---
**Author:** ![what\_do\_I\_type\_here](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a5b964/32.png) [@what\_do\_I\_type\_here](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/what_do_I_type_here)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/5 "2011-04-19T17:54:08Z")
I have read that the M-18 Hellcat, a ww2 era American tank destroyer, had armor so thin that in some places it could be penetrated by 8mm fire at close range. ---
**Author:** ![ramel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb8c5e/32.png) [@ramel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ramel)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/6 "2011-04-20T10:04:30Z")
Same with some Japanese tanks. Armour so thin that they weren’t completely bullet proof. Though with the M-18 there was at least the excuse that it was supposed to be a very high speed highly mobile tank destroyer. The Japanese tanks were just underarmoured. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/7 "2011-04-20T23:55:33Z")
Well, Tank destroyers in general don’t carry much armor, or sometimes any. And the Japanese tanks were designed to be extremely light, given the varied and rough environments they had to fight in. I tend to think that being penetrated by rifle fire is a bit much, but… ---
**Author:** ![AmunRa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AmunRa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmunRa)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/8 "2011-04-21T15:08:49Z")
Would a modern Kevlar helmet stop one of those bullets? IIRC the helmet currently used by the US armed forces won’t stand up to a direct hit from a 7.62x39 (AK-47, etc.) round. I’m no ballistics expert, but 8x57 sounds more powerful than 7.62x39 to me. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/9 "2011-04-21T16:58:07Z")
> [@AmunRa](#): > > Would a modern Kevlar helmet stop one of those bullets? IIRC the helmet currently used by the US armed forces won’t stand up to a direct hit from a 7.62x39 (AK-47, etc.) round. I’m no ballistics expert, but 8x57 sounds more powerful than 7.62x39 to me. The 8x57 does have more energy coming out the muzzle than the 7.62x39. I wouldn’t expect a Kevlar helmet to stop a direct hit. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrogance_ex_machina/32/192_2.png) [@Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogance_Ex_Machina)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/7-92x57-rifle-round-vs-an-m1942-stahlhelm/578945/10 "2011-04-21T17:17:38Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Well, Tank destroyers in general don’t carry much armor, or sometimes any. This is getting offtopic, but that’s a bit of a generalization - [Elefant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant) for example had heavier armor than most WWII tanks. Soviets also had a number of well-armored tank destroyers.