Actually, I think the Army uses the same pack. I bought an Army CFP-90 (Combat Field Pack) about a month ago, at is looks exactly like the pictures of the MOLLE pack on the Marines website.<br><br>It's an interesting piece of equipment. I use the smaller patrol pack piece all the time on day hikes. I haven't had a chance to put the full ensemble to the test on an extended hike, but it seems to have a very modern design and lots of room.

Ade, J.T., et al -<br><br>Yeah, the new USMC packs look good. I've seen us (Army) with new packs fielded in the past; used some decent ones, but the ALICE stays in mass use...<br><br>You are absolutely ke-rect - I have a cold weather bias. If not in the desert or high elevation, summers are pretty fat in most of North America - easy living. For the record, BDUs worked fine for me in East Africa (did not go on foot to high elevation, tho - pretty much sea-level and near sea-level) They worked fine for me when they stayed dry, no matter where I was. And they are nice in many ways - pretty rugged and comfy. A long ways from the old fatigues I wore in... the old days. Still - they can be a dangerous beast even in Georgia - get wet, get windy, and watch out! What makes them good in hot (dry) weather - cotton - is what makes them no good in wet cold conditions - cotton. Hmmm... maybe if they were made out of silk... nah! <grin><br><br> [color:red] Since posting this, Brian's comment caused me to closely inspect my closets. Much to my chagrin, all my Desert Camo BDUs - 6 color and 3 color - are 50-50 nyco. I will try these out in cold/wet and post the results. I just assumed... these are my oldest BDUs; ALL my Woodland BDUs, including BDUs purchased as recently as 3 years ago, are cotton, so I was partially wrong . Natick website is down, so it will take me a bit to get the straight scoop on the LATEST BDU fabric(s). From what Brian posted, I have hopes that they are now all nyco and MAYBE even some are Quarpel treated - that would be awesome. TGA </font color=red><br><br>I hate the official BSA trousers as well - feel exactly like the old permanent press fatigues - "plasticy" is the best I can describe - go figure - same materiel (50-50 cotton-poly). Plus the worthless "cargo pockets", elastic waist band, etc - some genius in Irvine Texas who wears 'em around the office came up with them, I reckon. (Did I mention that they are EXPENSIVE? All six peeps in my family -wife, sons, dau, and self - are active in BSA, and last I checked, I'm paying the bills...)<br><br>Ahem. Off soapbox. Sorry.<br><br>Have you, or anyone else, examined and used the commercial "BDUs" made from "NyCo"? IIRC, they are a nylon-cotton blend... if otherwise built like the real McCoy, these might be quite the ticket. I have only seen the adverts, so I'm highly curious to hear what they are like from someone who has seen/used them. Not curious enough to buy any just yet - still have plenty of "good stuff" in use <grin>.<br><br>I cannot take credit for swapping an ALICE onto a good commercial frame, although if I do say so myself, I did a pretty darned good implementation. Details are a boring "war story" kind of thing. <br><br>Cotton BDUs are ok in hot weather with little or no chance for hypothermic conditions to set in - and the hot weather ones are a tad better than the temperate ones for that.<br><br>In fall and early winter, I really like the (now obsolete) issue wool trousers, but the lack of cargo pockets, difficulty in getting replacements, and other factors drive me to only wear them for "casual" events - local day trips, local camping with the Scouts, that sort of thing. I like them a lot, but... they're not "serious" gear for me. Just nice...<br><br>Field trousers are da bomb; a whole 'nother enchilada. There are button-in liners for them as well, although I almost NEVER used / use them - too warm for me even most of the time in Central Alaska. I carried them in my pack in the winter anyway - sometimes I used them. Quilted, not frieze - light and compressible. Too bad the newly manufactured field trou are in woodland camo instead of OD, tho. Belt for belt gadgets and suspenders for holding up the pants without cinching up the belt - 'sides, I often walk around fully "vented", and cannot do that without suspenders. The issue suspenders, hooked into the provided loops, are the way to go, although in recent years there have been improperly assembled ones from wherever they are made - a moderately intelligent chimpanzee can figure out how to re-assemble correctly. Shirts, sweaters, etc. go OVER the suspenders, not under. Trust me...<br><br>Ever see someone accidentally defecate on their suspenders and unknowingly hitch everything back up, trapping the "job" between the suspenders and the back? I have (seen it), more than once - yuck! Strange things happen when one is truly dead beat whipped zonked out tired... anyway, you can't do that with the issue suspenders - they stay on you; you just slip the hooks loose to drop trou for any reason.<br><br>OG shirts (80-20 Wool-nylon tight weave and thick) are great as a layer. Either over a sweater (the issue one is fine, or poly-p, or whatever) -if you sized the shirt right - or simply by itself. There are commercial equivalents - for around ten times the cost (really!).<br><br>Here's a REALLY odd one: Jungle shirts make a great wind shirt. Often the next layer over my OG shirt; sometimes even as an outer layer (in a wind and light drizzle role). Ripstop cotton poplin; I cannot for the life of me understand why they work so well - they're cotton; they SHOULDN'T work, but they do... Heck, this was a JUNGLE shirt! I stumbled onto this years ago, experimenting with various combinations for field wear. Availability of the real McCoy is erratic, but brand new sets are available for the patient. Have not seen the "newly made" ones that are supposedly the same, just not paid for by our rich uncle, so I cannot comment on them. Oh - yes, I have tried every BDU blouse in the same role - does not work the same. Dunno what is different. MAYBE the jungle fatigues were made with long staple cotton? I'm just guessing here - they are thin and about as wind-tight as nylon, but nicer to the touch.<br><br>While I'm on that topic - the matching Jungle fatigue trousers are better than any BDU for hot weather comfort. OD ripstop cotton poplin... hope you know what I'm talking about. Dunno about "tiger stripes" - if same material, would be fine.<br><br>Ummm, where was I? Oh - best bargain on the market - new M1951 parkas with hoods and liners for under $50. Understand that these are meant to be an outer layer, not a one-layer "stay-puffed-marshmallow-man" coat. Only native garments come close, and they are bulkier, heavier, and not as versitile - we actually hit a home run with that bit of gear (same era as the field trousers, oddly enough). Don't bother with used ones, as new ones are so cheaply available. There are things to learn about how to most effectively use them - as I say, they are versitile. BTW, the frieze liners went out a long time ago - possible a little warmer than the quilted, but WAY too heavy and bulky. There ARE some good commercial parka systems out there - NOT cheap - and still nothing I would be as willing to stake my life on as these old warhorses. Last note: Do NOT listen to the surplus dealers that tell you - "These are large - get 'em a couple sizes small" -- WRONG!!! If you wear a large coat, get a large parka - it's a LOOSE OUTER garment shell component to a layered system. You miss the entire point if you get one that fits nice over your t-shirt... it's too ugly looking for fashion statements, anyway <grin>.<br><br>A knit cap is a knit cap - I carry two: one on my head or in my parka pocket and one in my ruck or day pack. If I lose one, it's not a disaster - and it is soooo nice to pull a fresh (DRY) one on at bedtime, letting the other one air out and either dry or sublime. Orange is a tasteful color for some things, so my spare is always orange. If I'm not out in hunting season, dark blue for the daytime one. There are fancy ones, but about anything works.<br><br>I do not like, nor use face masks. I tunnel the parka hood down to a snorkel slit if I need to - that works great and it's easier to check for frostbite. On rare occasions I've used a scarf, and the issue one is tubular - it can be used as a cap. Don't think I've carried one for years, tho. No need.<br><br>Trigger finger mittens and inserts are good if it's not extremely cold - use the dummy cords. New ones frequently available. Older ones had more leather than the newer ones, but I cannot tell any performance difference. Size for anti-contact gloves inside - silk is nice; poly-p is OK, too, and wool is OK.<br><br>Arctic Mittens are fabulous. Actually, these are more correctly "gauntlets", I suppose - nearly reach to your elbows. They should be either on your hands or snapped together behind you - and always on the dummy cords. Again, these are intended to be best used as an outer (insulated) layer in a layerd system - at least wear TF mitten inserts inside them. (And no, the faux fur/pile on the back is NOT for wiping snot off your face, LoL!)<br><br>Notice I have not mentioned M65 Field Jackets... Too heavy, bulky, and not water repellant enough. The liner is good to carry; it can also button into the parka as another fixed layer in addition to the parka liner if you need it. The jacket is OK, just not worth the bulk, weight, and other drawbacks. Probably the only chic thing to waer (besides BDUs) these days, but not part of my kit. I have better commercial jackets for that sort of thing, and the parka is all-around better anyway.<br><br>Military footgear is so-so. Combat boots are made on good lasts, but the newer ones have too hard a sole (durability concerns). Many variations - I prefer desert boots most of the year; jungle boots never were kind to my feet. None of those are warm, of course. The most comfortable issue cold wx foot gear I ever used is not suitable for any but the driest of conditions - so called "mukluks" - they were intended for flight line use only. Sized a little large, felt insole, then a proper size felt insert (for my foot), then a (larger) sized insert to fit the "boot". Carry spare sets of insoles and inserts... Real (quality) native mukluks are far superior IF they are made with the right combos.<br><br>VB boots - <sigh> - they're a military thing. Ones that test out OK (at least an annual test) are very warm. The logistics of them make me NOT recommend them for personal use. Bad ones will feel just as warm as good ones when you first put them on. Then, if it's cold enough/you're in them long enough - you get frostbite. Plus, immersion foot is a reality with extended use. You ain't suffered till you've walked for days and days with immersion foot <wince>. Like I said, strictly military use; end of story.<br><br>Footgear is an area where there are truly many more suitable items available commercially. I'm sure anyone experienced here can offer as good or better advice as I can. Many peeps are very fond of Herman Survivors - I'm dubious of them in EXTREME cold, but I believe they are great for most cold weather conditions. I still use Sorrels a lot - kindy floppy; no ankle support, a bit heavy, and sometimes sock-eaters, but they are warm and I can walk, ski, and snowshoe in them. (All mine have an extra insole for insulation form the ground - which alters the size required). If out for more than a day, I carry a spare set of felt inserts and insoles. I have some medium-tech footgear, too, up to and including fancy double-boots for climbing above the snowline (very specialized use; custom fit, they suck for approach walking and I HATE plastic climbing boots, so mine are leather).<br><br>Boots have to fit... what fits me may be a disaster for you. I will NOT mail-order boots. Gotta try em on. Also, for little cost, a competent cobbler will custom-fit boots with good leather outers - it is AMAZING what they can do to eliminate tight spots in other-wise perfect boots. Generally speaking, I cannot wear European-made boots without that sort of adjusting... I pretty much stick to North American made, anyway <shrug>. Lots of decent boots these days - light, warm, tough - you name it, it's available. However, I have not seen any good cold weather ones for less than around $80 - usually the good ones run much higher than that, and the cheaper ones seem to have "fatal" flaws, like thin spots in the insulation over the toes, mediocre fit, etc. Also, peeps vary hugely in what is an acceptable level of discomfort in foot temps - I am a lot more tolerant of cold feet than most people I know, and yet I know others who are fine in footgear that I KNOW I would get cold weather injuries in.<br><br>BTW, one thing that many folks overlook most of the year is a "camp shoe" - just some cheap lightweight sorta sneaker that doubles as wading shoes when fording streams/rivers. Really kind to your feet to pull on dry socks and putter around the camp, and usually quicker to slip on/off for that unexpected "midnight run". I prefer them to fit comfortably over normal (heavy) socks when my feet are all pumped up from walking all day - usually winds up a size bigger than I would get otherwise. Booties with soles for winter, of course.<br><br>I think I have strayed way off BoB, but then again... there are levels of BoB gear. We have stages of it, and for the most part it's the stages of stuff we use for various outings anyway - and that means we have habits from using the same gear over and over again. I know where all my stuff is, all the time - habit - I never need to turn a light on to find something or put something away.<br><br>I've been stupid enough to leave camp in bad country without even my "Be Prepared" pack - not once, but twice! (Well, actually, I had it one of those times, but it got "consumed" in the course of events - long story, and totaly avoidable if I had been thinking). I made it thru the ordeals (obviously) - one time was serious and the other time was REALLY serious. I had stuff on me - pockets and such - things I use too often to not have on me - more habits. The REALLY serious time, I was not dressed correctly - well above treeline in the interior - and I was darned lucky to survive that. Hehehe - I even almost fell off a several hundered foot cliff. The only thing I did right was stay alive. I like to think I learned a lot from those mistakes... and all the others I've made that were, objectively, not so serious. Perils of arrogant youth, I suppose.<br><br>Point is, regularly use whatever you're gonna bet your life on. Like BDUs - if that's what you've got, well, learn its good and bad points and know how to get what you need out of your gear anytime of the year. No substitute for practice, eh?<br><br>Apologize for the long-winded reply and wandering around - and typos. Time to log and get some real life things done; machining up some new gadgets to try out before I forget about it...<br><br>Sounds like you know what you're doing, anyway - got any hot tips on gear and techniques? I'm in a perpetual "learning mode"...<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom<br><br><br>

I noticed you were interested in web gear. Our search and rescue team uses a pack made for wildland firefighters. It is a web gear type pack made by ThePack Shack. It is sold by www.sarcamp.com and firecache.com The pack has suited our needs well since it can be configured many ways.

I couldn't get either of those sites to come up...???..

Actually, there are differences, most notably in the suspension, from what I understand. <br><br>The CFP-90 is concentional internal frame, with the de riguer detachable "daypack" that makes a great 24-hour pack. It rides on shoulder straps and a belt.<br><br>The big USMC MOLLE pack is, from what I can find, is intended to be suspended from thier new LBV via some fancy voodoo interface plate. Now I could be completely wrong here, and if anyone can shed some light on it, please do. What I do know is that it looks like there is a semi-external frame that extends ub, behind the head. OK, so it can be easily used as an improvised head imobilizer, but it looks like it is too high and to rigid to be used in a combat situation with a helmet in a prone position (which appears typical of the military R&D people who came up with the reg that you can't have a spork in an MRE becuase the bag might be punctured by the tines if run over by an armoured vehilce). But that's just my opinion based off of having seen pictures of it.

Try this http://www.sarcamp.com/master.htm and http://www.firecache.com

The pack straps on US Tactical look a lot like those from Eagle and Blackhawk, as well. (I have the BH on my pack, my brother has Eagles on his- poor sucker, BH is the same quality and designs as Eagle, but half the cost most of the time)<br><br>You've mentioned your Freighter frame. Is this anything like the old Ramflex frame that US Cav used to carry before they turned into a giftshop?

Tom, you should consider writing these tips in a more formal document for permenanr posting on the site instead of a collection of forum threads.

Tom wrote:<br>>>>I hate the official BSA trousers as well - ...<<<<br><br>Have you found an alternative? <br><br>I wear the shorts during the summer but only whil traveling and to meals. <br><br>In the spring and fall I wear jeans, which are allowed but not stylish or perhaps "consistent" would be a better word. I love the feel of jeans becasue that's what I grew up wearing. But I know they are not the best gear for the outdoors.<br><br>Right now I'm mainly "car" camping. But as my son grows older, we'll do more "high adventure" camping where the right gear choices are more important.<br><br>I'd love to find an alternative pair of pants to wear with my uniform. Or an alternative pair of shorts that are close enough in appearance that folks would not notice they weren't BSA approved.<br><br>

Ron,<br><br>Nice leads on the firefighter web pack. It looks really interesting. I used to do structural work in a private brigade. Being almost all internal work, we never wore anything on our backs but our air bottles. It looks like it might work nicely as a pack for recreational hiking; keep your survival basics in the fanny pack portion and extra niceties in the pack proper. Thanks.