# Chest Rig preference



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2013)

I thought this might make for an interesting "gear review". 
Half for fun but half as a serious discussion from lessons learned from the last 10 years of wearing rigs while deployed and in training.

I went with Webbing style.

I liked the extra room on a plate carrier and for driving around and crew commanding, being able to raise it up higher on my chest off of my legs and hips made it pretty comfortable.
Dismounted I felt the plate carrier really sagged to the front.  Moving my plates from the body armor to the plate carrier made a huge difference. (which the CoC naturally said was illegal and if I died then my life insurance would be canceled)  Still, even with the difference I found it still unbalanced. Climbing with it really sucked.

With a webbing style rig (TT Mav) I lost space on the upper chest and and back but dismounted it was a lot more comfortable, the weight felt more balanced, felt like I could carry more weight too. 

On a side note I also discovered I didn't like drop leg holsters or TCCC bags hanging off my legs. I ended up putting my bag and pistol on my rig.


----------



## MikeL (19 May 2013)

I'm also not a fan of having things on my legs;  a pistol isn't too bad for a short duration but I prefer to have it on my belt.  My first non issue rig as a HSGI Warlord that I used on tour,  it worked out OK,  but it was also quite bulky, and all of the weight was up front.  A H harness instead of the X would have made it more comfortable as well.

Now, and with our current kit, and being a dismount I prefer to wear webbing(TT 2 piece MAV).  Can carry all required kit,  and good weight balance;  works well over top of the FPV and without.  If I were to be vehicle crew though,  a small chest rig with a few mags and a IFAK may be ideal.  

How ever,  I did like wearing a plate carrier with pouches mounted directly onto it,  and just changing pouches around as needed.  I found the mobility and ability to shoulder a weapon was better,  compared to the FPV(especially when you are required to wear all the extra pieces).  I like the TAP(detachable chest rig) the US Army and Marines issue along with their plate carriers.  Can clip on the chest rig when required,  and un clip it when all you need is just the plate carrier but not your mags, grenades, etc on you.

To distribute weight better with a plate carrier,  you can also run some pouches on a battle belt.  Example,  rifle mags, radio, and grenades on plate carrier/chest rig,  with dump pouch, IFAK, etc on the belt.  If a pistol is issued it can be run on the belt as well as the magazines for it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2013)

I like the chest rig from these guys: http://www.arktisusa.com/rigs.html

Plus a proper Bergen. 

Our 'snack vest' and stupidly huge rucksack is an appalling second best, unfortunately.


----------



## maxwel_fredrick (20 May 2013)

As an Infantry soldier... are you forced to use CF issue gear? Or are you allowed  to buy your own?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2013)

maxwel_fredrick said:
			
		

> As an Infantry soldier... are you forced to use CF issue gear? Or are you allowed  to buy your own?



Its a privilege to be able to wear your own gear, chain of command can say no at any time. I'd worry about getting in and passing Inf DP1 before going crazy at a kitshop.


----------



## Tank Troll (7 Jun 2013)

I found the drop leg holsters only good for walking around base and were useless in any type of vehicle. I haven't found any chest rig holster that works well with the TAC vest and the best option was putting it in a mag pouch. Skeletor, ObedientiaZelum what do you guys recommend for use as I'm heading over there soon. I'll be in a vehicle most of the time and not doing a lot of walking around but need to carry 4 rifle mags, 2 pistol mags, 9mm, water bottle, first aid pouch and a utility pouch.


----------



## MikeL (7 Jun 2013)

Tank Troll, I assume you are heading over on Op Attention?  Are you going to be issued the SORD rig(I believe that is what a lot of pers are issued now).  If so, you could get a Blackhawk Serpa holster, I believe it comes with the adaptor to mount it onto the MOLLE/PALS webbing, there is also a quick connect/disconnect adaptor as well for it.  I believe the 1911 holster will fit the Browning.

If you are stuck using the tac vest, I don't have any first hand knowledge/experience using it with a pistol.  Just seen some pers with the tac vest use a drop leg, or stick it in a mag pouch.  When I had a pistol I liked having it on my belt, but I don't think you'd be able to reach the pistol if you had it mounted on a belt when wearing the tac vest as a side pouch would probably be right above it.


----------



## Jammer (7 Jun 2013)

Only R1 was issued with the SORD kit.

R2 RiPed us out wearing the issue tac vest...as for R3...no idea what they're going to wear.

Ack on the BH holster though. Better to manage in the ASUVs.


----------



## Tank Troll (7 Jun 2013)

Yeah I am on OP Attention and I don't know if they are going to issue the SORD rig to all of us or just the real infantry. No one has made mention of it yet. The Battle group RSM said we could use our own rigs as long as they didn't look totally out of place.


----------



## Jammer (7 Jun 2013)

There you go then.


----------



## MikeL (7 Jun 2013)

A Eagle RRV may work, and you can mount your pistol on the chest panel
http://www.optactical.com/eainmostrhre.html


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Jun 2013)

I really like the safariland holsters, but found that I didn't like having the leg shroud on long dismounted patrols, and I also didn't like having the holster directly on my belt, so I swapped out for to the UBL system. Keeps it low enough with good clearance for draw, and can be mounted on either a standard riggers belt, or if you use a war belt set up, can go on that.

http://www.itstactical.com/gear/secure-your-safariland-6004-for-mid-ride/


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jun 2013)

I'm partial to this one:

http://tinyurl.com/ovzjslj


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jun 2013)

The Safariland 6004 was issued to everyone on Op Attention R1, is it still the case for R2 and R3? There is a quick-connect system for that holster that goes into PALS/MOLLE like the BH Serpa.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2013)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I'll be in a vehicle most of the time and not doing a lot of walking around but need to carry 4 rifle mags, 2 pistol mags, 9mm, water bottle, first aid pouch and a utility pouch.



If you're mounted I would definitely recommend a plate carrier setup of some kind. I found it makes for a much more comfortable ride than having something around my hips/waist.  Some guys would take off and put on their vests every time they got in or out of the vehicle but I found that annoying, not good in a hurry either.

The Eagle RRV looks good, personally I would use something that has a black for added support and also if you end up attaching something.

Here's a SORD setup.  http://www.sordaustralia.com/product.php?productid=307&cat=45&page=1

The pouches are what nails the wallet I find.

I think if I ever get a chance to go on tour again and get a pistol I'm going to try attaching it to the upper chest portion of the rig.


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Jun 2013)

I've done the take off and put routine in the past but that was in Armoured Vehicles and I was rarely getting on and off. How ever since I've been doing soft skin/up armoured vehicle recce I've taken to wearing it all the time and need to find something that works better than the issued TAC vest drop holster combo.


----------



## Jammer (9 Jun 2013)

Keep in mind gents. You don't get to decide if you want to have a plate setup. You will NOT be able to swap your plates out of your issue vest and into whatever rig you choose unless you are in a job that specifically allows you...ie: SOFCOM.

That being said I administered an NDA 129 to one of my soldiers who violated that policy, not to mention he only had the front plate inserted, because the back plate made him "uncomfortable" in the ASUV.

Food for thought.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Keep in mind gents. You don't get to decide if you want to have a plate setup. You will NOT be able to swap your plates out of your issue vest and into whatever rig you choose unless you are in a job that specifically allows you...ie: SOFCOM.
> 
> That being said I administered an NDA 129 to one of my soldiers who violated that policy, not to mention he only had the front plate inserted, because the back plate made him "uncomfortable" in the ASUV.
> 
> Food for thought.



Is there a specific rule stating plates must be worn in the body armor and not in a plate carrier?
If your soldier had both plates in the carrier would your 129 have stuck?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Is there a specific rule stating plates must be worn in the body armor and not in a plate carrier?



There is if he's told you will only wear your plates in the issued frag vest.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There is if he's told you will only wear your plates in the issued frag vest.



Because I told you so that's why  
I'm curious the reasoning, I switched mine and it made my armor feel a hell of a lot more comfortable and my chest rig fit better and was more balanced when dismounted.  I wonder why SOFCOM would specifically allow it but not others.


----------



## Jammer (9 Jun 2013)

If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2013)

I would assume its the same reasoning as the "you're not covered" crowd for helmet pad systems, non-issued boots, non-issued ballistic eyewear, etc. I personally don't see an issue as long as the plates end up in the same position, covering the same areas.

As for SOFCOM, maybe they're the only command that's asked for permission/had Defense Science rubberstamp it as safe?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.



Ahh, I've actually heard this before. 

It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"

We actually called SISIP and they said it was untrue. Coverage is coverage regardless if you're in a firefire wearing full PP&E, hit by shrapnel while in a shitter without BEWs on or in a car accident while on leave.

Maybe it's changed in the last couple of years.


----------



## Jammer (9 Jun 2013)

When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.



For sure, a lawful order is a lawful order.


----------



## Jammer (9 Jun 2013)

....but then again there are always feel they know better or just want to be different to make up for some lack of love from thier mother....


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"



Since we're not in a gunfight anymore, the rumour has morphed into "If you don't have a med chit for SWATs, VAC won't cover you if you get a foot/knee/ankle injury because of the boots." As if the SWAT boot knows the difference between someone with a chit and someone without.

Jammer: I do remember that, but I prefer them to the stupid water-wings that come issued with the vest out of clothing stores so it wasn't a big issue for me. As you said, BG RSM says so, I do so, whether I think its dumb or not.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Jun 2013)

I really hate the "SISIP won't pay out" boogeyman. Guess if you got hurt by a rocket while wearing shorts and flip flops on KAF, you'd be hooped according to some.


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Jun 2013)

Our BG RSM told us we could wear what we want as long as it didn't look to far out of place. Plus we are doing a lot of work in small groups spread all over the AOR.


----------



## Jammer (10 Jun 2013)

You're missing the point BW-7.

Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.

TT: Pretty ballsy for a BG RSM to say that. When was this?

Over my five tours in Afg I have never heard from anyone that it was authorized to wear issue plates in a non issue chest rig.

That being said non issue chest rigs were generally GTG OTW, however you HAD to wear the plates as issued in the frag vest.

This was policy in all BG units. CANSOF units had a different authorized policy.


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Jun 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> You're missing the point BW-7.
> 
> Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.



No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.

My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"

I have never seen an official statement that says if you're hurt while wearing non-issue kit/no PPE, that you will lose out on a SISIP payout. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who use the threat haven't either. Now I could very well be wrong, and I'll be checking the fine print of my SISIP policy when I get home. But I have never seen anyone in any CoC back up the threat with a clear-cut official document.

At least with "Because The army/the RSM/I told you so" there's a reason that's not based off a common belief.


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Jun 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> TT: Pretty ballsy for a BG RSM to say that. When was this?



couple of months ago


----------



## Jammer (10 Jun 2013)

as in what TF?


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Jun 2013)

2/13


----------



## Jammer (10 Jun 2013)

There is a line up of folks who are fighting the system right now, and getting nowhere. Thankfully i have never had to endure the song and dance...but I know of several cases right now that have them flopping from SISIP to DVA and back again.

No one wants to own the problem.


----------



## Jammer (10 Jun 2013)

TT....You were specifically authorized to wear issue Gen IV plates in non issue chest rigs? 

TF 2-13 RiPed us out and arrived wearing the original issue desert tac vest.

R1 Op Attention was issued SORD rigs with the front/back plate carriers....we were never authorized to use them however.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2013)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.
> 
> My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"
> 
> ...



Exactly.
An order is an order.  The only reasons I've heard for not allowing soldiers to wear plates in platecarriers has been:
1. it negates your SISIP coverage (untrue); and
2. soldiers might take off their chest rig and forget their plates are in.


If the CoC wants to give an order without any reason that's one thing. Leadership should never lie in order to add substance to an order.


----------



## SKG709 (6 Dec 2017)

I move pretty frequently between the C7, C9 and C6. Anyone have a recommendations and a chest rig I can buy that will do the job of riflemen and machine gunner?


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Dec 2017)

The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts. 

I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
> Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.



Agreed. Although a change round may be forced due to casualties, unfortunately.


----------



## wadewilson (15 Jan 2018)

does anyone use the AK Chicom chest rig or pouches bag?


----------



## AlDazz (23 Dec 2020)

Interesting comments on the SORD kit.  The Army having found the current Tac Vest lacking for years now I was hoping a replacement would have come in to service by now.  Perhaps when they change the cadpat colours they will have the next webbing/tac vest combo ready to issue.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2020)

They 0 funded the Modular Fighting Rig project years ago. I don't think that funding ever came back.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> Because I told you so that's why
> I'm curious the reasoning, I switched mine and it made my armor feel a hell of a lot more comfortable and my chest rig fit better and was more balanced when dismounted.  I wonder why SOFCOM would specifically allow it but not others.


The 'cannon fodder' don't need all that fancy stuff, right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2020)

Mind, I'm retired now, so the only rules I need are mine. I have two plate carrier rigs. NIJ Lvl IV, one set steel the other ceramic. Both have Lvl III cummerbunds. Both are more comfortable and easier to move around in than the flack vest/plate/tacvest rig I used to wear. Both are covered with molle attachment ribbons so I can mount mag carriers and bags equal or more than the amount I had on my tacvest. Just my $00.02 worth of personal UFI.


----------



## CBH99 (29 Dec 2020)

The tac vest (as far as I understand, anyway) was designed when we were pretty much just engaged in UN peacekeeping operations, mostly in Eastern Europe.  Enough capacity to carry some rifle mags & grenades, but obviously not designed for warfighting.

Then 2001 happened, and we were caught unprepared for Afghanistan as our focus for the past few decades had been low to medium intensity conflict throughout Eastern Europe.  (Croatia, Bosnia, etc etc.)

During the Afghan war years, I know some units allowed their members to purchase their own rigs - and the unit would reimburse them.  Same with boots.  (I can't see that happening these days, the Afghan war days were a different work culture)

Whatever we go with, it needs to be modular.  A member primarily using a C7 has entirely different requirements than a C9 gunner, C6 gunner, 203 rock lobber, etc etc   0.002


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Dec 2020)

CBH99 said:


> The tac vest (as far as I understand, anyway) was designed when we were pretty much just engaged in UN peacekeeping operations, mostly in Eastern Europe.  Enough capacity to carry some rifle mags & grenades, but obviously not designed for warfighting.
> 
> Then 2001 happened, and we were caught unprepared for Afghanistan as our focus for the past few decades had been low to medium intensity conflict throughout Eastern Europe.  (Croatia, Bosnia, etc etc.)
> 
> ...


With the new J pattern CADPAT is a new tacvest apparently in the works. That said most of the infantry battalions don't use the issued vest. A Vtech I know got posted to 2VP, he arrived with the issued vest, they said nope, took him out back to a seacan and told him to pick a rig, and the pouches he thought he needed. He took 2 x triple mag pouches, a first aid pouch, and a utility pouch. Really that is all you need in CSS, our tacvest as you stated was designed for a different style of fighting not a high intensity we need 14 mags minimum for a rifleman fighting we saw in Afghanistan. Unfortunately our system has been slow to catch up, atleast we can buy our own boots now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:


> The 'cannon fodder' don't need all that fancy stuff, right?


The cannon fodder need to look standard for parades. Nothing beats a quick march wearing ffo.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> The cannon fodder need to look standard for parades. Nothing beats a quick march wearing ffo.


Noooooooo......


----------



## Lerch (11 Feb 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> The cannon fodder need to look standard for parades. Nothing beats a quick march wearing ffo.


I'm reporting you for archaic thinking


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2021)

Lerch said:


> I'm reporting you for archaic thinking like alot of COs I know



There, FTFY


----------

