Topic: ISSP - Modular Load Carriage at last

[PatrickO]

I was perusing and stumbled upon this page, containing some interesting documents for industry types relating to the ISSP project. Of particular note is the document showing a design for the ISSP Modular Load Carriage System (MLCS).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/keydocumentsinformationforindustry-documentsclesinformationpourlindustrie-eng.asp

This link will open a 2Mb Word document with the drawing of the MLCS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%202.doc

You will see that the MLCS is a two-piece chest rig-style design, using PALS! Also of note is that the design also makes an allowance for the carriage of plates. On the main website are other supporting documents with descriptions regarding the pouches and the ISSP "roles": Assaulter, Commander, Machine gunner and, Grenadier. In some of the documents, the description of the pouches / roles are accompanied by descriptions of where these pouches are to be placed on the vest:

(my italics)

Ammunition for the rifleman and Commander consists of rifle ammunition (5.56mm in 30 round magazines) and hand grenades (fragmentation and smoke). In order to access this ammunition efficiently it is located low and centrally on the MLCS within three triple (capacity of 3 to 9 magazines) magazine pouches. The ammunition pouches should remain on the waistline for access. The contractor can secure ISS components and/ or pouches (shingle) to the magazine pouches or vica-versa.

From this document (80Kb Word file):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%208.doc

Looks like the average rifleman's issue of C7 magazines will potentially increase to 9.. Very interesting stuff.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

[Jim Seggie]

I haven't looked at this yet, but since you asked for my first thought, here goes:

How long will it be before some CWO decides that all vests in his unit must look the same, no matter what the soldier's job is?

I'm a bit of a pessimist.

[PatrickO]

My thinking on it is that they'll have to allow their soldiers to wear the pouches given to them, based on their role. I'm sure the RSMs will insist that all Riflemen will have their pouches in exactly the same spots, and the same goes for the C9 gunners etc. 

The very fact that the ISSP documents are specifying PALS / MOLLE as the modular system of choice is significant in and of itself. Change is in the wind... could you have imagined the CF going for PALS / MOLLE ten years ago?

[Jim Seggie]

Change is in the wind... could you have imagined the CF going for PALS / MOLLE ten years ago?

SACRILEGE!! BLASPHEMER OF THE WAYS OF UNIFORMITY!!!

I am of course jesting here.....

[Anyone's Grunt]

I was perusing and stumbled upon this page...

This link will open a 2Mb Word document with the drawing of the MLCS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%202.doc

...Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

My thoughts...

1) The rig shown is a side entry rig... A split front rig is easier to don and doff.

2) The rig shown allows for carriage of plates. If this rig is a true plate carrier, then it's performance will be degraded if the plates are removed.  It will sag under the load of the kit attached to it.  I recommend that if plates are not meant to be carried inside the rig that the option to do so be removed completely.

3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.

4) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a uniformity nightmare.  Someone somewhere will force their soldiers to follow a layout, effectivley defeating the whole modular concept.  If this becomes the case, the CF shold just hold a Sergeant Major's Symposium and hash out the layout the whole Force should adhere to and just sew the pouches right to our combat shirts.  They could end the thing with a big mess dinner, old dudes love that crap.

5) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a "tactical nylon distributor's" wet dream.  A plus for the troops will be the ability to use pouches that actually function and make sense and place them where they prefer.  Unfortunately, they'll have to pay out of pocket to get them, and they will.  I have very little faith, reinforced by looking at this single drawing, the we are capable of designing and fielding a variety of pouches that can effectivley perform the various combat functions the CF requires.  I predict a series of pouches that will perform many functions in a poor manner.  Very little will change in the way of the "non-issue kit" debacle, but now instead of whole rigs it will become an issue of individual pouches. 

6) The front panel is joined to the back panel over the shoulders using hook and loop. I personally view this as a weak point, especially where casualty extraction is concerned. IMO the velcro shoulders will become a weak point and will release at the most critical time.
 
Conclusion / Summary:

It's a step in the right direction, but we're still miles away, IMO, from acceptable load carriage.

[AmmoTech90]

Not all 30 round 5.56mm mags are the same size, who knows if the CF will change mags sometime in future, it would be short sighted to have to change all our pouches.Hopefully the mag pouches will be open topped or large enough and bungeed to secure a variety of mag sizes.

[PatrickO]

The ISSP project page does in fact show the pouches to be issued:

Be advised, this is a 30Mb Word document. It contains actual pictures of the MLCS vest and pouches in the 4 different configurations.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%209.doc

[Troopasaurus]

1) The rig shown is a side entry rig... A split front rig is easier to don and doff.

True but if it is designed to carry plates then split front is not really an option.

4) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a uniformity nightmare.  Someone somewhere will force their soldiers to follow a layout, effectively defeating the whole modular concept.  If this becomes the case, the CF shold just hold a Sergeant Major's Symposium and hash out the layout the whole Force should adhere to and just sew the pouches right to our combat shirts.  They could end the thing with a big mess dinner, old dudes love that crap.

The only place I see a layout having a place would be on basic courses. On basic troops need to be told how to pack so they can learn the basics of being a soldier before spending their time thinking about which works better, mag shingles or triple pouches.

6) The front panel is joined to the back panel over the shoulders using hook and loop. I personally view this as a weak point, especially where casualty extraction is concerned. IMO the velcro shoulders will become a weak point and will release at the most critical time.

Agreed and at the same token why not make this releaseable while were at it. I can think of a few situations from my tour that having releaseable armour (and this being a plate carrier) would have been beneficial.

[Beadwindow 7]

True but if it is designed to carry plates then split front is not really an option.

That's something I'm wondering. Is the plan to move to the use of plate carriers and changing our SOP for PPE, or is the fact that this chest-rig has a plate pouch just a coincidence? Because like Anyone's grunt mentioned, wearing a plate carrier without plates causes sagging.

This Rig looks a lot like the SORD Chest rig to me, with a couple of modifications, and if it is, that pouch is intended for trauma plates.

[Lerch]

So...no plans for a canteen pouch? A bladder carrier on your back is all fine and dandy, but I don't know how I'd keep mine from freezing solid in the winters...ya know, when my thermos makes an appearance.
I'm just guessing that necessity items like that will have to paid out of pocket...

WRT the plates, the one article does mention that the rig is to be worn over our existing frag vest.

[PatrickO]

Some of the ISSP documentation I've read so far have mentioned that ISSP items must be compatible with the existing Gallet helmet, ballistic eyewear and Frag vest - no mention was made of the tac vest at all, so it seems like the TV will eventually be fully replaced, at least for ISSP users.

The 30Mb document shows pictures of the MLCS vest and pouches.. what worries me is that the pouches are for the most part in the same places. I'm hoping that's just for demonstrating the layout. I really hope that these vests don't come with someone from DLR-5 saying that all our C7 Magazine pouches must be worn in a specific spot for "human factors" reasons...

[Matt_Fisher]

This Rig looks a lot like the SORD Chest rig to me, with a couple of modifications, and if it is, that pouch is intended for trauma plates.

The rig is in fact the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Front' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=162&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1 and the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Back' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=165&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1

I'd be surprised if the risk averse CF ever authorize the use of plate carriers rather than the current FPV with plates carried in it.  However, the plate pockets could be extremely useful to stow the Source Hydration 2L 'Low Profile System' (LPS) reservoir http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/outdoor.html#source2
-advantages of this is that it has a much more ergonomic shape so you can sit in a vehicle more comfortably, or wear your ruck or small pack while keeping your hydration system as part of your rig and it also reduces weight because you can ditch the 3L carrier.
-throw a 2L in the front plate pocket and a 2L in the back plate pocket and fill them about 3/4 full so you've got 1.5L in each which would give you 3L in total.  This now gives you a redundant system so that if one of your bladders gets damaged you still have hydration on your person.
-combine the LPS bladders with the Source 'Universal Tap Adaptor' (UTA) and you can refill the bladders without having to remove them from the rig
http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/packs4.html#uta

[Matt_Fisher]

My thoughts...


3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.

This could be somewhat easily done as a non-permanent mod using field repair hardware, some extra 1" webbing, and some DIY ingenuity by the user.

[PatrickO]

Matt, I'm curious - the page was meant as an industry information site for bidders to the ISSP project. Is CPGear getting involved in this?

[Matt_Fisher]

Matt, I'm curious - the page was meant as an industry information site for bidders to the ISSP project. Is CPGear getting involved in this?

I wouldn't know as I haven't been involved with that organization since December 6th, 2010.

Cheers,

Matt

[PatrickO]

Ack - Sorry, I must have missed that memo 

[Anyone's Grunt]

The rig is in fact the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Front' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=162&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1 and the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Back' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=165&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1

I'd be surprised if the risk averse CF ever authorize the use of plate carriers rather than the current FPV with plates carried in it.  However, the plate pockets could be extremely useful to stow the Source Hydration 2L 'Low Profile System' (LPS) reservoir http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/outdoor.html#source2
-advantages of this is that it has a much more ergonomic shape so you can sit in a vehicle more comfortably, or wear your ruck or small pack while keeping your hydration system as part of your rig and it also reduces weight because you can ditch the 3L carrier.
-throw a 2L in the front plate pocket and a 2L in the back plate pocket and fill them about 3/4 full so you've got 1.5L in each which would give you 3L in total.  This now gives you a redundant system so that if one of your bladders gets damaged you still have hydration on your person.
-combine the LPS bladders with the Source 'Universal Tap Adaptor' (UTA) and you can refill the bladders without having to remove them from the rig
http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/packs4.html#uta

As this is a clear ripoff of a presumably patented design, does SORD have any legal recourse to prevent this rig from being contracted for manufacture by the CF?  If this was the MoFOCR, let's say, even though you are no longer associated with them, would CP Gear have grounds for legal action if this was done without their consent?  Is this patent infringement?

As for the plate carrier issue, some questions come to mind...

Are our plates rated as stand alone plates?  That is, can they be worn without a soft armor backing?  If not, then some changes need to be made.  I see one of three routes being taken.

1) Procure new plates that are rated as stand alone;
2) Procure a special cut of soft armor to back the plates and insert them in the carrier pockets as well; or
3) Remove the plate carrying option from this rig altogether.

Option 3 is most likely.  Simply stitch the vertical bar-tacks that divide the MOLLE/PALS columns right through the body of the rig and sew the opening in the bottom shut.  Remove the extra bits that hold the plate out of the back panel.  I say it's most likely as there are times when armor is desireable, but not kit i.e. filling sandbags, riding in a turret in an armored vehicle, etc.  A plate carrier would be desireable in certain situations, however the risk averse CF makes the chances of seeing one issued (at least for that purpose) slim to none.

Using the plate carrier pockets for hydration is a typically Canadian thing to do.  To take something that is inadequate or unsuitable and make the best of it, or take something built for one purpose and employ it in a completely different manner is something our Infantry Corps has been doing quite successfully for generations.  In order to become properly equipped, this attitude of "we'll make it work" needs to be stimied, especially during the T&E phases of equipment procurement.  We deserve better.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but we shouldn't have to go to those lengths.

My thoughts...


3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.

This could be somewhat easily done as a non-permanent mod using field repair hardware, some extra 1" webbing, and some DIY ingenuity by the user.

Again, the end user shouldn't be required to modify a brand new piece of gear.

[Tango18A]

I've seen the MTTF MP Pl running around in the Garrison field house with these carriers on. Looks wierd on some as the only pouches worn are for the 152.

[Matt_Fisher]

As this is a clear ripoff of a presumably patented design, does SORD have any legal recourse to prevent this rig from being contracted for manufacture by the CF?  If this was the MoFOCR, let's say, even though you are no longer associated with them, would CP Gear have grounds for legal action if this was done without their consent?  Is this patent infringement?

As for the plate carrier issue, some questions come to mind...

Are our plates rated as stand alone plates?  That is, can they be worn without a soft armor backing?  If not, then some changes need to be made.  I see one of three routes being taken.

1) Procure new plates that are rated as stand alone;
2) Procure a special cut of soft armor to back the plates and insert them in the carrier pockets as well; or
3) Remove the plate carrying option from this rig altogether.

Option 3 is most likely.  Simply stitch the vertical bar-tacks that divide the MOLLE/PALS columns right through the body of the rig and sew the opening in the bottom shut.  Remove the extra bits that hold the plate out of the back panel.  I say it's most likely as there are times when armor is desireable, but not kit i.e. filling sandbags, riding in a turret in an armored vehicle, etc.  A plate carrier would be desireable in certain situations, however the risk averse CF makes the chances of seeing one issued (at least for that purpose) slim to none.

Using the plate carrier pockets for hydration is a typically Canadian thing to do.  To take something that is inadequate or unsuitable and make the best of it, or take something built for one purpose and employ it in a completely different manner is something our Infantry Corps has been doing quite successfully for generations.  In order to become properly equipped, this attitude of "we'll make it work" needs to be stimied, especially during the T&E phases of equipment procurement.  We deserve better.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but we shouldn't have to go to those lengths.


This could be somewhat easily done as a non-permanent mod using field repair hardware, some extra 1" webbing, and some DIY ingenuity by the user.


Again, the end user shouldn't be required to modify a brand new piece of gear.

I was told a few months ago through the grapevine that DND had licensed SORD's design for their rigs and pouches.  With that said, even if they hadn't unless something is specifically patented or has some other sort of IP protection, i.e. registered industrial design, design patent, trademark, etc. there's virtually nothing other than crying "Hey you *******, you copied my stuff..." that can be done.  Lots of companies in the nylon business either take somebody else's design and modify it, or outright copy it.  Eagle did some mods to London Bridge's Riverine Warfare H-Harness, and came up with the 'Maritime Load Carriage System', which was then cloned by Blackhawk as their STRIKE line back in 2003.

I don't know for certain, but believe the current CF issued plates are not for stand-alone use.  CANSOFCOM may be different, but not for big Army.  It's a fairly simple fix to build a nylon pouch for a SAPI plate that has the appropriate soft armor on the rear for back face deformation/spalling issues.  Pacific Safety Products, Armorworks Canada, and Allen Vanguard  (the major soft body armor producers in Canada) could easily fabricate something like this, and have it tested and certified.  The SAPI plate would be inserted into that pouch and then the ensemble would be placed into the plate carrier pocket inside the MLCS rig.  Now you have a modular plate carrier platform.

So as long as the rig is adjusted snugly, the extra bulk for the plate carrier pockets probably won't really affect the performance of the rig, as they'll be compressed under the rig against the body.  It's not like you're wearing a CIRAS, which has alot of play in the material because it's designed to accomodate soft body armor panels.  I've worn a SO Tech Callahan plate carrier, and an older TAG plate carrier for range training sessions and they fit fine without the plates inserted.  Plate Carriers without plates are more like a chest rig type system with a full back panel. 

Regarding 'Jerry Rigging' hydration bladders into plate carrier pockets:  You'd be surprised as to what some very high speed units (non-Canadian) are doing with respect to inserting that Source LPS 2L into plate carrier pockets, placing the bladder in front of the strike face.  They want to reduce weight and extraneous bulk, and because they can get away with doing what they want in respect to PPE they actually approached Source to develop a system specifically to do this.

[Anyone's Grunt]

...It's a fairly simple fix...

Fairly simple fixes in the CF still take years... look at the WWB re-sole project.

[Matt_Fisher]

Fairly simple fixes in the CF still take years... look at the WWB re-sole project.

I wouldn't be surprised if before too long either CPGear, ICE Tactical, Dropzone, or somebody else have a commercial version of this thing available, with or without some improvements.

[Anyone's Grunt]

So once again troops will have to pay out of pocket for proper equipment... Awesome.

Does the release of these documents indicate that the T&E phase is over?  If not, who's trialling this rig in Canada?

[PuckChaser]

If not, who's trialling this rig in Canada?

Probably someone at NDHQ who hasn't been in the field since St.Jean. Then they'll give it to an Inf Bn for a 12 hour assessment period just before the final T&E report is delivered.

[Anyone's Grunt]

Probably someone at NDHQ who hasn't been in the field since St.Jean. Then they'll give it to an Inf Bn for a 12 hour assessment period just before the final T&E report is delivered.

The river of bitterness runs deep I see.

Don't forget, during the 12 hour assessment period the only thing the science wienies will be concerned about is "do you like the color?"  All other objections will be waved aside.

Nothing is too good for the troops, so nothing is what they'll get.

[MCG]

... who's trialling this rig in Canada?

Where there are eqpt trials in the Army, it should be these guys: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/english/units/lfteu/index.asp

[alexgold]

This is the exact same vest we have in theatre right now actually, we've had them since Wainwright.  It is an awesome vest except it is extremely difficult to put on with the new arm brassards on the frag vest, you almost need a buddy to put it on.  But no its very good and lots of pouches come with it (27 are the baseline plus more for specialty jobs).  So far nobody has tried to make standards at all, but section commanders do have to make sure their guys don't try to put on all the pouches at once because they can and which becomes not practical.  But all in all very good vest, however, we were told that this was only one of three models they were testing so I wasn't aware that they went ahead with this project.  It would be good tough, cause this system looked the best out of the three.

[Anyone's Grunt]

...It is an awesome vest except ...

Please ensure you make this point known to those running the trial along with the other points this thread has brought up regarding this rig.  If your unsure who to bring these points to ask you CoC.  Those participating in the trial are the only chance we have to ensure that proper kit is procured.

...this system looked the best out of the three.

Looks can be deceiving.  IMO it's a POS.

[BCBoy]

All of 3VP has been issued this MFR, along with most (if not all) of TF 1-11. We have been using it for the last 5 months or so. The specialty pouches have finally come in.. C9 gunners got issued 2 pouches, grenadiers got 2x quad carriers plus a 12 bomb bandolier. I'd say the general consensus is fairly positive. The only thing i've had a problem with is it's very front heavy, and quite annoying while lying in the prone. Obvious ways to counter that, you just have to switch the pouches around to better suit the user. I've switched my pouches around a few times now, just trying to figure out what I like best. I sure hope they keep this rig around and issue it to all combat arms.



...better than the old rig, designed by Chair Force and completely useless...

[MedTech]

... *sigh* another case of CF equipment stupidity...

[Snaketnk]

Would the front heavy problem be solved if you carry water on your back?

[Anyone's Grunt]

Would the front heavy problem be solved if you carry water on your back?

Yup, right up until you drink the water. 

[Thucydides]

I inherited a rig with a somewhat similar layout, and the front strike plate carrier served as a map pocket and FMP holder for me. I don't see a kangaroo pouch as being a total waste of time even if you don't have a plate to put inside.

[PatrickO]

Update on the ISSP Modular load carriage subject - looks like we're getting close to seeing a Request for Proposals soon...

from the site:

Update - Nov. 17, 2011

The ISSP Team is pleased to inform you that we are making every effort to finalize the Request For Proposal in preparation for a February 2012 release to the Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS).  Due to the upcoming release, all RFP related content will be removed from this website sometime during the month of January 2012.

The feedback and questions received so far have been of great assistance. As a result of several inquiries, we realized that some additional clarification may be required to help potential Bidders better understand the sequence of events related to Systems deliveries and participation in the Performance Evaluation (PE) following the Solicitation closing.  A graphical representation of this sequence of events is available, with tentative timing blocks so that potential bidders have a better time appreciation of the activities involved.  Specific dates on these activities cannot be provided before the Solicitation process is well underway.  Amendments to the schedule may occur should circumstances change.

[Redeye]

Odd that they're tendering already. TF 2-12 (Op Attention Roto 1) is going over with SORD rigs - not contracted versions, but actual SORD Australia kit. We were told it's one system on trial, but we're only just getting ready to head over in February.

We've hardly gotten to use them for the time being, but I'm liking mine. The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the *** to don. It's a two-man job, really.

We did, however, get told in no uncertain terms that no standard setup/uniformity was to be enforced, other than that the med pouch should be accessible to either hand. People have been experimenting with a variety of configurations.

[Matt_Fisher]

The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the *** to don. It's a two-man job, really.

What's the worst issue with donning the rig?  Having to put it over your head each time you put it on/take it off?  Or the way that you have to reach to the  back to fasten the buckle?

[Snaketnk]

I see dozens of non-combat types donning them perfectly fine every day at work...by themselves.

[Hurricane]

I have minor difficulty putting mine on. It can be buckled up successfully alone, however a buddy system always makes things easier. As far as the front being heavy that I noticed someone mentioned may be a problem, myself I have it adjusted so that the top of the back portion of the rig nestles right into the collar of the issued fragmentation vest and its working for me so far. Also, the mention of a lack of "water bottle" pouch, the 1L Canteen fits into the supplied Large Utility Pouch perfectly however many people I have seen choose not to utilize it. The only issue I have come across so far is the large velcro flap on the triple mag pouches could be somewhat of a hindrance when changing mags. Overall, I would prefer this over the current issued tac vest (No not just because it is new).

[PuckChaser]

We've hardly gotten to use them for the time being, but I'm liking mine. The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the *** to don. It's a two-man job, really.

Are you using the X straps or the harness for the back? I can get my SORD rig on with the x straps just fine alone, but have noticed the harness is very loose unless you're more round than tall and it can be difficult to reach the buckles behind your back.

One thing I'd like to see is the straps on the X harness being a lot longer. I'm 6'1" and 170 lbs and have to have them straps maxed out to wear it. It would be a no-go for anyone wanting to use those straps if they were any larger than I am. I agree the pouches leave something to be desired, but hopefully that can get captured in the feedback session mid-tour. I like the velcro SORD uses for the pouches, just not the pouches themselves.

[Hurricane]

One thing I'd like to see is the straps on the X harness being a lot longer. I'm 6'1" and 170 lbs and have to have them straps maxed out to wear it. It would be a no-go for anyone wanting to use those straps if they were any larger than I am.

I concur, a coworker of mine is roughly 6'2" i would say but around 280 lbs. We actually had to adjust his shoulder straps to go approx 6-7 inches past where the fabric stops. Otherwise, his chest rig was more of a chest bra.

[Redeye]

What's the worst issue with donning the rig?  Having to put it over your head each time you put it on/take it off?  Or the way that you have to reach to the  back to fasten the buckle?

With armour and plates, it's not too easy to reach the buckles. It can be done, but it takes a lot of shoulder flexibility it seems like. I'm getting better at it with practice, though. I do use the rig harness vice the the X- harness, because I'm going to use the Camelbak pouch with it. Overall, it's a pretty neat piece of kit. The "command pounch" when mounted up top has pistol mag loops that are really well positioned, I thought it was excellent when I was on the pistol range to do fast mag changes. I found on the jungle lanes that the positioning of mags worked pretty well, but I'll second that the flaps are a bit large and can get caught up.

I haven't seen the alternatives being considered, but I can say I'd take this over a tac vest any day and twice on Sundays.

[ObedientiaZelum]

Does anyone have any pictures of the SORD rig that the CF is using?

[-Skeletor-]

Yea, pics of the SORD rig you guys have would be great.  Also,  is the rig only able to be set up like a plate carrier, or can the "bib" portion be folded down and you can wear it as a chest rig?

[PuckChaser]

I will take some pictures of my SORD rig given to Op Attention R1 shortly, I'm still unpacking from Gagetown. Its the MFR Trial Rig "C", haven't found specifically what SORD model it is yet though.

[Redeye]

I left mine in Gagetown but might be back there this week on my way to Boston for a long weekend, any specific pictures anyone want? Here's a picture of mine from range day, one of the configurations I've played with so far.

[PuckChaser]

Pictures as promised:

My rig set up, with bib folded down. Left to right: Bayonet, Utility pouch with fastex/velcro, grenade pouch, IFAK with tearaway panel, 30rd mag shingle with 90rd mag pouch on top, 30rd shingle with 90rd on top and multitool pouch on top of that, fold up dump pouch, zipper utilty pouch, 60rd mag pouch (storage currently), smoke grenade pouch (storage currently), PRR pouch on left strap.


Rig with bib folded up, clips onto the straps with a metal button w/loop through a d-ring on each side.


Optional back panel with hydration carrier attached. Hydration straw cover on each shoulder strap.


Assorted pouches that I'm not using. Each rifleman kit comes with 4x 90rd pouch, 4x 60rd pouch, 2x 30rd shingle, 2x utility pouch fastex, 1x utility pouch zippered, 1x IFAK with tearaway, 1x PRR pouch, 1x double grenade pouch, 2x single grenade pouch, 1x smoke grenade pouch, 1x hydration bladder carrier, 1x ETrex pouch, 1x multitool pouch, 1x dump pouch, and back harness.

[ObedientiaZelum]

That's a pretty decent looking chest rig.

Defiantly  reminds me of the HSGI Wasatch I used. I found it fairly front heavy and difficult to put on and off easily.  I countered that by attaching a camelbak to the back of it (not always convenient).
It got considerably better when I wore the plates in my Wasatch and not in my soft armor but I spent the rest of the tour being sneaky about it fearful of being noticed "by the man".  Can the SORD only use a plate in the front? The back doesn't look large enough.

I've seen them priced at $545 at sordaustralia.com for the vest and some pouches(package deals).  Wonder what we'll pay for them.

[-Skeletor-]

Happy to see that the bib can be folded down.  If that is the MFR that is picked,  I can already see a mod/private purchase item for the rig.. instead of having the straps go over the back like a X,  would be more comfortable for a H style set up IMO.

[DirtyDog]

Considering the effort it took to don my front entry rig when fully loaded with water and ammo, that thing does not look fun at all.  It was easily doable but after watching some guys wrestle with rigs that didn't split made me shudder.

[PuckChaser]

The back harness has a plate carrier as well. I don't have training plates yet (not gonna ask for them  ) so I won't know till I hit theatre if the plates actually fit well in there. The pocket looks fairly flimsy. The dump pouch is basically a nylon bag, nothing fancy and I hope they don't pick it as it will not positively control your mags when they get dumped in there. Something like CPgear's lobster trap design would be better.

As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.

DLR told us the rigs are valued at $550 a piece for the rifleman setup, but I think we should really look at getting pouches from another supplier. The IFAK and shingles are well made, as well as the frag pouches, but there are far better substitutes for everything else, at 40% or more savings.

[DirtyDog]

As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.

Should be fun with 50lbs of kit in it.....

[-Skeletor-]

A front opening rig is much easier to get into(one of the reasons why I ditched my chest rig after tour and got a TT 2pc MAV)  On tour I wore the HSGI Warlord Chest Rig, and it was awkward getting into at times when fully loaded, but overtime you get used to it and come up with your own system to don it.

Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.

[ObedientiaZelum]

I read a piece on an American board that talked about how a chest rig like the TT Mav is better for light infantry when patrolling long distances on foot, mountain ops and extended dismounted use over something like this (Well they used vest type rigs for an example).  Figure there is any truth in that?

[Redeye]

The training plates fit perfectly. I had them in there before I got a frag vest issued to start getting familiar with the weight. No issue at all.

The back harness has a plate carrier as well. I don't have training plates yet (not gonna ask for them  ) so I won't know till I hit theatre if the plates actually fit well in there. The pocket looks fairly flimsy. The dump pouch is basically a nylon bag, nothing fancy and I hope they don't pick it as it will not positively control your mags when they get dumped in there. Something like CPgear's lobster trap design would be better.

As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.

DLR told us the rigs are valued at $550 a piece for the rifleman setup, but I think we should really look at getting pouches from another supplier. The IFAK and shingles are well made, as well as the frag pouches, but there are far better substitutes for everything else, at 40% or more savings.

[DirtyDog]

I read a piece on an American board that talked about how a chest rig like the TT Mav is better for light infantry when patrolling long distances on foot, mountain ops and extended dismounted use over something like this (Well they used vest type rigs for an example).  Figure there is any truth in that?

From what I can tell, other than the front bib and the lack of splitting in the front (both of which can be had, or not had respectively, with the TT MAV) this is basically the same type of rig as the MAV.

[Hurricane]

A front opening rig is much easier to get into(one of the reasons why I ditched my chest rig after tour and got a TT 2pc MAV)  On tour I wore the HSGI Warlord Chest Rig, and it was awkward getting into at times when fully loaded, but overtime you get used to it and come up with your own system to don it.

Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.

I would assume that these are trials. We were told that we would be doing some type of debrief with the pros and cons of the SORD Harness mid tour. If theres any truth to that I have no idea.

[Lerch]

Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.

Might be a 1CMBG thing? I know Z Bty has also gotten the TT MAV's with the goody bag of pouches, also saw a couple guys at 2VP using them last time I was in the field.