Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bootcat

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
Everything else / Re: PALS Adapter Hardware
« on: April 19, 2018, 04:56:56 AM »
A sturdy version of the C-loop is something on my mind. Why use repair GTSR buckles when you don't need the regulation?

Materials science / Re: Metal PALS Adapter
« on: March 17, 2018, 01:24:27 AM »
I have designed such a piece (called C-hook) with and without "ladderloc" slots and had some cut out of steel (potentially aluminium would do). Haven't found a commercial offering for that but it would be quite cheap to make industrially  from bent steel wire (see webbing hanger from WW1-WW2 US canteen pouch).

I tend to cut the corners at 45 which makes them more flexible too.

Vendors and sources / Re: 70E Elastic Webbing
« on: February 28, 2018, 08:11:52 AM »
The Shotcard in the pic used type 70E. I don't think we have a picture of 5664. It's very similar to the style that Texcel used to carry if that helps.

Vendors and sources / Re: 70E Elastic Webbing
« on: February 27, 2018, 02:00:08 AM »
To clarify - we use the 5664 nylon elastic from GSI instead of their 70E.

Vendors and sources / Re: 70E Elastic Webbing
« on: February 22, 2018, 12:23:43 AM »
I recently discovered that GSI's nylon elastic is cheaper than the equivalent 70E. Seems sturdier too.

Has anyone asked FS what their policy is regarding the technical extent of their patents?

Very actionable info, thanks!

Reading you I now see that adding a customer code and letters would help making the style number less confusing.
That would be for instance: Cxx-Txx-Yxx-Mxxx-Vxxx-Sxxx

Client xx (we also do OEM)
Type xx
Year of design xx
Model xxx
Version xxx
Shade (color) xxx

Using a different letter for each group makes the styles searchable in Excel and allows running statistics.
One thing missing is the year of production. Not sure if that's important to track though.

At our place we use:

Type (1-9): similar to your lines + provision for clothing, shelters and other stuff that's not personal equipment.
Sub-type (1-9): currently distinguishes the type of equipment (sling, pouch, belt..)
Model (100-999): the actual product
Version (10-99): used for versioning like for software versions
Color (001-999): whatever color table you use

So a current production Black Expresling is #41-10110-001. A commercial type is also used for quick ID, sales and such (here: TT-ELG-BK). The latter could be more developed, interested to hear what others do.
The style is mostly for internal stats and for communicating with factories when error-proofing is a must.

+1 on the F-I resources.

I was thinking that pulling downwards (ie away from yourself) would be more instinctive than pulling upwards (towards yourself), if you've got limited mobility/in confined spaces.

Correct, I have also planned the pull down on the ROCbuckles on the platecharrier I am designing.

Generally some styles are reversible so the user can choose that. I'll give a try to the pull down orientation.

I'm surprised that you oriented the buckles for opening down. Did you consider that if you tug on the cord the whole thing falls off vs staying put if you orient for opening up?

Pictures when you are done!

Well the current retrofit cummerbund looks like this:

Other pics are at

My point was to find a good solution for other cummerbund styles where the JPC compatibility is not required.

Thanks guys.

I didn't think about doubling the thin shock cord, that gives us the correct tension when the cummerbund is loaded.
Also, there is a flat cordloc used on the Alice pack that's better suited to cords pulling on opposite directions.

Also, designing new stuff then seeing a big brand unveil kind of the same thing...

Concept, design, and engineering / Cummerbund back attachment solutions
« on: January 23, 2018, 01:36:33 AM »

I'd like to pick your brains about the different systems out there used for attaching and adjusting cummerbunds on vests.
I'm facing a decision to choose a system for a range of laminate lasercut cummerbunds that may or may not adjust in the front (velcro or ROC buckle closure).
The cummerbund will attach under a PALS layer (opening via flap) on the back. No QD system is required.

Here are the choices I see:
- laced cord (think Eagle Industries PC) with cord locking hardware;
- laced thick elastic cord (think Crye JPC) with a knot;
- laced thin elastic cord with cord locking hardware (Eagle MMC);
- elastic webbing and velcro (any covert carry plate carrier on the market);
- vertical bars locking in PALS slots (IOTV Gen3);

What do you think is optimal? Or are there other good solutions that I didn't consider?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13