# New Rucksack



## Bomber (8 Jan 2008)

Any impressions on the new Ruck, either on the bag itself, or the method it was delivered (taught)

PhilB?


----------



## MG34 (8 Jan 2008)

If it doesn't have an external frame, I am not interested in it for military use.Civi side is a different matter.


----------



## mover1 (8 Jan 2008)

has anyone seen the new Barracks Box yet?


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Jan 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> has anyone seen the new Barracks Box yet?



You mean the great big brown pelican cases?


----------



## Donut (8 Jan 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> has anyone seen the new Barracks Box yet?


Beaten to it by Des, but here ya go


I shipped two of them last month.

They're pelican cases, so really well built.  They've got wheels and a handle a la roller luggage, but they're freakin' huge, almost too big to lift comfortably (or my arms are too short).  I can't recall what the weight limit for UAB used to be, but I don't think it was changed when they got the new boxes, so it was really easy to overload...I had all this space left over!  I know I wasn't the only one in the coy, too.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Jan 2008)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Beaten to it by Des, but here ya go
> 
> 
> I shipped two of them last month.
> ...



Yup, seen 'em, and they are huge. Haven't gotten them yet.

As far as going back to rucksacks, haven't and probably won't get one in the near future, as I tend to work in more of a mounted role.

But I did get to play with one a bit when Bomber brought one buy to my old office in Ottawa (dunno if I thanked you for that, btw). Can't really make a judgement call on it, but it seemed to be put together well. Need more time with it on my back to decide, though.


----------



## PhilB (8 Jan 2008)

I do have some impressions, both good and bad. So lets begin;

Overall I am quite impressed with the ruck. I went into getting the ruck with my normal "fuck CTS their stuff is junk" attitude. I will freely admit that this ruck has swayed me somewhat. The CTS ruck is replacing my gucci 64 pattern. I say gucci because it utilized the NICE frame made by mystery ranch (http://www.mysteryranch.com/site/pack.php?ID=17 ) so I was coming into the issue from using a pretty comfortable ruck. I will go through, in itemized form, my likes and dislikes;

Dislikes:

- The CTS ruck is quite heavy empty, noticeably heavier than my empty 64. 
- The lid of the ruck is not completely floating. It is quite long, and can be cinched down at the back. In our "ruck classes" we were told that the packs that have been issued to snipers had completely floating lids. I think that this is a design feature that should be adopted for all rucks to aid in carriage of oddly shaped ungainly items.
- Daisy Chain system. I think this is the biggest issue with the ruck. The daisy chain pouch attach system is IMHO garbage. Pouches do not attach properly, they sag when loaded, and you are limited in your pouch placement. 
- Compression Straps. It is a good thing that there are a lot of compression straps on the bag but it makes getting it packed and ready to go kind of an ordeal. There are 4 compression straps per side, plus two straps for the lid, plus three straps to compress the rear of the lid. A LOT of straps.
- Quick release buckles. I find that the quick release feature on the straps is finicky and if not pulled at the correct angle will not release. Additionally you loose your sternum strap when you release it. The ruck comes with additional sternum straps, but I think it is a ridiculous design that you lose an essential piece of the ruck when you release it. 

Likes:

- Compression bag. The compression bag that comes with the ruck is excellent. I can fit everything that I would normally have in a valice in the compression bag with lots of room to spare. It is water proof and compresses into a tiny package. 
- Load Carriage. This thing is HUGE. Right now mine is fully loaded with 4 sets of AR combats, 1 set of TW combats, 10 shirts, 10 socks, 10 pairs of underwear, stealth suit, alpha liner, gloves, two pairs of desert boots, smock, and all of this is in addition to my complete compression bag and I still have room to spare. Obviously the amount of kit it holds is both a positive and a negative, and will taking packing discipline not to overload yourself with snivel kit, but the capacity is there. 
- Comfort. I loaded the ruck up with as much stuff as I could and went for a few ruck marches. All told the ruck weighed in at 110lbs. I have now gone for 5x 10km marches with it at this weight. No hot spots on my shoulders or hips like a fully loaded 64 would have caused. No numb arms, extremely comfortable! It rides very comfortably and you dont have that "pulling back" feeling you do with an extremely heavy 64. 
- Floating shoulder straps. The shoulder straps of the ruck are attached with metal tri glide buckles at the top of the straps. This allows the shoulder straps to be adjusted to allow carrying it while wearing armour and other kit. Excellent feature

Undecided: Because I have not used the ruck that much there are still several things that I am undecided about.

- Internal Frame. The capacity is huge but I can see it being difficult to carry some items that I have had to carry in the past. Mortar/84 rounds, crates of ammo, jerry cans etc. It is no issue to carry this load with a 64 but with an internal frame ruck it could be difficult. I think a floating lid would go a long way to alleviate this.
- Design/comfort. Although the pack is very comfortable when not wearing amour with armour it looses some comfort. The shoulder straps, as stated above, are designed to work with armour but the rest of the pack isnt? The bent aluminum stays are great, but you are bending them to the profile of your back, yet most of the time you will be wearing plate?. The waist belt is designed to sit on your hips, it works quite well. The armour, after a time while marching, pushes the waist belt down of the hips bones and it becomes somewhat uncomfortable. 

All in all I like the ruck, in fact I like it enough to leave my 64 at home and take this ruck overseas with me. Hope this helps.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2008)

Good review Phil.  I'm still debating over a Kifaru or not....


----------



## PhilB (8 Jan 2008)

I was thinking the same thing in preparation for the deployment. Honestly, if you are in a position where you will get issued the ruck then I would wait. I have used an EMR before and I would say that the comfort of the CTS Ruck is close if not equal to the kifaru. The EMR pulls ahead when you consider it is lighter weight (the CTS ruck uses urethane coated cordura I believe. It is good for weather resistance, but adds to the weight), and has PALS instead of useless daisy chain. It falls wayyy behind when you consider the CTS ruck is free, and the Kifaru costs a gold brick and a first born child!


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2008)

Really?  How well does that daisy chain system work with different pouches.  One of the attractive features of the Kifaru was the ability to dock a wide variety of different things to the outside.  Will the issue pack accept these ("dock'n'lock" or Molle)?


----------



## PhilB (8 Jan 2008)

No the daisy chain system wont accept dock and lock or MOLLE. That being said I am not a big fan of the dock and lock system. It doesnt hold that well, I would stick with MOLLE. I am VERY tempted to get MOLLE put on the pack but it would be cost prohibitive to do.


----------



## medaid (8 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> No the daisy chain system wont accept dock and lock or MOLLE. That being said I am not a big fan of the dock and lock system. It doesnt hold that well, I would stick with MOLLE. I am VERY tempted to get MOLLE put on the pack but it would be cost prohibitive to do.



I'll take that gold brick you mentioned


----------



## BigRudy (8 Jan 2008)

8 platoon 3VP was issued the new ruck prior to deploying last winter on TF 1-07. My impressions of it were that it was extremely comfortable to wear, but yes it is quite heavy even when empty. There are internal aluminum stays bent specifically to your spine, so I certainly hope that it would be nice and comfy!  As mentioned by another poster, the daisy chain system is maybe not the best choice, given the options out there. It is also friggin HUGE compared to a 64 pattern ruck. Lots of space for your kit, but it's massive and can be hard to deal with. 

My main beef with it was the compression sack system for your sleeping bag... you have to pack your sleeping kit down into the compression sack, and then cram it into the internal valise, not exactly the quickest process in the world. Should you need to pack in a hurry, this system will slow you down, vs jamming everything into your oldschool valise and rucking up. Some of our guys got an 'older' model of the new ruck than I did, and they seemed to have an easier time with it.

So my thoughts on it are mixed...an improvement over an 82 pattern ruck? I suppose so....but it's not as good as it could have been. As far as I am concerned, you are better off buying components and building your own ruck, tailoring it to what you like. A bunch of our guys ended up leaving the new ruck at home and bringing their own anyways, and I wish I had done the same.

That's my .02


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2008)

See thats funny, the compression bag is one of the features that I really like. We were playing around with them in the lines (note: zero "real life" experience) and we found that packing shit away in a hurry could be accomplished by throwing your sleep system in the hole where the compression sack is supposed to go. Basically ram your sleeping bag in there cinch it down, fastex the cover , and away you go. Big Rudy, having used it in the box do you have any other thoughts on it? I am still debating as to whether I want to bring it or my old 64? How did you find it using it with plates (they took away our training plates before we got the rucks so no experience using it with plates yet)?


----------



## mover1 (9 Jan 2008)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Beaten to it by Des, but here ya go
> 
> 
> I shipped two of them last month.
> ...



We got a directive NOT to allow them on Service Air. 
Too heavy to lift, too bulky to pack, empty weight of it takes up over half of your baggage entitlement (30 out of 70 Lbs). Someone didn't do a lot of thinking when they approved of it. 
AS for the new ruck. From what I have seen they look like they will pack in an LD3 or a pallet much easier than the old rucks. Thank goodness I am in a position that I will probably never be issued one!  ;D


----------



## Armynewsguy (9 Jan 2008)

Here is a link to a print story that I did for Army News on the new ruck. There was also video stories completed in Hamilton and Shilo but they are not available yet.

http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2375

Armynewsguy


----------



## westie47 (9 Jan 2008)

Phil,

You could always get Hobey to take the daisy chain webbing off and replace it with PALS. 

BTW, I saw your new Cadpat AR pack, tres chic!


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2008)

Thanks for the compliment on the med pack. I am going t use it when I get back up to Edmonton off leave. Once I have given it a bit of use I am going to post some reviews on the forums about it. As far as the ruck goes I was talking to Hobey about the possibility of PALS when I was up there. He said that it would be extremely difficult to do without taking the whole pack apart, and that would be cost prohibitive. He suggested going with fixed pouches on the side. I am going to use the ruck overseas, I think, and see how it goes. If it comes to if I may end up getting some pouches attached to it.


----------



## medaid (10 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Thanks for the compliment on the med pack. I am going t use it when I get back up to Edmonton off leave. Once I have given it a bit of use I am going to post some reviews on the forums about it. As far as the ruck goes I was talking to Hobey about the possibility of PALS when I was up there. He said that it would be extremely difficult to do without taking the whole pack apart, and that would be cost prohibitive. He suggested going with fixed pouches on the side. I am going to use the ruck overseas, I think, and see how it goes. If it comes to if I may end up getting some pouches attached to it.



didnt I say I'll take that gold brick you were talking about?


----------



## Gramps (11 Jan 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> has anyone seen the new Barracks Box yet?


Yes I have. Although they are nice Pelican cases they are completely impractical for UAB. The weight is one issue that has already been mentioned and their size is ridiculous. Far too big and far too bulky for UAB as far as I am concerned. What was wrong with our standard Barrack Boxes? I have travelled with them many many times both as Accompanied and Unaccompanied baggage and not once did I have a problem with them.


----------



## Bomber (11 Jan 2008)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Yes I have. Although they are nice Pelican cases they are completely impractical for UAB. The weight is one issue that has already been mentioned and their size is ridiculous. Far too big and far too bulky for UAB as far as I am concerned. What was wrong with our standard Barrack Boxes? I have travelled with them many many times both as Accompanied and Unaccompanied baggage and not once did I have a problem with them.



Pelican cases cost within pennies of the old ones, but came with a 25 year or lifetime warranty, no more up keep costs other than shipping the damaged one back and receiving the replacement box


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2008)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Yes I have. Although they are nice Pelican cases they are completely impractical for UAB. The weight is one issue that has already been mentioned and their size is ridiculous. Far too big and far too bulky for UAB as far as I am concerned. What was wrong with our standard Barrack Boxes? I have travelled with them many many times both as Accompanied and Unaccompanied baggage and not once did I have a problem with them.



They come in a wide variety of sizes.


----------



## PhilB (11 Jan 2008)

I have also been issued two of the new boxes. I am not in movements or anything and so have no real issues with size, as far as using it as UAB is concerned. Where size becomes and issue is transporting them anywhere. Unless you have a truck or SUV you can basically only move 1 box at a time. I drive a Mazda 3, and can only fit one in the back seat, and the box is to big to fit in my trunk. Pain in the ass! I like that the boxes have wheels, and yes, although they are heavy I had no issues getting both my boxes within weight limits. In fact nobody in our platoon had any real issues (i.e. having to repack and leave stuff behind). Pelican is great, not only are the new cases more durable than the old barrack boxes, they will increase the life of whatever is in them, particularly electronics, as they are dust proof.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Jan 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> We got a directive NOT to allow them on Service Air.
> Too heavy to lift, too bulky to pack, empty weight of it takes up over half of your baggage entitlement (30 out of 70 Lbs). Someone didn't do a lot of thinking when they approved of it.
> AS for the new ruck. From what I have seen they look like they will pack in an LD3 or a pallet much easier than the old rucks. Thank goodness I am in a position that I will probably never be issued one!  ;D





			
				PhilB said:
			
		

> I have also been issued two of the new boxes. I am not in movements or anything and so have no real issues with size, as far as using it as UAB is concerned. Where size becomes and issue is transporting them anywhere. Unless you have a truck or SUV you can basically only move 1 box at a time. I drive a Mazda 3, and can only fit one in the back seat, and the box is to big to fit in my trunk. Pain in the ***! I like that the boxes have wheels, and yes, although they are heavy I had no issues getting both my boxes within weight limits. In fact nobody in our platoon had any real issues (i.e. having to repack and leave stuff behind). Pelican is great, not only are the new cases more durable than the old barrack boxes, they will increase the life of whatever is in them, particularly electronics, as they are dust proof.



So what's the scoop here?  Are the guys heading overseas being told that they cannot use the new barracks boxes (the Pelican cases)?  A discrepency such as this could cause some major headaches for those heading overseas.


----------



## darmil (11 Jan 2008)

The boxes are just huge to get around. Most i think like myself have packed them over a month ago and are in transport to the box sometime in the future.I didn't like the idea of packing all my sh** almost 2 months ago.I have nothing in them except books.They will be handy for over there a lot of storage and dust free.They are heavy empty so I can see the weight problem for planes you pretty much have to watch what you pack cause it can add up pretty quick for the weight you are aloud.


----------



## Bomber (11 Jan 2008)

29.2 pounds empty


----------



## PhilB (11 Jan 2008)

Matt,

The new boxes (they are officially called MOB's I believe) can only be used for UAB. They are not authorized to be used as accompanied baggage on service air flights.


----------



## dangerboy (25 Jan 2008)

Just came off of a week long winter Ex where around 8 guys in my Pl (including me) had the new ruck.  Our overall opinion is that we had wished we used our 64 pattern rucks on the Ex.  For me I found that I could not wear the waist belt properly over my Tac Vest and parka, so the whole idea of transferring the weight from my shoulders to hips I could not do.  All of us found that the shoulder straps were very uncomfortable to wear we believe that as it was -38 most of the time the cold weather prevented the straps from bending properly.  Using the new ruck in winter time does take some adjustment to your way of operating.  I am use to living out of my valise on winter Ex, with the new compression sac you can not do that. I had 1 part CF sleeping bag, CF ranger blanket, arctic slippers, sleeping bag hood and bivi bag with this equipment I found it hard to put it all in the sac and put the sac in the compartment in the ruck.  If I wanted any other stuff I had to get it out of my main compartment, not that there is anything wrong with that it will just take some adjustment on my part (maybe I am a dinosaur)

Before anyone thinks I am just bashing the new ruck, it did have lots of room in the main compartment and I had no problem using the buckles in the cold while wearing gloves unlike the tac vest.

And yes I filled out a UCR on the Ruck and have given them to the other members of the Pl and Monday morning they are being turned into the Coy 2IC.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> And yes I filled out a UCR on the Ruck and have given them to the other members of the Pl and Monday morning they are being turned into the Coy 2IC.



Perfect. Good on you.


----------



## Bomber (28 Jan 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Just came off of a week long winter Ex where around 8 guys in my Pl (including me) had the new ruck.  Our overall opinion is that we had wished we used our 64 pattern rucks on the Ex.  For me I found that I could not wear the waist belt properly over my Tac Vest and parka, so the whole idea of transferring the weight from my shoulders to hips I could not do.  All of us found that the shoulder straps were very uncomfortable to wear we believe that as it was -38 most of the time the cold weather prevented the straps from bending properly.  Using the new ruck in winter time does take some adjustment to your way of operating.  I am use to living out of my valise on winter Ex, with the new compression sac you can not do that. I had 1 part CF sleeping bag, CF ranger blanket, arctic slippers, sleeping bag hood and bivi bag with this equipment I found it hard to put it all in the sac and put the sac in the compartment in the ruck.  If I wanted any other stuff I had to get it out of my main compartment, not that there is anything wrong with that it will just take some adjustment on my part (maybe I am a dinosaur)
> 
> Before anyone thinks I am just bashing the new ruck, it did have lots of room in the main compartment and I had no problem using the buckles in the cold while wearing gloves unlike the tac vest.
> 
> And yes I filled out a UCR on the Ruck and have given them to the other members of the Pl and Monday morning they are being turned into the Coy 2IC.



Where was the discomfort on the shoulder straps?  Behind the shoulder?  On top, or on the front?  SHoot me your problem and I may be able to sort it for you.


----------



## COBRA-6 (28 Jan 2008)

I would like to see someone that has used other rucks of similar design (Kifaru EMR, Camelback/MysteryRanch, Arc'teryx, etc) do a review of the new ruck... anyone? Bueller?


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2008)

I just had a thought.....and I know some of you will think it died of lonliness.

Were any of you involved in the trials? Was it ever trialled in the winter, with troops (infantry, who live out of rucks in winter)?

Also, what is the consensus on the tac vest in winter? Yes? No? Mission dependent?

Opinions please, with reasons! Thank you!!


----------



## Blakey (28 Jan 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> For me I found that I could not wear the waist belt properly over my Tac Vest and parka,



Yes, I recall seeing you lads (in the compound), why were the guys wearing their Tac Vests?, every time I've deployed on winter ops we have put our mags in the inside pockets of our parka, slung our themoses and had our resporators (out of the carrying case) slung around our necks on the inside of the parka's.

Has doctrine changed?

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> .............and had our resporators (out of the carrying case) slung around our necks on the inside of the parka's.
> 
> Has doctrine changed?
> 
> Cheers.



Why did you even have respirators?  There is little to no use for them in arctic/extreme cold conditions.  They freeze to your face.  Gas is fairly well ineffective in frigid temperatures.  So why the Gas Masks?


----------



## Blakey (28 Jan 2008)

George, I can assure you that I agree with you %100, although the only times that we had them were: TQ3 and certain times while in Bn _while on Ex_when there was an imminent threat of NBC (read CS gas) attack.

Normally, they would have been carried in the top portion of the ruck.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2008)

Its A Coy.  What do you expect.
They were wearing helmets too during times when the threat was not imminent.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2008)

Good response troops!!

I question the need for the tac vest in winter. I find it could be restrictive, and in winter we all know the code word COLD right?

Anyone that doesn't, I can remind you if you wish!!
C - Clean Clothing
O - avoid Overheating
L - Loose layered clothing......
D - Dry clothing
In the 90's we still had people isnisting we wear web gear in the winter, it appears those folks are still around.
The respirator should not be carried in the winter. It should be be held either in the ruck or with the CQMS, depending on the NBC threat.


----------



## dangerboy (28 Jan 2008)

The reason we wore Tac Vests is twofold: 1. The OC ordered it, and 2. more importantly you can not carry the stuff in your pockets anymore.  For example our C9 gunners had 3x boxes you would not be able to fit them in your parka pockets very comfortably.  We also had smoke grenades and 150 rounds etra  C7 ammo.  It just becomes a lot easer wearing a Tac Vest instead of fumbling around in your pockets.  Plus I know for my self I keep in my parka pocket a set of Mitts for when it is to cold for gloves.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2008)

Now that makes sense....thanks


----------



## MedCorps (28 Jan 2008)

Just as a point of clarification... although what has been said is true of CS....

Chemical agents and radiological contamination are indeed a concern even in cold weather.  While it is true that the C4 NBC Mask is less than ideal in temperatures less than -20C, and that vapour or aerosol chemical agent deployment is unfavorable at temperatures below 4.4C - chemical agents are still a concern.  For instance, if an enemy wants to contaminate ground a liquid attack is more favorable when the temperatures are low (especially when the surface temperature is just above the freezing point of the liquid agent - which can easily be lower than 0C as you will see).  You cannot think of chemcial agents having the properties of water.   

For instance some nerve and choking agents have a freezing point of a low as -40 C to -60C.  Not only is there a risk from liquid contamination vapourizing (as some will vapourize as low as -40C) there is a real risk of frozen and unvapourized droplets of liquid chemical agents thawing and then vaporizing when contacting warm skin or when carried into heated vehicles or shelters on clothing and equipment. 

Remember when you think temperature do not think ambient air temperature, or temperature with wind chill, but the temperature of the contact surface the agent is sitting on (that could be your parka).  Even in cold, cold weather the outside of the parka is much warmer than the surrounding air due to body heat leaking out and agent will vapourize / stay in liquid and dangerous.  

Radioactive dust is also a concern, and is not temperature sensitive. 

If there was any risk of NBC deployment I would keep my mask handy, even if I had to hope I got a seal under -20C.

Food for thought... 

MC


----------



## Blakey (28 Jan 2008)

Dangerboy, thanks for the info, much clearer now.


----------



## joonrooj (22 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Also, what is the consensus on the tac vest in winter? Yes? No? Mission dependent?
> 
> Opinions please, with reasons! Thank you!!


Fresh off part of a Winter Warfare course held in Sunny Dunny, I can tell you that the Tac Vests are even more useless than normal past -20C not only were they coated in frost, about 90% of the time the zipper on the vest wouldn't go up. The only way to get that to go, was to get buddy, to come along and blow air on it for about 20-30 seconds, which looks vaguely (read: incredibly) sexual. The zipper would then freeze at the top of the vest. Also, most of anything in the vest is impossible to get out without risking some minor frostbite (nip) by exposing your hands or thin gloves to low temps. 

And is it just me or does the helmet suck way more than usual in the winter, when wearing it over a neck guard or face mask is incredibly uncomfortable and wearing it without face protection gives you wicked frostbite on your chin from the metal on the strap that makes shaving an incredibly painful ordeal.


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (4 Jun 2008)

If your zipper locks due to cold, try rubbing an arctic candle along the length of the zipper. As far as web gear in winter warfare conditions, we (3PPCLI mid 80's) wore webbing, respirators and all.


----------



## 2 Cdo (4 Jun 2008)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> If your zipper locks due to cold, try rubbing an arctic candle along the length of the zipper. As far as web gear in winter warfare conditions, we (3PPCLI mid 80's) wore webbing, respirators and all.



But winter warfare in Victoria never got below +10 C! ;D


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (4 Jun 2008)

Had to go to Chilcotin, Wainwright or Hay River for the white stuff, for sure.


----------



## Yeoman (5 Jun 2008)

just took a short jaunt with mine
feels like I didn't bend my bars properly or something, bars are digging into my shoulders
some pretty weird swaying movements when I run with it.
might see about getting an eryx hip pad on there though.
I know the big complaint going around right now is that no one likes wearing the hip belt. you have to wear it for it to fit properly or it just feels way to akward.


----------



## BernDawg (5 Jun 2008)

"Had to go to Chilcotin, Wainwright or Hay River for the white stuff, for sure."

Hey don't forget Mt Washington / Forbidden Plateau for Environmental trg and ski school.  Plenty of snow up there.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Jun 2008)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I would like to see someone that has used other rucks of similar design (Kifaru EMR, Camelback/MysteryRanch, Arc'teryx, etc) do a review of the new ruck... anyone? Bueller?



I should be getting a chance to have a look at one of the new CTS rucksacks over the next week.  I'll look into doing some online comparisons of it and my Kifaru EMR, i.e. weight, capacity, relative comfort (subjective at the individual level).


----------



## PhilB (11 Jun 2008)

I have been on HLTA and as such havent had much access to the internet, but my thoughts on the CTS Ruck;

Initially I was very happy with the ruck. In Canada using on PT, both with armour and rigs, and without it performed quite well. Was comfortable, the hip belt/rods transfered weight effectively and as advertised, and the capacity is HUGE! All in all I was impressed, as I posted earlier.

Fast forward to now. We ended up having to ruck into a few locations in our AO, walking around 9km (15 in the case of a few unlucky souls!) or so each time with full battle rattle and rucks. In short, my opinion of the CTS Ruck has done a complete 180. Guys, incl myself, have broken the transfer rods, the stitching at the top of the ruck holding in the aluminum bars has broken, pockets sag and almost fall off when loaded with kit, load lifting straps have broken, and carry handles have ripped off. That is just mentioning the quality issues. The ruck does not fit well at all with full fighting kit and plates over long, hot, stressful distances. Half the guys couldnt even do up their waist belts (the ruck is very unstable IMHO without the waist belt done up), the other half could do up the belts but they wouldnt ride correctly on the hips because of armour and plates, resulting in the belt sitting on the hip "pocket/flexor region". This caused bruising, blistering, and general discomfort. I have ditched mine and gone back to my 64 as has almost all of the guys in my pl.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2008)

As mentioned on other pieces of kit, UCR that shit up.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2008)

As with Phil B, my initial reaction is good with the new ruck.  Now, this is based on ONE ruck march (bare assed), but my only concern is the quantity it can hold. Already we see the odd CSM looking at it and drooling, thinking "Boy, I could fit SO MUCH on the kit list now!"

PhilB: Thanks for the points!  Hopefully the problems will get sorted sooner rather than later (eg: can they fix the waist belt issue by giving larger belts?)  As for quality, hopefully that gets fixed too.

As an aside (without going through many pages of this thread), do the chains of command realise that the old ruck's replacement is the "Day Pack" and NOT this new ruck?  (Naturally, the day pack, with attached pouches and a bedroll,whatever attached below is similar in amount to old ruck).  EG: it's for ~48 hours or so (or is it 72?)  IIRC, the new ruck is for indefinite periods, no?

Again, PhilB, thanks for that.  Those are good points to be wary of.  (..."of which to be wary"?)


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Jun 2008)

Great. I was actually looking forward to it. How naive I am. 

Looks like its time to haul out Grandpa's 64 from the shed...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2008)

The ruck empty weighs in at 20+ pounds.  I believe for the BFT you need 35.  Combined with what Dangerboy said about it in the winter I wonder if the 10 plus years that went into that were wasted.


----------



## Dissident (11 Jun 2008)

The 64 pattern ruck. The cockroach of ruck sacks, it just won't die or go away...

Edit for clarity: I have a 64 rucksack and I am very happy with it. I meant the above as a compliment. Forgive me, I'm ESL.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2008)

There may be a reason for that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jun 2008)

Three things will survive the nuclear annihilation:  Rats, cockroaches, and the 64 ruck


----------



## PhilB (11 Jun 2008)

We have not put in any UCR's as of yet, mainly due to the fact that we are at a FOB without any internet let alone DWAN acess. I know our WO is quite keen on putting together UCR's. Thanks to the knowledge I have gotten on UCR's here I talked him out of submitting a group UCR for our pl, instead several UCR's will be drafted and then everyone is going to submit it themselves.

As we have been doing all dismounted stuff I have been learning a lot about my gear, including going back to webbing, as opposed to a chest rig.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jun 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I have been learning a lot about my gear, including going back to webbing, as opposed to a chest rig.



Please elaborate when possible.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Three things will survive the nuclear annihilation:  Rats, cockroaches, and the 64 ruck


Wrong.  Four things.  You forgot Keith Richards


----------



## PhilB (11 Jun 2008)

Certainly,

Originally I purchased an OSOE MWR chest rig, with a drop leg dump bag for the tour. This is what I have been using up to this point. All in all I have been extremely happy with the set up. For mounted operations it is great, the rig is comfortable, rides very well, has completely bomb proof construction, and is very well laid out and ergonomic. All that being said it is not ideal for the long dismounted operations (10km plus to put a caveat on it) which we have almost solely been conducting. The rig, although comfortable, by its very nature places the majority of the weight of your battle rattle on your chest. The dropped M203 pouch, although comfortable starts to rub, and is creates quite a hot spot on your leg walking long distances. Several of the snipers working with our platoon on a regular basis had their rigs based around the blackhawk modular LBE. I gave it a try on a couple patrols and was sold. As such I purchased a Blackhawk LBE and CP Gear pouches and a CP Gear M203 bandoleer. I havent used it yet (In fact I havent even seen it yet as its being brought back by a section mate from HLTA) but from the patrols I went on using buddies rig it is the answer. Webbing, although not as easy to get at your pouches as a chest rig, balances the weight significantly better than and chest rig, or vest can. It makes going prone in OP's for long periods of time much more comfortable, and in general is the "gold standard" IMHO, for dismounted ops. A lot of guys are using TT Mavs, and CP MoFocrs and dropping them as low as the will go to balance the weight a bit better. I set up my rig based on the personal lessons on kit I learned on 1-06, fast forward to today, and suprise suprise things are totally different, where dismounted patrolling was not as common on 1-06, 10-20km dismounted patrols are basically all we (my platoon) have been doing . I have altered my fighting gear to reflect the situation on the ground.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2008)

I think you meant or should have posted this in another thread as this is kinda dedicated to the ruck.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

Mortarman RockPainter:

As a CSM I don't waste my time thinking of how to fill up the troops ruksacks. In fact, I discuss the kit that troops need with their Snr NCO's, and WE come up with a list. We endeavor to LIGHTEN the load, rather than fill up our rucks with useless sh!t. 
I personally like to leave room for ammo, rats and water, not fill up the space with Boots, Gumby Rubber.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

Yes, but there were/are enough of your predecessors and peers who work(ed) damned hard to earn you that stereotype...


----------



## Harris (12 Jun 2008)

I'm going to have to side with Loachman on this one.  Some of the kit lists I've seen put out by RSM/CSM types amaze me.  That being said, I fortunately have a CSM working for me that also has better things to do than fill up rucks with kit.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

Yes, well, there are good guys and not so good guys in every trade, specialty, environment, corps, branch, regiment, rank etcetera.

For every one who employs logic, experience, common sense, and thought there is another who varies from complete slug to somebody trying to do the best that they can with little imagination or knowledge to go on.

I just had to get my gentle dig in, though.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

You are both right, however, you must remember that I'm enlightened....somewhat. The priority is mission essential kit (Ammo, water, equipment, rations) then personal kit.
Boots, Rubber Gumby  are out!!


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

No disagreement there whatsoever.

Such enlightenment has often been missing, however, and I've seen some rather bizarre ideas on kit lists - and some of the authors had never actually attempted to stuff so much into pouches so small either.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

Loachman, I appreciate the difficulties as I've done the same.

Give me some examples of the bizarre ideas.

Thanks....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

If you go on ex and troop X becomes disabled because he got frost bite because he didn't pack a sleeping bag, or failed to pack something else and s/he went down then charge them and make an example out of them.  If they suffer through the cold and complete the training then let that be a lesson to them.  People learn quicker from mistakes.  I learned that I should put a garbage bag in my kit bag in case its left out in the rain the hard way.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 Jun 2008)

I learned the hard way never to pack a case of coke in your kitbag.. after buddy threw it off the MLVW and it blew up. 

On a side note, buddy also learned never to "launch" people's kit off a vehicle.. not everything the army gives us it indestructible, handle people's bags as if they were yours...


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Give me some examples of the bizarre ideas.



Mostly it was just the incredible amount of minor things that added weight. I could never understand why one would need one's sewing kit during an assault, but it was in the fighting-order section on at least one kit list that I've been given. I was never able to activate the TARDIS feature of the butt pack on the 82 Pattern webbing and slide a day's rats, rainsuit, spare socks and underwear, shaving gear, boot laces (after thirty-five years in I've yet to break a pair), foot powder, sweater, and a bunch of other stuff into one.

Fortunately, we did not need IFAKs and such...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2008)

I agree Loach...some of that stuff just adds weight. SOme of the stuff I've been told to pack in my ruck have never sen the light of day.
In my company, troops were packing spare boots. That stopped. Your other boots are in the follow up kit. The ruck is meant to carry ME equipement, and if there's any room left, then personal kit ie socks, underwear, hygiene kit. There might not be enough room left for much personal stuff.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I learned the hard way never to pack a case of coke in your kitbag.. after buddy threw it off the MLVW and it blew up.
> 
> On a side note, buddy also learned never to "launch" people's kit off a vehicle.. not everything the army gives us it indestructible, handle people's bags as if they were yours...



Did he learn how to handwash your laundry??

Did you get pics!!??


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mostly it was just the incredible amount of minor things that added weight. I could never understand why one would need one's sewing kit during an assault, but it was in the fighting-order section on at least one kit list that I've been given. I was never able to activate the TARDIS feature of the butt pack on the 82 Pattern webbing and slide a day's rats, rainsuit, spare socks and underwear, shaving gear, boot laces (after thirty-five years in I've yet to break a pair), foot powder, sweater, and a bunch of other stuff into one.
> 
> Fortunately, we did not need IFAKs and such...



Loach ...

Those boot laces were best used to string up the hooch (that way you could leave the mounds of 550 at home to free up space).  >


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

I've had the chance to use the new ruck on a couple or ruck runs lately and as a combat PT rig, it's great.  I've always liked carrying the weight down on my hips and this ruck seems to excel at that.

As far as wearing it with FFO and on ops, as well as the quality issue, well the others here have seem to have spoken on that.  One thing that puzzles me is that how are the internal frames to fit over FFO (where it's use is most important) if it is fitted to the pers when they are bare arsed?  maybe that's been answered here... I didn't see it.

On the plus side, there seems to be a lot of gucci '64s floating around for sale from guys who seem to think they will no longer need it.  I've gotten a couple, and although I love the '64, I haven't come across a setup I want to use on the Ironman yet.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

You would have to rebend the bar frame for the PPE.


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> You would have to rebend the bar frame for the PPE.


Is this explained to the pers upon issue?  Just wondering.  That seemed like the simple solution to me, but many of those i've talked to with the rucks didn't seem to understnad that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2008)

I haven't been issued the ruck so can't speak to that.  But I do know they give you a print out of how the bars are bent (bare ass) as I have seen that and used for future reference.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Loach ...
> 
> Those boot laces were best used to string up the hooch (that way you could leave the mounds of 550 at home to free up space).  >



Don't you people have hotel rooms?

Where do you put the Jacuzzi and bar fridge in a hooch?


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Don't you people have hotel rooms?
> 
> Where do you put the Jacuzzi and bar fridge in a hooch?



I used to have them when I was one of "you" people.  >

But, figured - being an insomniac and all and therefore never in bed sleeping - who needs it anyway?? What the hell ... may as well switch because I look better in green being a redhead and all that jazz.  

Now ... about my turn in the simulator ...  ;D


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Now ... about my turn in the simulator ...  ;D



You can have my spot. I haven't flown it now for so long that you'd probably do just as well anyway. I can just sprawl around or something useful.

So long as I get credit for the trips.

And I hate to disappoint anybody, but I still have 550 cord attached to my hooch with special clippy things at the ends to fasten around tree trunks, not that I can remember when I last used it.

I still keep it in my Rucksack, Universal, C2 - now known for some strange reason as a "64 Pattern".

I used to hate the things when they were standard issue, but now with aftermarket shoulder straps and padded waist belts replacing the original sucky ones mine are not too bad at all.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Jun 2008)

Green and red?  No thought in your mind that you might be mistaken for a really big Christmas decoration??

Good to see you kids were up late. I see my Liveleak observations have kept you awake Loachman..


----------



## PhilB (13 Jun 2008)

The official policy on bending the stays from what I got out of our hour long ruck sack fitting class was that there was no consideration given to integrating the ruck with PPE. We all asked why we were bending the stays to our back when we were going to be wearing the ruck with plates and were told that it "would be fine, even with the plates". To be honest though I didnt notice any issues with regards to the back stays with full kit on, it was mainly the waist belt that is an issue. The belt is quite rigid, even after a fair amount of use and does not sit properly with all of the kit on and loaded up after humping any kind of distance. Now, I am sure someone is going to say that I just need a ruck that is sized better; that is not the case I was back and forth to clothing 3 times when we got issued the rucks tweeking the fit, and making sure it was good to go. I think that what happened was when they were testing it someone just put on all their shit and the ruck and pronounced it good. After humping for a while everything shifts and sinks lower, moving the waist belt off the hip bones. In fact one of our guys had such bad cuts and abrasions from the ruck that he had to have bandages put on. Again, it is really good for pt, and bare assed humping, but fully loaded with a fighting load it is utter crap IMHO.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Good to see you kids were up late. I see my Liveleak observations have kept you awake Loachman..



That and other stuff. I can't blame you completely.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That and other stuff. I can't blame you completely.



Oh ... don't blame me either!! I am, of course, an angel.  ;D

Although, am just returning home after that 2nd BFT in two weeks ... doing nothing but playing in a simulator would be nice ... and perhaps a 4 Star bed too ... >

It was actually quite nice out when we started at 0615hrs, but by 0700 ... holy friggin' heat & humidity batman (Note to Self: perhaps there really_ is _ something behind this "global warming" stuff).


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2008)

How about a BFT simulator?


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How about a BFT simulator?



That'd be nice!! But, will they let me hang out at the back of the pack (aka "the smoking area")?? If not, I'll stick to my grand trail adventures, bopping along and enjoying my smokes. (They let me smoke because if I wasn't smoking -- I'd be singing and they aren't st_oo_pid).  ;D


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Jun 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good review Phil.  I'm still debating over a Kifaru or not....



I haven't seen the new ruck, but if It doesn't live up to expectations, I want to get an EMR...my back and shoulders are worth the price.


----------



## 3rdroyal (20 Jun 2008)

We were issued the thing a few weeks ago, and we have put it to the test. It does make a very nice bare a$$ PT ruck, and yes it carries a hefty load, but there are a ridiculous amount of straps to adjust before stepping off. And if you dont adjust it just so (not possible when in a rush), then you have trouble breathing or you get some nasty back pain.  While we were going through the measuring process, many people were given incorrect sizes of shoulder straps and waist belts. This caused great discomfort to them in the form of a bleeding chafe. As for the accessories, you can get better comp sacs from MEC, the quick release "plugs" are too big,the additional pouches dont secure properly, and I can foresee the plastic clips breaking, as they do on the wonderful tac vest. It also doesnt seem to be designed to work with body armour, as the back plate pushes it back.

It looks like a nice piece of kit, but once you have to use it in full kit, you miss your jump frame.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Aug 2008)

Well I got issued the new ruck today, and I think I will be going to clothing Monday to get my old one back.  I had the project manager size me; and here is his comment when I said "give me a sec to go get my Tac Vest, and Frag Vest from my car, and size me with them on"  His responce "why would you want to do that, it is not designed for that, and why would you wear a frag vest with it?"  : At that point I gave up .

So after work, a couple of us decided to take it for a walk around the trails here in lovely Gagetown.  So we put on our frag vests, tac vests, then our rucks.  long behold the waste belt doesn't work to well (can't be placed properly with the FPV), within 100m of the walk, I had to undo the waste belt as it was rubbing my hips way to much  :.  


O and on the three hours of classes on the ruck  : well, can I put in a claim to get that time back  :


on another note, Vern, I seen you out having a smoke when leaving after the rucksack classes, I was going to yell out to you till I seen the rank of the guy you were with  ;D


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> "why would you want to do that, it is not designed for that, and why would you wear a frag vest with it?"



Priceless. Pity you didn't get that on video.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2008)

Like the tacvest I don't think the rucksack was designed to incorporate different jobs.  Maybe the guys and girls designing it assumed only a small percent of CF members would be carrying it around with body armor and a tacvest?

At the very least when we get sized for it soldiers should _get_ sized wearing FFO. Hell even make it a choice.   He CF is horrible for our "train as you fight, except here here there and when this happens. Rangeisim ahh" mantra.

Ruck sack seems pretty heavy when empty (already covered), way too many friggin straps hanging off it, compression system is a hassle (not that big of a deal) and lots of people are having problems with the waist band. It really screws with some peoples hips and sides, doesn't seem to fit very well with the tacvest (big surprise).

I just did a BFT with mine and was pretty surprised. It felt pretty good to me, all things considering. The waist band didn't rub very much.  I ran-walked the whole way and came in at 2 hours which is good for me being a short dude at 5'9, and while I'm normally a little stuff I was 100% fine this time.  I'm going to try and run the whole way on the next one.

I would probably buy an after market ruck if I wasn't faced with a constant 'am I allowed to wear this today? am I not?' issue but I prefer this one over the 82 pattern and I'm thinking I might even prefer it over my jump ruck. Maybe.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Aug 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Priceless. Pity you didn't get that on video.



I wish I did, two of the boys from the regiment heard it, and started to laugh, I held back, as the civi and the MWO were serous  :  


Flawed Design, I think the new ruck would be great for civies (it is way better then my civi pack), but sucks for military use.  But I guess you get this when you contract a company building civi packs.


----------



## armyvern (23 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ...on another note, Vern, I seen you out having a smoke when leaving after the rucksack classes, I was going to yell out to you till I seen the rank of the guy you were with  ;D



Geez, you should have yelled; the CSM already knows my name - it wouldn't have been news to him.   >


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I wish I did, two of the boys from the regiment heard it, and started to laugh, I held back, as the civi and the MWO were serous  :
> 
> 
> Flawed Design, I think the new ruck would be great for civies (it is way better then my civi pack), but sucks for military use.  But I guess you get this when you contract a company building civi packs.



Funny, when you used to hear people bitch about the 82 rucksack they'd mention how it would be great to see a civi pack maker design the next ruck as they "know what they're doing"!!

Are we never happy?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Are we never happy?



Can I enter that in the "Funniest thing I heard today" thread?  Of course we are never happy; we're soldiers.   ;D


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

The moment you stop hearing troops grumble is the moment you start worrying....
Cause there would seem to be something even more unpleasant coming their way.....

sooo... Grumble away troops


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Aug 2008)

The current rucksack was designed when I was still in 2VP and that was 10 years ago.
That could explain why it was not designed with a TV and body armor in mind.


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

Ah yes... the lengthy procurement process..... 
Tough one to swallow at the best of times.


----------



## MG34 (27 Aug 2008)

I'll be keeping my C2 Ruck (or 64 ruck/jump ruck/old guy ruck, etc) the new ruck is not without it's charms, as mentioned a good PT ruck for marches and such without PPE but useless with PPE. 
As noted by one of the Ptes on the Rucksack training classes "If your ruck sits so high that it needs a pocket for your helmet to rest in, there is something wrong,it may be fine for climbing the Twin Peaks of Mt Kilimanjaro but is a serious loss of sensory input on the march, kind of like the early Batman movies where our hero couldn't turn his head to scan for threats."


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I'll be keeping my C2 Ruck (or 64 ruck/jump ruck/old guy ruck, etc) the new ruck is not without it's charms, as mentioned a good PT ruck for marches and such without PPE but useless with PPE.



Ditto - the new Rucksack seems to be merely an enlarged day-pack.  It is definately more confortable than the POS 82 pattern ruck, but this can be overtaken by its deficiencies.  The overabundance of straps, its heavy weight while empty, the stupid docking system which makes the additional pouches pretty useless, the overcomplicated compression system.  

Not to mention that it is now TOO big.  Not only is it clumsy to wear, but leaders must enforce strict packing discipline or their soldiers will quickly become overburdened and useless - I watched a company of soldiers use these on a airmobile operation and our American allies thought we looked like a gypsy caravan.  Mind you, this isn't a deficiency of the pack per se, but it shows that having a pack that is too big is not necessarily a good thing and that this factor probably wasn't considered by the design team.  It is almost a big duffel bag with a suspension system - forget about using them with the LAV's....

As you say, it is not without its charms, but is it as good as it could, no, SHOULD be?  No.  I'll stick to my 64 frame or, more likely, look to http://www.kifaru.net/MGhome.htm to provide a better solution.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Aug 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Funny, when you used to hear people ***** about the 82 rucksack they'd mention how it would be great to see a civi pack maker design the next ruck as they "know what they're doing"!!
> 
> Are we never happy?



It may not hold as much, it still sucks, but at least it works when you are wearing your FPV and Tac vest.  It (_the 82pat_) also doesn't cause blisters on your hips, because it doesn't fit while wearing anything but a combat shirt  :


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2008)

Let's remember that the new rucksack fills a new niche role.  The "old" ruck's replacement is the day pack (eg: for 24-48 (?) hrs).  The "new" ruck is for longer.  (See?  I was awake in the classes).

And since nature abhors a vacuum, every CSM out there will soon fill that vacuum with knots, ropes, whatsits and other assorted items.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Aug 2008)

For those of you going towards a kifaru...do you get jacked by your chain of command? Would using some kind of cadpat ruck cover make this a non issue? Right now I have an 82 and a 64 that is getting very old  :'(


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Aug 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter:

Lets be careful on the CSM comments. I for one won't be filling in the space with useless kit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As you say, it is not without its charms, but is it as good as it could, no, SHOULD be?  No.  I'll stick to my 64 frame or, more likely, look to http://www.kifaru.net/MGhome.htm to provide a better solution.



For the guys who are familiar with Kifaru packs, which one do you think is the idea replacement for the CF rucksack?


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (27 Aug 2008)

First off, caveat: I do not have personal experience with the new CF rucksack (only 82 pattern wireframe POS and jump ruck).  I do, however, have good familitarity with the Kifaru line of rucks, particularly the MMR and the Marauder. The MMR is the smaller version of the EMR. While great for weekend hikes or summer FTX, the MMR is a little too small to handle anything that requires two sleeping bags. So, what makes the EMR/MMR line so good:

1. Aluminum stays, bendable - maybe same problems encountered with the CF ruck and PPE
2. Light, relative to size
3. PALS webbing (incredible flexibilty to task tailor the ruck with molle or kifaru pouches) - but we know this already
4. Floating lid - also acts as an over the shoulder bandoleer pouch w/PALS when removed
5. Large (EMR = full winter ensemble, MMR = three season) internal sleeping bag compartment, with divider
6. Comfortable padding and suspension system (with PALS)
7. Choice of belts that actually carry alot of the weight (with PALS webbing, of course)
8. Relatively easy donning procedure (shoulder straps - belt - delta straps on belt - top shoulder straps to pull in ruck)
9. Easy to access emergency ditching tabs
10. Relatively few straps hanging off of the ruck - all functional to help cinch down any excess space.

Having worn the MMR and the Marauder rucks on a number of occasions, it is true what Kifaru says about their design philosophy - you wear the ruck, not carry it.


----------



## noneck (27 Aug 2008)

I bought a couple of yards of CADPAT cordura from a local surplus shop and had a local gearmaker extend a 64 pattern rucksack bag to the top of the 64 frame, add a snow collar, tension straps on each side, PALS on the front and a top lid with a pocket. It's not as big as the new ruck but it fits the 64 frame and can easily carry 60-65 Litres worth of gear.

It has all the pros of the 64 frame and bag (Comfort and flexibility)  with an updated suspension system and pads.  I'll put some pics up as soon as possible.

Noneck

It even passed the CSM test a few weeks back


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2008)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> the MMR is a little too small to handle anything that requires two sleeping bags.



I guess that is if you are using the CF Sleeping Bags.  A decent off-the-shelf, military bag (such as those carried by the PPCLI Kitshop) come with compression sacks making them the size of a nalgene.  As well, I got an airmatress from MEC that is green and rolls down to roughly the same size.  I can carry my sleeping kit in a C9 pouch.

Modern lightweight, compressible gear can allow you to take a 60L MMR/ZXR along way.  With add on pockets and a piggyback system, you can expand to 80-100 liters and still have the stability and bring a daypack along for the ride too.  The new bag really doesn't have this adaptabilty.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Aug 2008)

noneck said:
			
		

> I bought a couple of yards of CADPAT cordura from a local surplus shop and had a local gearmaker extend a 64 pattern rucksack bag to the top of the 64 frame, add a snow collar, tension straps on each side, PALS on the front and a top lid with a pocket. It's not as big as the new ruck but it fits the 64 frame and can easily carry 60-65 Litres worth of gear.
> 
> It has all the pros of the 64 frame and bag (Comfort and flexibility)  with an updated suspension system and pads.  I'll put some pics up as soon as possible.
> 
> ...



We're obviously paying you too much!  ;D


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (27 Aug 2008)

Ack. You are right. I was referring to the massive CF sleeping bag system. However, even the 2-piece US Sleeping bag system is a tight fit, despite using a good MEC compression sack. Noting is stopping the user from, as you say, using add-on pouches to expand the flexibility of the pack (say, stuffing most of the sleeping gear in the MMR bottom and the liner for example in a pod pouch or similar.

I love the Kifaru design and am baffled at the short-sightedness of whoever designed the CF Load Carriage System. I look back at some of the things I had to carry as a Jr (rucksack plus a full jerry can and trench tools) and wish I'd had (or allowed to have) the Kifaru system with the Cargo Hauling System. Another ingenious idea - taking advantage of the outstanding hip-belt design.  On that topic - no chafing with the thin, non-padded Kifaru belt on long hikes through pretty rough terrain. An I have bony hips.

One thing I forgot to mention (I believe it has been talked about here) is the Kifaru design philosophy showing through in another way - the piggyback system. I have no problems putting a full load into the MMR and attaching the Marauder to the outside of the main pack. Four clips and the Marauder is ready to be used stand-alone. What a concept! Again, comes down to the PALS design and outside-the-box thinking. These all are items that could have featured in the CF ruck (looking at the Kifaru price range though, maybe the CF was trying to cut costs somewhere - but I'm not convinced considering the similarities in the overall concept of the Kifaru and the CF rucks (one was just thought out much better).

Naturally, as with modular 2nd line gear, packing discipline is key. The EMR especially (like the new CF ruck) can become a monster to carry if loaded with all the bells and whistles.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Aug 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The current rucksack was designed when I was still in 2VP and that was 10 years ago.
> That could explain why it was not designed with a TV and body armor in mind.



Yesterday's technology, today!  ;D

In all seriousness, I was issued the new ruck a couple days ago and received the long instruction session on it. I think I spent more time getting qualified on the ruck than I did on the Carl G.

Can't really comment on it any more than anyone else here, as I haven't taken it for a walk, but found the same things as everyone else. I'm sure it'll be great as a kit back with a weight distribution system, but as far as using it in a dismounted role, wearing full-fighting order, I dunno. I'm gonna give it a fair shake, but I still have my 64 pattern ruck to fall back on.

I'm a little wary of a piece of kit that I may need an aide-memoire for; "going up hill, pull these strings, loosen those" etc.

Also, like someone else said, I can use all those straps off it to carry around a full gypsy kitchen.

Another unfortunate is that I've got one of those weird waist sizes where the small size waist-belt is too small, but I don't have very much adjustment play with the medium. No word of a lie, buddy who did the fitting told me I needed to gain some weight around the waist. I don't know how much he expects me to be eating in theatre, but the last time I was in there, I lost quite a few pounds.

But like I said, I'll hump it a bit before I make a final judgement.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I guess that is if you are using the CF Sleeping Bags.  A decent off-the-shelf, military bag (*such as those carried by the PPCLI Kitshop*) come with compression sacks making them the size of a nalgene.


Um...you vying to become the next PPCLI Kit Shop Officer?   >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Aug 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> No word of a lie, buddy who did the fitting told me I needed to gain some weight around the waist.



FFS...you are not serious, are you?  Thats the lamest thing along with the "why would you wear your PPE and TV under it?" comment.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Aug 2008)

Well I just found out that I have a BFT tomorrow,l so I guess I will be posting an in depth review, and maybe pictures of how it destroyed my waste :


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2008)

Such a waste   (BTW - s/b Waist)


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well I just found out that I have a BFT tomorrow,l so I guess I will be posting an in depth review, and maybe pictures of how it destroyed my waste :



Are you doing it on the figure 8!!??  >


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Aug 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you doing it on the figure 8!!??  >


No, thankfully were not.  We are going around the base, and the trails. 

I may make it to Griffins Friday night if the new ruck doesn't destroy me  :


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ... I may make it to Griffins Friday night if the new ruck doesn't destroy me  :



I _might_ be there.  8)   So might Big Foot, given our conversation there last night ...


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Aug 2008)

Well I did a BFT with the new ruck today, and.... do I need to go on  :

Well the only thing I like in the pack is the top load adjuster straps.  (I had to make at least 1 positive point) 

On the down side even without a frag vest, the waist belt kept slipping down;  my hips have blisters, and are rubbed raw from the dam waste belt.  The shoulder straps don't tighten properly when wearing a Tac Vest, the load stabilizers on the waist belt don't work at all (or don't make a noticeable difference), the waist belt takes about half of the weight of the shoulders when it is tight (it loosens on its own  :)

I spent the whole march wishing I had my old one back (so were many others)  :  because at the very least, the old one doesn't destroy your hips  :


That's all I can wright, because my sides hurt more thinking about it  :


----------



## medaid (29 Aug 2008)

Well like noneck said, there's a new 64 design on the horizon that should be out rather quickly. It'll be in both AR and TW... swoooosh!


----------



## Franko (29 Aug 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well I did a BFT with the new ruck today, and.... do I need to go on  :
> 
> Well the only thing I like in the pack is the top load adjuster straps.  (I had to make at least 1 positive point)
> 
> ...



Well I guess I'll be getting my old 64 pattern out again when I get back.

Regards


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Aug 2008)

Never really got an answer on the acceptance level of Kifarus by Sec Cmdrs, CSM's, RSM'S etc...but how about the 64? Is it ok to use that in most cases? I'm a short guy and think its better. I have one, but it's old...MedTech where can I get info on the new 64's coming out?

Cheers


----------



## medaid (30 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Never really got an answer on the acceptance level of Kifarus by Sec Cmdrs, CSM's, RSM'S etc...but how about the 64? Is it ok to use that in most cases? I'm a short guy and think its better. I have one, but it's old...MedTech where can I get info on the new 64's coming out?
> 
> Cheers




Right here!  Noneck has had a run with the trial pack and he's in love with it as far as I can tell  I'll push him to put up a review soon with pics and everything! I'll also post info as soon as I can get more on it i.e. Release Date and Price


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Sep 2008)

So, I'm packing this new rucksack, trying to find a set-up I like, and see about using it on my up-coming BFT.

Now, I didn't think about this during the class, so, for those of you who have had it for a while...Where the hell did you put your air mattress???

I could strap it using the compression straps, but then I'd have to fiddle-F*** with it every-time I adjust them.

I could try to strap it to the daisy chain system somehow, but I'd rather not have to use that.

I could place the entire thing rolled into the corner of the interior, but then I can't use the divider (I think I'd rather have 2 compartments)

I'm sure with the divider down,, I could jam the thing hap-hazardly in through the compression sac access, but I can see it being a pain to get out.

Any suggestions?


----------



## dangerboy (1 Sep 2008)

I placed mine on the side of the ruck, it is about the only good place to put it.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Sep 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I placed mine on the side of the ruck, it is about the only good place to put it.



Strapped the carrier to the daisy chains, or just wedged under the compression straps?


----------



## dangerboy (1 Sep 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Strapped the carrier to the daisy chains, or just wedged under the compression straps?


I wedged it under the compression straps, did not want to add more straps by trying to attach it to the daisy chains.  Not the best solution but it worked for the EX.  Of course after that EX I decided I am going back to my old ruck.


----------



## NL_engineer (1 Sep 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Of course after that EX I decided I am going back to my old ruck.



your luckey you still have an old one  :-[


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Sep 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I wedged it under the compression straps, did not want to add more straps by trying to attach it to the daisy chains.  Not the best solution but it worked for the EX.  Of course after that EX I decided I am going back to my old ruck.



Fair enough, and that's what I feel will end up happening with me, but, like I said; Fair shake.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Sep 2008)

So a couple of the dudes around here going on their advanced recce course in Gagetown were issued their new rucks yesterday ... we had the opportunity to fiddle with it a bit.  It is as huge as they say, you could even fit a body into it......







As you can see, a small Italian boy fits quite nice in it.  You can use him to hand you snackies from your ruck, read your map, or cover your 6 on the march.  Can't wait for the new kit list to come out!

I overheard a couple Warrant Officers talking this morning about it.  One said that he tried it on with his tac-vest and couldn't do up the waist belt without a great deal of effort and strain.  Once the waist belt was done up, he tried the sternum strap, this resulted in no access to his magazines and extreme discomfort.  He asked the supply tech why it didn't fit right with the tac-vest.  Her reply was "It was not designed to be worn with your tac-vest, its supposed to go inside the ruck.  When asked how to access the ammunition during a contact, she shrugged and said "That's how it was designed."  This, to me, is mind-bottling.  Of course, I cannot confirm whether this conversation actually took place or not, as I was not their... but I trust the WO telling the tale.

The rest of us are due to be issued on the 17th, so I'll ask the same questions then and see what the response is.  I'm still going to give it a fair shake, but its looking like my '64 will be around for some time still.  I smell a UCR cookin'.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Sep 2008)

That picture has to go into the Photo Contest.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

Does the small Italian boy come equipped with a CADPAT umbrella to keep the Sun and Rain off you?


----------



## medaid (11 Sep 2008)

Hehehe...

Dude, Italian, CADPAT, C1A1


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Sep 2008)

The umbrella, sun/rain is still in the procurement stage, it will likely be available for genral issue sometime in FY-12.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Sep 2008)

My first impressions of the new ruck...

Very comfortable. Not much legroom, but cruising in a convertable adds 10 points to your LCF.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Sep 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The umbrella, sun/rain is still in the procurement stage, it will likely be available for genral issue sometime in FY-12.


True, but in pure CTS/DLR fashion, the umbrella won't be able to get wet (it will shrink) and the sun will damage its IR fibres.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Sep 2008)

Man I haven't seen soldiers that openly Gay in years.....  ;D


----------



## medaid (11 Sep 2008)

Shhh don't asl don't tell mate!


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Sep 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Man I haven't seen soldiers that openly Gay in years.....  ;D



Oh bullsh*t... I can guarantee with extreme confidence that you yourself have done some "tactical spooning" in the last 8 to 12 months.


----------



## dangerboy (11 Sep 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The rest of us are due to be issued on the 17th, so I'll ask the same questions then and see what the response is.



The poor supply tech that you ask how the ruck is to be warn will just be able to give you the standard answer, don't bother blaming the supply tech they just issue what is givin to them save the questions for when some general asks for questions.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Sep 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The poor supply tech that you ask how the ruck is to be warn will just be able to give you the standard answer, don't bother blaming the supply tech they just issue what is givin to them save the questions for when some general asks for questions.



Oh I know, the supply tech didn't design the POS.  I just want confirmation that it is RTFO.  If I do tun across someone even remotely responsible for this thing, believe me, the questions will be asked.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Sep 2008)

> Oh I know, the supply tech didn't design the POS.  I just want confirmation that it is RTFO.  If I do tun across someone even remotely responsible for this thing, believe me, the questions will be asked.



Questions I asked, and the responses given to me by the CTS guy (a GGFG Sgt):

Has the ruck been trialled with body armour? 

Yes

How well did it work with plates?

Not as well as bare assed, but better then the old ruck.

How well does the waist belt grab onto your super-important-pelvis-hip-arch-bones over kevlar? 

Most people have been sized wrong for body armour. Properly sized Body armour should come no lower than your belly button, and body armour fitted properly should ride above the waist pad.

My own first impressions are that I'm having trouble getting the shoulder straps sorted out. I'm getting pressure points underneath the black 2" tri-glides through the padding. I stayed after the classes to get some help on it from the CTS guy and he said that I'm part of the 10% of the population that needs the shoulder straps set up farther then a pinkie's width between the two tri-glides. His suggestion was to loosen it off, which I did on the spot and it did help. After bringing the ruck home I've decided that the pressure is still too uncomfortable, so I've be playing with it to see if I can get it set up better. No luck yet.

I guess these new rucksacks cost (IIRC) $600 a piece. It's too bad.

Lowe Alpine Saracens retail at only $350
http://www.lowealpine-usa.com/index.php?nav=24&search=cat&Category=Military&docp=16_536

Kifaru EMRs retail at $564.00
http://www.kifaru.net/MGemr.htm

Not to mention the fact that the issued ruck took 10 years to be developed...

I'll have a chance to march with the new ruck next week, so we'll see how that goes. I'm trying real hard to give this thing a fair shake, but I must admit that after the TV and Small Pack fiasco I'm preparing for the worst.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Questions I asked, and the responses given to me by the CTS guy (a GGFG Sgt):
> 
> Has the ruck been trialled with body armour?
> 
> ...



You found the pressure points to be right around your rear shoulder blades/scapula?  I tried on a guy's ruck and whilst it wasn't sized exactly for me, we're similar builds and height, so it should've somewhat fit me, but I too found those pressure points as you described extremely uncomfortable.  When I took the stays out of his pack, I was amazed to see what an 'aggressive' curve they had to them; it looked like they were almost a ? mark type shape, designed for the hunchback of notre dame.  He replied that they were fitted for him according to the official sizing jig/stay bender.  I showed him the stays on my Kifaru EMR for comparison, which were not nearly curved as much.

I'd say you might want want to investigate the curvature of your stays; compare them to those of a commercial ruck from a high quality outdoors shop, i.e. MEC and it might be worth trying to tweak their (the stays on the CTS ruck) curve to better suit your body.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Sep 2008)

> You found the pressure points to be right around your rear shoulder blades/scapula?  I tried on a guy's ruck and whilst it wasn't sized exactly for me, we're similar builds and height, so it should've somewhat fit me, but I too found those pressure points as you described extremely uncomfortable.



Yup, thats it. Just inside the shoulder blades.



> I'd say you might want want to investigate the curvature of your stays; compare them to those of a commercial ruck from a high quality outdoors shop, i.e. MEC and it might be worth trying to tweak their (the stays on the CTS ruck) curve to better suit your body.



Thanks for the tip, tomorrow I'll see if a buddy can't bring his EMR into work and I'll see how my "custom" fit compares.

That said, these hot spots don't seem to be in any sort of physical contact with the internal frame stays. I'm going to ask around at work tomorrow and see if anyone else has had the same problem.


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Yup, thats it. Just inside the shoulder blades.
> 
> Thanks for the tip, tomorrow I'll see if a buddy can't bring his EMR into work and I'll see how my "custom" fit compares.



So guys in your bn are allowed to use the EMR? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Sep 2008)

> So guys in your bn are allowed to use the EMR? Thanks in advance.



All I've said is that there is at least one person in my Bn that has an EMR at home.


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Sep 2008)

Thanks, sorry I got my hopes up. Now back to my corner.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Sep 2008)

I know when I was in BN not too long ago the RSM decried that all pers with the new ruck would be using it regardless if the had a 64 pattern or not.  He will be getting back from tour if not already soon so I wonder what his take is now.


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2008)

I used an EMR in 1VP -- of course no one really cared what I did - they just tried not to get others to emulate me.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (11 Sep 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I overheard a couple Warrant Officers talking this morning about it.  One said that he tried it on with his tac-vest and couldn't do up the waist belt without a great deal of effort and strain.  Once the waist belt was done up, he tried the sternum strap, this resulted in no access to his magazines and extreme discomfort.  He asked the supply tech why it didn't fit right with the tac-vest.  Her reply was "It was not designed to be worn with your tac-vest, its supposed to go inside the ruck.  When asked how to access the ammunition during a contact, she shrugged and said "That's how it was designed."  This, to me, is mind-bottling.  Of course, I cannot confirm whether this conversation actually took place or not, as I was not their... but I trust the WO telling the tale.



Riiiiight.... and what does this Load Carriage Factsheet say about the TV?
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/PDF/FactSheets/TV_e.pdf

"The TV is compatible with the CTS Load Carriage System (LCS), which will include the Small Pack System and the Rucksack."

Not sure what doc the Supply Techs are quoting... but either way, something is not right here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2008)

But...CTS wouldn't contradict themselves....would they??



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I went to the CTS site to read up on their pitch for the WWB maint and found the CTS Footwear FAQ WRT to the WWB.  More on link.
> 
> personnel are once again reminded that the WWB was never designed for wear below -10°C; *it is not a "Cold" Wet Weather Boot*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Sep 2008)

And according to a MWO with "Tease" the soldier this ruck is the 22nd incarnation you'd think they would get it right by now.........


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And according to a MWO with "Tease" the soldier this ruck is the 22nd incarnation you'd think they would get it right by now.........



22nd incarnation of the Ruck; or

22nd incarnationn of the Project Officer?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 22nd incarnation of the Ruck; or
> 
> 22nd incarnationn of the Project Officer?



22nd incarnation of the "tease" the soldier ruck..... :

Maybe Vern can confirm this part  ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2008)

I don't know about 22nd incarnation, but I watched guys in Pet, in 94, running around the base in big endless circles. Asked what they were doing? They said: "Trialing the new ruck". So it was probably the 1994 mentality that created and designed the 'new' ruck. Just my HO.


----------



## geo (12 Sep 2008)

Heh...
Practice makes perfect.... it's just that some people need more practice time


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2008)

E Bty jumped the 'new rucks beta version circa 1992...


----------



## Fusaki (12 Sep 2008)

> E Bty jumped the 'new rucks beta version circa 1992...



The CTS guy said yesterday that the new rucks have been in development since 1998, exactly 10 years. I guess he was misinformed...


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2008)

I think a NEW ruck was in design the day the first soldier put a 82 pattern ruck on...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Sep 2008)

or is it a Royal 22nd that designed the ruck??


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Sep 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> or is it a Royal 22nd that designed the ruck??



It must have been designed by a hungry paratrooper....


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 22nd incarnation of the Ruck; or
> 
> 22nd incarnationn of the Project Officer?



Of the ruck.

The MWO just moved into CTS this summer ... and the one who left had been there pretty much since the beginning.

Neither are even near rank enough to be "Project Officers" and, although both those MWOs are suppies --- they work for some superiors of the "0" MOCs.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The CTS guy said yesterday that the new rucks have been in development since 1998, exactly 10 years. I guess he was misinformed...



Not if he was speaking of their current incarnation (and the beginning of CTS involvement in a "new ruck" process) ... which were jumped at CPC (or that CF CLAW thing my buds there go by now ...  >) only in the past few years.


But I6 has it pretty much down pat. With the initial introduction of the 82_p_ ruck we just got rid of (well, most of us anyway) and the deeming of the jump ruck "obsolete" by the system ... CPC (and before that name - the CABC) were jumping ruck prototypes to determine and find something suitable for the jumpers to use.  They weren't looking for something for the CF to use ... rather the jumpers.

Then ... CTS decided a whole bunch of people needed new rucks anyway ... and here we sit today.

And we all lived happily ever after.  >


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not if he was speaking of their current incarnation (and the beginning of CTS involvement in a "new ruck" process) ... which were jumped at CPC (or that *CFLAWC* thing my buds there go by now ...  >) only in the past few years.
> 
> 
> But I6 has it pretty much down pat. With the initial introduction of the 82_p_ ruck we just got rid of (well, most of us anyway) and the deeming of the jump ruck "obsolete" by the system ... CPC (and before that name - the CABC) were jumping ruck prototypes to determine and find something suitable for the jumpers to use.  They weren't looking for something for the CF to use ... rather the jumpers.
> ...



 ;D


And the new ruck is jumpable using the PDB I believe


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> 
> And the new ruck is jumpable using the PDB I believe



I know what their real name is ...  

But, man it's so fun to harass them with my version - which I do every chance I get.  ;D


----------



## medaid (5 Oct 2008)

Some of you have been asking noneck and I to provide pics of the new 64 Pattern Rucksack designed by Integrated Combat Equipment, so here are some teaser pics that we took of it last weekend.  The pack is unique in the sense that it allows the user to use either an ALICE, MOLLE or 64 Pattern Jump frames as a frame base for the ruck. Needless to say that this pack is extremely versatile, allows for MOLLE add on of different mission oriented pouches. This will be extremely useful to those who are in the PRes or RegF who don't like the new pack, and wants something more then the original 64 Pattern Ruck. ICE will also offer the original Jump Ruck with improvements. The same type that was provided to the 39CBG Cambrian Patrol Team.


----------



## medaid (5 Oct 2008)

The first 4 pics shows how it looks when worn, with no side pockets. I will leave the actual use review up to noneck as this ruck was his.


----------



## medaid (5 Oct 2008)

The last four shows the ruck on its own. The suspension system is re-tuned and offers incredible support and comfort for those of you who hump rucks allot. This pack is approximately 60L. With a floating hood, storm collar, and MOLLE all around the side and the front for attachment of a variety of pouches. The hip belt is padded and lined with non-slip material.


----------



## medaid (5 Oct 2008)

I apologize for not being able to make the pics bigger, but the limit in size requires them to be only so big. I also don't have a firm price for the production units. But rest assured those would come out relatively soon, middle of October at the latest. Things that will be up for sale includes:

Improved 64 Pattern Jump Ruck
Improved 64 Pattern 60L Jump Ruck
New Suspension
New Hip belt

Once everything is figured out, Milnet.ca will be the first ones to know. Stay tuned for noneck's review.


----------



## noneck (5 Oct 2008)

As for reviews it's pretty simple, it carries like a 64 pattern ruck!  I initially spoke to Hobey about extending the 64 pattern bag when he produced the bags for the 39 CBG Cambrian Team this time last year. I requested that he add side pockets like a Bergan, however I now prefer the cleaner lines and have confirmed with him that subsequent runs will have  MOLLE/PALS and Daisy chain on the sides( in order to use small pack issue pouches). As I said previously there is no voodoo concerning this set up, it's merely a top loading 60l 64 pattern bag with improved harness and padding. I have taken it on exercise and it has passed the CSM test. 

As you see it in the pictures there is the following packed inside: inner/outer socks, 2 x tshirt, 1 x underwear, 1 x longsleeve thermal shirt all compressed in an ortleib bag. 1 MEC hybrid sleeping bag, US poncho liner, small pillow, all packed in an issue biv bag and then stuffed inside the ruck. Finally in the main bag I have an issue goretex rain jacket/pants and fleece in another ortleib on top. In the top pouch are gaitors, shemagh, brew kit, shave kit and a small hand towel. Strapped to the outside is a ridgerest and a Integral Designs Sil Dome.

I spoke with Hobey regarding price, as some of the troops were already asking how much it was going to cost and he quoted me around $160 for the bag, he will also offer packages for harness, pads, bag complete depending on interest.

I don't work for the company this is just something that I asked Hobey to make, that may fill a niche in the CF.

Noneck


----------



## MikeL (7 Oct 2008)

Looks good; I'd be in for one of those rucks as soon as they get produced.

In the mainbag is their a sleeve to slip a camelbak?  And would the future models have a sternum strap on the shoulder straps?


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Oct 2008)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Looks good; I'd be in for one of those rucks as soon as they get produced.
> 
> In the mainbag is their a sleeve to slip a camelbak?  And would the future models have a sternum strap on the shoulder straps?



Looking to go back to the 64 too, eh?


----------



## MikeL (7 Oct 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Looking to go back to the 64 too, eh?



I'm pretty sure I'am gonna OT into the Air Force, so I'd have to turn in the ruck.  Plus, I like having an external frame more; not that it really matters much, on tour all I did was toss the ruck in the back of a Bison or strap it onto the side of a LAV when I was out an about. I'am pretty sure the frame on my ruck is all kinds of f*cked up after that though haha.


----------



## noneck (7 Oct 2008)

This is a very early prototype...actually it's the only version thus far. Subsequent versions will have a OD snow collar and a sternum strap.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> This pack is approximately 60L.



Off hand, how big is the old 64 patern rucksack bag and how big is the new ruck?


----------



## Run away gun (14 Oct 2008)

New ruck is approx 80L.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Oct 2008)

noneck said:
			
		

> This is a very early prototype...actually it's the only version thus far. Subsequent versions will have a OD snow collar and a sternum strap.



Any idea what the 'empty' weight is?


----------



## noneck (15 Oct 2008)

Having picked up MCpl T's empty one I would say in the area of about 20Lbs. Maybe one of our Reg F site members could give an accurate weight?


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2008)

Question: what happens when you wear the CTS ruck with the Frag Vest and Tac Vest? Answer: it hurts.


Assessment of the effect of No Stay, Bent Stay or Straight Stay
when the Clothe the Soldier Rucksack is worn with the
Fragmentation Vest

Executive Summary
The Clothe the Soldier (CTS) load carriage system includes the Tactical Vest (TV), the
Rucksack, and a Small Pack System which have been designed to be compatible. This
permits various components to be combined to support the operational objectives at hand.
In addition to wearing the TV and one of the packs, soldiers are increasingly attempting to
wear the Fragmentation Protection Vest (FPV), with Bullet Resistant Plates (BRP) beneath
the TV and Rucksack. This work assessed the effects of this practice. The purpose of this
work was to examine the effects of various stays in the rucksack (straight stays, bent stays,
and no stay) on pressure effects and load distribution to the body. Loads carried in the
CTS rucksack often exceed the officially recommended 25 kg and are reported to approach
45 kg. Under these conditions, optimizing load distribution onto the torso becomes even
more essential. A Load Distribution Test Mannikin consisting of a human form with two 6
degree of freedom load cells, positioned at T12/L1 and beneath the body, was used to
assess the force distribution and pressure effects on the body of the following conditions:
1) TV and Rucksack, stays bent to conform to back as designed, 2) TV, FPV with BRP and
Rucksack, stays bent to conform to back, 3) TV, FPV with BRP and Rucksack, straight
stays, 4) TV, FPV with BRP and Rucksack with no stays. All were tested with 25 kg in
the rucksack.
Results showed that wearing the FPV and BRP under the rucksack will increase the
compressive load on the upper body by 50 to 100 percent, depending on the stay
configuration compared with wearing just the TV and Rucksack configuration. Stays bent
to conform to the body were the most effective configuration while removal of the stays
caused the greatest increase in compressive loads. Edges of the BRP caused multiple peak
pressure points of with values on the mannikin of 60 to 110 kPa. These pressure values are
expected to considerably exceed the tissue tolerance of skin and underlying muscle and are
expected to result in localized skin damage and bruising.
Assessment

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Analysis of the load distribution results leads to the following conclusions:
1. The straight down compressive force on the upper body was increased by +90 N in
all cases where the FPV with BRP was worn.
2. The increase is at least 1.5 (i.e.1.5 to 2.8) times the compressive load experienced in
the baseline condition.
3. The upper body carries a greater portion of the load when the FPV with BRP was
worn.
4. Stays were still able to transfer a portion of the rucksack load directly to the hips,
even when worn with the FPV and BRP.
5. The bent stays were more effective at unloading the shoulders than the straight stay
or no stay conditions.
6. The no stay condition disproportionably loaded the shoulders, shifting 95 N of the
rucksack load onto the shoulders, in addition to the 90 N weight of the FPV.
7. The effect of the FPV with BRP weight had a minimal effect on the forward lean
moment.
Analysis of the pressure distribution results leads to the following conclusions:
8. The multiple layers of the FPV have some ability to equalize pressure distributions
onto the body by attenuating discontinuities in geometry.
9. Peak pressures under the corners and edges of the ballistic plates greatly exceeded
recommended contact pressures for long-term exposure. This occurred at multiple
locations around the edges of the plates in all conditions when they were worn under
the rucksack.
In summary, the fragmentation protection vest with ballistic plates increases the compressive
load on the spine and adds to the inertia of the soldier. Even with the fragmentation
protection vest on, the stays, particularly bent stays, were effective in transferring the
rucksack load directly onto the hips. Finally, the edges of the ballistic plates caused multiple
high pressure points all of which are expected to cause discomfort and in some cases will
likely cause bruising, blisters and other tissue damage.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA477254&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Oct 2008)

Ow, my head hurts.. 

Do they make a version of that in plain english or "dumb army guy" english?

he he


----------



## geo (15 Oct 2008)

Bzzz version....

No matter how hard you try.... it ain't gonna work in the real world.

Miss fit
Don't fit
Won't fit


----------



## Fusaki (15 Oct 2008)

> Question: what happens when you wear the CTS ruck with the Frag Vest and Tac Vest? Answer: it hurts.



I didn't need the Ergonomics Research Group to tell me that. I've already seen this paper passed around a bit. The most common comment so far has been "Yeah, no shit".

I skimmed through the paper and didn't notice any mention of the chafing caused by the hip belt. On a march a couple weeks ago a significant number of guys were bleeding by the end of the 8km route.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I didn't need the Ergonomics Research Group to tell me that. I've already seen this paper passed around a bit. The most common comment so far has been "Yeah, no crap".
> 
> I skimmed through the paper and didn't notice any mention of the chafing caused by the hip belt. On a march a couple weeks ago a significant number of guys were bleeding by the end of the 8km route.



I guess that mannequin they used in the research was too slack and idle to do a 13k march.


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Oct 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I didn't need the Ergonomics Research Group to tell me that. I've already seen this paper passed around a bit. The most common comment so far has been "Yeah, no crap".



According to the CTS project manager, no one wears a frag vest  :.


Well IMO this ruck was designed to be used by its self without FFO or a belt; and it fails at doing that  :


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Oct 2008)

I wonder how much the research cost to perform??


----------



## geo (15 Oct 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I wonder how much the research cost to perform??



If it wasn't for my knee, I woulda done it for a case of beer (or two) :cheers:


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Oct 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I wonder how much the research cost to perform??



My guess is more then the cost of buying a better product off the shelf  :


----------



## davidk (15 Oct 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> My guess is more then the cost of buying a better product off the shelf  :



Zing!


Apparently the reserves are about to be burdened with this piece of junk, a buddy with the RNFLDR is getting sized Friday.


----------



## RCR Grunt (15 Oct 2008)

C'mon people, nobody makes Colonel by "buying stuff off the shelf."  Give your heads a shake!







Yes, I am that bitter.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Oct 2008)

SO let me get this straight.. a whole lot of people tell the army something hurts us.. they say okay, we'll do some tests to see if it really does hurt you and confirm it's not just in your head??

Wow, do NOT let the taxpayers hear about this...


----------



## Harris (15 Oct 2008)

And....yes it DOES hurt you.  So the answer apparently is to:

a.  suck it up butteercup or
b.  don't wear that nasty TAC vest and/or Body armour with the ruck

Wow....


----------



## Fusaki (15 Oct 2008)

> Wow....



I wonder if anyone has been with this Rucksack project since the beginning, 10-14 or howevermany years ago when this all started.

I'd feel bad for that person. :-[


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Oct 2008)

Can't remember who it is on the forums, but we have a CTS rep that pops in every now and then, don't we?  Or a guy that is somewhere it that whole chain.  I wonder if they take it personally when we bash the kit they work so hard to procure for us?  I mean, they probably try their darndest to inform their superiors that they are right "out to lunch" sometimes but those warnings probably fall on "I need to secure a job once I retire" ears.

It's sad.  I shed a tear.  I also heard every time CTS pushes out a glitchy piece of kit, and angel loses it's wings.. just a rumour though.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

As I've said before, I first saw this rucksack in 1998 as a prototype. It was black and much like this new one. It's been over 10 years in the making.
No one in 1998 foresaw 9/11 or our deploying to Afghanistan. The CTS people do their best and can't make everyone happy. You also have political and financial considerations added to the mix. 
All I'm saying is don't lay the blame at the CTS troops feet.


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As I've said before, I first saw this rucksack in 1998 as a prototype. It was black and much like this new one. It's been over 10 years in the making.
> No one in 1998 foresaw 9/11 or our deploying to Afghanistan. The CTS people do their best and can't make everyone happy. You also have political and financial considerations added to the mix.
> All I'm saying is don't lay the blame at the CTS troops feet.



Why not?

OK, they couldn't foresee 9/11, I'll give them that.  But they didn't see the Tac vest coming?  It was designed down the hall!  They didn't see the frag vest with plates coming?  Again, it was down the hall!

This is another case of job security / job justification gone wrong, and all to the detriment of the end user.


----------



## KevinB (16 Oct 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Why not?
> 
> OK, they couldn't foresee 9/11, I'll give them that.  But they didn't see the Tac vest coming?  It was designed down the hall!  They didn't see the frag vest with plates coming?  Again, it was down the hall!
> 
> This is another case of job security / job justification gone wrong, and all to the detriment of the end user.



110%...


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

I've worked in enough HQ's etc to know that people like this don't talk to each other......you'd think they'd have coordinated it, I know......but remember lots of these people are engineers....so they don't talk to others......


----------



## Towards_the_gap (16 Oct 2008)

Well I was issued it 2 weeks ago, having handed in my 82 ruck. 

I have worn it with FFO and CBA, and personally have no problem with it. First time I wore it, on a BFT no less, I did experience some chafing from the hip belt, and found my tacvest had to be lifted up to wear said hipbelt. Now, no chafing whatsoever, but the tacvest is still pushed up somewhat.

I'm sure everyone will agree it is a definite improvement from the 82 POS. I've heard the arguement from Inf types that 81mm baseplates can't be carried with it, or any other specialist kit as can be carried on the 64, to which I reply the CTS ruck has borrowed ALOT from the british bergan, and if British infantry can carry milan firing posts with the bergan, why not with the CTS ruck???

I do not doubt other posters on this site who have had problems with this piece of kit, however, in my unit, I've definitely seen alot of young lads dismiss it as a 'POS', most probably because they've heard some of the old sweats (married to their 64's no doubt, and resistant to change) slag it off. 

If anyone really thinks it's that bad, I challenge you to try the old british 'All Arms Bergan', or, Combat Bowling Ball Bag, which was issued to mech/non-inf up until a couple of years ago.







As you can see, it is literally a 80L purse in DPM.


HOWEVER, I do have some criticism of the new ruck: Instead of a 'lay-flat' (for lack of a better word) pocket on the lid, why not stitch it so that the zip is facing the side, and, fully packed, it forms a box on the lid. The lid pocket as it is now, should you pack it with anything and strap down the ruck, is impossible to get to or hold anything bulky. By comparison, both the british bergan and NI patrol pack have box type lids and can hold items as bulky as a 2QT canteen without comprimising lid-closing-capability.


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Oct 2008)

I actually went in with a good attitude with this ruck and thought it would suit me as *usually* (depending on the length of the hump) like to have my hip belt tightend up and the weight on my.  A 1/3 of the way through the Ironman I undid my hip belt as the chaffing on my lower back was getting too bad and I was more worried about my legs then my shoulders.  I'm sure I can overcome that with a better setup on my '64.

However, several good rucks with the CTS ruck later (around 5), I have not been able to come to terms with it.  With FPV and TV or without.  I can't seem to make it work for me yet and my hopes are dim.  I will try but I'm considering going back to my (revamped) '64.  MedTech... I WANT that ruck!

Anyway, when I was fitted I brought up the question about wearing it with the FPV and TV and was plainly told since it is intended for use during extended operations, there would be next to no chance I'd ever wear it for anything more then a BFT (13km).   :


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I've worked in enough HQ's etc to know that people like this don't talk to each other......you'd think they'd have coordinated it, I know......but remember lots of these people are engineers....so they don't talk to others......



Hey, hey... talk nice about the engineers  :warstory: we DO talk to others.... possibly not to you - but to everyone else


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer - while the PM for the Ruck may not have talked to others - the people above them should have been ensuring that the systems interoperate -- otherwize your better off having a bunch of Cpl's running CTS and DLR (probably are better off anyway) as they would work out the interoperability during bitching about whoever was running then


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I'm sure everyone will agree it is a definite improvement from the 82 POS. I've heard the arguement from Inf types that 81mm baseplates can't be carried with it, or any other specialist kit as can be carried on the 64, to which I reply the CTS ruck has borrowed ALOT from the british bergan, and if British infantry can carry milan firing posts with the bergan, why not with the CTS ruck???



Caution about the 'Grass being Greener' syndrome re: The British Bergen. I was one of the lab rats that did the original user trials on it and we recommended a beefier waste belt. It was, however, designed to be worn with the 58 pattern webbing (go figger, an '80s ruck designed for interoperability with a 50s webbing system) and so was issued with a aneamic thin little waist belt. The 58 webbing had two big kidney pouches on the back which made it easy to rest the bergen on when tabbing. However, when you used a tac vest you effectively had an 80lb day sack on your back. 

Not impossible, just darned wierd and very top heavy.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Oct 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Caution about the 'Grass being Greener' syndrome re: The British Bergen. I was one of the lab rats that did the original user trials on it and we recommended a beefier waste belt. It was, however, designed to be worn with the 58 pattern webbing (go figger, an '80s ruck designed for interoperability with a 50s webbing system) and so was issued with a aneamic thin little waist belt. The 58 webbing had two big kidney pouches on the back which made it easy to rest the bergen on when tabbing. However, when you used a tac vest you effectively had an 80lb day sack on your back.
> 
> Not impossible, just darned wierd and very top heavy.



ALOT of British troops will get what they call a 'Shortback' Bergan to use with PLCE belt kit.  As Daftandbarmy described, the bottom of the ruck will sit on the top of the 3 rear mounted utility pouches, which transfers some of the weight onto the web belt (often worn with a padded sleeve known as a 'hippo pad').  A very common result is what's known as 'Bergan Bite' where the 3 utility pouches are pressed into the small of the back and the resulting abrasion causes chafing and blisters.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2008)

I-6 I agree....they really need some end users in those shops.


----------



## MikeL (21 Oct 2008)

Any news on the ICE rucks? ie release date, etc


----------



## geo (21 Oct 2008)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Any news on the ICE rucks? ie release date, etc


It's beind distributed - what do you think this thread is all about.

Unfortunately, the production and distribution appears as slow as molasses.
Reserve brigades appear to be receiving em (above - some indication that Nfld troops have just received).


----------



## Fusaki (21 Oct 2008)

> It's beind distributed - what do you think this thread is all about.
> 
> Unfortunately, the production and distribution appears as slow as molasses.
> Reserve brigades appear to be receiving em (above - some indication that Nfld troops have just received).



You're talking about something different. 

There's the new "Issued Ruck" and then there's the company http://www.icetactical.com/ that is working on an updated ruck to fit on the 64 Pattern Frame.


----------



## MikeL (21 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> It's beind distributed - what do you think this thread is all about.
> 
> Unfortunately, the production and distribution appears as slow as molasses.
> Reserve brigades appear to be receiving em (above - some indication that Nfld troops have just received).



I got the issue ruck almost a year ago so I'm not to concerned about getting it     In my above post I was refering to the ICE Tactical Ruck like Wonder Bread said


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2008)

Ahhh..... why didn't you say so in the 1st place


----------



## DirtyDog (24 Oct 2008)

On a side note, we were told the other day that there will be NO replacement parts/exchanges available for the new ruck for atleast a year.  That should be interesting as guys were busting them up on intial issue (small things like fastex buckles and what not, but still....).


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Oct 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> On a side note, we were told the other day that there will be NO replacement parts/exchanges available for the new ruck for atleast a year.  That should be interesting as guys were busting them up on intial issue (small things like fastex buckles and what not, but still....).



I just received our first shipment of CF Tac-Vest/Smallpack/Rucksack compatible repair buckles yesterday.  We'll have them on the site (www.cpgear.com) for individual purchase next week for those folks needing to repair broken buckles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> On a side note, we were told the other day that there will be NO replacement parts/exchanges available for the new ruck for atleast a year.  That should be interesting as guys were busting them up on intial issue (small things like fastex buckles and what not, but still....).



Are you serious?  Wtf.   :

Thats just sad, pathetic and embarassing.


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are you serious?  Wtf.   :
> 
> Thats just sad, pathetic and embarassing.


When we asked what we were supposed to do if our rucks were NS and there was no exchange or replacement parts, we were just given a blank stare and a shrug and "Maybe we can see about getting your old rucks back somehow.....".  Not our CoC's fault though. They were just as flabergasted as we were.  And to think it took 10 years to get us to this point. Unbelievbable.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (31 Oct 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> On a side note, we were told the other day that there will be NO replacement parts/exchanges available for the new ruck for atleast a year.  That should be interesting as guys were busting them up on intial issue (small things like fastex buckles and what not, but still....).





			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> When we asked what we were supposed to do if our rucks were NS and there was no exchange or replacement parts, we were just given a blank stare and a shrug and "Maybe we can see about getting your old rucks back somehow.....".  Not our CoC's fault though. They were just as flabergasted as we were.  And to think it took 10 years to get us to this point. Unbelievbable.



As promised...Replacement plastic hardware parts for CF ISSUED LOAD CARRIAGE ITEMS (Tac-Vest, Smallpack, Rucksack, and Accessory Pouches)
Tac-Vest Female Pouch Side-Release Buckle Body & Mounting Plate http://www.cpgear.com/default.asp?mn=1.19.56&f=pd&pid=649
Smallpack, Rucksack, and Accessory Pouches Female Side-Release Buckle Body http://www.cpgear.com/default.asp?mn=1.19.56&f=pd&pid=651
Tac-Vest, Smallpack, Rucksack, and Accessory Pouches Male Side-Release Buckle http://www.cpgear.com/default.asp?mn=1.19.56&f=pd&pid=650


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2008)

Good one Matt....
Nice to see that someone is listening....
Too bad the CF & Supply & Services can't WORK THAT FAST....when ther is a need , a need for speed!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Nov 2008)

But do they come in green??  

On second thought, if I had green a kafasaurus would notice it and I would get in trouble for aftermarket kit!!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (3 Nov 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> But do they come in green??
> 
> On second thought, if I had green a kafasaurus would notice it and I would get in trouble for aftermarket kit!!



Black, as they are the same hardware as what's on the equipment now.


----------



## PanaEng (3 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I've worked in enough HQ's etc to know that people like this don't talk to each other......you'd think they'd have coordinated it, I know......but remember lots of these people are engineers....so they don't talk to others......



Alright, I take offence to that. 
As an engineer I take pride in that the things I design can coexist with other things or, at least, are flexible enough that they can be modified to work well with other things. I try to seek out any related project and ensure I at least don't introduce incompatibilities. But I work with computers and hardware, clothing and gear is a different story but I would think it would be easier to coordinate.

The problem in this case has to do with the project managers/directors (I don't know any of them) lack of PM experience or engineering experience.


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Nov 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> On a side note, we were told the other day that there will be NO replacement parts/exchanges available for the new ruck for atleast a year.  That should be interesting as guys were busting them up on intial issue (small things like fastex buckles and what not, but still....).



Did you actually get this from Stores?

About a month back I got a replacement for the hip belt buckle. Walked in, handed her the busted one, she gave me the new one, that was it.  It took her a while to find it, as they were in a Sea can full, but that was it.

Besides, upon issue of the ruck, there's a bunch of spare straps and buckles in the top pouch.


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2008)

... Also spare buckles in the pouches of the TV


----------



## davidk (14 Mar 2009)

Well, 34 Brigade is getting the new ruck now - I just picked up mine this morning, and I won't waste everyone's time rehashing what's been said - just that I actually want my 82 pattern back. This may change after the next exercise/BFT.

At least the compression sack looks good...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

Try compressing the compression sac to size they say it can go to.

I'll give you two trys but you will only need one.


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Mar 2009)

To any of the people who've had the new rucks for a while now; have your opinions changed of it since you've last posted about it? I'm thinking of buying myself a 64 pattern ruck (CoC approved, of course) but if the new ruck is workable, especially for Winter Ops, I may just put off getting one for a while until I got some time in with the new ruck.

As a note; not issued the new ruck yet, rumours put it at being about a year off for us; of course, that's just a rumour. Being one of two guys in my Sect with an '82 is a little embarrasing.


----------



## PhilB (15 Mar 2009)

There are positive and negative elements to the new ruck;

- If you are not wearing the ruck with armour and plates it is fairly comfortable. If you are wearing it with armour it sucks big time!

- The method of attaching pouches is all but useless, as nothing heavy can be place in the pouches without them loosening off the ruck

- Packing up the ruck can be a bit of an ordeal. The compression sack can be a pain when fully loaded, the number of compression sacks on the bag can be cumbersome and the cavernous main bag can be difficult to locate small items, particularly at night and in a rush.

- personal preference but I feel that the ruck is to tall (keep in mind that I am not the tallest guy around).

Hope this helps


----------



## axeman (15 Mar 2009)

AHH the new ruck  justafter i took my old 64 pattern with after market bag in to be sold privately ,as im now in the navy and will never have to wear one again ..... boom there i am drawing cadpat field kit to go to Afghanistan . well after wearing it for a while  I'll say No sir i dont like it .. as said previosly ITS BIG you can put alot of stuff in it but then you have to carry it . I'd rather have my ol ruck back  it sits on my body alot better the the wonder ruck. And before any one jumps on me about adjustments  well after 4 months of adjustments  it still doesnt sit right.. the straps just cannot be adjusted they way i need them for a good fit  , either with TV and armour or without


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Mar 2009)

It helps a lot, thanks. I know that plates cause a lot of discomfort, but how does it feel in a flak vest without plates and a TV?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Mar 2009)

In my opinion the ruck was designed to be worn without Tac Vest and Flak Jacket; when you are sized for it you are wearing just a t-shirt.  When I wear my ruck over the Tac Vest I can't wear the waist belt properly.  I am not a fan of the new ruck and prefer to use a 64 pattern one.


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Mar 2009)

Alright, thanks for that guys.


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Mar 2009)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> To any of the people who've had the new rucks for a while now; have your opinions changed of it since you've last posted about it? I'm thinking of buying myself a 64 pattern ruck (CoC approved, of course) but if the new ruck is workable, especially for Winter Ops, I may just put off getting one for a while until I got some time in with the new ruck.
> 
> As a note; not issued the new ruck yet, rumours put it at being about a year off for us; of course, that's just a rumour. Being one of two guys in my Sect with an '82 is a little embarrasing.



Well I find it good for mounted opps, but the old sleeping bag carrier and a kit bag would do the same job IMO.


----------



## Bomber (16 Mar 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Try compressing the compression sac to size they say it can go to.
> 
> I'll give you two trys but you will only need one.



When I was teaching the lessons on assembly, I gave a demo to every platoon that went through me of the compression sack fitting two issued sleeping bags, and a cadpat liner.  I had no problem with this, and neither did those in the classes that remembered to bring their kit.  Are you kneeling on the sack or working the straps to compress your load?  I found that if guys just loaded it up, tightened the drawstring, and then dropped their 200 pounds onto the staps, the sack would not compress fully, suffer a failure(rip a strap off), or go into a freaky shape.  When the drawstring is closed, plop your knee onto the sack, and once the air has left, cinch down the compression straps, using them more as "retention" straps for the compression you have already imparted on the sack.  I admit that the classes were done in temperature controlled classrooms, but since leaving the fielding team, I have continued to use the compression sack on ex, and have had no problem in having it completed filled, compressed, and stowed in a decent time.

Don't let the fielding team leave until your concerns are addressed.  I was able to solve 90 percent of the major complaints that guys would lay out during the class with a few minutes of 1 on 1.  Some guys have different back, and a common cause of discomfort it to have the first bend being either to sharp of an angle, or to low on the aluminium stay.  To sharp will produce a pulling feeling on your back, and to low will put every ounce of the pack onto the soft meaty part of your shoulder behind the bone.  Nine times out of ten, fixing the first bend would fix the problem.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Mar 2009)

I am going to try to get mine this week or next.  Should I try to go in with a frag vest?  I plan on wearing it anytime I go anywhere with a ruck...seems to make sense to have it fit my back with that, no?


----------



## Quag (16 Mar 2009)

No, don't go in with a frag vest.  They are designed to be fitted with a t-shirt.

A lot of people have mixed opinions abou the new ruck, but I will say this.

The ruck is great.  It works well with the tacvest and the frag vest.  However, it requires a lot more adjustment than the old one.  You will have to spend at least 3-4 13km rucks to get it adjusted properly.  

I can vouch for the new ruck, as I did the Ironman with it.  It fitted fine and I can honestly say that it is better than the '64 pattern.  

This being said, a couple of pointers for the new ruck:

         -Make sure the weight is evenly proportioned.  You must pay extra attention to how you load it, otherwise it will be uncomfortable.

         -If you are going on extended marches, it is advisable to move the compression sack complete into the upper compartment.  On this ruck, it is even MORE important to have the heavy stuff at the top of the ruck.

         -Adjust, adjust and adjust.  This ruck is like going from a '87 Mazda B2000 to an Audi.  It is a lot more finicky, but will produce the optimum results.

         -You MUST take the pressure off the tension bars each and every time you remove the ruck and then retighten them whe you put them back on.

         -Play with the arch supports.  I found the models that they use to give you a baseline on how to shape your arch supports are a little to extravagent.  Try making the arches less extreme.

          -Adjust the waist belt up or down using the velcro until it fits right on your hips.  You will also need to wear your tacvest correctly, for all the ganstas that like to wear it low.

Hope this helps a little!


----------



## Grunt_031 (16 Mar 2009)

As stated by Quag this systems is very different from anything that most people are use to using. I was part of the trials and it took a long time to get into a different mind set. 
The entire pack/carriage system and Ballistic vest are all designed to intergrate together. As with everything that CLS designed it is 80% solution and there will always be a few people that will have difficulty.
Some points to remember:
1. Pay attention to the instructional classes and don't go in with attitude "I have been packing a ruck for X# of years I know what I am doing" This is a new piece of kit for 90% of the people including the instructor. 
2. Get a copy of the instructional DVD (from the manufacturer) that teaches you how to wear and pack. There may be points that new instructor fails to mention or forget.
3. Ask questions, Lots of questions of the instructor. 
4. If your not wearing the Tac vest as it was intended, the rest of system is not going to work properly. I have see some intresting wearing styles lately. This one of main points we brought up in the trial. The entire Loading carriage system should have been issued as one time, ideally.
5. If you are wearing other styles of LBV/TV it is not going work as designed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Mar 2009)

It seems to my feeble, long retired military mind, that if you need an operators course, and an instructor qualification for rucksack on your 490A, it's waaaay more rucksack than necessary.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It seems to my feeble, long retired military mind, that if you need an operators course, and an instructor qualification for rucksack on your 490A, it's waaaay more rucksack than necessary.



Roger that... I also notice that MEC, or any one of hundreds of other outdoor equipment suppliers, has never needed an instructional DVD to help their customer put on theirs rucksacks correctly. 

I am glad to hear, , that there are people who are figuring this out! Well done chaps...


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Mar 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I am going to try to get mine this week or next.  Should I try to go in with a frag vest?  I plan on wearing it anytime I go anywhere with a ruck...seems to make sense to have it fit my back with that, no?



Don't wast your energy, I did it and was told "its not designed to be worn with it, as why do you need to wear body armor all the time" (or something along those lines: read the exact quote a number of pages back) and it was from the project head  :


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Mar 2009)

I just spoke with the supply Sgt in charge of this weekend's rucksack issue and he mentioned that the stuff we spoke about (tac vest fitting, frag vest, etc) had been voiced by the soldiers being fitted.  Good on them.

I can personally confirm that if you do not pack a hiking bag correctly and distribute the weight evenly, you WILL hurt.  I did adventure training while at the Armour School up in Nunavut.  One day half way through the hike I did a slight re-org of it's packing.. not 1 km down the road my lower back and legs were killing me!!  It came down to "can you carry on?" type questions and contingency plans were made up.  The experienced hiker leading the expedition then took the time to confirm if I had changed anything.  Of course, I had.  We took ten minutes, repacked my bag as I had it the day before and I managed to continue and finish the week with no issues. 

I can just imagine how many "know it alls" exist out there hurting themselves for no reason.


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2009)

Kifaru EMR -- cheaper, lighter, better

 COTS non developmental.








 :2c:


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Mar 2009)

I must concur with the majority of statements, if it needs an instructional video and a bunch of BFT's to get it to fit right then really it isn't much of a ruck is it?. 

On a personal front I grabbed a Low Alpine ruck loaded it up set the shoulder straps to my height and set off. Not a single issue and is IMO the most comfortable ruck I have worn. It still boggles my mind that we cannot just buy off the sshelf items and reinvent the wheel every damn time.  :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Mar 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I must concur with the majority of statements, if it needs an instructional video and a bunch of BFT's to get it to fit right then really it isn't much of a ruck is it?.
> 
> On a personal front I grabbed a Low Alpine ruck loaded it up set the shoulder straps to my height and set off. Not a single issue and is IMO the most comfortable ruck I have worn. It *still boggles my mind that we cannot just buy off the sshelf items and reinvent the wheel every damn time*.  :



Sounds like someone justifying thier job.


----------



## Quag (16 Mar 2009)

You really do not need an instructional DVD to assemble this ruck.

For the most part, it is an off the shelf hiking pack with some slight military deviations due to our specific job.

You can assemble and wear the ruck properly without any instuction for any guy with half a brain.

Do you not remember getting the instruction on how to put the '64 pattern together?  Way back in BMQ? And as a matter of fact, you probably received some class or some direction even at a unit.

You do not have to string together this ruck.  In my opinion, it is easier to assemble than the '64.  This being said, it is typical army where you have to attend a morning lecture on its assembly and proper use.  Afterall, the snowblower lesson lasts 3 hours 

It was best stated by someone else where this ruck is the 80% solution.  Like boots, its not a one size fits all.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Mar 2009)

My 64 was never strung to the frame that was the 82 pattern, granted my 64 pattern was aftermarkt except the frame. 

My issue is some have said it was designed to be worn with the TV and frag vest others have said the project manager has said it's not to be worn with that at all and to be fitted with a T-shirt. If the vast majority of reviews I have read her read accurate and it is fitted to you wearing only a Tshirt then I am thinking it's not design to be worn with those which means in terms of the Infantry which does the vast majority of dismounted ops it's a useless piece of kit.

In the end like I said I picked up an aftermarket ruck by Lowe Alpine adjusted for heights (about 2 mins worth of work) loaded it up with my ME kit and off I went. I wont get into load weight but it was heavy and it was not a short walk, best ruck I have ever worn. I didn't have to do multiple adjustments ,not twist this bend that over and over...No multi hour instruction non of it.

Now explain to me why ours needs that again?  :


----------



## Quag (16 Mar 2009)

Sorry, I meant '82.  There is not doubt that there is a plethora of other rucks on the market to superior to the issue.  I was just comparing to our rucks in service.


----------



## Fide et Fortitudine (16 Mar 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Now explain to me why ours needs that again?



It seems to me that this ruck has been overcomplicated. I just received mine and found the lecture on it could've been cut down to an hour... maybe less. There are parts of the ruck that are smart but many aren't. The fact that the hip strap is the main source of load bearing and it becomes useless when wearing a TV is ridiculous. When you look at the ruck and see the features you can tell they tried to copy Kifaru or its idea a few times. I recall a few years ago on the clothe the soldier website, it showed the patrol pack being able to hook up to the ruck, that disappeared. 

I found that the quick release system method was altered due to a problem with the sternum strap popping off. Now you pop off the hip strap pull one quick release, and take off the bag... doesn't sound so quick release to me.

Mind you I may be a bit pessimistic, and I have not truly tried it (gone on ex, BFT) and when that occurs I will say more, but so far it was a good idea that just failed to live up to the hype.

MPF


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Mar 2009)

I remember quick releasing the 82 pattern once.. the metal frame bit me right in both achilles tendons.. OUCH!


----------



## Fide et Fortitudine (16 Mar 2009)

Yeah but at least it gets off your body almost instantaneously, while the new ruck takes too much time in my opinion,

MPF


----------



## JSR OP (16 Mar 2009)

Fide et Fortitudine said:
			
		

> The fact that the hip strap is the main source of load bearing and it becomes useless when wearing a TV is ridiculous.



Why would you say that the hip strap is the main source of load bearing ridiculous? IMO, you're better off to have the majority of the weight directed on your hips rather than on your shoulders.  I would guess your one of those pers who don't use the hip belt on your '82 ruck aren't you.  IMO, using the belt is a world of difference.  Its helped save my back.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I must concur with the majority of statements, if it needs an instructional video and a bunch of BFT's to get it to fit right then really it isn't much of a ruck is it?.
> 
> On a personal front I grabbed a Low Alpine ruck loaded it up set the shoulder straps to my height and set off. Not a single issue and is IMO the most comfortable ruck I have worn. It still boggles my mind that we cannot just buy off the sshelf items and reinvent the wheel every damn time.  :



There are dozens of similar bags that would do the trick. 

Mine is a Serratus pack that weighs in at 3 lbs when empty, and holds up to 100litres. It cost less than $200, on sale. I've carried it with up to 90lbs of gear (yes, I weighed it) on multiple long range trips including an 11 day traverse of Baffin Island via Auyuittuq National Park, and an 8 day high level traverse of Strathcona Park on Vancouver Island including a summit of the highest mountain on the island - the Golden Hinde. I would say that this pack has been through just about everything I would have put it through as a soldier in all seasons (e.g., just got back from a winter ski/mountaineering backcountry trip) except parachuting, which I will address one of these days, and wearing with body armour. It has come through with flying colours and is going strong even after 4-5 years of moderate to heavy use. I have worn similar types of packs - internal lightweight flexi-metal frame with waist belt - in the UK with body armour and chest rig in a trials scenario and they worked fine. 

IMHO, we could easily do better, and save lots of money at the same time - with something off the shelf.


----------



## Fide et Fortitudine (16 Mar 2009)

JSR OP said:
			
		

> Why would you say that the hip strap is the main source of load bearing ridiculous?



I did not say that, I said that the fact that it becomes almost useless when wearing a TV is ridiculous, I love using hipstraps because they do save your back, and I used them when I could on my 82.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Mar 2009)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> As stated by Quag this systems is very different from anything that most people are use to using. I was part of the trials and it took a long time to get into a different mind set.
> *The entire pack/carriage system and Ballistic vest are all designed to intergrate together.* As with everything that CLS designed it is 80% solution and there will always be a few people that will have difficulty.



Then maybe you can clarify this for me:

- The Rucksack Instructing Cadre told myself and the rest of the class that the concave waist belt is designed to fit around the Iliac Crest.  

- According to the information pamphlet distributed with the Ballistic Vest, it is cut so that the bottom edge of the vest will be level with the Iliac Crest.

What we have here is an overlap between the bottom couple inches of Frag Vest and the top couple inches of waist belt.  What results is the frag vest pushing the waist belt lower then designed, causing severe chafing. Eventually, the troops just say "fuck it" and undo the waist belt altogether.  

So I ask you this:  Did the Ballistic Vest guys fuck up by cutting the vest too low, or did the rucksack guys fuck up by cutting the waist belt too high?


----------



## medaid (16 Mar 2009)

The majority of the system is frigged up...


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Mar 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> - The Rucksack Instructing Cadre told myself and the rest of the class that the concave waist belt is designed to fit around the Iliac Crest.
> 
> - According to the information pamphlet distributed with the Ballistic Vest, it is cut so that the bottom edge of the vest will be level with the Iliac Crest.
> 
> ...



I knew I should have posted pictures of my hips after my BFT, because I was wearing the ruck the way they told me to wear it, and my hips were destroyed.


----------



## JSR OP (16 Mar 2009)

Fide et Fortitudine said:
			
		

> I did not say that, I said that the fact that it becomes almost useless when wearing a TV is ridiculous, I love using hipstraps because they do save your back, and I used them when I could on my 82.



Well, that might not have been what you were trying to say, but the way I read it, it's what you said.

Anyhow, glad to hear you do wear the hipstraps.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Mar 2009)

Okay, we did a 8km "pre 13km" this morning, two people with new rucks.

One seemed to have no issues but the other seemed to have needed more time to set his up correctly.  He lacked the knowledge of what all the straps do.  He had the hip belt nicely tightened on his hips but hadn't use the "pull tabs" to snug it in.  Same with the top snug straps.  I think people who have no hiking/camping experience may have bigger learning curve to tackle than someone such as myself who will lay one bag (mil.) beside the other (civi.) and adjust for torso length, etc..


----------



## PhilB (17 Mar 2009)

I think the problem/confusion comes when people say that the new ruck is bad in general.

Yes the CTS ruck can be complicated, yes there is a learning curve for packing an internal ruck as opposed to an external ruck, and yes there is the tendency to over pack. All of these can be overcome, and IMHO the ruck is quite comfortable being worn how it was designed i.e. wearing only combats/pt shirt. It works fine with the TV, but poorly with other non-issue rigs (particularly webbing type rigs), but it fails horribly when worn with the protective vest and plates. Anyone that has had to use the ruck while wearing plates cannot tell me it worked well.

I still use my CTS as a PT ruck, but will not use it while in the field, or deployed.


----------



## RHFC_piper (17 Mar 2009)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I think the problem/confusion comes when people say that the new ruck is bad in general.
> 
> Yes the CTS ruck can be complicated, yes there is a learning curve for packing an internal ruck as opposed to an external ruck, and yes there is the tendency to over pack. All of these can be overcome, and IMHO the ruck is quite comfortable being worn how it was designed i.e. wearing only combats/pt shirt. It works fine with the TV, but poorly with other non-issue rigs (particularly webbing type rigs), but it fails horribly when worn with the protective vest and plates. Anyone that has had to use the ruck while wearing plates cannot tell me it worked well.
> 
> I still use my CTS as a PT ruck, but will not use it while in the field, or deployed.



Not to be facetious, but is not the point of tactical load baring equipment that it be usable in an operational environment effectively?  It _was_ made for operations, correct?

The Department of National Defence spent a ridiculous, almost obscene, amount of money to develop, produce and distribute this piece of equipment which; a) requires so much training that it has a "learning curve", b) doesn't work effectively with other equipment which it must work with to be effective and c) the troops don't want to use because of reasons A and B.
Does this make sense to anyone?

There are countless ruck sack systems employed by several forces, including our own, with great success; why didn't CTS (or whoever) just look at what works and use it... why to we keep reinventing the wheel?

We seem to over-complicate things too much... why? 

But, I digress... by the time the new rucks make it down to the PRes, a "simple fix" will be found to adapt the new rucks to the armour and we'll get the 'hand me downs'... and since we don't have BVs, the ruck will work great for us. 
 ;D


----------



## Fusaki (17 Mar 2009)

PhilB said:
			
		

> *I think the problem/confusion comes when people say that the new ruck is bad in general...*
> 
> IMHO the ruck is quite comfortable being worn how it was designed i.e. wearing only combats/pt shirt... but it fails horribly when worn with the protective vest and plates...
> 
> I still use my CTS as a PT ruck, but will not use it while in the field, or deployed.



PhilB, you're right and I stand corrected:

The new ruck only sucks for those of us who's job requires the use of a rucksack.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Mar 2009)

And, ironically, we have a well known Canadian outdoor equipment company selling gear to the US Army and Marines: Arc'teryx

"Due to dissatisfaction with the MOLLE gear, the United States Marine Corps chose Arc'teryx's Tango design for their new backpack, the ILBE." http://leaf.arcteryx.com/Tango.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc'teryx


Here's their military division 'leaf' website. All serving military members are eligible to 'apply' here. There are a few former CF folks working there, mostly reservists as I understand it.

http://leaf.arcteryx.com/


----------



## geo (17 Mar 2009)

Should I point out tha Wesleydownunider has pointed out that the grass isn't necessarily any greener in the other armed forces we are on operations with?

Americans don't like their kit, Canadians don't like their kit, Australians don't like their kit.

Does anyone see some pattern forming here ?


----------



## Lil_T (17 Mar 2009)

After seeing the pictures of this new rucksack, I've come to the conclusion that it's not actually for transporting kit.  It's a shelter for short people (I personally could fit completely inside it according to my husband).  Why all you tall guys got one is beyond me


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Mar 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, ironically, we have a well known Canadian outdoor equipment company selling gear to the US Army and Marines: Arc'teryx
> 
> "Due to dissatisfaction with the MOLLE gear, the United States Marine Corps chose Arc'teryx's Tango design for their new backpack, the ILBE." http://leaf.arcteryx.com/Tango.asp
> 
> ...



Even more ironic is that Arc'Teryx (as well as Mountain Equipment Co-Op/Serratus Mountain Products) was intially approached by the CTS staff in the mid 90's to see if they'd be interested in working with DND to develop a rucksack system for the CFs.
At that time, Arc'Teryx was more concerned with building their brand and product line to their core customer base, alpine climbers, and the main kicker, was that even if Arc'Teryx received an R&D contract from DND to develop a ruck, all the design info would then have been made property of DND to put out for industry dissemination once the prototyping was finished and the production was to be tendered.  Arc'Teryx considers several aspects of their ruck design to be proprietary, i.e. hip belt foam laminations and curvature patterns, etc. which they don't want floating around in the public domain for their competitors to gain access to.

With respect to Arc'Teryx's work on the Marine Corps ILBE ruck project, they partnered with Propper to license build the rucks for them in the US (Puerto Rico in this case) so that they were compliant with US procurement policies, but for this program, the Marine Corps was buying a militarised commercial-off-the-shelf ruck, and didn't buy the accompanying technical data package from Arc'Teryx on how to build the ruck, i.e. design pattern, etc.

Until DND alters its procurement policies to buy large-scale commercial-off-the-shelf for individual equipment, I doubt Arc'Teryx would be willing to sacrifice the R&D effort they've put into their product lines for a $200,000 R&D contract for rucksack development, just to have companies like Fellfab, Apparel Trimmings, KW Leather, etc. underbid them on the tender, and for their industry competitors (i.e. Mountain Hardwear, North Face, Lowe Alpine, etc.) get access to their build patterns and know-how via a MERX tender for rucksacks which lists detailed technical info as part of the tender's data package.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Mar 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Until DND alters its procurement policies to buy large-scale commercial-off-the-shelf for individual equipment, I doubt Arc'Teryx would be willing to sacrifice the R&D effort they've put into their product lines for a $200,000 R&D contract for rucksack development, just to have companies like Fellfab, Apparel Trimmings, KW Leather, etc. underbid them on the tender, and for their industry competitors (i.e. Mountain Hardwear, North Face, Lowe Alpine, etc.) get access to their build patterns and know-how via a MERX tender for rucksacks which lists detailed technical info as part of the tender's data package.



MERX... you shouldn't use language like that on a site where kids might see it (Dang, I couldn't find a Mr. Yuck smiley to put in here)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Mar 2009)

And for the record the current rucksac is Generation 23 you figure out the rest.


----------



## PhilB (17 Mar 2009)

I should clarify,

I think that some of you guys are thinking that I think the ruck is good to go, this is definitely NOT the case. Having tried to use it on operations, past just walking from the TLS bldg to my tent on KAF, I cant stress enough that this is a shitty piece of equipment.

What my post was trying to point out is when you hear guys saying "oh its good", "I went on "x" march" or "did "x"" competition and it was great, in most cases they are not using it with full kit and armour. We (DND) spent a LOT of money developing a totally comfortable "pt strip ruck".

Hopefully this clarifies my thoughts.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Mar 2009)

Arc'Teryx Tango and Echo packs are both good to go!


----------



## RCR Grunt (18 Mar 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Even more ironic is that Arc'Teryx (as well as Mountain Equipment Co-Op/Serratus Mountain Products) was intially approached by the CTS staff in the mid 90's to see if they'd be interested in working with DND to develop a rucksack system for the CFs.
> At that time, Arc'Teryx was more concerned with building their brand and product line to their core customer base, alpine climbers, and the main kicker, was that even if Arc'Teryx received an R&D contract from DND to develop a ruck, all the design info would then have been made property of DND to put out for industry dissemination once the prototyping was finished and the production was to be tendered.  Arc'Teryx considers several aspects of their ruck design to be proprietary, i.e. hip belt foam laminations and curvature patterns, etc. which they don't want floating around in the public domain for their competitors to gain access to.
> 
> With respect to Arc'Teryx's work on the Marine Corps ILBE ruck project, they partnered with Propper to license build the rucks for them in the US (Puerto Rico in this case) so that they were compliant with US procurement policies, but for this program, the Marine Corps was buying a militarised commercial-off-the-shelf ruck, and didn't buy the accompanying technical data package from Arc'Teryx on how to build the ruck, i.e. design pattern, etc.
> ...



And therein lies the rub.  The laws concerning government procurements have to change, at least with regards to DND, before the "big" CF sees any sort of large scale COTS procurements.  I don't see this happening anytime soon, too many fingers in the pie of government contracts.

What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2009)

You know the US Mil requires that COTS be looked at first these days...

When you figure all the wasted R&D funding and the salaries (equally wasted) with the CTS personnel involved in the PT Ruck, buying COTS from Kifaru, Arc'teryx, Low Alpine etc. would have been much much cheaper...


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Mar 2009)

But I6 whatever would we do with all the extra Col's and such in charge of DLR if we started buying decent off the shelf kit?  :


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Mar 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> And therein lies the rub.  The laws concerning government procurements have to change, at least with regards to DND, before the "big" CF sees any sort of large scale COTS procurements.  I don't see this happening anytime soon, too many fingers in the pie of government contracts.
> 
> What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.



I'd say for individual equipment level/soldier system type stuff, even more than a separation of PWGSC and DND would have to happen; Industry Canada would have to approve an exclusion clause on Canadian goods & services requirements, and DND would need to fundamentally change how it views purchasing COTS, as they currently prefer to retain ownership of most of the technical data/specifications for clothing & equipment.

An example which could be brought up by the DND side of the house could go like this:
The CFs/DND decide they want to start buying a commercially available combat boot from a company like Lowa.

These Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß Boots are loaded with awesome features such as a proprietary arch support system (protected by numerous patents), are lightweight, yet extremely supportive around the ankle, but are still flexible for kneeling, have a proprietary sole compound (protected by numerous patents) which is very grippy on wet surfaces and ice, yet hard wearing and long-lasting, etc.  These things are so sweet that about the only thing they don't do is self-levitate.

The Army then trials the Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots, and they're found to be acceptable by the user community, scoring record-setting marks by those trialing it (forget 80% solution, this thing is a solid 99.9%) and set up a standing offer with Lowa so that they can commence large-scale purchasing in order to issue the entire Army these Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots.

Time progresses, and most of the soldiers in the Army are happy with the Lowa boots that they're issued, "Yea!!!  These  Übermäßiger Fuß kick ***!!! :camo: CTS finally got something right...we told them for years to forget about all that technical data those eggheads at DSSPM come up with for all this crappy issued kit, and just to go out and buy something commercially".
  
Then, a catastrophic fire occurs at the Lowa factory, shutting down production for months and months until the company can rebuild their factory.  Due to undisclosed financial mismangement and unsound leadership, the fire is the nail in the coffin for Lowa, and the company declares bancruptcy and ceases production indefinitely.  

The Army then quickly starts to run out of Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots to issue, and despite calls to industry, due to all the proprietary features, this Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boot cannot be replicated by industry, as the Army doesn't have own the technical data that is needed to build this boot.

Now the Army is out of boots, doesn't know what boot to replace the now extinct Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß, and must go through a selection and trial process of several commercially available boots, and set up a standing offer with the winner of the trial and selection process, who in turn must tool up production and deliveries, so you could easily be looking at a year and a half before the Army starts getting boots again.

The same analogy could be applied to almost any piece of individual kit that's procured commercially from the manufacturer who has claims on proprietary design features, i.e. Arc'Teryx Alpha pack, Blue Force Gear Vickers Sling, Eagle CIRAS body armour, SO Tech Hellcat chest rig, etc.

I think it's wise for DND to have DSSPM control the technical data for certain things, however, in an ideal world, a better selection and trial process would put superior issued kit in the hands of the troops.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Mar 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.



Okay, I have always been wondering on this one.  Who has to be pestered to actually bring about that change?? I mean, we can bitch and whine all over and in every equipment thread and it most usually boils down to this.  WHO will do anything about it?  Is this something we can talk to the CLS about?  Maybe an anonymous email (sent from ArmyVern's account) to the CDS??

WHO?!?!?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Mar 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Okay, I have always been wondering on this one.  Who has to be pestered to actually bring about that change?? I mean, we can bitch and whine all over and in every equipment thread and it most usually boils down to this.  WHO will do anything about it?  Is this something we can talk to the CLS about?  Maybe an anonymous email (sent from ArmyVern's account) to the CDS??
> 
> WHO?!?!?



I think that has to be legislated by Parliament. If I'm wrong (I doubt it) someone correct me...verbal smacks upside the head are OK.


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Mar 2009)

Bzzz the only thing that exist is the UCR system and well read the other threads and you will see just how great that system is and how well it works to do anything... :


----------



## RCR Grunt (18 Mar 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Bzzz the only thing that exist is the UCR system and well read the other threads and you will see just how great that system is and how well it works to do anything... :



A landfill's worth of UCR's will not change the law.  A conversation with your local MP, however, is closer to the mark.  A conversation with the Minister of Public Works might be even better.



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> But I6 whatever would we do with all the extra Col's and such in charge of DLR if we started buying decent off the shelf kit?  :



I guess they'll have to look for other desks to hold down to avoid the next war.    



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'd say for individual equipment level/soldier system type stuff, even more than a separation of PWGSC and DND would have to happen; Industry Canada would have to approve an exclusion clause on Canadian goods & services requirements, and DND would need to fundamentally change how it views purchasing COTS, as they currently prefer to retain ownership of most of the technical data/specifications for clothing & equipment.
> 
> An example which could be brought up by the DND side of the house could go like this:
> The CFs/DND decide they want to start buying a commercially available combat boot from a company like Lowa.
> ...



A simple solution would be to have several different brands of COTS boots available to the soldier.  I don't see the Lowa factory AND the Danner factory both burning down in the same week.  In a situation like the one above, could DND not aid in Lowa's situation by purchasing the patents to the Uber boot in a case such as that?  They're going out of business anyways.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (18 Mar 2009)

Has anyone worn the Arc'teryx Echo/Tango packs, or the CP Gear Gen III 64-pattern back-panel config with PPE/plates? Not having trialed the CTS ruck, I am assuming the main issue is with the internal aluminum stays, correct? Wouldn't other packs, such as the Kifaru line, be subject to similar if not identical feedback (ie. negative) if worn with the vest/plate?

Thus the question about the CP Gear back-panel - seems like a flexible/open back would conform to whatever is/isn't being worn, while the hip-belt/frame would take a portion of the load from the shoulders.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Mar 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> Has anyone worn the Arc'teryx Echo/Tango packs, or the CP Gear Gen III 64-pattern back-panel config with PPE/plates? Not having trialed the CTS ruck, I am assuming the main issue is with the internal aluminum stays, correct? Wouldn't other packs, such as the Kifaru line, be subject to similar if not identical feedback (ie. negative) if worn with the vest/plate?
> 
> Thus the question about the CP Gear back-panel - seems like a flexible/open back would conform to whatever is/isn't being worn, while the hip-belt/frame would take a portion of the load from the shoulders.



Arc'teryx Tango and Echo are both internal frame packs, so it's likely they'd interface with SAPI plates in the same manner as would the CTS rucksack, as would the pre-Gen II Kifaru lineup.

As for our CP Gear Gen III 64 system, by having the back pads removeable, the user could leave them off, and then loosen the 'trampoline' style back panel, thus letting the ruck frame come into closer contact with the ballistic vest, and given that the 64 frame has a curved body, it might be more prone to conform better to the vest with plates.

Unfortunately, I don't have a CF ballistic vest or plates to trial, but if anybody does have a vest and plates, maybe we could work something out in regard to doing a T&E report of the Gen III system in regard to how it interfaces with the CF ballistic vest and plates.


----------



## Old and Tired (18 Mar 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Arc'teryx Tango and Echo are both internal frame packs, so it's likely they'd interface with SAPI plates in the same manner as would the CTS rucksack, as would the pre-Gen II Kifaru lineup.
> 
> As for our CP Gear Gen III 64 system, by having the back pads removeable, the user could leave them off, and then loosen the 'trampoline' style back panel, thus letting the ruck frame come into closer contact with the ballistic vest, and given that the 64 frame has a curved body, it might be more prone to conform better to the vest with plates.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have a CF ballistic vest or plates to trial, but if anybody does have a vest and plates, maybe we could work something out in regard to doing a T&E report of the Gen III system in regard to how it interfaces with the CF ballistic vest and plates.



Well, in answer to to Matt's request for a quick T&E, I've been using the CP Gear Gen 3 64 pattern C2 Ruck for a year now.  So far it's one of the best that I've ever used.  Carries loads well, it's adaptable for different tasks ( I carry a 522set and a 138 set) and so far very durable.  No signs of wear, the hardware hasn't broken yet and using the A7 straps allow the user to compress the daylights out of it.  I also have the CPGear Valice that I modified with two extra compression straps (I'll show you what I did when I get to Gagetown in April Matt.  This makes the whole package compact and tight.  With the Gen 3 vest with plates it works very well.  Even with the High Speed Gear Chest rig that I use.  No bruising, blisters or chaffing, unlike the nice blisters that I had on my hips with the CTS Ruck last summer before I turned in back in.  I know this is a shameless plug for CPGear in a way, but their 64 pattern ruck is a good piece of kit.


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2009)

A case I can cite.

 The US Army hold the SASS M110 trials (Semi-Auto Sniper System) we base ours of a PIP Mk11Mod1 that we did for the USMC (based off the USSOCOM Mk11Mod0).

 Our XM110 wins the competition.

Big Army buys our rifle in a fixed period contract with various add ons for additional rifles.  Army gets the TDP and sole sources the rifle for the fixed period.  At the end of the contract period (no longer than 5 years) the Army can release a RFP and give interested parties the TDP, then place it out to bid.

 This same situation occured with our M4 and M5 RAS, however despite us being underbid, no other company has met 1st Article on the items, so FN and Colt sole source purachse these rails from us (as does the Army) in yearly contracts, and should a competitor meet the requirements with a lower priced version, they will win the contract.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Mar 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> A case I can cite.
> 
> The US Army hold the SASS M110 trials (Semi-Auto Sniper System) we base ours of a PIP Mk11Mod1 that we did for the USMC (based off the USSOCOM Mk11Mod0).
> 
> ...



And such a system works great for the US, where they often pursue a policy of comparing various offerings, selecting the best product for the best price, and incorporate the TDP as part of the overall contract, whereas in Canada, with alot of the individual equipment type stuff, the TDP is developed first, whether it be in-house using CF/DND resources, or paid to a 3rd party company to develop the TDP for DND to own, then that TDP is put out for tender as part of a production contract.

Unfortunately/Fortunately (depending on what side of the coin you're looking at) textile manufacturing for Canadian defence contracts doesn't tend to be as complex as does precision machining weapons parts, so if you've putting out tenders with TDPs for large scale production items (i.e. Tac-Vest, Rucksack, Combat Uniform, etc.) he who bids the lowest generally wins the contract, rather than he who invests in the product innovation side of things, because DND has probably put some emphasis on what industry is capable of producing competitively, rather than having a contract to go a company like Arc'Teryx for the new rain jacket, which they do the TDP for, in which the design features all welded and glued seams and pockets, of which they're the only company in Canada capable of producing such an item on a commercial scale, instead, DND would say "You've got to dumb this thing down a bit so that industry can competitively respond to our tender."  
There are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs), whereby no other product is available other than a specific one which is being requested, but for the most part, these are not often found in the clothing & individual equipment realm.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2009)

Matt,

The problem with the that is you are dragging the cart in front of the horse, as who knows if the TDP/item is any good.  I would suggest trials should be done on items, and the lowest priced item that meets the need should be picked - give the company the option of selling the TDP at X, or contracting them and buying the TDP as part of the contract, with a 5 year or other reasonable time frame for sole sourcing it.

It rewards companies that do R&D, and T&E with troops rather than leech of others...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Mar 2009)

Kev,

You have to realize that I'm somewhat playing the devil's advocate here, and that the discussion is revolved at how DND does procurement business.

Supposedly, before the TDP is finalized and the production is tendered out, that prototype has gone through some sort of trial and been graded as being acceptable.

I think the majority of the complaints should be directed towards the trial procedures, ensuring that there is fair competition of multiple designs, and how an article is graded to be acceptable or not.

Additionally, an incremental improvement program for large-scale purchases of clothing & individual equipment items would also be a smart way to do things, i.e. 
Rainsuits:  Instead of tendering an entire 89,000 rainsuits out, break it down so that in the first 3 years, Rainsuit Pattern A has 20,000 tendered and delivered.  From there some sort of survey would be implemented (in addition to the UCR) process, whereby feedback would be taken from those issued the rainsuits.  That data would be collected and interpreted to produce design changes for a Rainsuit Pattern A MkII, of which another 20,000 would be tendered and delivered.  The survey process would repeat with a MkIII which by that point should be the final iteration of rainsuit design for the CFs until industry came up with a major breakthrough in terms of materials development, rather than pattern design, functionality, and fit/wear characteristics.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2009)

Dude,  I KNOW you know the system is FUBAR...

I was offering commentary as to how I think the system should be altered.

The trial system in the CF is RTFO, clearly.  It is a demonstratable FACT, as I can list over 50 items that where never serviceable that entered service.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Mar 2009)

Is one of those the LSVW  : or is that 51-60?


----------



## deh (19 Mar 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I don't have a CF ballistic vest or plates to trial, but if anybody does have a vest and plates, maybe we could work something out in regard to doing a T&E report of the Gen III system in regard to how it interfaces with the CF ballistic vest and plates.



PM sent if you want a vest with plates for a week or two.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Mar 2009)

deh said:
			
		

> PM sent if you want a vest with plates for a week or two.



Ack,

Actually I was hoping that somebody out there with vests and plates would be willing to do a trial of the Gen III 64 stuff and do a report on it.


----------



## Old and Tired (19 Mar 2009)

Matt

I will do up something for you.  I used your ruck with vest and plates in Virginia, plus a couple of other Ex's.  If you can what a little longer I have to do Maple defender with a dismounted company this summer as well.

Like I posted earlier, so far I have no complaints at all wearing the 64 Ruck with a Frag vest and plates.  It does snag a little on the TacVest if you ditch it in a hurry, but I think that's because of the TV design, when I use my Warlord V2 chest rig it's not a problem at all.  I just wish that the original 64 self was available instead of a jury rigged ALICE pack shelf.  It would make carrying radio's a lot easier.

I also used it on winter warfare this year as staff.  Worked out well for that as well, with the complete winter kit list.  It's amazing how much you can cram in the bad.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Is one of those the LSVW  : or is that 51-60?



I hope he doesn't mean me!  :camo:


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (20 Mar 2009)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> Matt
> 
> I will do up something for you.  I used your ruck with vest and plates in Virginia, plus a couple of other Ex's.  If you can what a little longer I have to do Maple defender with a dismounted company this summer as well.
> 
> ...



How did you find the Gen III shoulder straps? I had to put a set of fastex buckles with the split end "quick attach" (looped behind the slide lock) to substitute for the stock strap system. Stock Gen III kept on loosening up every couple of minutes of marching.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Mar 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> Stock Gen III kept on loosening up every couple of minutes of marching.



I appreciate the feedback.  Do you find that with the Side-Release Buckles, you have any issues of the straps continuing to loosen up?


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (20 Mar 2009)

Matt,

The side-release buckles (female "quick attached" behind the stock buckle attached to the nylon loop, male on the lower strap) are holding the tension. The jury-rigged setup is sturdy, is partially hidden behind the stock buckle, and holds the tension without loosening up every so often. Seems the stock buckle is not biting into the nylon strap as well as the small pack replacement/kifaru quick attach side release buckles.

Added bonus to the improvised setup is the option now to ditch the ruck in a hurry with the fastex.

I will post a pic later of the setup.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (20 Mar 2009)

I know this may detract from the New Rucksack topic at hand. Just to close the loop on the discussion on alternatives to the CTS Ruck. Pics as promised of the improvised CP Gear Gen III shoulder strap tension release strap setup


----------



## Pointer (21 Mar 2009)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Any impressions on the new Ruck, either on the bag itself, or the method it was delivered (taught)
> 
> PhilB?



My waist buckle broke the first time I used it. 

The waist belt, which is supposed to be a crucial component of the system, is largely useless when wearing frag vest and plates. 

The molded back is great.... if you're not wearing a frag vest and plates. 

The two drainage grommets on the bottom are excellent, as they allow water to seep into the sleeping-kit compartment which feeds into the main compartment.  That being said, there's a dry bag included for your sleeping kit (good), but this doesn't do much for the main compartment (and yes, you should be lining it with a garbage bag or using drybags, but it's still dumb IMO). 

The ruck weighs something like 14 pounds empty. 

It's way too large to use for mechanized operations.  As the overwhelming majority of our infantry (reg) is mech and the number is growing, this isn't very practical.  It may sound arrogant, but when it comes to designing a rucksack, the needs of the infantry should trump any others as we're the guys (well... the light guys anyway) stuck carrying the thing the most often. 

The ruck strikes me as having been designed by (and for) people for whom body armour wasn't even a consideration.  I'm wondering if the air force designed it or something.  And really, who's going to have to use it most often? The combat arms and, amongst them, the infantry.  I'm not sure exactly what their trials consisted of - I thought they trialled it with 3 RCR or PPCLI guys, but I can't imagine half the crap on that rucksack making it past anyone from either unit that didn't just get there from battle school (or, more likely, the Inf Sch  ) 

Not so good for PT, unless you do your ruck marches without body armour. A good ruck for moving kit from one place to another administratively - it certainly packs alot.  I wouldn't mind bringing it camping with me, but I'd much prefer a 64 (or even the last ruck) for military purposes.  

The 18 year old mo armoured guy that briefed and instructed us on the ruck just gave us a blank stare and blew fish kisses at us when everyone started asking "why the hell would they make X like this?" and "what about body armour?" but he may have just been distracted by his super-HSLD CADPAT boots.  Good to blend in when you hop out of the G-Wagon for a pee, I guess. 

I've stopped expecting CTS/DLR/whoever to competently design anything beyond a KFS 99% of the time and for Ottawa to make us use their useless crap 100% of the time, lest the emperor's nakedness become apparent.


----------



## Canadian Mind (21 Mar 2009)

After reading all 20 pages of this thread, awesome laughs, and lots of info. Thanks guys. 

Has anyone actualy tried Kifaru or Arc'Teryx packs, or any other civvy market packs exlcuding Wheelers GEN III 64 patter along with the CF Issued PPE and Tac vest?

And I'm also curious about how prior incarnations of issued rucks, along with civvy market products, handle with various chest rigs, tac vests, or other load bearing platforms.


----------



## ICFY95 (2 Apr 2009)

Has anyone tried to acquire ane set up a second set of the aluminum `struts` measured for wearing armour?  We were told that replacement struts were available, and it stands to reason that if the Ruck struts can be matched to your spine contour, then it could be matched to your spine contour with armour...

Could there be a simple fix for this kit by having two sets of the struts for each situation?

My back must be really messed up, because when I am using the ruck (with armour and TV) my back feels better than when I`m marching without it (or with the small pack)

C.


----------



## DirtyDog (2 Apr 2009)

ICFY95 said:
			
		

> My back must be really messed up, because when I am using the ruck (with armour and TV) my back feels better than when I`m marching without it (or with the small pack)


When you say with "armour and TV" do you actually mean with plates in or just an empty frag vest?


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2009)

Eons ago, while the earth was cooling, we had a basic rule that troops would wear body armour only in cities or built up areas (e.g., Belfast, Londonderry). The usual urban patrol only lasted a couple of hours at the most, and being in an urban area meant that you were more likely to nasty HV and LV projectiles, blast damage etc

In the 'cuds', we would ditch the body armour as we'd be hauling around big bergens with ammo, batteries, rations and other stuff for multi-day operations. The theory was that the mobility, agility, good fieldcraft and tactics imparted by the absence of an armoured strait jacket was enough of a deterrent to keep you safe. Be fast enough to get them before they got you was the idea. I know several guys who were in Rhodesia/South Africa who basically used the same approach.

Is this not a feasible policy these days? Me, being arm-chair--borne now, of course, has no idea. But I am assuming that there must be a high degree of butt covering going into the development of our dress policies on the battlefield these days.


----------



## 2 Cdo (4 Apr 2009)

I have no experience with the new rucksack but based on over 25 years experience in the army I know that if you build a bigger load carrying device someone higher up will design a kit list to fill said load carrying device! Oftentimes not realising that on operations we carry lots of ammo and water, thus adding even more to the weight load.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But I am assuming that there must be a high degree of butt covering going into the development of our dress policies on the battlefield these days.



I think this is hitting the nail right on the head.  Regardless of the risk of injury, the command leadership feels such pressure politically, that if there is ever a single incident whereby a soldier is injured or killed and the media, public, or politicians scream out "How come he wasn't equipped with proper body armour? Who ordered him not to wear armour?  How come he was allowed not to be wearing armour?" or things along such lines that we've adopted this risk averse mentality.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Apr 2009)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I have no experience with the new rucksack but based on over 25 years experience in the army I know that if you build a bigger load carrying device someone higher up will design a kit list to fill said load carrying device! Oftentimes not realising that on operations we carry lots of ammo and water, thus adding even more to the weight load.



Amen. Except in a few specilized situations e.g., long term OPs, SF operations etc, there should be no need to fill up a rucksack that large. Options? Either 'need less' or have a more efficient echelon system.


----------



## ICFY95 (4 Apr 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> When you say with "armour and TV" do you actually mean with plates in or just an empty frag vest?



I haven`t marched with plates in yet (is there a shortage of training plates?- we haven`t seen them yet)


----------



## dangerboy (4 Apr 2009)

There are only so many training plates in the system so you usually only gets them when you are do pre-deployment training.


----------



## NL_engineer (4 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Amen. Except in a few specilized situations e.g., long term OPs, SF operations etc, there should be no need to fill up a rucksack that large. Options? Either 'need less' or have a more efficient echelon system.



As 2 Cdo said, it is the higher ups making the lists, not the people doing the work.



			
				ICFY95 said:
			
		

> I haven`t marched with plates in yet (is there a shortage of training plates?- we haven`t seen them yet)



Feel lucky if you get them, I have completed my entire work up without them, so I get to adjust to wearing them in the sandbox  :


----------



## Quag (14 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Amen. Except in a few specilized situations e.g., long term OPs, SF operations etc, there should be no need to fill up a rucksack that large. Options? Either 'need less' or have a more efficient echelon system.



I understand the ideology behind the Small Pack is that you use that for smaller operations and only use the big ruck on these longer term operations like OP's etc...


----------



## dangerboy (14 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I understand the ideology behind the Small Pack is that you use that for smaller operations and only use the big ruck on these longer term operations like OP's etc...



That is clothe the soldiers idea for the ruck system.  For short durations (IE 24 hrs) you use the small pack for long duration operations away from vehicles you use the new Ruck. Their theory is that you just slip the small pack into the main pouch of the new Ruck and pack around it. I am not sure about that theory but I will admit I have not tried it personally. 

Buy the way does anybody know is there a proper name for the Rucksack it gets a bit silly calling "New Rucksack"


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I understand the ideology behind the Small Pack is that you use that for smaller operations and only use the big ruck on these longer term operations like OP's etc...



With the amount of equipment and crap I had to lug up to OPs, the last thing I would want to bring up is a humongous ruck.


----------



## Jammer (14 Apr 2009)

Speaking for myself only I had to live out of the "new rucksack" for the past seven months. This was something that would have been made miserable if I had the old one.
Post deployment lve starts today on a sad note 
RIP Tpr Blais.


----------



## Quag (14 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the amount of equipment and crap I had to lug up to OPs, the last thing I would want to bring up is a humongous ruck.



Did you consider putting some of that equipment in the ruck George? That's what our guys do.  I think people are blowing this ruck thing out of proportion.  While it may only be the 80% solution, it does do a half decent job.  It is no bigger than the 82 pattern complete.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> Did you consider putting some of that equipment in the ruck George? That's what our guys do.  I think people are blowing this ruck thing out of proportion.  While it may only be the 80% solution, it does do a half decent job.  It is no bigger than the 82 pattern complete.



One sleeping bag in valise, C-6 & tripod, laser RF, Field phone, radio(es), cable/wire and reel, OP Kit ( bag with pens/pencils, range cards, binos, compass, protractors, etc.), shovel, pickaxe, Scoff Kits........... No need for the change of clothes and spare boots, etc.  A ruck would just slow down the process.


----------



## Jammer (14 Apr 2009)

Luxury!
We were living in a cardboard box in a rubbish bin!


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2009)

You had a box?  Lucky sod.  We used to get by in an old empty pilchards tin!  Tell kids that today and they won't believe you.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (14 Apr 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I guess that is if you are using the CF Sleeping Bags.  A decent off-the-shelf, military bag (such as those carried by the PPCLI Kitshop) come with compression sacks making them the size of a nalgene.  As well, I got an airmatress from MEC that is green and rolls down to roughly the same size.  I can carry my sleeping kit in a C9 pouch.
> 
> Modern lightweight, compressible gear can allow you to take a 60L MMR/ZXR along way.  With add on pockets and a piggyback system, you can expand to 80-100 liters and still have the stability and bring a daypack along for the ride too.  The new bag really doesn't have this adaptabilty.



Tried searching - couldn't find it. How does the issued CF sleeping gear fit with the CTS Ruck and new compression sack? I'm talling inner, outer, liner and hood.


----------



## Jammer (14 Apr 2009)

The issued compression sack works quite nicely. Just sqeeze the snot out of it.


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You had a box?  Lucky sod.  We used to get by in an old empty pilchards tin!  Tell kids that today and they won't believe you.



That sounds just about as nice as my family's shoebox; beats the hell outta pools with sharks with frickin' laserbeams.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You had a box?  Lucky sod.  We used to get by in an old empty pilchards tin!  Tell kids that today and they won't believe you.



People saw us kicking a can down the street and asked what we were doing…we said “Moving”.


----------



## NL_engineer (14 Apr 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> Tried searching - couldn't find it. How does the issued CF sleeping gear fit with the CTS Ruck and new compression sack? I'm talling inner, outer, liner and hood.



With a lot of work, I found separating all the pieces, rolling them up individually; then stuffing  : works, but you then get the fun of putting it all back together in the field  :.

When done like that, it will leave enough room for your rolled up bivi bag and ground sheet to fit on the sides.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (14 Apr 2009)

Again, not having seen the ruck in real life, I can only go by what I have seen in pictures. From what you described above, the sleeping bag cavity in the ruck must be ginormous. The CF sleeping bags are notoriously bulky and hard to compress.

Getting a good idea on how large the CTS ruck really is. Any pictures to get a sense of scale of internal compartments?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Apr 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> Again, not having seen the ruck in real life, I can only go by what I have seen in pictures. From what you described above, the sleeping bag cavity in the ruck must be ginormous. The CF sleeping bags are notoriously bulky and hard to compress.
> 
> Getting a good idea on how large the CTS ruck really is. Any pictures to get a sense of scale of internal compartments?



The only thing "supposed" to go in the compression sack is items that will compress (i.e. sleeping bag). Bivy bag ergo would go in the main compartment of the ruck.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Apr 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The only thing "supposed" to go in the compression sack is items that will compress (i.e. sleeping bag). Bivy bag ergo would go in the main compartment of the ruck.



Yeah cause that makes SOO much sense


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Apr 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Yeah cause that makes SOO much sense



Well that's the info I got from one of the "train the trainers" and the CTS Staff.


----------



## Quag (14 Apr 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Yeah cause that makes SOO much sense



How does that not make sense?  This is a "compression sack" unlike your old "sleeping bag CARRIER".  There is plenty of room in the compression sack compartment on the ruckfor your bivy bag and ground sheet.

For what its worth, I fit my bivy bag just fine in the compression sack, just make sure you have the opening at the top so the air can escape (but that was common knowledge already, right?).

I think for a lot of people, the saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" applies...

Before you constantly knock this new ruck:

1. First get it.
2. Second try it on an extended op or ex.
3. Then evaluate it.

You might be shocked at what you find.

Cheers


----------



## Fusaki (14 Apr 2009)

Quag, 

I'll dig up a post of mine from page 17 of this thread.  Maybe you'd be willing to shed some light on this issue since none of the other rucksack apologists have been willing to:



> Then maybe you can clarify this for me:
> 
> - The Rucksack Instructing Cadre told myself and the rest of the class that the concave waist belt is designed to fit around the Iliac Crest.
> 
> ...



You stated yourself that the ruck was designed to work with the ballistic vest.  Given the above, I don't see how that's possible.


----------



## Jammer (14 Apr 2009)

I was able to get both parts of the sleeping bag incl my biv bag AND the cadpat ranger blankie in the compression pack and carry it in the lower compartment with no worries


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I was able to get both parts of the sleeping bag incl my biv bag AND the cadpat ranger blankie in the compression pack and carry it in the lower compartment with no worries



OMG!!!   Are you trying to get the New Ruck SMEs to come charging out of their office and string you up with multi coloured laces from the new CADPAT boots. My God man, what the hell are you thinking??


----------



## Quag (15 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Quag,
> 
> I'll dig up a post of mine from page 17 of this thread.  Maybe you'd be willing to shed some light on this issue since none of the other rucksack apologists have been willing to:
> 
> You stated yourself that the ruck was designed to work with the ballistic vest.  Given the above, I don't see how that's possible.



Hey Wonderbread,

First off as I stated before, I am by no means a SME on the new ruck.  I think reservists take a week long course in Ottawa to teach how to set it up ;D

Anyway, I think it comes down to a compatibility issue.  Either your body works with it, or it doesn't.  Personally, I have a long torso so my hip belt sits fine with my frag with plates and tac.  For shorter people it may not.

Regardless, the ruck works perfectly well without the hip belt despite what many people say (not to sound like a know it all, but I did the Ironman with the new ruck.  I did about 80% of it without the waist belt).  The waist belt def improves the performance, but not when you are just breaking in the ruck and doing 50 odd kilometres with it sawing at your hip.

To answer your question, I can say that for the majority of my guys, the new ruck works good completely kitted out (tac, frag with plates).  There are odds and sods that it doesnt work, but it is IMO that they need to simply adjust and play around a little more.  While its no computer, it is light years ahead of the 82 pattern in technology.

Just my 2 cents again.  Game on!


----------



## Fusaki (15 Apr 2009)

> To answer your question, I can say that for the majority of my guys, the new ruck works good completely kitted out (tac, frag with plates).  There are odds and sods that it doesnt work, but it is IMO that they need to simply adjust and play around a little more.



My experience is the opposite.

In the fall the 1st Battalion did a bug out then a march around the CO's route. Rucksacks with IRU kitlist, full PPE, FFO and 8km in about 1 hour 15mins. The distance and weight wasn't huge, but pace was quick for a Battalion's worth of guys. I think by the end of it most of us were chafing, some of whom were bleeding through their combat shirts.

This bugout march wasn't an Ironman by any means, but then again an Ironman isn't a tactical movement anyways.  The Ironman is a grueling race and I'm not trying to make light of it. I'm just pointing out that it's not done in full gear with a combat load.

I'd say a better reflection is how guys on the Recce Course like it.  From what I've been told, they don't like it very much.  Chafing and bandaged hips seem to be commonplace. I know that sounds like par for the course, but guys expected more from the new ruck.

 A couple weeks ago the Rifle Coys of 1RCR did BFTs - without body armour.  I'm willing to bet that if I were to walk around the company areas today and ask random guys, most would prefer their old 82 pattern rucks back.

I'll admit it's all anecdotal evidence, but in my mind your previous post is downplaying the dissatisfaction of the end user.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Apr 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I was able to get both parts of the sleeping bag incl my biv bag AND the cadpat ranger blankie in the compression pack and carry it in the lower compartment with no worries



Oh yeah?!!?! Well I fit a small Afghani child in mine, along with a weeks worth of Afghan bread and still had room to fit my clothes, a barrack box and a spare tire for my Coyote!! SO there!

/ends pissing contest

BTW, I don't have the new ruck but have seen one!!


----------



## Quag (15 Apr 2009)

Like I said, I never claimed to be a SME.  I was merely trying to discourage said individuals from slandering the ruck until they actually gave it a good whirl.

Regardless, I am sorry that new ruck is getting such bad reviews from an operational Regiment. 

I will admit that the waist belt needs some serious work.  I have permanent scars on my hips from it.  During the Ironman I actually rubbed the skin to the bone.

Maybe we should start analyzing the actual parts of the new ruck that need improvement rather than toss out the whole thing.  

I would first suggest a new waist belt.  Any takers?


----------



## Fusaki (15 Apr 2009)

> I would first suggest a new waist belt.  Any takers?



Funny you should mention that...

I actually did switch out my waist belt. I'm currently using a Kifaru Omnibelt:
http://www.kifaru.net/G2_omnibelts.html

The Kifaru belt actually integrates pretty well with the ruck. Kifaru's patented Delta Strap system fits almost perfectly in place of the load bearing straps found on the issued belt. 

The belt attaches to the frame the same way in each ruck, the only difference being the velcro where it's hook on one ruck and loop on the other. This is easily overcome with a quick trip to the MATechs, who have on hand hook velcro tape. Just take a few pieces and fold them in half so the sticky sides are together, essentially making a doublesided sheet of hook velcro. Just place this in between the loop velcro of the ruck and the loop velcro of the Kifaru belt and and you're set.

People jealous of my waist belt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> Like I said, I never claimed to be a SME.  I was merely trying to discourage said individuals from slandering the ruck until they actually gave it a good whirl.
> 
> Regardless, I am sorry that new ruck is getting such bad reviews from an operational Regiment.
> 
> ...



Over 22 pages, there are a large number of people that have used it. You are in a very small minority of somewhat satisfied users.

You almost sound like the only guy in the unit with one and are trying to sell it to everyone else. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it doesn't necessarily make you right either. There is two sides to every coin, and sooner or later, everyone will likely be forced into this ruck, like it or not. You can then look back at this as vindication.............or everyone will tell you otherwise.

I guess I'm trying to say, don't be so fanatical about it, it will be accepted or it won't be. You are starting to sound like some sort of specialized PT program freakizoid. Next thing you'll be giving girls names to the various parts of your ruck ;D


----------



## Quag (15 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Over 22 pages, there are a large number of people that have used it. You are in a very small minority of somewhat satisfied users.



...On this forum.  I have never once made a blanket statement.  Everything was in my opinion. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You almost sound like the only guy in the unit with one and are trying to sell it to everyone else. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it doesn't necessarily make you right either.



As a matter of fact I am far from the only person to have it (everyone in my unit has it...).  I'm not sure where I came off as that loser that tries to say "hey look at me I have all the new gucci kit!"  It was not my intention if it came across that way, I was just trying to offer advice for said individuals to give it a try before tossing it into the mist.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There is two sides to every coin, and sooner or later, everyone will likely be forced into this ruck, like it or not. You can then look back at this as vindication.............or everyone will tell you otherwise.



This is exactly what I am trying to get at.  I stand to be corrected, but every Regular Force Operational Combat Arms Regiment has it issued.  And RSM's are starting to enforce that it be worn solely.  So...let's stir up productive conversations like Wonderbread and I are having that work to identify and offer solutions to the problems.  As we all know, when it comes to the CF, if you have a problem you better damn well have a solution.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess I'm trying to say, don't be so fanatical about it, it will be accepted or it won't be. You are starting to sound like some sort of specialized PT program freakizoid. Next thing you'll be giving girls names to the various parts of your ruck ;D



So in other words, I shouldn't share my positive experiences with it?!?!  I never tried to force it on anyone, I was merely trying to get those that say "if it doesn't have an external frame I'm not interested", or "I saw it and it looked like junk", to actually give it a trial and work with it.  A lot of people that did initially detest the ruck began to like it after they trialled different setups, adjustments and configurations.

I don't mean to come off as a d**k, but I think some of your comments are uncalled for and not productive to this discussion on the ruck.

Cheers


----------



## MJP (15 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I don't mean to come off as a d**k, but I think some of your comments are uncalled for and not productive to this discussion on the ruck.
> 
> Cheers



Aye I agree, I am quite enjoying the different points of view and end user solutions to the whole rucksack debacle with out useless interjections from people with nothing to add.

I certainly hope that people are using the UCR system to record and give feedback on the kit.  Talking to the fielding guys or DLR is next to useless.  UCRs or a great number of them is what will help make the changes needed if they are required.  If you don't know the UCR system take a gander here for the process http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-708018.html#msg708018


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2009)

Quaq,

I suppose I was trying to have some fun.........you think at your expense. Perhaps. No harm was meant. You are reading way more into my comments than intended. Your original profile had you as a 2/Lt with an IP address not in Pet. Today(?) it changed, though the location remains the same. Maybe congrats are in order. At any rate, please carry on and forgive an old soldier for trying to inject a bit of humour and trying to take the fanatical edge off a subject that seems to be getting carried away. I just can't get that excited about a bag.

HAGO


----------



## Quag (15 Apr 2009)

Sorry recceguy, its been a long day haha...  let the charge begin...again!

PM inbound


----------



## Towards_the_gap (15 Apr 2009)

Just to get back on track, with the comments people have made about the waistbelt, the one thing I suppose they HAVE gotten right is that the ruck is modular, by that I mean should they design a better/non-chafing/tacvest suitable waistbelt, it will hopefully only involve removing the offending article and replacing with the new upgraded one, rather than having to re-design the entire bag all over again. Same with shoulder straps and side pouches. I still personally think it is over-complicated, but I personally am happy with it compared to the 82, and am willing to stand-by that.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Apr 2009)

I think Wonderbread is on-line for a great idea here, and probably a relatively cheap fix for the ruck, as its seems the main issue with the ruck is due to the waist belt. I've yet to try one, still waiting for either a tour, or whenever Kingston gets its issue, but a $40 reversible mod that makes the ruck compatible with the frag vest is an excellent idea. Maybe a few UCRs with this mod listed as a solution could be sent up the chain.


----------



## KevinB (16 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> How does that not make sense?  This is a "compression sack" unlike your old "sleeping bag CARRIER".  There is plenty of room in the compression sack compartment on the ruckfor your bivy bag and ground sheet.
> 
> For what its worth, I fit my bivy bag just fine in the compression sack, just make sure you have the opening at the top so the air can escape (but that was common knowledge already, right?).



Just a point -- If your bivy bag is not around your sleeping back - whatever happens when your ruck gets soaked or submerged?  
  Of course I think the CF sleeping bag is an excellent artic sleeping bag, just not very good for temperate, or warmer weather - but thants another story.

Anyone who expects you to physically seperately carry your bivy bag from the sdleeping bag is a little out of touch.  So I get to my hooch, and I take the bag out, take the bivy bag out, place the sleeping bag, inside the bivy bag...  :


----------



## Quag (16 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Just a point -- If your bivy bag is not around your sleeping back - whatever happens when your ruck gets soaked or submerged?
> Of course I think the CF sleeping bag is an excellent artic sleeping bag, just not very good for temperate, or warmer weather - but thants another story.
> 
> Anyone who expects you to physically seperately carry your bivy bag from the sdleeping bag is a little out of touch.  So I get to my hooch, and I take the bag out, take the bivy bag out, place the sleeping bag, inside the bivy bag...  :



The compression sack is waterproof.  I did test it in my bathtub (hey, it does the job!) and it works excellent, providing you roll the tabs properly.  Add to that the extra protection afforded by the compartment in the ruck and you have a good waterproof seal.

But as I mentioned, I pack my bag in the bivy and all fits well in the compression sack.  Initially I was concerned about the strength of the compression straps and buckles, but I've used and abused them and they have held up without incident.

I think we have a viable solution with an easy replacement of the strap and belt.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Just a point -- If your bivy bag is not around your sleeping back - whatever happens when your ruck gets soaked or submerged?
> Of course I think the CF sleeping bag is an excellent artic sleeping bag, just not very good for temperate, or warmer weather - but thants another story.
> 
> Anyone who expects you to physically seperately carry your bivy bag from the sdleeping bag is a little out of touch.  So I get to my hooch, and I take the bag out, take the bivy bag out, place the sleeping bag, inside the bivy bag...  :



You'd be suprised how many people do NOT put the sleeping bag in the bivvy bag!!  Heck I still see people using bright orange garbage bags!


----------



## KevinB (16 Apr 2009)

Quag - thanks for that tidbit.
  I still want to know why the intended "spec" is not to pack them together - as I don't think anyone thinks its a practical idea to put to gether and seperate items in the field in a low light/low noise situtation.

 Buzz - I had a extremely tactical Blue dry bag as my valice on my '64 -- I tried to explain to the CSM that B Coy was blue, and it was simply a large company locator...   ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Apr 2009)

S**t disturber...


----------



## Fusaki (16 Apr 2009)

I did a couple weeks in the field for Winter EX back in Jan.  One thing I found worked well was not bothering with the compression sack at all.  I just stuffed the sleeping bag with bivvi in the bottom compartment of the ruck and called 'er a day.  When it came time to shut'er down again for the night, I just dragged the bag into the 10 Man tent. It took 30 seconds and was super easy, and sort of funny watching others fuck around for half an hour trying to get all their gear in a compression sack and then fuck around again trying to get the compression sack in the ruck.

The compression straps built into the sides of the ruck do a good enough job squishing everything down, and they'll actually squish the bag down closer to your center of gravity.  I don't know who decided that a medicine ball is an efficient shape to carry on your back, because thats all the compression sack ends up being.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (16 Apr 2009)

We used to get issued the compression sacks as part of the issue sleeping bags in the British Army (and for all I know still do), but no one ever used them, for as wonderbread said, a 10kg medicine ball is not what you need in your ruck. It is also a complete balls ache to try and stuff your sleeping system back in and do up the straps when all hell is breaking loose and you're wondering why you didn't try harder at school.

I personally have a 120L Ortlieb canoe bag which serves as a liner with all dry kit kept inside, and sleeping bag inside bivvy bag stuffed in to fill out the spaces. It's completely waterproof and should a river need to be crossed, I can chuck the ruck in the water, grab on and paddle happily away to the far bank.


----------



## Jammer (16 Apr 2009)

It is also a complete balls ache to try and stuff your sleeping system back in and do up the straps when all hell is breaking loose and you're wondering why you didn't try harder at school.

That's why you use your small pack on those occasions. 
My new ruck is what I lived out of by necessity, and I was glad to have it.
The 82 pattern just didn't do it before.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Apr 2009)

> That's why you use your small pack on those occasions.



Are you trying to say that you shouldn't be using your ruck in situations you might get shot at? Or are you saying that I should be using my smallpack for the overflow of crap I can't get into my ruck while being shot at?

If the ruck isn't designed for tactical use, they should've just issued me a new kitbag... or maybe a suitcase with an extendable handle and wheels.


----------



## PanaEng (16 Apr 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> That's why you use your small pack on those occasions.
> My new ruck is what I lived out of by necessity, and I was glad to have it.
> The 82 pattern just didn't do it before.


The enemy does not take kindly to our well orchestrated plans and often refuses to cooperate with our timetable and clever schedule (be them DS or real ones)  

chimo,
Frank


----------



## Quag (16 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I did a couple weeks in the field for Winter EX back in Jan.  One thing I found worked well was not bothering with the compression sack at all.  I just stuffed the sleeping bag with bivvi in the bottom compartment of the ruck and called 'er a day.  When it came time to shut'er down again for the night, I just dragged the bag into the 10 Man tent. It took 30 seconds and was super easy, and sort of funny watching others frig around for half an hour trying to get all their gear in a compression sack and then frig around again trying to get the compression sack in the ruck.
> 
> The compression straps built into the sides of the ruck do a good enough job squishing everything down, and they'll actually squish the bag down closer to your center of gravity.  I don't know who decided that a medicine ball is an efficient shape to carry on your back, because thats all the compression sack ends up being.



Good idea! Now there's thinking outside the box (albeit how simple it is).  I'll try it next time!

Cheers


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I will admit that the waist belt needs some serious work.  I have permanent scars on my hips from it.  During the Ironman I actually rubbed the skin to the bone.


Not exactly a glowing review from a proponent on the new ruck.    Especially with it causing such serious damage after only be done up for a little over 8 kilometers.  I mean, the waist belt is a very important, infact neccessary as we're told, component is it not?



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> And RSM's are starting to enforce that it be worn solely.


Well thankfully, we aren't there... yet.  Until that point I'll stick to my '64 (or a version thereof, some sexy looking ones around now).  Wonderbread's mod sounds interesting and I'm gonna have to swing by and check it out if I can manage the spare time in the next 2 months.  Also, after having been told there are no exchanges or spare parts available for the new ruck, it might find itself NS if it comes down to it.  I don't mean to sound extreme, but I haven't got it to work for me and will stick to what works if possible.



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> The compression sack is waterproof.  I did test it in my bathtub (hey, it does the job!) and it works excellent, providing you roll the tabs properly.  Add to that the extra protection afforded by the compartment in the ruck and you have a good waterproof seal.


It's a thin skin, compressible dry bag, yes.  Pretty decent indeed but I have yet encounted a dry bag of that style that can hold back water when submerged for any real length of time.  I've learnt the hard way so I get a little defensive when I hear somethign termed "waterproof".  

Also, as to what the others said about packing you're sleeping kit in the bivy.  I always thought this was the ideal method, but successive kit lists and packing instructions, along with the odd instructor, begged to differ.  Meh.



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> But as I mentioned, I pack my bag in the bivy and all fits well in the compression sack.  Initially I was concerned about the strength of the compression straps and buckles, but I've used and abused them and they have held up without incident.


I've seen more then a few buckles fail on the new ruck.  Granted, it's usually from troops being a little heavy handed but it would be nice to see a product that could take a such abuse, no?



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> It is also a complete balls ache to try and stuff your sleeping system back in and do up the straps when all hell is breaking loose and you're wondering why you didn't try harder at school.
> 
> That's why you use your small pack on those occasions.
> My new ruck is what I lived out of by necessity, and I was glad to have it.
> The 82 pattern just didn't do it before.


Living out of it is one thing.... fighting out of it is another.

But hey, for those guys that are more or less happy with it, I'm happy for you.  I'm glad it works for you.  I wish I felt the same.  I tried, maybe not tirelessly yet, to get it to work for me but it hasn't yet.


----------



## Quag (16 Apr 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Not exactly a glowing review from a proponent on the new ruck.    Especially with it causing such serious damage after only be done up for a little over 8 kilometers.  I mean, the waist belt is a very important, infact neccessary as we're told, component is it not?
> Well thankfully, we aren't there... yet.  Until that point I'll stick to my '64 (or a version thereof, some sexy looking ones around now).  Wonderbread's mod sounds interesting and I'm gonna have to swing by and check it out if I can manage the spare time in the next 2 months.  Also, after having been told there are no exchanges or spare parts available for the new ruck, it might find itself NS if it comes down to it.  I don't mean to sound extreme, but I haven't got it to work for me and will stick to what works if possible.
> It's a thin skin, compressible dry bag, yes.  Pretty decent indeed but I have yet encounted a dry bag of that style that can hold back water when submerged for any real length of time.  I've learnt the hard way so I get a little defensive when I hear somethign termed "waterproof".
> 
> ...



Well put.  Only thing is the Ironman is a couple more kilometres than eight.  You are right the waist belt is hands down a crucial element of the new ruck.  You bring up a good point about the lack of spare parts for the ruck.  Any Sup tech's want to comment? Vern?  

Water resistant is a better term I suppose.  One thing we learn in the military is nothing is ever actually "water proof".  But I did submerge it for a good 3 minutes or so, which is not bad.  How about, highly water resistant 

I would not consider myself a hands down proponent.  More neutral but skewed towards the positive side.  I believe there is potential in the ruck, but needs some serious evaluation.  And what better way than the end 
user, right?

Perhaps recceguy is right and we are over analyzing a high tech backpack...haha


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Apr 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> Well put.  Only thing is the Ironman is a couple more kilometres than eight.  You are right the waist belt is hands down a crucial element of the new ruck.


Sorry, you said you had the waistbelt undone for 80% of the Ironman so I assumed any injuries were incurred during this time.  And if it works "perfectly well" without the waistbelt, is it all that crucial?  I don't know.... just what I've been told by those that issued it to me but that expereince left me with more questions then answers.

For the record, my '64 seemed better suited with PPE on and I never had the chance to perfect it as a "PT" ruck for the Ironman and it chewed up my back a fair bit until I undid the waistbelt about half way through.


----------



## Jammer (16 Apr 2009)

Lets be real here.
I have yet to have to rely on my ruck to fight out of. It was a means of carrying my worldly possesions around ZP.
The SPS was what I used to "fight" out of.
For the canoeheads in the crowd. Foreven guys have modified thier kit to make the ordeal more bearable. The new ruck will likely not be immune to individual mods either.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Quag (16 Apr 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Sorry, you said you had the waistbelt undone for 80% of the Ironman so I assumed any injuries were incurred during this time.  And if it works "perfectly well" without the waistbelt, is it all that crucial?  I don't know.... just what I've been told by those that issued it to me but that expereince left me with more questions then answers.
> 
> For the record, my '64 seemed better suited with PPE on and I never had the chance to perfect it as a "PT" ruck for the Ironman and it chewed up my back a fair bit until I undid the waistbelt about half way through.



I should have expanded.  Even with the waist belt off, it still pinches at the side of your hips due to its rigid design.  Hard to describe, but you know what I mean if you have it.

I guess thats the double edged sword.  It does work perfectly well without the waist belt, but as the design is intended, it is the crucial element.  This is because when the waist belt is on and you cinch those pull cords (not sure the exact technical term but you know what i mean) a hefty percentage of the weight is shifted onto your hips, thus making it more effective.

Modified to Add:

As per your fighting out of your rucksack.  I stand to be corrected (armour here, but have served in a reg force infantry regiment), but especially in contemporary warfare, you should rarely find yourself fighting out of your rucksack.  Rucksacks are intended as portable barrack boxes if you will, to get mission and personal kit from one area to another.  Fighting patrols, advances and anything else should be done with the small pack or without anything; ie leaving your kit at the echelon or at your LAV (for the mech inf).  Am I out in left field here?


----------



## Jammer (16 Apr 2009)

Quag,
Not out in left field at all.
While deployed with TF Orion, My crew lashed our barrack boxs to the top of our Bison to make up for the lack of space in the 82 pattern.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Apr 2009)

> Rucksacks are intended as portable barrack boxes if you will, to get mission and personal kit from one area to another.



If that were the case, then I wouldn't want a ruck for that job anyways. 

Honestly. When do you expect to carry a rucksack overseas in a non-tactical situation? A rucksack is intended for the_ tactical dismounted_ movement of your gear for extended periods of time. If I'm doing an _administrative move_, then I'd might as well have a big kitbag that I can just _throw on the back of a truck_.

The solution to the shitty ruck problem is not to change the role of the rucksack.  It is to find a rucksack that fills the required role.  The mission drives the gear train, _not_ the other way around.

Jammer,

I get the impression that in your situation a kitbag would have been better than or at least just as good as a rucksack. no?


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Apr 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You had a box?  Lucky sod.  We used to get by in an old empty pilchards tin!  Tell kids that today and they won't believe you.



(Homer's voice): "mmmmmmm.... tinned pilchards in tomato sauce"


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (16 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> ... or maybe a suitcase with an extendable handle and wheels.



That's the new Pelican MOB barrack box replacement, isn't it...?


----------



## PhilB (17 Apr 2009)

People need to realize that we do not always have a vehicle. We ran into this on 1-08, everyone is wedded to the concept of operating out of a LAV with an echelon, this is not always possible, there is still a need to operate in a purely light capacity. 

I agree the ruck may be a great replacement for a kit bag, and is a step up over the 82 pattern ruck. That being said it blows for humping in a combat environment. Again, it works great for PT ironman bft or otherwise, it is quite comfortable without armour, but overseas, humping a full combat load, actually carrying a ruck in a tactical environment, the CTS ruck is garbage.


----------



## Jammer (17 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread:
Thanks for your assessment of my situation, but I am quite adept at deciding what bit of kit is best suited for my particular role.


----------



## Quag (17 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> If that were the case, then I wouldn't want a ruck for that job anyways.
> 
> Honestly. When do you expect to carry a rucksack overseas in a non-tactical situation? A rucksack is intended for the_ tactical dismounted_ movement of your gear for extended periods of time. If I'm doing an _administrative move_, then I'd might as well have a big kitbag that I can just _throw on the back of a truck_.
> 
> ...



Thats's exactly what I'm saying.  A ruck is simply a barrack box for the  (tactical) movement of mission specific and personal kit on an operation.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Apr 2009)

> A ruck is simply a barrack box for the  (tactical) movement of mission specific and personal kit on an operation.



My point is that you can't say that a rucksack is for "tactical movement" unless you're prepared to fight out of it.

Jammer's statement that he "tries and do the fighting out of his smallpack" is a moot point. The fact remains that a rucksack is not very usefull unless you can fight out that too.



> Wonderbread:
> Thanks for your assessment of my situation, but I am quite adept at deciding what bit of kit is best suited for my particular role.



Hey man, I'm trying not to be a dick here, but you're dodging my question.  If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the rucksack is good because you can pack alot of stuff in it and you don't need to fight out if it.  In my mind, it sounds like a kitbag would be just as good.

In my opinion,  a rucksack needs to be able to carry alot of stuff _and_ be practical in a tactical environment.  If you can't fight out of it, then it's a shitty rucksack. Full stop.


----------



## Jammer (17 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread,
I WAS in a tactical  situation. Therefore the ruck WAS the ideal item of kit for that purpose. 
No one toted a kit bag around in ZP.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Apr 2009)

> Wonderbread,
> I WAS in a tactical  situation. Therefore the ruck WAS the ideal item of kit for that purpose.
> No one toted a kit bag around in ZP.



That doesn't make any sense at all.  Using a rucksack as a kitbag in a tactical environment doesn't make it a good rucksack. It just means that it's an overly elaborate kitbag.

Can you honestly tell me that a kitbag would not have been sufficient?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> That doesn't make any sense at all.  Using a rucksack as a kitbag in a tactical environment doesn't make it a good rucksack. It just means that it's an overly elaborate kitbag.
> 
> Can you honestly tell me that a kitbag would not have been sufficient?



I think you misread his post.


----------



## KevinB (17 Apr 2009)

I'm wondering what planet some here reside on.

  For Me, the sky is blue (mostly)  

The ruck is NOT a barracks box, or a oversized lunch container that meanders to and fro.

  The rucksack is for sustained dismounted operations to carry necessary kit, ammunition, water and food, in a tactical environment.  It is ideally not brought right into direct combat, but unfortunately one does not always pick the time and place while on a walk about.

 In this day and age of helo support the need for a monsterous ruck, outside of SR missions should be a little limited, and missions are of a more reasonable time frame where a huge fuckmeoff ruck is not needed.  However even for a short 3 day urban sniper op, for a 4 man det, getting dropped off near the house your occupying, water for 120+/40+ degree heat, food, comms gear, imagery equipment (ties to comms), weapons, NODS, monfrotto tripod with grip ball head and centermass rifle cradle...  well thats four rucks right there, and if your lucky you only had to walk a few hundred meters, but you cannot do that with a smaller pack, or a barracks box (well I guess you could...  : ).


For practical use of the ruck for others who may not know -- look at 3VP in 2002 walking in the mountains.
  Can this ruck do that?


----------



## Jammer (17 Apr 2009)

...and then some.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Apr 2009)

> ...and then some.



Are you sure? Because yesterday you said:



> I have yet to have to rely on my ruck to fight out of. It was a means of carrying my worldly possesions around ZP.
> The SPS was what I used to "fight" out of.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2009)

Jammer,

Thanks for countering the (apparently) prevailing wisdom that the new ruck is no good on ops. 

Can you elaborate on why it worked well for you vs. the 64 patt etc?


----------



## KevinB (17 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Thanks for countering the (apparently) prevailing wisdom that the new ruck is no good on ops.



Given Wonderbread's points above I am not sure he did that...


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Given Wonderbread's points above I am not sure he did that...



The guy needs to be given the benefit of a doubt!


----------



## Jammer (21 Apr 2009)

I found the new ruck a lot easier to manage insofar the you have the ability to minimize the amount of loose items that tended to hang on the outside.
I did have to carry it distances on occasion and my back and shoulders appreciated the fact that it rides considerably higher providing it has been fitted correctly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I found the new ruck a lot easier to manage insofar the you have the ability to minimize the amount of loose items that tended to hang on the outside.
> I did have to carry it distances on occasion and my back and shoulders appreciated the fact that it rides considerably higher providing it has been fitted correctly.



So there you have it. A guy who's 'been there, done that' with the new ruck on saying it's OK. That's good enough for couch-borne old me.


----------



## Fusaki (22 Apr 2009)

But wait! What about PhilB?

His assessment of the new ruck while using it overseas also falls in line with my own experience with the ruck while using it on ex in Canada.



			
				PhilB said:
			
		

> I have been on HLTA and as such havent had much access to the internet, but my thoughts on the CTS Ruck;
> 
> Initially I was very happy with the ruck. In Canada using on PT, both with armour and rigs, and without it performed quite well. Was comfortable, the hip belt/rods transfered weight effectively and as advertised, and the capacity is HUGE! All in all I was impressed, as I posted earlier.
> 
> Fast forward to now. We ended up having to ruck into a few locations in our AO, walking around 9km (15 in the case of a few unlucky souls!) or so each time with full battle rattle and rucks. In short, my opinion of the CTS Ruck has done a complete 180. Guys, incl myself, have broken the transfer rods, the stitching at the top of the ruck holding in the aluminum bars has broken, pockets sag and almost fall off when loaded with kit, load lifting straps have broken, and carry handles have ripped off. That is just mentioning the quality issues. The ruck does not fit well at all with full fighting kit and plates over long, hot, stressful distances. Half the guys couldnt even do up their waist belts (the ruck is very unstable IMHO without the waist belt done up), the other half could do up the belts but they wouldnt ride correctly on the hips because of armour and plates, resulting in the belt sitting on the hip "pocket/flexor region". This caused bruising, blistering, and general discomfort. I have ditched mine and gone back to my 64 as has almost all of the guys in my pl.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2009)

From PhilB's assessment, seems like we've been bit in the ass by the lowest bidder again. Cheaper = less tensile strength in the materials, and we get failures like what was outlined on a presumably normal "army" task of carrying a full ruck at distance over rolling terrain. Its a common trait, not just in CTS to test things for use in Ottawa and not think of the real world. I can think of an equipment air conditioning system that was certified as "more than enough" cooling power when tested in a climate controlled vehicle bay in Ottawa, but the unit overheats and shuts down in AStan.


----------



## Jammer (22 Apr 2009)

To play devils advocate, the new ruck has gone through several mods since being introduced.
The stitching has been reinforced as well as more durable stays.
Mine has held up quite well after being bashed around in helos, vehs, and overall abuse being carried and carted around.
Maybe mine was made on Tuesday... ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2009)

Is this half full or half empty?

Engineers: No, there is not twice as much glass as is really needed. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is this half full or half empty?
> 
> Engineers: No, there is not twice as much glass as is really needed. ;D



Looks like a time to "downsize".


----------



## Lerch (24 Apr 2009)

We did a mass issue at Gagetown today, had guys from 4AD and the RCA school through swapping our old rucks for the new ones.
Delivery was fast and efficient. I walked up to the first desk, signed a paper, signed a sheet for my back-bar, and handed off my old ruck. Got my back sized and shape drawn out, and then grabbed the odds and sodds for the rucksack. All in all, maybe 10 minutes. The class itself was nary an hour long and we went bit by bit through the rucksack, putting the pieces together, bending the frame to our backs and donning and doffing tips.
My initial impression is that it is a well built and thought out rucksack, but perhaps a bit over complicated. Up till now I'd been using my issued 82 or my personal 64 packs for ruckmarches and the field and both didn't take much time to toss on and run off with. This one has about 3x the straps to tug on...oh well. It's still a nice change from the 82 pattern.
I've yet to do a march with it, but that'll probably be this weekend.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Apr 2009)

Well I have a good thing to say about the new ruck, its great for packing all the things you need for up to 2 weeks in a fob before your kit arrives  :


----------



## armyvern (29 Apr 2009)

Lerch said:
			
		

> We did a mass issue at Gagetown today, had guys from 4AD and the RCA school through swapping our old rucks for the new ones.
> Delivery was fast and efficient. I walked up to the first desk, signed a paper, signed a sheet for my back-bar, and handed off my old ruck. Got my back sized and shape drawn out, and then grabbed the odds and sodds for the rucksack. All in all, maybe 10 minutes. The class itself was nary an hour long and we went bit by bit through the rucksack, putting the pieces together, bending the frame to our backs and donning and doffing tips.



Damn - we're good.

LMAO.


----------



## Craig B (4 May 2009)

Well, I'll throw my $0.02 worth in here.

I did my 13 km yesterday and I much prefer the new ruck over the 82 pattern. No sore shoulders, just sore feet  ;D


----------



## NL_engineer (6 May 2009)

It can also easily hold 200 lbs of kit  :  I had fun humping my 125 lbs ruck  : (read my last post on why it was so heavy) on the chopper a week and a bit ago.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 May 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> It can also easily hold 200 lbs of kit  :  I had fun humping my 125 lbs ruck  : (read my last post on why it was so heavy) on the chopper a week and a bit ago.



OK, I have to ask... have you got a list of the things you crammed in there to keep you going for 2 weeks before your kit arrived? Maybe there's a Guiness world record out there for you! :nod:


----------



## NL_engineer (7 May 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> OK, I have to ask... have you got a list of the things you crammed in there to keep you going for 2 weeks before your kit arrived? Maybe there's a Guiness world record out there for you! :nod:



well basically all issued kit, plus a laptop in a pelican case.


----------



## Pointer (16 Jun 2009)

The ruck was used widely for an airmobile op on EX MG a week or two ago.  Consensus: ineffective, even when factoring the asinine WES boxes on the back of the  vest. 

On a side note, we seriously need to cut down the weight being carried somehow. My personal vote: a lighter radio than the 522.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2009)

Pointer said:
			
		

> The ruck was used widely for an airmobile op on EX MG a week or two ago.  Consensus: ineffective, even when factoring the asinine WES boxes on the back of the  vest.
> 
> On a side note, we seriously need to cut down the weight being carried somehow. My personal vote: a lighter radio than the 522.



Amen to that. It could be argued that the size of a soldier's rucksack is inversely proportional to the effectivenss of their senior leadership: 

"To reduce the load on a soldier's back, leaders must use their available
transportation effectively and must develop a unit's ability to carry what
it must through load planning and training.

Although load planning is a critical task for all leaders, senior
commanders should limit their guidance and allow the sub-unit commander
who must carry out a mission to decide what his soldiers will carry for
each operation.  Load planning consists of tailoring the load to the
mission and then dividing it into echelons (combat load, sustainment load,
and contingency load), calculating its weight, and arranging for its
transport."

http://www.geocities.com/tominelpaso/soldier.txt


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

There are far too many "Chairborne" weenies who decide what troops should carry, and never have to carry it themselves. How many times have we torn apart kit during post ex drills to find we didn't use items we were told you "must have at all times"?
One of my wounded soldiers blames the excessive weight for his being wounded. And I can see his reasoning.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jun 2009)

Pointer said:
			
		

> On a side note, we seriously need to cut down the weight being carried somehow. My personal vote: a lighter radio than the 522.



AN/PRC 117F is said to weight 13.8 lbs without batteries, 16.7 lbs. with batteries. while the AN/PRC 522 Manpack is around 31lbs with 2 spare batteries and its ancillary kit. Friend of mine carried strictly the 117F overseas, said it was the best kit around, but unfortunately there's a shortage of them in the CF for training.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> AN/PRC 117F is said to weight 13.8 lbs without batteries, 16.7 lbs. with batteries. while the AN/PRC 522 Manpack is around 31lbs with 2 spare batteries and its ancillary kit. Friend of mine carried strictly the 117F overseas, said it was the best kit around, but unfortunately there's a shortage of them in the CF for training.



It's nice to see we've made such huge improvements in this area over the years  :

AN/PRC 77 set: 13.75 lb (6.2 kg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PRC-77


----------



## Jammer (16 Jun 2009)

Try humping it for 3 days in Panjwai...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jun 2009)

Mbitr.. weighs a lot less.. Don't we use them? Specs?


----------



## Jammer (16 Jun 2009)

Multi-Band Inter-Team Radio

Used...Yes...
Specs...None ya

Short range comms...not the same capabilties as the 117F


----------



## Fusaki (16 Jun 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> AN/PRC 117F is said to weight 13.8 lbs without batteries, 16.7 lbs. with batteries. while the AN/PRC 522 Manpack is around 31lbs with 2 spare batteries and its ancillary kit. Friend of mine carried strictly the 117F overseas, said it was the best kit around, but unfortunately there's a shortage of them in the CF for training.



Uhhh.. A 117 weighs about the same as a 522.  I don't know the exact numbers, but there is definatly not a noticable difference between the two when each is set up as a manpack with all the EIS.



> Insert Quote
> Mbitr.. weighs a lot less.. Don't we use them? Specs?



Yes, we do use them.  And IMHO an MBITR is a better comparison to the 522 then a 117 is.  Compared to a 522 it has slightly more power, but considerably less weight.  While it is capable of a much greater frequency range, it's my understanding that we use it mostly on our tactical (ie VHF low) nets.  A 117 on ther other hand is far more then a more user-friendly 522.  With over twice as much power, UHF, DAMA SATCOM, and all sorts of other awsome acronyms it is a 522 radio multiplied by the power of 10.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Jun 2009)

MBITR Data sheet

https://secure.thalescomminc.com/datasheets/MBITR.pdf


----------



## Run away gun (16 Jun 2009)

http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/an-prc-152.pdf


----------



## MikeL (16 Jun 2009)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/an-prc-152.pdf



Thats not an MBITR, the AN/PRC 148 is.

AFAIK the 152 is not in use with the CF.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Jun 2009)

Apples to apples, that's why I thought i would throw the MBITR into the fray.

The 117 can be used as a 522, but it is so much more.  For "basic" ops, I can see the advantage of carrying an MBITR over a 522 anyday!!


----------



## NL_engineer (17 Jun 2009)

Pointer said:
			
		

> The ruck was used widely for an airmobile op on EX MG a week or two ago.  Consensus: ineffective, even when factoring the asinine WES boxes on the back of the  vest.
> 
> On a side note, we seriously need to cut down the weight being carried somehow. My personal vote: a lighter radio than the 522.



Well a 20 lbs ruck dosen't help.  As for the 522; we were told the other day, that the 522 can only be carried in its manpack, not the small pack/ruck/other bag, due to it overheating  :.


----------



## Jammer (17 Jun 2009)

I never had a prob with it "overheating" in my SPS in 55 degree temps.
Who said that????


----------



## Fusaki (17 Jun 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well a 20 lbs ruck dosen't help.  As for the 522; we were told the other day, that the 522 can only be carried in its manpack, not the small pack/ruck/other bag, due to it overheating  :.



Having spent the past 6 years carrying and operating radios (both in Canada and overseas) from the section level, to platoon sig, to OC's sig, and currently Coy Sigs Rep I can say without a doubt that the above direction is absolutly retarded.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Jun 2009)

Told the other day by who?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Jun 2009)

Must be a 4 ESR thing (or 5 RGC)


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jun 2009)

The carrier for the 522 that is issued is absolute garbage.... a garbage bag with straps would probably be more comfortable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jun 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The carrier for the 522 that is issued is absolute garbage.... a garbage bag with straps would probably be more comfortable.



The best carrier for a radio that size is an armoured personnel one....


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jul 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Told the other day by who?



It was passed down in O-group.  I think it came from the same LCIS Techs in KAF that keep telling us not to sweat in our vehicle headsets  :

We don't carry 522's so we didn't question it.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Jul 2009)

So this is a new phenomenon?  All the other tours before that one had no issues?  Wow.  I guess someone needs to take him on a patrol outside the wire, with the manpack in it's harness with his patrol pack over it (disregard the fact the patrol pack has a designated radion pouch in it!).  Then we'll see if he changes his mind.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jul 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> So this is a new phenomenon?  All the other tours before that one had no issues?  Wow.  I guess someone needs to take him on a patrol outside the wire, with the manpack in it's harness with his patrol pack over it (disregard the fact the patrol pack has a designated radion pouch in it!).  Then we'll see if he changes his mind.



it looks good on paper, and that's all most KAFer's see.

We are still trying to get him/her to roll with us for a few days, to teach us how not to sweat in the headsets.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jul 2009)

Some people need a good swift kick in the (fill in the blank).

SOME people need to go outside the wire once in a while, especially those who issue stupid imperatives like "don't sweat in your headsets".

Just my opinion, and I know it's not politically correct...and I don't care.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, and I know it's not politically correct...and I don't care.



Ahhh, but it _is_ common sense --- and _that_ is the difference!!


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jul 2009)

Thank you Veronica. Common sense is NOT an issue item is it?


----------



## c4th (2 Jul 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> ... the above direction is absolutly retarded.



Agreed 100%.  Though as a solution I would be in favor of being issued a cooler war, preferably in a beer producing country.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Thank you Veronica. Common sense is NOT an issue item is it?



Some asshole supply tech gave it a stock number years ago and threw it on a shelf ... I haven't been able to re-locate it to date, despite a 20 year search, so that I can begin issuing it out again. Typical.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jul 2009)

;D
Veronica darn that's too funny!! Thanks!


----------



## armyvern (2 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> ;D
> Veronica darn that's too funny!! Thanks!



I aim to please; 'customer service' (the "PC" name for it!!) is my job - despite me being the direct cause of all that is evil.  ;D


----------



## c4th (2 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... issuing it out again. Typical.



Well, there may only be one, so if it were issued there would not be any left.  Have you checked next to the box of contour lines?


----------



## armyvern (2 Jul 2009)

Trust No One said:
			
		

> Well, there may only be one, so if it were issued there would not be any left.  Have you checked next to the box of contour lines?



Nope, sorry. Even were I to locate it, it's current item status code reads: "Common sense: Restricted to Army.ca use only". And we already have our full entitlment around here; ergo - if it were the last one - it isn't going anywhere but 'me'.


----------



## c4th (2 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ..


b
caution, virtual common sense may not be compatible with the real world.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Jul 2009)

But wait a minute.. hasn't it been issued to all who enter NDHQ??

oh, wait....


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (2 Jul 2009)

That was the Mk I version. I think Mk V is out there on some shelf...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (2 Jul 2009)

No, I think that it's more that upon closer examination, most in those positions are issued a 'Group, Housing, Brain', but not the 'Assembly, Brain' itself.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jul 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> No, I think that it's more that upon closer examination, most in those positions are issued a 'Group, Housing, Brain', but not the 'Assembly, Brain' itself.


Another one....too darn funny Matt!! You guys make me laugh!!  :rofl:


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jul 2009)

I note that the stock item, "Assembly, Brain" does not include "for the use of."


----------



## armyvern (3 Jul 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I note that the stock item, "Assembly, Brain" does not include "for the use of."



Thats only because I lost the checklist ...


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thats only because I lost the checklist ...



Does that mean we can blame you for all the dumb decisions made in the CF?


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2009)

Man you really notice that extra 15+lbs the ruck sack weights empty when you deploy to the field for a week or two in the light infantry role.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jul 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Does that mean we can blame you for all the dumb decisions made in the CF?



Sure; I've got big shoulders.  :camo:


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jul 2009)

Your shoulders aren't big enough to lug around all the bad decisions even after sitting through the CTS How to Put on a Rucksack Good lecture 10 or 12 times.


----------



## NL_engineer (4 Jul 2009)

You mean the one that says: "The new ruck is the best piece of kit ever issued  :. 

Mine is doing quite well collecting dust (and quite a bit I mite add) under my bed  ;D.  The only good part of that system is the compression bag (it happens to be the only issued thing, except PPE/combats,and C7A2/EIS I really use alot), and the 2 extra pouches.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jul 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Your shoulders aren't big enough to lug around all the bad decisions even after sitting through the CTS How to Put on a Rucksack Good lecture 10 or 12 times.



They sure are my friend. I'm experienced!! I've attended their working groups!! CTS working groups; Army Clothing working groups; by far - the worst of them all have been ADM/MAT WGs [well, DMMD WGs were always fun too] ... (sometimes, I've wanted to remuster to postal after those ones!!  >)

I love "projects" ... some of them have far outlasted their expiry dates ... and the fact that they just get continued and continued again only screws us up down here at the bottom level so that *we are prevented * from supporting you troops (yep, prevented): witness the fact that my Clothing Stores can not even have a sizing jig to size you for that rucksack as CTS continues (WHY!!?? NDHQ "Job-protection" ??) to control it at their level.

So, you're posted in here this summer and entitled to and require a new CTS ruck? "Sorry, we can't help you out; you'll have to wait until the CTS cell makes its next visit here (estimated to be Spring 2010 -at the earliest  :) with the sizing jig and the powerpoint because I'm too incompetant to press "play" ..."


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2009)

I thought you were posted?


----------



## armyvern (4 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I thought you were posted?



20 July ... WhoooHooo!! (If we can count SLT as an actual "posting" - but they are giving me shacks (P198 - _whew_) in Borden for 30 days until I can find a place to live for myself .... [no entitlement to an HHT when you are 'posted' to a french course]; you've just got to love those courses "less than a year long" - especially when being sent 1/2 way accross the country to do them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They sure are my friend. I'm experienced!! I've attended their working groups!! CTS working groups; Army Clothing working groups; by far - the worst of them all have been ADM/MAT WGs [well, DMMD WGs were always fun too] ... (sometimes, I've wanted to remuster to postal after those ones!!  >)
> 
> I love "projects" ... some of them have far outlasted their expiry dates ... and the fact that they just get continued and continued again only screws us up down here at the bottom level so that *we are prevented * from supporting you troops (yep, prevented): witness the fact that my Clothing Stores can not even have a sizing jig to size you for that rucksack as CTS continues (WHY!!?? NDHQ "Job-protection" ??) to control it at their level.
> 
> So, you're posted in here this summer and entitled to and require a new CTS ruck? "Sorry, we can't help you out; you'll have to wait until the CTS cell makes its next visit here (estimated to be Spring 2010 -at the earliest  :) with the sizing jig and the powerpoint because I'm too incompetant to press "play" ..."



Tell me about it, that's why I still don't have mine.
 >


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 20 July ... WhoooHooo!!



I am sure you can master PowerPoint by then.     >

I wonder how much TD the CTS Travelling Road Show collects in a year?  Sounds like a great Scam Swan to get onto.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jul 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Tell me about it, that's why I still don't have mine.
> >



I'm sure that your name is on the "confirmed" list as having attended the sizing/trg in Nfld. Your issue is that you are never where your damn ruck compontents are!! PM inbound with the new Sgt's name for CSG here ... she can issue to you because you actually attended the trg.

I would love to collect your frequent flier miles.  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jul 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Man you really notice that extra 15+lbs the ruck sack weights empty when you deploy to the field for a week or two in the light infantry role.



Excellent.. another tool the infantry can use for CQB: an empty CTS ruck. Why not? It's heavier than the C7.


----------



## Jammer (4 Jul 2009)

...you can please some of the people some of the time.....
SPS for short time...rucksack for long time...


----------



## NL_engineer (5 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I would love to collect your frequent flier miles.  ;D



He usialy drives, so no frequent flier miles for him  ;D



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> ...you can please some of the people some of the time.....
> SPS for short time...rucksack for long time...



you mean the bag that dioes a half-a## job as a travel bag between FOBs? And when packed for a mission dosen't interface well with the FPV and issued/non issued load bearing equipment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2009)

It's all really moot to me (until I'm told otherwise :) I don't want the new one. I have a CADPAT 64 setup with a huge valise (three external pockets) and a huge main pack (with five external pockets).

I also have a truck, complete with driver.

I say, give them only to those that actually are required to carry their house on their back, like a turtle.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I also have a truck, complete with driver.



Ah, the good ol' trucksack. Always works like a charm, even when its broken your back is never sore.  ;D


----------



## Jammer (5 Jul 2009)

NL Engineer,
What ever works for you mate.
Mine worked well for me tramping around the AOR.
My experienced opinion.


----------



## c4th (7 Jul 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> The only good part of that system is the compression bag (it happens to be the only issued thing, .



Good for what?  Put inner/outer/hood/liner in it and have fun keeping it closed (it will, just) or getting it in or out of the bag.  Outdoor Research makes several waterproof compression bags of better design that would have undoubtedly cost less even at full overpriced retail.


----------



## Franko (7 Jul 2009)

Trust No One said:
			
		

> Good for what?  Put inner/outer/hood/liner in it and have fun keeping it closed (it will, just) or getting it in or out of the bag.  Outdoor Research makes several waterproof compression bags of better design that would have undoubtedly cost less even at full overpriced retail.



I used it for 7 months on my tank in Asscrackistan and it was quite overstuffed and exposed to the elements on a very regular basis.

Never had a problem. Nor did anyone in my crew.

Come to think of it...never heard one complaint about them in the whole squadron.

Regards


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 Jul 2009)

Yeah but we are armour crewmen.. you NEVER hear us complain...


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jul 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Yeah but we are armour crewmen.. you NEVER hear us complain...



... only because the engines drown you out...


----------



## c4th (8 Jul 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I used it for 7 months on my tank ...



Agreed, as a stuff sack on the side of a vehicle it is good enough and you might as well use free kit if there is any chance of it getting blown up.  However, I doubt that was the intent of the design.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Jul 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I used it for 7 months on my tank in Asscrackistan and it was quite overstuffed and exposed to the elements on a very regular basis.
> 
> Never had a problem. Nor did anyone in my crew.
> 
> ...



Thats were mine is, and I haven't had any dust, or sand get in there yet.  I started using my small pack in that roll, but it would fill up with dust  :

Jammer, you don't find the sholder straps too small.  I have to have the straps maxed out to wear it, and it just keeps slipping off.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... only because the engines drown you out...



Quite true.....those darn things are loud!!

Is there anything good about this new ruck at all?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2009)

It's CADPAT.    >


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's CADPAT.    >



OK..... ;D


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> ...
> Is there anything good about this new ruck at all?



Well, besides what George said, the fact that I'm not entitled to one (so can stick with my old one) is very good!  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2009)

As a rucksack for employment on ruck marches (in Canada, in garrison), the Rucksack is very well designed.  It holds tons, the weight distribution is good, etc.  Now, thrown on a frag vest with plates, and you cannot wear it effectively.  So, as a rucksack for military employment (eg: to wear it), thumbs down from me.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, besides what George said, the fact that I'm not entitled to one (so can stick with my old one) is very good!  ;D



Hey Vern, you can have mine, I'll swap with you (I'll try to beat most of the dust out of it).

OldSoldier, it does a good job of collecting dust  ;D so it does something well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2009)

Has anyone parachuted with it yet? I've jumped a few times in the past with a trials pack about as large, and it nearly killed me. I guess I should have read the instructions first....


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> As a rucksack for employment on ruck marches (in Canada, in garrison), the Rucksack is very well designed.  It holds tons, the weight distribution is good, etc.  Now, thrown on a frag vest with plates, and you cannot wear it effectively.  So, as a rucksack for military employment (eg: to wear it), thumbs down from me.



Gee, what we really need is a single project to co-ordinate all these things so the rucksack will be compatible with the PPE soldiers are expected to wear.

Oh.  Wait a minute...


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gee, what we really need is a single project to co-ordinate all these things so the rucksack will be compatible with the PPE soldiers are expected to wear.
> 
> Oh.  Wait a minute...



THAT would require effort, coordination and consultation. And we all know that is next to impossible. :blotto: ;D


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2009)

Just bought my Kifaru today.... 8)


----------



## medaid (14 Jul 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just bought my Kifaru today.... 8)



Hey when did Kifaru become issu.... oh wait... HEY!


----------



## Fusaki (14 Jul 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just bought my Kifaru today.... 8)



What model?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2009)

More and more I'm having a hard time justifying carrying a 20 pound (empty) ruck,

Looking at a Kifaruor Lowe Alpine.  Not really a kit guy.  Can someone tell me the equivalent Kifaru or lowe alpine rucksack?(compared to the isued new CF ruck?)


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> What model?



Pointman with a Scout to take on the back.  The Pointman is my "3rd Line" that sustains me, whether from the LAV or on the back.  The Scout is "2nd Line" and is on my back allowing me to augment my "1st Line" loadout in my rig.

Very Happy with Kifaru's products.  Pricey, but the colour is brown so I'll get civilian use out of it, it's bulletproof and comfy as hell.


----------



## medaid (20 Aug 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> it's bulletproof



Don't believe that!  ;D



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> comfy as hell.



That one's true.


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2009)

Should have bought my EMR....


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2009)

Too big; won't fit in my LAV.... 8)


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Aug 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Too big; won't fit in my LAV.... 8)


That's ok.  If you have a LAV, you won't need the new ruck.  If you don't have a LAV, then the ruck can't be worn with PPE, so you need your LAV.  
Lesson?  Bring your LAV.   8)


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2009)

Could someone please tell me what the size/s of our new ruck sack is capacity wise?
Like 70 liters or 90L or?


----------



## brihard (22 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Could someone please tell me what the size/s of our new ruck sack is capacity wise?
> Like 70 liters or 90L or?



CTS in the past has quoted 80L. Sorry, can't find a link to that. I can state from experience that with the front flap open and the legs hanging out, it will hold one private.  ;D Only time I've seen an air sentry employed in the marching order role.


----------



## DirtyDog (22 Dec 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I can state from experience that with the front flap open and the legs hanging out, it will hold one private.  ;D Only time I've seen an air sentry employed in the marching order role.


I believe Wonderbread can attest they come in Coporal size as well....


----------



## DirtyDog (22 Dec 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Should have bought my EMR....


Still for sale?


----------



## c4th (28 Dec 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Has anyone parachuted with it yet? I've jumped a few times in the past with a trials pack about as large, and it nearly killed me. I guess I should have read the instructions first....



3VP jumped it in May 09 with extended PELS.  It can be done but if you are under about 6' the main bag will probably be dragging on the deck as you exit the aircraft.  The next Equipment jump after that the new rucks were prohibited.


----------



## KevinB (28 Dec 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Still for sale?



Actually it is.  However its now in Fl...


----------



## iciphil (17 May 2010)

I still have scars from my last 13klicks...it was on march 27th, we are now the 17th of may ! That belt sucks. It's hard to get it tight under full FFO and when it IS tight, it will saw through your skin.

My best and only mod I did was to add a strap with fastex buckles that goes from the upper-back area that goes and clips to the front of the bag, thus keeping the outside of the bag from sagging out and not having to rely-fumble with the side straps.

If you have no clue about what I did I may add pictures on request.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 May 2010)

phil, please do.

I tried it on our warm up a week or so ago.. returned home and packed my small pack, which we have permission to use.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 May 2010)

Bzz, that's exactly what CFJSR is doing for their BFT, using the small pack with vest.  Lots of weight in the vest, minimal in the small pack.  From what I understand, the new ruck was never really meant for humping around when full.  I saw my WO's ruck last year and I just about shit.  He's a tall man and I could probably fit in his ruck standing up.  I'll stick with the one I have, thanks.


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2010)

I've come to view the new Ruck as the Kitbag replacement.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 May 2010)

I wonder if the ruck was conceived at the same time as the new barrack box?  You know, too big and bulky but really nice and shiny?


----------



## somedude (23 May 2010)

The new ruck sucks.

I could list all the reasons why, but they've already been covered in this thread.

I spent this last weekend trying to gerry-rig my (cracked) 64 frame back together.

The army would do well if it stopped hiring civvies to re-invent the wheel for us....


----------



## harry8422 (23 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> The new ruck sucks.
> 
> I could list all the reasons why, but they've already been covered in this thread.
> 
> ...



What they could do is ask the soldiers/sailors and the airman/air women who use the kit the most what is wrong with it and how they would change it.


----------



## somedude (23 May 2010)

harry8422 said:
			
		

> What they could do is ask the soldiers/sailors and the airman/air women who use the kit the most what is wrong with it and how they would change it.



Isn't that what they did this time around?


----------



## stealthylizard (23 May 2010)

My biggest complaint with it, after using it a bit more is that dreaded waist belt.  The '84 pattern was horrible, but it at least somewhat worked.  The new ruck worked well for an occasion sandbag ruck march up to OP3 in MSG, without the belt.  I tried with 2 sandbags but couldn't lift the ruck due to it being so awkward and big.  It wasn't a problem with the daybag, other than trying to fit 2 full sandbags.


----------



## somedude (23 May 2010)

That's what I found.  I kind of liked it at first, then I loaded it with kit.  Radio, spare btys, 48hrs rats, water and double frontline with minimal sleep and snivel kit put the ruck over it's limit for comfort, cut up my hips and the load in relation to the harness was so ackward it made rucking up such a pain that I usually just left the ruck on unless we were staying put for a long time.

The design would probably be alright if they put it on a diet, slimmed the waist belt up so it didn't push down on your hip flexors and added some lower back support to compensate for the gap left when wearing armour.  Fully loaded I think I used less than half the available capacity...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 May 2010)

Remember the design of this ruck did not take into account Tac Vest and Frag Vest w/Ballistic Plates......


----------



## stealthylizard (24 May 2010)

Yes, because as we were told at our rucksack fitting and issue, you won't do ruck marches in FFO.   ???


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2010)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Yes, because as we were told at our rucksack fitting and issue, you won't do ruck marches in FFO.   ???


And WHO told you this??


----------



## somedude (24 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Remember the design of this ruck did not take into account Tac Vest and Frag Vest w/Ballistic Plates......



Seems to me that the design of this ruck failed to take into consideration it'd be used by soldiers......


----------



## stealthylizard (24 May 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> And WHO told you this??



I honestly can't recall who it was, or even what rank.  All I remember was that it was someone showing us a power point presentation about it.  The issue was brought up a few times but the reply was pretty much the same all the time, "You won't be using this while wearing FFO w/ plates."


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2010)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I honestly can't recall who it was, or even what rank.  All I remember was that it was someone showing us a power point presentation about it.  The issue was brought up a few times but the reply was pretty much the same all the time, "You won't be using this while wearing FFO w/ plates."


Just a question:

Was this briefing given by an Ottawa NDHQ type?


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 May 2010)

How much does the new rucksack cost?  $500? $900?

We know that a C7 cleaning kit, for example, costs about $20.  Yet all in all it cost the CF $121 per cleaning kit (price to get it in the system, make it, bla bla).

I can only assume there is the same type of insane markup on rucksacks.

Why can't the CF identify an aftermarket rucksack, say the Kifaru EMR (or whatever) and buy them in bulk.

We don't need to outfit every soldier in the CF with one. I'd expect we don't even need to outfit a third of the CF with this rucksack.  Let the other 2/3rd use the old 82 pattern one- since chances are they will bring it out once a year.

Wouldn't buying some Kifaru rucksack that has already been field tested and proven save us money?
Why can't a general say enough is enough with this business procurement bullshit that we go through over everything.
Old tacvest.
Problems with the new tacves
Problems with the ruck
MSVS.

Will our stupid buying system never end?


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 May 2010)

It's never going to end as long as decisions on field kit are made by people who think "going to the field" involves either a 36 hour BDF camp out in a drill hall, or building earthwork defenses and stockades around the camp.


----------



## armyvern (25 May 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> We don't need to outfit every soldier in the CF with one. I'd expect we don't even need to outfit a third of the CF with this rucksack.  Let the other 2/3rd use the old 82 pattern one- since chances are they will bring it out once a year.



We don't outfit every soldier with these; we don't even outfit every member of the Land Force with them. See  the PIP (page 17, para 48),  this rucksack is only issued to:



> 48. Entitlement. All Regular and Reserve Combat Arms Units. Unit Identification Codes (UICs) are specifically identified at Annex A. The individual entitlement for the Rucksack is qty 1 each to personnel serving within the Units identified at Annex A. Personnel deploying in support of land operations, not belonging to an entitled UIC, can be issued the Rucksack at the request of the Task Force Commander but only on a temporary basis. Personnel being issued the new rucksack from entitled UICs must return the 64 or the 82 pattern rucksack to Base Supply clothing store on a one for one exchange. Those personnel deploying in support of land operations, being issued Rucksacks on a temporary basis, will retain their 64 or 82 pattern rucksack.



Entitled UICs can be found starting at page 1 of Annex A (page 32/54 of the pdf file linked above). Further the CANLANDGEN on this item is included at the end of the pdf file as well (mostly for NFLD Sapper's benefit):



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Remember the design of this ruck did not take into account Tac Vest and Frag Vest w/Ballistic Plates......



It should have - same link para 8, page 9/54 of the pdf:



> 8. The Rucksack is fully compatible with the temperate combat clothing, Integrated Clothing Ensemble (ICE) and can be adjusted to fit over the Fragmentation Protective Vest (FPV) with Bullet Resistant Plates (BRP).




http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/rucksack-havresac-eng.asp


> CANLANDGEN 012 – ENGLISH VERSION
> CANLANDGEN 012/08 CLS 025/08
> 101750 Z SEP 08
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Entitled UICs can be found starting at page 1 of Annex A (page 32/54 of the pdf file linked above). Further the CANLANDGEN on this item is included at the end of the pdf file as well (mostly for NFLD Sapper's benefit):



I stand corrected Vern, but I think it makes no sense to size the ruck while the person is only wearing a t-shirt..........


----------



## Lerch (25 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I stand corrected Vern, but I think it makes no sense to size the ruck while the person is only wearing a t-shirt..........



Think about it this way, if you (and everyone else) had been sized with FFO and plates, which is as bulky as you'll ever get...how well will that ruck fit when you're doing a PT ruckmarch with t-shirt and combat pants? It's better to fit something to your smallest size and adjust it when you get bigger then vice versa.


----------



## Fusaki (25 May 2010)

> 8. The Rucksack is fully compatible with the temperate combat clothing, Integrated Clothing Ensemble (ICE) and can be adjusted to fit over the Fragmentation Protective Vest (FPV) with Bullet Resistant Plates (BRP).



http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/Rucksack_Implementation_Plan.pdf

I have this mental image of some staff weenie in NDHQ, sitting in his office and reading this forum, saying to himself: 



> I just don't understand what the troops are complaining about.  In this .pdf it _clearly states_ that the new ruck integrates with their PPV.  This discrepancy calls for a powerpoint and another Frappuccino. Where the hell is the goddamn A/C? It's so _hot_ in here!



:blotto:


----------



## DirtyDog (26 May 2010)

Lerch said:
			
		

> Think about it this way, if you (and everyone else) had been sized with FFO and plates, which is as bulky as you'll ever get...how well will that ruck fit when you're doing a PT ruckmarch with t-shirt and combat pants? It's better to fit something to your smallest size and adjust it when you get bigger then vice versa.


It be nice if it fit for when you actually_ needed _ and not garrison bullcrap.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 May 2010)

Lerch said:
			
		

> Think about it this way, if you (and everyone else) had been sized with FFO and plates, which is as bulky as you'll ever get...how well will that ruck fit when you're doing a PT ruckmarch with t-shirt and combat pants? It's better to fit something to your smallest size and adjust it when you get bigger then vice versa.



However, on the flip side wouldn't it also make sense to know that it actually fits (and comfortably at that) when you do have all that extra bulk?  If not, it's useless!


----------



## somedude (26 May 2010)

After messing about with mine for the past couple of days I'm going to see if I can exchange mine for a shorter frame.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Jun 2010)

According to the army it can be used with the FPV, plates, and Tac Vest; but personal experiences of myself and others say different.


----------



## Sully (21 Dec 2010)

This rucksack is an abomination, sponge in the rain, and provides little access to anything without tearing apart your kit. I will continue to use my 64 pattern with extra-long A7A’s / dual valises forever.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2010)

Sully said:
			
		

> This rucksack is an abomination, sponge in the rain, and provides little access to anything without tearing apart your kit. I will continue to use my 64 pattern with extra-long A7A’s / dual valises forever.



Dual valises? I assume that you mean one valise inside the other, for water resistance, right?


----------



## Sully (21 Dec 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Dual valises? I assume that you mean one valise inside the other, for water resistance, right?



No. One valise for serialized equipment (stano etc) and one for rations/ warm gear / sleeping bag. These fit nicely together and allows me to pull a valise when leaving an ORV or RP or moving close to the Obj. Sometimes instead of two valises, I use a small pack (non -issued) and an valise instead. Either method works.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2010)

Sully said:
			
		

> No. One valise for serialized equipment (stano etc) and one for rations/ warm gear / sleeping bag. These fit nicely together and allows me to pull a valise when leaving an ORV or RP or moving close to the Obj. Sometimes instead of two valises, I use a *small pack (non -issued)* and an valise instead. Either method works.



 I'm shocked!!


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2010)

Sully said:
			
		

> No. One valise for serialized equipment (stano etc) and one for rations/ warm gear / sleeping bag. These fit nicely together and allows me to pull a valise when leaving an ORV or RP or moving close to the Obj. Sometimes instead of two valises, I use a small pack (non -issued) and an valise instead. Either method works.



I'm curious. Do you have a bag attached to the frame, and carry two valises as well, or just strap the two valises to the frame, with no attached bag?


----------



## Sully (22 Dec 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I'm curious. Do you have a bag attached to the frame, and carry two valises as well, or just strap the two valises to the frame, with no attached bag?



Standard 64 Pattern "Jump Ruck". A large bag attached the frame. I have long A7A straps capable of strapping two valises or a valise and a small pack (I use a Kifaru). To put this in perspective I have had my rucksack full, small pack full of serialized kit/batteries, valise full of sleeping gear/rats and water (and snivel kit - Puffy/Ranger blanket), and a 522 Radio (secured via a separate A7A to my frame). This is IMHO the best way to roll; the problem being you can load this ruck with so much kit that it is borderline ridiculous. I should also mention my frame has been reinforced. I have pictures of it loaded somewhere, I will see if I can dig one out.


----------



## Loachman (23 Dec 2010)

Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 Dec 2010)

The system which Sully describes sounds very similar to what Mystery Ranch have come up with in terms of the NICE Crew Cab system:  http://www.mysteryranch.com/s.nl/it.A/id.5850/.f?sc=7&category=50  As 64 pattern frames become increasingly difficult to source, I'd suggest that you have a look at this system.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## malone_703 (7 Feb 2011)

Has anyone tried undoing the middle drawstring and using the ruck as one large bag?  I tried the other day but couldn't figure out how to stow the dividing material out of the way.  Also, has anyone tried a compression bag other than the issued one?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (7 Feb 2011)

@ Malone, yes, that's how I normally use it. If you undo the drawstring enough the material should just lay flat against the sides.

As for compression bags, I just use one large (120L) Ortlieb canoe bag. Clothing at the bottom, sleeping bag in bivvy bag on  top of that, poncho/rain gear at top, daysack outside of storm cuff under main flap. I find the compression bag means you have a 10lb medicine ball that you have to try and pack around in the ruck. better just to stuff the sleeping bag, in bivvy bag, into the canoe bag. Also quicker to pack away when you need it, rather than trying to tighten up the straps on the compression sack.


----------



## malone_703 (8 Feb 2011)

Yeah, I rock it with the clothing at the bottom.  I found if you put the clothing at the top when you take your sleeping gear out of the bottom it collapses on itself.  And, yes, the issued compression bag is a fight to fill properly without it looking like a macaroni noodle when you're done.  I usually use a CP Gear bag.  

I'll try it as one large bag next time I'm it the field.  Thanks for your reply.


----------



## matt.flaig (21 Apr 2011)

Any idea how to bend the Aluminum stays? i tried by hand but there is a weird curve in it that digs in my shoulder. would anything like a hammer work or would it just damage the stay?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2011)

matt.flaig said:
			
		

> Any idea how to bend the Aluminum stays? i tried by hand but there is a weird curve in it that digs in my shoulder. would anything like a hammer work or would it just damage the stay?



You're supposed to be fitted by a SME and the stays bent to your template. Go see one of those guys or your storesman for an appointment.

It seems a little ridiculous, but people that make more money than us came up with the plan, although I'm making no judgement on how good that plan was.

Although you could probably just clamp it in something and do it yourself :


----------



## matt.flaig (21 Apr 2011)

awesome, i did alot of it myself, i got a template but the template is done wrong, guess ill just get someone to come give me a hand with it and keep bending till it fits nice. also, anyone know where to get a better compression sack?


----------



## Sig_Des (21 Apr 2011)

matt.flaig said:
			
		

> awesome, i did alot of it myself, i got a template but the template is done wrong, guess ill just get someone to come give me a hand with it and keep bending till it fits nice. also, anyone know where to get a better compression sack?



Personally, when using the new ruck (as little as I can get away with) I ditch the compression sac, and just stuff my sleeping gear in the lower compartment. Save a bit of time, and I don't notice a difference in space taken.

However, if you're dead-set on a compression bag:

http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/bnc/5026_0.htm

or MEC:

http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?rnav=last&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442629343&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302699989


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Apr 2011)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Personally, when using the new ruck (as little as I can get away with) I ditch the compression sac, and just stuff my sleeping gear in the lower compartment. Save a bit of time, and I don't notice a difference in space taken.
> 
> However, if you're dead-set on a compression bag:
> 
> ...



I do a fair bit of my own backcountry expeditioning and can vouch for the OR compression bags from MEC. Light, strong, easy to pack things into. Just a bit on the expensive side, and not as waterproof as, say, a 64 Patt sleeping bag valise.


----------



## MikeL (2 Jul 2011)

Just wondering if any of the Jump Coys are jumping with the new ruck, or are they all using the 64 pat/jump rucks still?


----------



## Lerch (6 Jul 2011)

I don't know about the Jump Coy's, but my friend was on a recent course and they jumped with the new rucks.


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Jul 2011)

Skeletor you can jump the new ruck using a Parachute drop bag.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2011)

While the bar system is a pain in the ass I will say that "IT WORKS"

I have bent my bars according to the drawn chart I was given and the rucksack is inifinitely more comfortable then the old one.  Like all things in the army, the new rucksack has been given poor reviews more so for the fact that people are resistant to change.  Sure bending the bars is an pain in the ass but its actually a very comfortable ruck if you set it up properly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2011)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Skeletor you can jump the new ruck using a Parachute drop bag.



Do we small an end to people being able to use the 64 pattern\ jump ruck?


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Jul 2011)

Eventually yes but short term not likely. In the end having used a multitude of rucks over the years one of the best for long distance heavy weight marching was/still is the 64 pattern.


----------



## DirtyDog (8 Jul 2011)

I've yet to run into a chain of command that has enforced 100% adoption fo the CTS ruck.  


So far anyway.....


----------



## Veiledal (8 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> While the bar system is a pain in the *** I will say that "IT WORKS"
> 
> I have bent my bars according to the drawn chart I was given and the rucksack is inifinitely more comfortable then the old one.  Like all things in the army, the new rucksack has been given poor reviews more so for the fact that people are resistant to change.  Sure bending the bars is an pain in the *** but its actually a very comfortable ruck if you set it up properly.



I didn't mind bending them I am just curious on how long they stay bent and not deform on long marches. I might be a bigger fan of the ruck if they hadn't issued me an XL bag with XS shoulder straps and XS waste buckle


----------



## Lowlander (8 Jul 2011)

I don't even use the bars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2011)

Lil r said:
			
		

> I didn't mind bending them I am just curious on how long they stay bent and not deform on long marches. I might be a bigger fan of the ruck if they hadn't issued me an XL bag with XS shoulder straps and XS waste buckle



And that'll be the rub. The more room and the bigger the bag, the more someone is going to want people to carry.


----------



## DirtyDog (8 Jul 2011)

A lot of people I know found success with either removing the stays, the waistbelt, or both.

Also, some people have managed to get a smaller (as in shorter) main bag than what was issued to them when they were originally sized and have found it much better.

I find leaving it buried in my basement works for me.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Jul 2011)

Lil r said:
			
		

> I didn't mind bending them I am just curious on how long they stay bent and not deform on long marches. I might be a bigger fan of the ruck if they hadn't issued me an XL bag with XS shoulder straps and XS waste buckle



Mine have stayed bent for almost a year since I bent them, during this tiem I have had the bang thrown around on a multitude of exercises, sent them thru airport security and baggage while travelling.  I gotta ask though why do you have an XL bag with XS and XS waste buckle... are you super tall and skinny??  The whole point of the bag is that its supposed to be sized to fit your body otherwise its useless.  

I will give you an example.  I am 5'11 and around 190lbs ...  I have a medium bag, belt and shoulder straps.  Unless your 6 foot 7 then their is no reason you should have an XL bag.  Whoever sized you obviously had no idea what they were doing and you should probably return it and get a new one. 

From a light infantry standpoint, this bag is excellent.  Its large enough that you can live out of the bottom and leave the top part for all your mission essential kit.  The compartmental system works awesome as well.  On our last ex I put my sleeping kit in the bottom while I had my small pack with 522 radio and water in the top pouch.  It works wonders as you can simply drop your ruck, open up the top haul out your bag with radio and water and voila you are good to go, try doing that with a 64 pattern ruck and rigging it up comfortably, you will be very uncomfortable.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> and that'll be the rub. The more room and the bigger the bag, the more someone is going to want people to carry.



It's the CoC responsibility to determine what someone should and shouldn't carry.  I personally leave non-mission essential kit up to my soldiers.  If they wanna pack all their snivel kit they better damn well be able to carry it.  This is where training with the ruck on a regular basis comes in handy.  Its also the responsibility of the CoC to set realistic expectations of how fast someone is going to be able to move with a fully loaded ruck and adjust pace of an op accordingly.  

Its a good piece of kit, its just been implemented poorly and some people haven't been sized correctly.  I really like it and when you gotta carry a shit tonne of stuff its an awesome bag and the compartmental system works wonders.  I take it out to the bush with me anytime I go camping civvy side as well.  I hiked 30km with the bag a couple of weekends ago in algonquin park, carrying all my food, fishing gear, a pop-up tent, a folding chair, and all kinds of water, the bag can hold a shit tonne and is still really comfortable.  I would not have been able to do that with an 82 pattern or a 64 pattern.  

Also the reason it is the size it is lies in the fact that during winter and arctics ops you need to carry a lot more stuff.


----------



## Sully (22 Jul 2011)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I find leaving it buried in my basement works for me.



+1


----------



## thehare (23 Jul 2011)

I have a question regarding the waist belt of this new rucksack. I have been issued it by my unit a few months ago and up and till now it was working great (had only used it in marches w/o FFO), but while on course during an FTX (should go without saying I was wearing FFO  : ) this waist belt absolutely destroyed my hips - which seems like a common problem from reading this thread.

     Now I don't have the money to purchase any style of ruck (or any new parts for this one) right now so I am currently stuck with what I have :'( , so I am wondering if anyone has found any ways of counteracting the constant rubbing on the hips by the belt (it would be best if I didn't have to remove the belt as I am a huge believer in waist belts but if I need to than so be it)?

     I think I should also add that instead of putting all of my sleeping gear in the lower compartment I had placed it up in the top one so I would have the weight higher up on my back.


----------



## Snaketnk (23 Jul 2011)

Honestly... what I ended up doing was just taking it. After years of ruckmarching my hips are scarred on both sides and that area of my hips is chronically bruised.

Something that might work; it's worked to prevent my sandals from cutting my Achilles tendon, is to "paint" some of that liquid bandage onto the area that's usually affected by the waist belt, and it'll provide a mostly solid barrier.

There's lots of options worth trying; like adding extra padding to the belt yourself, or adjusting it in a way so that it doesn't cut you up. 

Every person is different, as is their rucksack; it's really a process of trial and error.


----------



## thehare (23 Jul 2011)

Thanks for the reply.

I'll try the liquid bandage method and if that fails I will look for something else in order to avoid chronic bruising (I like my hips too much ;D ).


----------



## Paul Jones (31 Jan 2013)

I just got mine lastnight and am going insane trying to put the thing together,
What way does the wire frame go, Does the side on your back the concave side
 or the convex side?


----------



## MikeL (31 Jan 2013)

What side feels more comfortable?  That should be a good indicator  

Smallest portion of the frame is the bottom.  Concave side faces your back.  

Here's some photos/info.  If you can,  ask someone from your unit(with experience,  not another recruit) on how to set up the ruck.

http://img19.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=4238f_Ruck82_7.jpg

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32083.0

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&cp=8&gs_id=u&xhr=t&q=82+pattern+rucksack&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41642243,d.dmQ&biw=1366&bih=667&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=2KEKUayMM8rj0QHXhYHgBg


----------



## Bzzliteyr (31 Jan 2013)

Jones_24 said:
			
		

> I just got mine lastnight and am going insane trying to put the thing together,
> What way does the wire frame go, Does the side on your back the concave side
> or the convex side?



If you have a wire frame you probably have the old rucksack.

You'll be taught how to put it together on your basic course (assuming you just joined).  If not, bring it with you to parade night and ask a more experienced member to help out.


----------



## BernDawg (1 Feb 2013)

Jones_24 said:
			
		

> I just got mine lastnight and am going insane trying to put the thing together,
> What way does the wire frame go, Does the side on your back the concave side
> or the convex side?



You throw it into the bottom of your closet and find a 64 pattern frame.........

(not trying to steer you wrong but you'll understand, someday)


----------

