Tactical pants for golf shirt uniform

[♠SARKID♠]

As someone who wears what would be considered "tactical pants" on a daily basis as street wear, I'd like to know exactly what he means by "tactical pants".  The only big name in tac wear that makes a pair of grey pants right now is 5.11 (five-eleven) and at about $46 a pop I doubt they're going to have a huge following with cheaper options out there. (I get mine on clearance. Always.)  How does he define tactical pant?  How does he separate it from a regular pair of cargo pants?  Do they have to be made of nylon?  Have oversized belt loops?  Are they only tactical if they're marketed as tactical?

[lordmonar]

This is just a big non-issue.

It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.

The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that.

But they have to understand that that definition only applies to personnel who are subordinate to them....and not to CAP as a whole.

Until such time that 39-1 defines what sort/color of gray pants and further defines black shoes or boots.....it will be up to individuals or their chain of command.

To the OP....while maybe someone was haveing a discussion about it.....according to Ned Lee (the member of the BoG and a member on the Uniform Comittee....there is nothing offical in the pipe line.

[Critical AOA]

Not to mention that if you are wearing the golf shirt while flying or performing some other active mission, cargo pants / tactical pants and some sort of comfortable black shoe is a much better option than grey dress slacks and black dress shoes. 

[sarmed1]

This is just a big non-issue.

It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.

The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that......

From the 39-1
oops realized I copied the wrong one.....I couldnt even remember it being that restrictive....

mk

[davedove]

This is just a big non-issue.

It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.

The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that......

From the 39-1

Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill
fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching
at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

I dont know, as much as I prefered the 5.11 style with the polo too, that seems as defined as it will get short of specifing a specific brand. 5.11 or its associate knock-off are not dress trousers nor flannel or worsted (wool basically).

mk

That's not what it says for the golf shirt uniform, from Table 4-4:

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging,
with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are
authorized (no jeans).

Note, this is different from the slacks for the aviator shirt and blazer combos.

[Eclipse]

Δ A big part of these arguments is people not even reading the proper part of the reg...

[jimmydeanno]

Even "shoes" can be interpreted different ways. 

In some circles, "sneakers" are not "shoes."  "Shoes", in those circles, are leather and are worn with suits.

[Larry Mangum]

While I firmly believe that Ned as a source can not be beat, I do know that Susie Parker from NHQ, has publicly stated that an ICL was in the works that would authorize tactical pants. Not sure of the time line, but my understanding is that it is imminent. I would suspect that means pants like the tactical pants from Propper and from 5.11. 

Of course all of this is heresy until an ICL actually appears.

[a2capt]

Another ICL that in theory expires. Meaning, you're supposed to hang up your pants in 179 more days after reading that.

Could be like the PCR conference where in tan, khaki, some variation on pants color was specified in place of gray with the golf shirt and many took that and ran like the dickens "It's approved!!", and I saw that at many CAWG activities for a little bit after.

I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.

[Eclipse]

How are they going to specify a manufacturer?  They don't even do that with the USAF-style uniforms.

The spec needs to stay loose to allow people to shop their own closets, which is one of the points of the corporate variants.

There isn't even a need to specifically authorize them - the spec as it exists today is fine.

[a2capt]

"Hour" must equal "How are".

Of course they don't do it for the USAF-style uniforms. They make the stuff, or the "premium" stuff is made to the same spec. You don't see them selling anything else at the official source.

[arajca]

Another ICL that in theory expires. Meaning, you're supposed to hang up your pants in 179 more days after reading that.

Could be like the PCR conference where in tan, khaki, some variation on pants color was specified in place of gray with the golf shirt and many took that and ran like the dickens "It's approved!!", and I saw that at many CAWG activities for a little bit after.

I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.

When you get down into requiring a specific brand or model or uniform, i.e. Carhartt B0745, neon pink with blue polka dots, you need to provide them and make sure they are available in sizes people need. 5.11 are nice slacks, but they stop at 44. Many of our member cannot wear them because they are not available in the necessary sizes.

You can establish a standard. Consult with fabric and clothing manufacturers to find the proper thread color definition for the fabric. That what the military does. Shade 1502 has a specific technical definition that fabric manufacturers know and use when they make fabric for uniforms to spec. LAPD Blue is another example.

[Eclipse]

"Hour" must equal "How are".

Of course they don't do it for the USAF-style uniforms. They make the stuff, or the "premium" stuff is made to the same spec. You don't see them selling anything else at the official source.

And no one in CAP is required to shop at the official source, heck 1/2 the membership doesn't even know about it.

I agree with Arajca - establish a standard, but for corporates they have to be reasonable within the availability of commercial sources.
Common sense has to prevail as well - it's interesting how 80% of the people in a room can figure out a shade of gray that is reasonably close,
yet there's always one or two wearing pants that are nearly black.

[Ned]

While I firmly believe that Ned as a source can not be beat, I do know that Susie Parker from NHQ [. . .]

Ms. Parker is a CAP institution. 

I've suggested that we name the Cadet Program Achievemnt 10 (Administrative Officer) after her.  She will always, always know more and better stuff than me.

[a2capt]

... yet there's always one or two wearing pants that are nearly black.

..followed by one wearing some form of 5.11 or Cargo variety with the white aviator shirt because it said "Gray" and does not preclude side pockets.

Which pisses on the whole argument "It it does not say not to in 39-1, ..." <--> "It doesn't say to do it in 39-1 ..."

Common sense. But as it was also said. Some places, those black sneakers would in fact be considered shoes, so someone might consider wrinkled, popped up pocket flaps, baggy pockets to be "dress" quality, because .. after all, they got dressed, didn't they?

Common sense.  It works most of the time.

[Sapper168]

........ 5.11 are nice slacks, but they stop at 44. Many of our member cannot wear them because they are not available in the necessary sizes.

Actually 5.11 tactical pants in grey go all the way up to waist size 54.

http://www.511tactical.com/All-Products/Pants/Tactical-Pants/511-Tactical-Pants-Mens-Cotton.html#

[jeders]

I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.

NO!

How are they going to specify a manufacturer?  They don't even do that with the USAF-style uniforms.

The spec needs to stay loose to allow people to shop their own closets, which is one of the points of the corporate variants.

There isn't even a need to specifically authorize them - the spec as it exists today is fine.

Yes.

[Larry Mangum]

Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.

[sarmed1]

Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.

Because its tactikewl.... most tactical wear now a'days never sees the "harsh" field environments it was meant to stand up in..... I mean hey it gets pretty hectic in the
disptach center/EOC/office etc etc......

mk

[Critical AOA]

Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.

Because its tactikewl.... most tactical wear now a'days never sees the "harsh" field environments it was meant to stand up in..... I mean hey it gets pretty hectic in the
disptach center/EOC/office etc etc......

mk

Same could be said for BDUs and the like.