Decision Time

[MajorPayne]

Hello all,

I have been looking for a new system to carry my gear (both for ES and the occasional FTX) and after looking a bit, I found the Condor modular carrier. It seems to be pretty sturdy and customizable and also has some good reviews. What are your thoughts? Any pros or cons that I have over looked?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=17726&tabid=548&catid=3237

[Eclipse]

Plate carriers are not a good choice for CAP use.



Not intended for SAR, presents the wrong image, the vest with no way to store anything costs more than your entire loadout should cost.

[Stonewall]

Plate carriers are not a good choice for CAP use.

-break-

Not intended for SAR, presents the wrong image, the vest with no way to store anything costs more than your entire loadout should cost.

Listen to him.  He speaks the truth!

Although not Condor (its not made in US), that looks exactly like the carrier I carry in the military.  And I would NEVER use it, with or without plates, for CAP, in SAR, in the woods, or whatever. 

[Flying Pig]

I think that is EXACTLY the image that makes CAP members cringe......

[Duke Dillio]

If you are looking for a vest, I highly recommend this one:

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/FERNO-Responder-VestColor-Red-3RTX8?gclid=COWQ9umZ0LUCFQThQgodZgYAfg&cm_mmc=PPC:GooglePLA-_-Safety-_-Workwear-_-3RTX8&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=3RTX8&ef_id=USldwQAABSJFgSj9:20130225002804:s

It's in the ballpark for what you were going to spend on the Condor and it is made of a breathable mesh.  It's easy to put on and take off and highly visible with bright color and reflective panels.  It works well with rucksacks and backpacks.  Just my opinion but it is what I use.  YMMV

[Eclipse]

Bear in m ind, also, that your outermost garment has to be ANSI compliant.  If you're spending money, your best best is to
buy something that has that compliance built in.

Nothing says "HARDnotKEWL" like an expensive plate carrier under a $10 reflective vest.

[MajorPayne]

 Thank you all and advice taken. Although that is not the exact one I was thinking of (just a close image I found online) I can see how that would give off the wrong image.

[Stonewall]

Bear in m ind, also, that your outermost garment has to be ANSI compliant.  If you're spending money, your best best is to
buy something that has that compliance built in.

Nothing says "HARDnotKEWL" like an expensive plate carrier under a $10 reflective vest.

Don't tell the AF that. During our ORE/ORI we were decked out in full combat kit with a $9 reflective belt wrapped around us.

[Duke Dillio]

Nuthin sez Tactikewl like ANSI green......

[SarDragon]

$9?? What a ripoff!

[Duke Dillio]

$9?? What a ripoff!

That's what the military pays for them along with the $1000 toilet seats and $800 hammers.....

[SarDragon]

It's more like a $600 toilet seat, and have you ever actually seen it? It's not as simple as you think.

The expensive hammer isn't as simple as you think, either.

[Duke Dillio]

One of my old supervisors was a flight engineer on a P-3 Orion.  He said that the toilet seat itself was like $700 and the Navy hired contractors to install them at $300 a pop.  I believe the tale of the $600 hammer was that it was included in a kit of other technical components and the averaged price of the hammer in with the other parts of the kit brought it to $600.  My comments were simply in jest...   :angel:

[Garibaldi]

It's more like a $600 toilet seat, and have you ever actually seen it? It's not as simple as you think.

The expensive hammer isn't as simple as you think, either.

There used to be a Pentagon memo floating around with the "official" designations of several everyday items. Like, a screwdriver would have been classified as a "rotary hand-operated fastening device" or some such nonsense. I used to remember the one for hammer. Went something like "Hand-powered impact driver" or something.

[Eclipse]

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

"Ever since the Defense Department procurement scandals of the 1980s, the $600 hammer has been held up as an icon of Pentagon incompetence. Immortalized in the "Hammer Awards" that Vice President Al Gore's program to reinvent government gives out to waste-cutters, this absurdly overpriced piece of hardware has come to symbolize all that's wrong with the government's financial management.

One problem: "There never was a $600 hammer," said Steven Kelman, public policy professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It was, he said, "an accounting artifact."

The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

"The hammer got as much overhead as an engine," Kelman continued, despite the fact that the hammer cost much less than $420 to develop, and the engine cost much more-"but nobody ever said, 'What a great deal the government got on the engine!' "

Thus retold, the legend of the $600 hammer becomes a different kind of cautionary tale. It is no longer about simple, obvious waste. The new moral is that numbers, taken as self-explanatory truths by the public and the press, can in fact be the woefully distorted products of a broken accounting system."

[SarDragon]

One of my old supervisors was a flight engineer on a P-3 Orion.  He said that the toilet seat itself was like $700 and the Navy hired contractors to install them at $300 a pop.  I believe the tale of the $600 hammer was that it was included in a kit of other technical components and the averaged price of the hammer in with the other parts of the kit brought it to $600.  My comments were simply in jest...   :angel:

The green part is essentially correct. It is a fiberglass enclosure for the "honey bucket".

The red part, not so much. IIRC, they were installed at the factory, or at a depot facility.

[N7MOG]

I've seen the high priced toilet seat on a C-5A. The engineers designed the space, and once approved they had to "make fit" a seat since you couldn't get one at "ACE Hardware" that would work in the space.  The hammer was always discussed as being made of a non-sparking compound: Beryllium copper. That stuff IS expensive. My 2 cents.

[SarDragon]

^^^^

Exactly. Non-sparking, and non-magnetic.

[GroundHawg]

I was able to order a complete new setup in OD green made by condor for around $100. I got a molle "battle belt", two utility pouches, a butt pack, shoulder straps, an IFAK pouch, and a hydration pouch (sans hydration system), and a pouch for a leatherman.

Its not Mayflower, LBT, or Tactical Tailor, but for short term usage such as is the case with CAP SAR/DR it works fine. There is a company out there that makes a simular setup, that is high quality, in Rescue Orange, but I dont have $320 to spend on such a beautiful piece of gear right now.

http://762tactical.com/vests/the-partisan-lbv.html

It will be my next splurge that my wife complains about Im sure. 

[NM SAR]

Back on topic, military-style gear is designed for combat operations. Condor gear is designed for airsoft and falls apart. Neither are appropriate for ground search. look for an entry-level hiker's pack with a rigid frame, and maybe a small vest for your compass, notepad, ect.