The question really becomes is my life, the life of my friends, family members and anyone else I may need to use a TQ on only worth a second-rate product? The Recon Medical TQ is a second rate product, a cheaper adaptation of a couple of proven (tested) TQ.

The Recon Medical TQ has gained some popularity due to its price and to be fair it works better than many of the alternatives TQs on the market. I know of a legitimate save using a Recon Medical TQ. I have also seen more than one fail in training with a single application. They are also somewhat more difficult to self-apply compared to a SOF-T or CAT.

At work and in my personal kits my primary TQs are either SOF-T(W) (prefered) or CAT (gen 6 or 7) while I do have some SWAT-T elastic band "TQs" I keep them mostly for there versatility as pressure dressing and for use on little people.

All of these I have used with success on real patients. All of these we have trained on heavily and regularly. Both the CATs and SOF-T(W) have a significant amount of data supporting their capabilities from studies done by third parties.

I will never recommend any product I would not choose to use myself. I would not personally buy or choose to carry a Recon Medial TQ because I cannot trust them.

A TQ alone does not make a IFAK or a bleeding control kit.
Any TQ is worthless if it isn't with you.
Most medical equipment is nearly worthless without training,

It is great to hear from thoseof us with actual experience. Thank you very much.

Why would you want to limit yourself to one product?

Jeanette Isabelle

I'm not an expert at all but one of my best friends is an EMT. He also said the Recon TQs have broken in a single application. He only carries CAT and SWAT TQs.

A note about the SWAT TQ, while I do like them and believe they have their place as a secondary TQ because of how well they work on smaller people and as a pressure bandage. I cannot recommend them as a primary TQ; they are much more difficult to self-apply than a CAT or SOF-T.

First, I'll say there's absolutely zero (zilch, nada) reason for a real CAT tourniquet to cost as much as it does. We mass produce far more complicated things for far cheaper -- it costs as much as it does because that's what the market will bear, especially when a lot of your customers are Government (local, state, federal)

Tourniquets aren't rocket science, nor do patients have to scream to have them on correctly -- they need to be tight enough to occlude the artery and stop the bleeding, which you can simulate in practice by tightening them up enough that you no longer feel a distal pulse. It's not particularly comfortable but for most of the population certainly not unbearable.


I only use the real CATs in my kits, and plan to even if it's something I have to acquire over time due to cost. However, in all likelihood, the generic tourniquet listed will work just fine -- the real danger with improvised tourniquets is using something too thin which may cause lasting tissue damage. As a CAT knockoff, we know the width (which matches that of the CAT) is sufficient for safe use, so really as long as the thing doesn't break, there's no reason it shouldn't work. That boils down to their QC, consistency, the strength of the plastic buckles, windlass, susceptibility to UV or other environmental damage, etc. That's a call you'll have to make after an assessment of your needs, risks and what you can afford.

You are correct. A tourniquet is not rocket sience. However, It needs to work 100% even in unforgiving environments, even when the user is under duress.

It's like buying a parachute. A Chinese parachute may get a 98% rating on Amazon; the 2% who gave it a thumbs down are from family members of deceased skydivers.

Jeanette Isabelle

Just a voice from the peanut gallery. There is a lot more involved in reasonably competent first aid than administration of a TQ. Detection and proper treatment of a possible spinal injury, for instance....

No disagreement, that's why I only use the real ones and don't advocate that others use anything but the real ones either.

We could reframe the question, though -- if you didn't have a CoTCCC recommended tourniquet with you (Let's say because of expense, you could only budget for one or two and they're in the car or at home), or exhausted your supply, and have to improvise, what are you going to use?

Non CoTCCC recommended tourniquet that you happen to also have (like SWAT-T)? What about a Crevat and stick? Blood pressure cuff that might leak air slowly? 550 cord that we know will cause lasting damage? A belt that can't get tight enough and we have to hold onto? All could work to save someone's life, but may not. The question isn't "is a knockoff tourniquet as good as the real deal" the question might be: is it better than whatever improvised tourniquet you'll use instead?

Amazon reviews are hard to go by because of those 1,800+ people almost 0 of them have used them in a life or death situation as you point out.

It's possible the Recon Tourniquet has fundamental flaws that makes it even worse than improvising a tourniquet. It's also possible that the Recon Tourniquet is as good or even better than a CAT, which itself has seen 7 generations of changes and improvements... we just don't know. The catch 22 is it's very difficult to introduce a new tourniquet to the market because of liability, and institutions want to go with what is proven through years (if not decades) of real world use, which means they aren't going to take a chance on something new (why would they?). It's a chicken and egg situation. Nobody will use the new ones until they're proven in the field, but how can they be proven in the field if nobody uses them?

I would always advise to go with what's proven because I certainly don't want to be the guinea pig (if I can help it!), but that's of course up to an individual to make their own decision once they consider the available information.

Sometimes a TQ just won't suffice.

My EMT instructor, a former Navy paramedic, once rode with a patient to the ER, his fingers clamping her carotid artery all the while. A TQ would have had bad consequences in that situation.

You probably won't find this procedure in any manual. he was later sued, unsuccessfully, by the patient for facial disfigurement.