ASP by Gear Sector

Submitted by Swissfreek

What about the ASP by Gear Sector? It's got buckles on the loop so you can doff it, and also just above the connection to the weapon so you can switch out the connector. It's a little cheaper than the VTAC, but on the downside it's not bungee and doesn't have the cam lock.

Midwest Industries makes the endplate adapters to get the QD mount behind the receiver. Those aren't cheap, though. You're looking at ~$40 just for the adapter. Blackhawk also makes one, but it's even more expensive, like $60 or so last I saw it. I bet there are others, but those are the ones I know of that don't require removal of the castle nut for installation.

ED – Swissfreek, The ASP certainly looks like a viable bare bones alternative to the hook.  They use the same style of Fastex buckle, and it wouldn’t be any more difficult to attach and detach than would the hook.  Personally, though, I’d like to get away from the Fastex buckle.  While I’m not opposed to them, and I’ve no worries about their durability, it seems that I’ve gotten into the habit of accidentally clipping my weapon to my rucksack in the dark.  Both my ruck and the wolf hook have the same size clip (the clip on the ruck is for the optional assault pack and sometimes if flops forward near my shoulder where the hook attaches.)   One solution, I know, is to put some tape on one or the other, so I can tell, by feel, which buckle is which, or to ensure that I use different sized buckles.  Though, in looking at it, the ASP buckle is down near the weapon, which would make all that a moot point.

Regarding the Midwest Industries QD mount, I think this is exactly what I’m looking for.  While I do want a new sling, what I really want is a new attachment mechanism, and that QD sling swivel looks like just the thing.  Yes, I’d need to get a stud mount for the rifle, but that’s no biggie (the one thing we do have in the arms room is a ton of tools, so removing the castle nut is not an issie.)  In fact, in looking through the MI site, one sling assembly that caught my eye was the DPB (Dedicated Push Button) sling with the MCTAR-30 end plate sling adaptor.  Yeah, like you said, the two add up to around $50-60, but I can live with that.

Finding a Better Sling

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I’m on the look out for a better sling.  Currently I’m using the Spec Ops Wolf Hook sling on my M-4, but I need something different.  Mind you, I’m not displeased with the hook, it’s cheap, it’s simple, and best of all, it doesn’t get in the way, but it requires me to wear my rack in order to use it, and there are a great many times where I’m just on the drill floor and I need to secure my weapon to my body without having to wear all the extra kit to use the sling.

Now my preference is for a single point sling. I’m not a big fan, at all, of those 2 and 3 point slings; there’s just too much webbing involved. They get cumbersome and they can be a pain in the ass to get in and out of.  No, what I’m looking for is something that I can secure my weapon to my body in the simplest, most hands free method possible (I only use the sling to “administratively” secure the weapon. I’m not real comfortable going on a mission with the weapon attached to me.  If I have to transition to my pistol I’m not worried about my rifle hitting the ground, I’ll deal with it later. I just don’t like the idea of being attached to the rifle.)

Now, one of the team leaders in my platoon had a real slick push button type of single point sling.  It was an elastic strap that went over the shoulder and attached via a simple push button mechanism attached to the buffer spring housing on the butt of the M-4.  Moreover, there was a hole on either side of the attachment point so you could sling the rifle left or right depending on your shooting style.  Unfortunately, he couldn’t remember where he got it, there were no identifying marks on the sling, and he just ETSed, so I may never find out what he had.

All this has left me surfing the internet looking for a replacement.  The Voodoo Tactical single point sling looked like it might have potential; it uses a claw style fastener to clip to the weapon, which, while not exactly what I’m looking for, is certainly simple and serviceable.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Voodoo offers it any more, as I can only find it for sale on eBay.

BDS also offers a bungee style single point sling, but I like that clasp even less than the claw on the voodoo model.  I want a quick disconnect clip, not necessarily a quick connect one, something like the one on the Blackhawk Chalker sling.  The BDS clip appears to be just the opposite; easy to clip on, but not quick to detach.

The one that really catches my eye though is the 5.11 VTAC single point sling.  It’s got the bungee action to allow for some shock absorption, and it has two quick detach clips (and of the kind I like) which allow you to not only quickly divest yourself of the weapon, but of the sling as well (which is a good thing if you’re trying to bail out of a vehicle in a hurry.)  I just wish it wasn’t $50, but I guess that’s the price of finding a better sling.

Camouflaging Yourself AND Equipment

Submitted by Eric Daniel

The Army is conducting yet another review of the camouflage pattern of its combat uniforms.  This makes it what, the third or fourth such review on the pattern du jour?  What I find interesting though, is not so much how much attention is being paid to the debate around the camouflage pattern, and whether or not we need one “one pattern works nowhere” uniform, or several regional/seasonal uniforms to maximize local effectiveness, but how little attention we are paying to camouflaging everything else but the uniform.

One of the first things that leaps out at you about the ACU pattern is its lack of black.  “Black is not a naturally occurring color” the Army says, and its use on the battlefield defeats the effectiveness of camouflage. Yet we’re all packing at least one piece of black equipment; our weapons.  As a scout looking for bad guys, one of the things you look for is black angular objects, which are universally man made, and on the battlefield usually mean weapons. 

So why do we still have black weapons?

I’m not talking about sending all our guns back to the factory to get some sort of high speed “realtree” pattern retro added, but rather just addressing the issue at the unit level and paint them some color other than black.  I searched and searched TRADOCs website looking for regulations regarding camouflaging equipment, and other than a circular detailing how to apply CARC paint and what pattern to use on the woodland camouflage pattern on tactical vehicles (which, by the way, still includes the color black), the only guidance I could get on the subject was to ensure that what ever camouflage you use does not interfere or degrade the performance of the equipment, which seems a no brainer to me.

So, having not found anything that expressly forbids painting weapons, I decided to do the foolish yet administratively correct thing and broach the subject with my food chain.

“No” was the answer I got.  The rational behind the decision was varied. 

“Let joes paint their weapons, and they’ll be tagging them with gang signs.”  Ok, a valid concern, so to mitigate that you limit their color options to, say, tan, and you have their team leader supervise them.  Better yet, let the team leader do all the painting. 

“They’ll over-paint them, and gum up the weapon.”  Again, another valid concern, and again, one that can be mitigated by the judicious application of NCO leadership and some common sense when painting.  This isn’t painting the Sistine chapel; it’s breaking up the pattern of a black piece of gear, and a little bit of tan paint will go a long, long way. Want to protect the bolt?  Take it out.  Want to protect your optics?  Cover the lenses with a layer of grease.  There are a multitude of ways to get the job done without fouling the weapon (I know because I’ve seen units do it.) 

“Squadron won’t like it, because we won’t be uniform with the rest of the squadron.”

Bingo, here we go, the real reason why we’ll never do it; uniformity.  Heaven forbid we have a Squadron formation some year and one troop shows up with brown weapons.  Never mind that camouflaging yourself and equipment is an essential field skill that could actually save your life some day, we’d much rather look identical for the next change of command ceremony.  It saddens me that on the one hand we tout ourselves as the most powerful and sophisticated army in the world, but at the same time we lack the intestinal fortitude to make a simple decision to camouflage our equipment for strictly cosmetic reasons.

Super Snivel Gear

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I recently had an opportunity to check out the ADS GEN III ECWCS (Extended Cold Weather Clothing System) but more readily known as snivel gear.

The ADS package, for that’s really what it is, a fully integrated layering system (ranging from level I to level VII), is designed to provide tailored comfort in climates ranging from mild (60F) to the brutal ( -40F) in all conditions, including wet, dry, and windy.

For my part, I sampled the level I and II garments, which included both tops and bottoms, as well as briefs.  The ADS system is a “next to skin” system, meaning you wear it in place of your regular t-shirt and underwear (no, you will not go up in a ball of flames if you wear the level II long johns over your army issue boxers, but ADS just designed the system as a stand alone product, not requiring specific issue clothing to function properly.)

The level I and II garments are brown in color (the level III and up are foliage green) and made of a variety of synthetic fabrics, including Polartec Power Dry (for fast wicking and drying.)  Construction across the board is solid, with all seams, even on the “silkweight” level I garments, heavily reinforced to prevent fraying in the field.  The level I tops and bottoms are made of the same lightweight fabric, and are intended to be worn as the next to skin base of the system, providing good mild environment insulation, coupled with moisture wicking for dryness.  The level II garments are made from a thicker “checkerboard” pattern of the same Polartec fabric, for increased insulation, and can be worn as either an additional layer for the level I garments, or as a stand alone base layer for even colder conditions.  In addition, the level II top features silkweight fabric panels running from cuff to ribs, for better moisture wicking, as well as a mid chest zipper and mock turtleneck collar, for additional neck insulation as well as ventilation.

To properly evaluate the garments, I did a number of tests.  The first involved taking the level II garments to the field with me for a three day drill at Camp Pendleton.  Following an eight mile cross-country march with tactical load, I was thoroughly soaked with sweat, and in the 40 degree air and wind, freezing to death, so I stripped off my ACU blouse and army issue t-shirt, and slipped on the ECWCS top. 

The effect was immediate and dramatic.  With my blouse back on to cut the wind, and though thoroughly saturated with sweat, I did not feel chilled in the least, and though I was still perspiring, the level II top did a very good job of keeping me warm.

To test the bottoms, I decided to wear just them and my ACUs that night and sleep wrapped up in my poncho liner and poncho.  Normally, during this time of year, it gets too cold for me to get away with just the poncho liner, but between the liner and the level II snivel gear, I was comfortable, and slept that way all three nights.

To test the level I stuff I decided to see just how wet I could get and still stay warm, so I spent a day logging (thinning out the oak and pine population at my place on an overcast 55 degree day) and then did a couple of bike rides in the early morning air (between 38-45 degrees.)  While logging, I wore a cotton overshirt as protection against wood chips and debris, as well as to provide a wind brake, and though both became saturated, I was never cold.  In fact, I never overheated either, with the combination of evaporative cooling and the fabric insulation balancing nicely to keep me comfortable.  Out biking it was a little bit of a different story.  Once up to operating temperature, and with direct wind contact, I did get a little chilled, though, but only when I was moving.  Once I stopped (there was no wind blowing), however, the level I top did an excellent job of providing adequate insulation. 

Overall, I’d have to say I was thoroughly impressed with the effectiveness of the garments.  In both cases, neither the level I nor the level II garments felt bulky or binding, and even when soaked, they still retained their shape and didn’t sag like wool is wont to do, so they were comfortable to wear for long periods and could be easily worn under the duty uniform without having to increase the size to account for the additional layers.  Moreover, I know their system goes to VII, but I think I’d be hard pressed personally to find a situation where I’d need more than what I already have, though admittedly, training at Camp Pendleton is a far cry from the -20 icebox conditions I used to train in at Yakima.  One thing I was going to comment on, though, was the price; individually, the level I shirt is $32 and the level II shirt is $68, while the level I bottoms are $30 and the level IIs are $45, which makes one set of each, respectively, $62 and $113, which, for someone who was issued white wool button up long johns in 1988, is a lot of money.  Then I started looking around, and if you can find something comparable in performance to these duds for only twice the price, I would tell you to go get a case and hand them out for Christmas, because, compared to other products of similar design, these are a pretty good bargain (I still like my woolies though.)  Moreover, ADS offers package deals, which allow you to get combinations at a significant price reduction.  For example, the base layer package will run you $130 total for a pair of level I and II tops and bottoms, a savings of $45.

Check out the ADS Generation III ECWCS here.

Not Coming to a Store Near You

Submitted by Eric Daniel

A couple of things here.  When the Army up and decided to convert to the ACU and tan boots, I was suddenly left with 11 pair of various styles of black boots that the Army issued me that are now obsolete and I can’t wear in the field.  I now have three pairs of Army issue tan boots and one pair of Marine Corps coyote brown boots that I picked up in Kuwait to replace a pair of unserviceable pair of Army boots (neither supply nor AAFES had Army boots in my size and I needed new boots, so I adapted and overcame, but it’s amazing how many Sr. NCOs would rather I wore unserviceable boots or running shoes rather than combat boots from a different service.)

Well, with the conversion to tan, no-shine boots, there seems to have been a proliferation of new styles, which I would generously consider “non-traditional” appearing more along the lines of combat hi-tops rather than combat boots.  Moreover, I know the regulations regarding footwear have gotten a lot more complicated, so much so that between AR 670-1 and 670-CSM I haven’t got a clue what’s authorized to wear and what’s not.

Another thing that concerns me, and this is where the second thing comes in, is the durability and reparability of these newer boots.  Now, I assume that my issue tan boots (and the MC ones as well) can be resoled since they have traditional Vibram lug soles.  Just like my old black speed lace ‘cruit boots (I just threw out my last pair of initial issue boots, after 20 years of dutiful service) I figure I ought to be able to take these “new” boots to a competent shoe repair facility and have the old sole cut off and a new one glued on.  I don’t know if that’s the case with those “exotic” boots like the Oakley’s, Converse and Danner ones.  Those soles look to be of a single piece molded design and you can’t really cut the sole off without destroying the entire boot.

Now, you’d think, for the price of the boot, (the three I’ve exampled run from $99 to $185) you’d get a resolable boot (almost universally I’ve worn out the soles of my boots before I’ve ever worn a hole in the uppers.)  Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.  Moreover, it seems the price of boots is just going up and up and up.  Take, for example, the Bates ‘Tora Bora’ SOF alpine boot.  This boot, built for the US Special Operations Command, is designed to be worn in alpine environments.  It’s made from waterproof gortex lined nylon and leather with a black rubber sole specifically molded to work with crampons and snowshoes.  Just looking at that description, it pretty much sounds like any other modern combat boot, but this boot will run you $449 a pair and they’re not even rebuildable.  Now, I’m not above buying quality footwear, something that I’ve commented on previously in fact, but at least my Smokejumpers were completely rebuildable (I must have gotten 8 years out of my last pair of jumpers before they were finally too damaged to rebuild), and made completely from leather, which is significantly more scuff and damage resistant than nylon (not to mention more fire resistant.)  In addition, this is a strictly secret squirrel issue item, since it only comes in sage green (with a black rubber sole) so it doesn’t really fit in with any service uniform fashion guide.

I guess this means I’m going to have to stick with the issue boots and call it good.

A Leg to Stand On

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I’m currently using a Nikon Spotter XL II spotting scope for OP work.  The Nikon is a 16-48x60mm scope.  Overall, I like the scope.  It’s bright, easy to use, and I like the fact that it’s got a pull out sun/dust shield, which is a life saver when out in the rain.  Since this is the first spotting scope I’ve ever had, though, I really can’t compare it to anything else, but so far, the only real complaint I have about it is it’s black (I’ve got an e-mail out to Nikon about painting it brown – at the time I got it, getting it in a different color was not an option, though I currently pack a “square” of desert colored cammo net to conceal it) and at 48x mag you basically have to wear the scope in order to see out of it (that and it is very susceptible to vibration.)

The one thing I really find difficult to use, though, especially in a tactical situation, is the tripod that goes with the scope.  Don’t get me wrong, the tripod, for most, civilian, purposes, works just fine, but I find that, one, the tripod doesn’t get low enough to allow me to lie on the ground without having to prop myself up at an uncomfortable angle, and two, the elevation lock handle, the rod that sticks out of the base of the tripod, interferes with actually getting a good, steady, sight picture out of the scope at max magnification (basically, the rod pokes you in the cheek when you try and look through the scope.)

So now I’m on the hunt for a better tactical use tripod.  One of the tripods I liked was the Ray-Vin Tactical Tripod (its military model is the M-2004.)  The Ray-Vin is all aluminum, and I like the simplicity of its center pole design which allows good access to the scope.

Vortex also makes a suitable tripod, their Vortex Summit Shooting Stand tripod.  Significantly cheaper than the Ray-Vin, the Vortex also is a bit more limited in its height adjustment.

Leupold also makes a nice looking compact tripod.  I like the fact that in addition to having a center pole extension, the legs also extend, giving it a wide height range.  Something else I also noticed with the Leupold set up was the fact that they offer a binocular adaptor, which, unfortunately, does not work with military M22 binoculars, as well as a digital camera adaptor which again, unfortunately, only works with their spotting scope.  That these devices exist, however, gives me hope that I can find similar devices to work with my Nikon scope (which will save me a lot of time and effort in drawing up sketch cards.)

Does anyone have any experience with tactical spotting scope tripods or can you make other reccomendations?

But This One is Mine

Submitted by Eric Daniel

Well, I officially now own a piece of history, having recently taken possession of a surplus Springfield Armory M1 Garand through the CMP program.  Delivered “as is” with one (empty) clip and an owner’s manual (which actually makes for rather entertaining reading), opening that cardboard box was like discovering some ancient treasure.

My first impression was, “Wow, this thing’s heavy” but the reality is, at 9.5 pounds, the Garand is only a little heavier than my current issue M4 with all the “crap” attached, like the light, the PEQ-2, and the Eotech sight (though admittedly, all that stuff does give me a number of capabilities that I don’t have with the M1.)  The other thing that impressed me was the actual wood of the stock.  I’m used to weapons made of metal and plastic and cleaned in solvent tanks, not ones made with wood worn smooth by years of use.

While I have disassembled, cleaned and lubricated my rifle, CMP recommends that the rifle be inspected by a gunsmith before firing, so I haven’t fired it yet. I did get some .30-06 dummy rounds, though, to practice not only loading loose rounds into the clip, it is an art, but also practice loading and clearing the rifle (no “M1 thumb” for me, thank you very much.)

Something else I discovered after purchasing the rifle is that as far as the gas operated Garand is concerned, not all ammunition is created equal.  Apparently, many modern .30-06 cartridges develop too high a chamber pressure, which can damage the operating rod.  One solution to this dilemma is to purchase surplus M2 ball ammunition, which is as old as the rifle itself, not always available, and may not be deliverable to where you live.  Another option is to use modern ammunition specifically built for the M1.  To this end, I’ve found only two brands, so far, that will work – Federal’s American Eagle M1 Garand ammunition, and Hornady’s M1 Garand Match (Remington has a 150 gr. .30-06 cartridge in their UMC line, but according to them it is not M1 safe.)

Now, call me a neophyte when it comes to owning firearms (which, of course, I am) but I was absolutely shocked to discover how expensive ammunition was (at $20 for a box of 20, and even the surplus ammo was around $1 a bullet.) While in the great scheme of things, this isn’t that expensive for ammunition of this size (7mm Remington Magnum, for example, will run you $55/box), I’m used to going to the ammo point and drawing cases of ammunition at a time – this is the first time I’ll actually have to pay for the stuff.  Moreover, it has been an absolute nightmare finding a local distributor for this stuff that actually has it in stock (yes, I can hear you all now saying, “Welcome to my world.”)  Lastly, a third option, and clearly the one I think I’m going to have to adopt if I’m ever going to shoot this thing recreationally, is to learn to reload my own.  Of course, my knowledge of purchasing ammunition is encyclopedic compared to actually making it, so this reloading thing is going to be an adventure in itself.

Keep it Simple

Submitted by Eric Daniel

You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.

Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie).  It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.

Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission. 

Rifle grenades:  What’s wrong with rifle grenades?  We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that.  Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete?  There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.

I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without.  With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)

Shoulder fired weapons:  Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7.  Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world.  What is the US equivalent?  The single shot AT-4 (M136.)  The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4. 

While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory.  The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it.  Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s.  Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.

Battlefield Illumination:  As a tanker, one of the things I missed most about going from the M60 to the M1 was the elimination of that 2.5 million candlepower searchlight.  Yes, I know the M1 had thermal sights and did not need a light source, but there are times where having a way to light up the battlefield is nice, like when you’re working with dismounts, who don’t have thermals, and you want to point out something to them.  Battlefield illumination, I think, has become a lost art. We have become so used to, or maybe even dependent upon, night vision devices, that we simply don’t do things at night if we cant see anything with our NODs (night vision, as you know, multiplies ambient light; if there’s no ambient light to magnify, they don’t work very well.)  We have a number of parachute flares of all sizes in the inventory, but few commanders, that I’ve seen, make use of them (no grenadier I encountered carried 40mm parachute flares and while most NCOs carried red star clusters for medivacs, none carried illum rounds, so if your unit did then I envy you.) One of the things I think folk forget is that the use of illum can have a significant impact on the enemy’s ability to maneuver.  If visibility is limited, popping parachute flares downrange can light up the battlefield, denying the enemy the ability to move freely in the open.  Unfortunately, flares are neither sexy nor expensive, so I don’t think the Army is very interested in using them.

Mind you, I’m not advocating the elimination of any existing weapon system.  All the stuff we currently have does, in fact, work.  What I would like to see though, is for us to expand our capabilities by add some existing low tech weapons to our arsenal to give commanders the ability to better tailor their firepower to the mission, rather than just do without until the wonder weapon we’ve always dreamed about comes on line 20 years from now.

Wiggy's Sleeping Bags

Submitted by Eric Daniel

You gotta love the internet.  I can buy guns on-line but I can’t buy a zipper.  I decided to try a full-up system test of my issue MSS sleeping bag and I have come to the conclusion there’s just no way in hell I’m going to fit in the black bag and the gortex bivy.  To say that I wear the bag is an understatement; I am truly mummified in the bag.  Not only does the bag bind significantly at the shoulders (I can’t zip the bag up from the inside - I need to either get someone to zip it up from the outside, or I need to expose an arm and do it myself, and just leave the exposed arm hanging) but it only comes up to about my collarbone.  The only way I could get all the way into the bag was to hop around like a hopping caterpillar until I could get the “hood” portion of the bag over my head, and then lay down.  All in all, just way too much work, and most assuredly something I don’t look forward to doing in the rain.

So, I’m looking on-line for a replacement sleeping bag zipper for my old M1949 mountain bag (the zipper blew out.)  Unfortunately, these seem to be rather rare things.  Moreover, all the local surplus stores seem to have gone out of business, so even finding an old sleeping bag to cannibalize for a replacement zipper has become an issue.

The end result of all of this is that I’m now looking for a mil-spec sleeping bag that I can use in the field to take the place of the waif sized MSS (or at least until I can get my old M1949 back on line.)  Granted, there are any number of civilian bags out there that would fill the role admirably, were it not for the fact that they were of an exotic color and expensive as hell.  Moreover, I like the idea of a modular system, that I can layer for additional insulation in cold, aka Yakima-like, weather.

One of the sleeping bag systems that caught my eye was the Wiggy’s line.  They offer a stand alone “military style” bag with a break away centerline zipper (the zipper runs town the middle of the bag, rather than on the left or right hand seam) that is large enough for you to get in with your clothes on, and easy to get out of in a hurry.  In addition, they’ve got a nested bag system that you can tailor to your temperature requirements.  This system consists of a standard overbag (rated to +35F, the military bag is rated to +25F) and a number of optional insert bags.  The inserts range in ratings from +20F to -40F and when used in conjunction with the overbag, provide an additional 40 degrees of insulation.

Has anyone had any experience with the Wiggy’s bags?

Check out the Wiggy’s sleeping bag line here

QuikClot Combat Gauze

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I just saw that the Army named this product one of the “Top Ten Greatest Inventions of 2008.”Now, I know that there were a number of these rapid clotting products fielded, but I thought most, if not all, of them were recalled because they were a bit exothermic in their operation, or that they caused blood clots to form internally.  Apparently, though, this one is still out there.

Well my question to you all is, have any of you seen this or used it?  As a Guardsman in a non-enhanced readiness unit, I’ll see these things right about the time the regular army transitions to robot warriors, but I’m curious if any of you active duty types have encountered either this (which appears to be a kaolin impregnated gauze bandage) or the other product offered, QuikClot, which appears to be a powder (like the sulfa powder of old) that you apply directly to the wound.

In the blurb I read, the combat gauze is described as being inexpensive and easy to use (civilian prices for this range from $30- $50 so clearly the Army has a somewhat corporate concept of what constitutes “inexpensive”) and I was just curious if anyone had ever actually used it (the SF folks we worked with had something similar I believe, though I don’t think it was QC) and whether it was worth trying to trick my supply SGT into getting some.

In an interesting aside, it seems there’s some discrepancy as to who invented this stuff.  According to the Army, it was invented by  the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, while Z-Medica Corporation insists it invented it.  I wonder if these are two different products with the same name or if they’re debating about what the definition of “invented” is.

Check out QuikClot Combat Gauze here.