Hi to all in the forum

Noob here, hope to learn a lot from all of you

I have a question regarding the famous Paracord Specs.
I have made the normal search anyone who really wants to get good equipment does, and reached the also famous certification spec MIL-C-5040H for Paracord.

After searching several suppliers, ordered a Paracord Type V (1000lbs) which according to their CS written reply, complies to the spec. Will see

However, after that, I discovered when I searched for other specs, that this one was set on 1994, and on 1997 a Notice was issued that the Military no longer complied or used the spec, or that it is no longer followed for chosing the materials.

Do you know of the veracity of this? Have you heard of any other spec being used for these nylon cords?

Very best regards
Luis Lima

Try taking a look on this thread

I have some white Type V (1000) para-cord that I may have purchased from the same supplier you ordered from. This Type V cord does indeed have 14 inner strands with 3 yarns each, and one of the 14 strands is the color combination that is presently assigned to the manufacturer by the Dept. of Defense.

The vast majority of all the products this particular merchant sells are used by the parachute industry and, more particularly as to cord, in parachutes. This I know.

Even though the Type V is rarely mentioned in the literature, I'm much inclined to think official specs for MIL-C-5040 Type V and/or PIA-C-5040 Type V exist (particularly in regard to the air force and navy) --- if for no other reason than in the parachute business there is zero room for mis-representation or error by a raw material supplier. Even jumpers know that life-time guarantees relative to the cord they're danging from are irrelevant.

I found that the high end Swedish made "Fixlock 197" plastic cord locks work perfectly with my PIA-C-5040E Type V cord, even though the Fixlocks are rated for .28" cord and PIA-C-5040E Type V is only .25". However, Fixlock was merged with Abloy years ago (and Abloy was the surviving corporation), and I have no idea if .28" cord locks are even made in Gothenburg anymore.

Great stuff thanks for the heads-up. So according to what you described, MIL-C-5040(H) Notice 1 from '97 is irrelevant, to the sense that the cords (III or IV even) are still manufactured for the military on those specs, and what is written is wrong?

Best regards

This morning I did some further checking with the paricular supplier that I obtained my "Type V" from and they said that there is "No Official Rating" for the 14 strand Type V, rather it's "modified Type 4". I stand corrected.

I also noticed that on Hope Global's website, they now list "Mil-PIA-C-5040" as the standard, rather than the Mil-C-5040 or PIA-C-5040. I think that what this means is that all their cord is PIA-C-5040 compliant and since all PIA-C-5040 cord meets the lower Mil-C-5040 standards, its both "Mil" & "PIA" compliant.

albanlusitanae - You have expressed, in my view, good and valid concerns relative whether MIL-C-5040(H) is even requisitioned by the military any more. I now share that concern. However, as recently as March-2012, a solicitation by the NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support cautions prospective suppliers that “Mil-C-5040” is “Inactive for New Design”. Seems that the Navy’s statement that Mil-C-5040 is “Inactive for New Design” contemplates that it’s still active for old designs. Otherwise the Navy’s solicitation would be silent as to the very existence of Mil-C-5040 specs. Does this make sense?

Not to belabor a point, but upon reading the 01 OCT 1997 NOTICE 1 I immediately noticed that the notice further states that Mil-C-5040(H) will still be used in regard to “replacement purposes”.

Certainly in the last 60 years, there have been many design specific, technologically superior advancements in regard to suspension parachute cord - vectran, spectra/microline and kevlar come to mind. But each alternative to nylon paracord that I’ve looked into has negatives (particularly in regard to land based survival), such as, by way of example, fraying, wear limitations, brittleness, a more limited useful life or even UV degradation. And I still would like to know with certainty the degree to which the PIA-C-5040 series of specs have superceded the Mil-C-5040H specs in military procurement; I gathered that the PIA specs had during my conversation with the owner of one of the largest suppliers of paracord to the military — and that the PIA specs were evolving rapidly.

And then consider that the P-9 parachutes in “pretty much all current U.S. jet fighters” use “Suspension line material- PIA-C-5040 Type III”. Could elasticity be the key paracord element in regard to jet parachutes?

It does yes. I also agree with you that material with this spec is still more than worth it for general uses, except that jumpers may wish to dig deeper on what is new, it's their lives I mean. when you stated that there was no "Official Rating" for the 14 strand Type V, rather it's "modified Type 4", I'd still trust that rope on the ground or as a general purpose cord on a survival kit.



This is extremely interesting, do you have comparison documentation you can provide?



That is the main focus target for paracords now then I think: to understand MIL-C-5040 vs PIA-C-5040, and who from MFG is using MIL and who is using PIA.



Way out of my league to comment, except of this part: would the elasticity component factor on Jet cord specs have the same weight on its need on jumpers?