techguy wrote:
Saying that, I've just bought myself a set of Helikon ECWCS outer garments (think I'm on waterproof set number 5 or something now). Jacket in green, trousers in black.
Were they £50 for the set though?
That's the one sore point for many I think. Even the current issues surpluss can be as cheap as £30 for a jacket, £20 for the trousers. I struggle to find quality gear at those kinds of prices. Not that I own any "Military" gear at all, I tend to wear an old softshell jacket and some Asda combats in blue or puddle-brown/green DPM. I don't shoot many practical comps in bad weather though and I'm very far from nesh, otherwise I might be tempted
Something that Christel posted earlier in this thread, if I recall correctly, keeps springing to mind.
christel wrote:Duffeyeddoyle uttered the magic words that day when I got soaked on one shoulder wearing my surplus Eastern European army jacket and complained about it.
"It is surplus for a reason"
If you're getting CURRENT ISSUE as "surplus", you have to wonder why it is surplus. Everyone keeps harping on about low price and the practicality of it. If it's so practical and stands up to the abuse, then why has it been surplused...? Surely the army only gets rid of current issue gear if it is not performing to the standard required, through wear or through inferior quality issues...?
Is it a false economy...?
Nope. I have current (and last generation) of "surplus". Both current and last generation are far more waterproof and hard wearing than the s*** I have bought from a well known high street outdoor store. The jacket I bought from this well known outdoors shop was nearly £200, and the first time I wore it, I got SOAKED.
Yes, some surplus stuff is crap, but the recent generation (2nd or 3rd gen) stuff is really good. Depends what you buy really.
At the end of the day, if I ruined a pair of £20 MTP trousers from generally using and abusing them, I wouldn't be bothered about chucking them away after a season or two (as I have just done - I got a hole in the knee somehow). If I did the same with a pair costing 3 or 4 times as much, I would be less than happy.
Blu wrote:Surplus can mean it has been worn a few times and then exchanged for a different size for all manner of reasons. Once it's been worn it is very seldom re-issued and therefore becomes surplus to unit requirements.
It could mean that, I somehow doubt that is the biggest reason to surplus issued gear though...
... it also occurs to me that the majority of our conflicts in the past 20 years have been in DRY, Desert conditions... I can't believe that this creates that much surplus of waterproof clothing... :/
Have you seen what happens to equipment used by various armed forces around the world once a conflict is over? It gets binned, buried, burned or sold off.
Blu wrote:Reading some of the comments I would like to pose a question, what if some were to turn up in full Mossy Oak camo? Most of my hunting is done during the winter months, around here it starts getting cold middle to the end of October so it's time to keep warm. When I am out on the range during the cold weather and getting ready for hunting I like to wear the clothes I will be wearing for hunting, that is a mild/cold weather parka and gortex pants both in Mossy Oak and waterproof.
So we are talking about camo gear here, who would consider Mossy Oak too military looking? Lets keep in mind here that be it Mossy Oak or milsurp camo to the average person, camo is camo if we are to believe what the FB page says. Way I see it, sportsmen in the UK have bigger problems than this issue. This bullshit is exactly that, bullshit. The folks who go for their walks in and around Bisley are more than likely locals and are used to seeing sportsmen in all types of gear and probably don't bat an eyelid and just smile and shake their heads at the walts. So unless you have folks coming from far and wide just to wander around Bisley and watch you all shoot the whole public perception thing is nonsense.
This is nothing more than a few anal retentive assholes with a rod up their ass to give them some backbone whining about something they personally don't like and have whined to the right chums in order for it to reach Mister Mercers ears. With the ever mounting rules and regulations you folks in the UK have imposed on your shooting, $h1t such as this would be the least of your worries I'd have thought.
Agreed! It's all BS and not worth a debate stretching this long! Surely there are better topics than this to talk about?
I don't really think that real tree camo portrays the same type of "wannabe soldier" aspect as wearing military camouflage, which is the issue here.
Okay, so how about we all dress like you in all black, what would the "ignorant of our sport" think then? Hey I'm not having a dig at the way you dress mate, far from it. you dress as you see fit and good luck to you as long as you are enjoying your shooting.
Folks are going on about "looking like operators" Well what would a group of guys dressed from head to toe in black toting a rifle conjure up in the minds of those "ignorant of our sport? Do you see what I'm getting at here? The whole bloody thing is ridiculous. If folks want to dress in camo it's no fVckers business and if the NRA is so worried about public perception then don't post those kind of photos on social media FFS.
(Operators! Hmmmm been watching too much telly me thinks)
The most sensible thing said in this whole thread, life is too short to be worrying about this garment or that garment, how feckin petty can shooting get?
Come on Bambi get some
Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad
it also occurs to me that the majority of our conflicts in the past 20 years have been in DRY, Desert conditions... I can't believe that this creates that much surplus of waterproof clothing... :/
You had better believe it mate. Central Supply Depots (CSSD's) hold equipment for all possible theatres of operations and they only keep it for so long after which it's usually sold off to foreign governments/armed forces or put up for public auction. You'd be amazed at the amount of money that is wasted on equipment given how much they buy it for and how much it is sold for.
I used to be one of the uneducated public that didnt shoot.
I also remember seeing people at Barton Road in Camo gear ( used to cycle past every weekend) shooting and at no point did I think "nutty shooting types" or "crazy military nuts".
The only thought that past through my bonce was "oooo... what's going on? Can I have a go?"
Mark
Last edited by bigfathairybiker on Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The most sensible thing said in this whole thread, life is too short to be worrying about this garment or that garment, how feckin petty can shooting get?
Adam, if some of the comments on that FB page are anything to go by, then really petty.
I don't really think that real tree camo portrays the same type of "wannabe soldier" aspect as wearing military camouflage, which is the issue here.
Okay, so how about we all dress like you in all black, what would the "ignorant of our sport" think then? Hey I'm not having a dig at the way you dress mate, far from it. you dress as you see fit and good luck to you as long as you are enjoying your shooting.
Folks are going on about "looking like operators" Well what would a group of guys dressed from head to toe in black toting a rifle conjure up in the minds of those "ignorant of our sport? Do you see what I'm getting at here? The whole bloody thing is ridiculous. If folks want to dress in camo it's no fVckers business and if the NRA is so worried about public perception then don't post those kind of photos on social media FFS.
(Operators! Hmmmm been watching too much telly me thinks)
I don't disagree.. Like I said previously, my opinion of camo, non camo, etc don't really come into it. I'd much rather have the NRA doing something to promote shooting as opposed to posting about something so trivial that's pushing the divide between disciplines even more.
Just because I can see the issue that's trying to be addressed, doesn't mean that I agree that there is an issue.
Blu wrote:TG,
it also occurs to me that the majority of our conflicts in the past 20 years have been in DRY, Desert conditions... I can't believe that this creates that much surplus of waterproof clothing... :/
You had better believe it mate. Central Supply Depots (CSSD's) hold equipment for all possible theatres of operations and they only keep it for so long after which it's usually sold off to foreign governments/armed forces or put up for public auction. You'd be amazed at the amount of money that is wasted on equipment given how much they buy it for and how much it is sold for.
I have no idea how it works, and it's why I posed it as a question, as opposed to a statement. I genuinely don't know about surplus clothing. I went to a surplus store to go get some clothing for my trip to Czech Republic and came out having bought plain black work combats as they were most practical, cheapest hard wearing out of everything that were on display. Maybe it's where I live but I've never been blown away by what my local army surplus stores stock. Not much by the way of un-issued gear, that which has been issued always looks well worn, which to me, makes it practically unusable.
TattooedGun wrote: Maybe it's where I live but I've never been blown away by what my local army surplus stores stock. Not much by the way of un-issued gear, that which has been issued always looks well worn, which to me, makes it practically unusable.
Most of the good surplus stuff is online, rather than in stores.
I have some in vacum sealed bags, never opened...it's 90's stuff though, so not that great! Bought it in bulk for a paintball trip many years ago, but it's the charcoal lined NBC stuff (wasn't described as NBC when I bought them).
