One of the never ending issues for some people, whether in the Military or part of the Survivalist crowd, is the selection of gear that makes the carry and employment of their tactical gear efficient, durable, effective and fast. A lot of us have been fortunate enough to have come up with a system that is modular enough to cover the different weapons systems we might be using, and hopefully not break the bank while we’re figuring it out.
I have a good friend who lives in the Jacksonville, Florida area and makes tactical gear for a living (It’s not a hobby). The company is called UW Gear. I’ve known John Ammons for a couple of years now, and I can tell you that you will not find a more down to earth, friendly and helpful person when it comes to setting you up with quality tactical gear at a modest price.
I have a number of items made by John, and have been testing his gear for well over a year now. I can say without reservation that you will not find better quality at this price anywhere else. Below I will show a number of the items I have tested out, and put through the ringer and give my impressions of each type of gear.
First up is the individual mag pouches John sells. So far I have multiple, double mag pouches for three different mag types, the 20 round M1A/FAL mag, the 30 round FAL mag, and the 30 round AR Magpul mag. Below is the FAL two mag 30 rounders on a Tactical Tailor vest (John also sells TT gear). If you note the pic below that. It show a piece of velcro on the mag pouch, and this is to keep the pouch closed when only one mag is in the pouch. This is necessary because the ingenious retention tab that all John’s mag pouches use relies on tension to keep it shut, and if one mag is missing, the pouch flap doesn’t have the prerequisite tension to keep it shut without help.
The tension type closure tab is one of the reason I’ve chosen to go with John’s mag pouches for all my rifles. This type of closure doesn’t break off, pull a snap through, or wear out/load up with dirt like velcro does. Been there, done that…..Hated it! Below is the same vest with the AR Magpul pouches in place.
These mag pouches fill the roll of any standard molle mag pouch, and do a good job of retention but are still pretty fast. One of the nice additions you can get on John’s pouches is a sewn in molle strap. This strap is easier to work with (not as stiff) than a lot of the other pouch attachment straps I’ve used, and swapping out pouches is a snap. It also uses another tuck tab instead of a snap or a plastic catch.
Two of the first rigs of John’s that I used were the four mag M1A/FAL 20 rounder Swamp Fox harness, and the six mag AR Magpul 30 rounder Swamp Fox harness. These go on like a vest, but fit and ride similar to a chest rig. I’ve use both rigs a good bit, and they are made to be durable and provide easy accessibility to your mags. They also have convenient molle webbing on both side to attach an IFAK or radio pouch. The swamp Fox rig fills the roll of carrying enough ammo without equipping for a combat patrol.
Because the two center pouches are singles, and the two outside pouches are doubles, the double pouches have the extra velco for single mag retention.
This is the Swamp Fox Rig for four FAL 30 round mags
Up to this point, all the Swamp Fox rigs have permanently affixed mag pouches and were four across. This next one is my Son’s rig for AR Magpul 30’s, and it has two central double mag pouches, and a molle accessory pouch on the right side (of the wearer), and a UWG molle blowout pouch on the left side. The advantage of this rig is that it is minimalist in the amount of space it takes up on ones chest in comparison to the four side by side pouch rigs. By the way, I am a big fan of John’s blow out pouch. It will hold an Israeli dressing, a pack of Quickclot, and a roll of gauze. It also has slots on both side to affix a RATS tourniquet.
Next up are the two chest rigs we’ve tried out. When I say we, I mean my Wife and I. My Wife finds the Minuteman chest rig completely comfortable. In comparison, she didn’t like the way my Son’s Swamp Fox rig rode, and the placement of the buckles were uncomfortable for her. Her chest rig is similar to my Son’s Swamp Fox rig, but it does not open in the front and therefore is a little less broad across the chest. My Son’s Swamp Fox rig and my Wife’s Minuteman chest rig are minimalist in nature, designed for those who are smaller in size, or want a very small rig on there chest. Her Minuteman is set up just like my Son’s Swamp Fox rig and has the two central AR Magpul double mag pouches, a molle accessory pouch on the right side, and a molle UWG blowout kit on the left side We all carry our blowout kits on the left front of our rigs as SOP.
The last wearable carry rig I’m going to discuss here is a chest harness that I use. Normally, I’m not a fan of chest rigs, but this one was a little different. It is designed to be minimalist in nature, and is a molle chest rig with one of John’s AR Magpul three mag shingles and a UWG blowout kit. The webbing is all thinner (not double or triple thickness with padding) and the retention flaps are actually a strap with the same tuck tab his flaps normally have. This rig rides very well underneath a light jacket or heavy shirt, and is about as spartan as you’d want, while still carrying what you need if the environment get’s “non permissive”. This rig would work out well if you’re driving from “A” to “B” and think you might need more than what your pistol and accessories might offer.
I’ve already discussed the three mag bandoleers that John makes in this post and also here. They are a convenient way to have three extra mags available in a small rig that can be attached to your pack or on your person.
Final thoughts. It’s hard to find well made kit in the U.S. that doesn’t break the bank. John is a conscientious, hard working, helpful guy that will give you an excellent product at a fair price. He can also work with you on something that isn’t in the line up. I sent John two of the FAL 30 round mags (No one makes a pouch specifically for them) and he had the mag pouches and four mag Swamp Fox rig ready in a timely manner. Give him a shout and tell him MDT sent you
Brushbeater gives some good advice about selecting a caliber and weapon type. It is no secret that I am a big fan of the 7.62×51 (.308) and the FAL and M1A (M14) rifles in particular. As much as I would rely on those two rifle types and that caliber, anyone who knows me will also tell you I think everyone needs a quality AR in 5.56 caliber in their gun safe, because it just makes logistical sense. From a Survivalist perspective, the other calibers are generally gimmicks if you are honestly answering the “versatility versus logistics” question in a logical manner. The 5.56 in an AR, and/or 7.62×51 in an FAL or M1A is where it’s at.
AR carbine (top), or pistol (bottom) in 5.56x45Nato
M1A Socom with Sage stock (left) M1A Match (right). While the FAL isn’t known for it’s accuracy, the M1A (especially the “Loaded” and “Match” models) are.
The above video was from my M1A Socom shown above, and shot at EVTC. They got it wrong about the ammo however. It was 1970’s era German Ball. This just shows how effective a good flash suppressor can be, even out of a 7.62×51 16″ carbine barrel.
Admin Note: I wrote this prior to the contemporary…um…’incident’. But that being said, it’s timely for those just now waking up, those looking to streamline kit, or those simply wanting to read another take on the bewilderment that is the contemporary AR platform. This is NOT a caliber war. Intermediate caliber debates are stupid and get argued by people who don’t know their rear from a hole in the ground about fighting. So if you want to argue why your pet caliber is better than Joe’s pet caliber, there’s whole forums where folks with no experience do that- Go there. Understand?
A Reader’s Question:
Looking to purchase a new ar-15 soon, but am at odds on the caliber. So (many) conflicting opinions on the internet. Could you do an article in the future about the feasibility of each caliber? .223, .308, 6.5 Grendel, 300 ACC Blackout. Considering long term ammo availability as well, that being the primary issue. Thanks.
Our first question needs to be what is the purpose of this weapon? Is it going to be a jack of all trades, general purpose home defense rifle? That’s 99.9% of you reading this. Is it going to be an *actual* sporting rifle that you intend to hunt with or is it simply a range toy? If it’s a range toy then what I have to say is going to be irrelevant either way; I’m not wealthy, I can’t afford range toys. Are you buying with the intention that you’re going to need resupply (you should be) at some point or are you planning on going it alone? How do you intend to keep it running? Logistics matter a lot more than what you like best. For sanity’s sake lets look at our options listed above and say that our first rifle is going to be our general purpose, home defense, fight if we have to, carbine. We have .223 (5.56×45), .308 (7.62×51), 6.5 Grendel, and 300 BO. (But, why not 7.62×39??? Because it runs far better in an AK. That’s why.)
This is, like 6.8 SPC, doomed to be an “also ran” for a lot of reasons. Having shot a good amount of it, the round always seemed like to me an answer in search of a question. “The better mousetrap” I guess. It may have a ballistic advantage in a certain niche, and while I’m NOT a fan out of an AR, it’s interesting out of a bolt gun- but nothing that can’t be done cheaper with more common rounds. Wanting a caliber with the close range ballistics of the 7.62×39, better performance than 5.56 suppressed, and fitting in a standard AR 15 magazine all seems like a worthy notion, but in practice I think it falls flat especially for a Survivalist.
First, it’s not in widespread use. Yeah, sure, such and such or so and so secret squirrel ninjas are rumored to use it (because wikipedia said so), and it’s the hottest thing on the planet this week to the cooler-than-thou range bunny types, but the real story is that it’s a lot of hype for not much gain in any direction, especially if you’re running a standard length barrel unsuppressed (and that’s most all of you). It’s smaller cousin, 5.56, from which it borrows its case is in far more widespread use, every bit as effective at longer ranges (300-600m) in my experience, and unless you’re explicitly building a rifle to be suppressed-only, you’re not gaining much except for a more expensive ammo budget. Don’t kid yourself into thinking it’s going to be adopted by anyone in large quantity either. The usuals said that about 6.8 too…which went nowhere. In fact, if it did get picked for large scale .gov use the on-the-shelf supply would dry up faster than .22 LR at a prepper convention.
But, but, I can reload for it! Yeah, right, ok. And when you run out of that supply, eventually, where are you going to find new brass? You don’t have time or ability to worry about digging up brass if you’re laying down the pain on a target. Oh, you’ll ream .223 brass that’s everywhere, that’s right. But you’re doing all that while you’re also runnin’ n’ gunnin’ and survivin’ n’ preppin’ like a doomsday master right? Have you reamed 2,000 of them to resupply your team? Can you? No? That’s what I thought. Shaping brass is a major PITA, and there’s no guarantee that it will even work across varied rifle manufacturers or chamber tolerances. The logistics simply don’t support it, and until they do, and I don’t think they ever will, you should avoid it no matter how much the tacticool gunrag crowd tells you not to. Yeah, it kills stuff. So does 5.56. So does 7.62×39. The dead ain’t gonna compliment you on your boutique round.
Now the Grendel is a neat concept and in many ways perfects the concept of the intermediate round. Interestingly enough, Bill Alexander ( I have a close friend who met him bumbling in a gunshop of all places local to Alexander’s facility, and speaks very highly of the encounter) took a similar path that the British did earlier in the .280 British, which was scrapped as the NATO standard in lieu of the 7.62×51, as the US possessed far larger means to produce .30 cal ammo. (And it kept the MIC inbusiness) But the .280 class round excelled at flat trajectory and carried energy at distance, also reflected in the strengths of its newest incarnation. The Grendel is excellent for shooting at longer distances and being lightweight with low recoil, making it a very attractive round for families of smaller statured shooters or recoil sensitive people to be more effective at longer ranges. Overall, I think it’s a great round and a great idea. It’s an excellent intermediate range cartridge and works very well. But I won’t recommend it as a first or only AR-type weapon.
First, you need special magazines. Like the 6.8, it suffers from needing it’s own due to a unique cartridge taper. This gets expensive and can be complicated, especially for newer shooters. Second, it needs it’s own bolt, which is the same as the 7.62×39 AR bolt face, having much less metal on the lugs. This WILL lead to premature failure compared to the standard AR bolt dimensions, as any 7.62×39 AR shooter will begrudgingly tell you. Ammo itself used to be expensive, but interestingly enough a number of nations are looking at the round as a possible next generation cartridge, including Russia and Serbia. In fact, a 6.5 Grendel AK Vepr was available in the US for a very short time before Molot imports ended up being banned earlier this year. Zastava also builds one, and we might see an imported version on our shores along with their Yugo M70 type AKM. As of this writing 6.5 ammo is indeed made by Wolf and is available at many outlets, so stocking up on training ammo is not a problem currently. But that being said, since it’s not (yet) in widespread use, not used by any domestic entity in any measurable quantity, requires specialty magazines, and I don’t foresee a foreign invasion by an army using it, I don’t recommend it as a first or only AR-type weapon.
7.62 NATO (308 Winchester)
Unlike the bulk of the gun culture out there, I have combat experience with the SR-25, aka M110 aka SASR. I greatly preferred the M24 when given the option. The M14 EBR was also issued, and I still rather carried the M24. I privately owned a higher-end 7.62×51 AR-10 type weapon for a while, and still prefer a bolt gun. That should tell you what you need to know, but in case it doesn’t, I’ll elaborate.
I don’t think anyone in their right mind questions the power of the 7.62, be it a fighting round or medium game caliber, and in my opinion, it’s the best all around utility cartridge for a Survivalist along with the 12ga, primarily due to it’s commonality and widespread use among…pretty much everyone. I know first hand the destruction both M80 ball and the M118 can deliver on the business end, as well as the freezers I’ve filled growing up with Remington Core-lokt. But I don’t really like it in an AR.
The first problem is defining an industry standard; for the 308 pattern AR, there’s a few out there. The Armalite pattern took a proprietary magazine, the DPMS/Bushmaster yet another, the Rock River took an FAL magazine, etc, etc, with a de-facto industry standard arising with the adoption of the SR-25/M110 type rifle. This led to Magpul making the good quality and inexpensive magazines for it, somewhat resolving one issue, but still, there’s others. Like it’s little brother, the AR10 suffers from varying degrees of quality associated with expense- and if you’re buying “budget”, expect problems. I’ve shot
enough of them to know and I’m not interested in hearing how your $500 homebuilt runs like a swiss watch. If you’re new to the AR in general, this is a HUGE deal. Malfunctions when it matters not only saps confidence but costs lives. Second, all ARs break stuff in time; if there’s varying degrees of standards, ill fitting parts deadline that weapon and without experience in your fold you’re going to have a heck of a time diagnosing the issue. Big Bore ARs are far less common and not nearly as interchangeable as their 5.56 counterpart. Bolts are a big part of the problem- there’s no one monolithic standard. The new DPMS Gen II makes this even more complicated, blurring the lines between the AR15 and 10 in an attempt to shave weight, using a completely different bolt than anything else on the market. Last, they’re all, to a rifle (again, I’ve got enough experience with them from the bottom end range trash to the Stoner SR-25) finicky about cleanliness. Much more so than the AR-15. In fact, the M110 is widely known among end users for being unreliable- the semi-integral suppressor and extreme close tolerances are the culprits- and keeping a weapon meticulously clean is a challenge on long movements. Trust me, I know. I think LMT has it right with their version that the Brits are using from what I’ve observed, but that’s the only one I can vouch for.
So while I love the 308 round, I don’t love the AR rifles that fire it, and approach with caution if you do. If you’re wanting a semi-auto combat rifle, the FAL, M1A/M14, and G3/PTR-91 types are better options in my experience, in that order. If you just have to have an SR-25 type rifle, don’t cut corners and buy the best quality possible. If standardizing on them as part of a group, buy ones form the same maker to have a known standard between rifles. But you’re walking into SCAR territory in terms of cost when buying quality, and that’s a better weapon all around. Even better still, put the money into a good bolt action rifle with great glass and buy a quality AR15 for everything else. Does this mean they’re all bad? No, it’s just not what you should buy as a first or only AR.
5.56 NATO (.223 Remington)
Probably the most controversial round ever created among people who talk more than do, the 5.56 since it’s adoption long, long ago either meets scorn or high praise depending on varied levels of experience of the story teller (BS artist). I’ll tell you first hand it always worked fine for me. Fine as in, did it’s job. Nothing more, nothing less. It did what I expected it to do, every time. The round was designed with certain parameters filling the same void the Kalashnikov did; bigger than a burp gun but playing the same role for the “marching fire” concept that was all the rage post-WWII. A soldier can carry a lot of ammo with not a lot of weight, and the heavier loadings that I favor (69gr Nosler,77gr OTM, for different purposes) are very effective against a wide variety of targets. Since I’m not bound by any convention anymore (and that works two ways, for all you would-be partisans), I’m not limited to the 62gr green tip- not that it doesn’t work, but a Barnes Varmint grenade or a Nosler BT work dramatically better.
But this ain’t a caliber debate; its a logistics debate. Overwhelmingly the 5.56 is in broad supply, along with the standard magazines and standard dimension parts. Everything about the rifle is a known quantity. Spare parts, even for top shelf quality, has never been cheaper. The 5.56 AR15 is experiencing a renaissance in the US like few weapons have, and in 20 years it went from being an “army gun carried by the fringe types” in the eyes of the public to being a status symbol along with Ford Trucks and Yeti coolers. It doesn’t make sense not to have one.
And for that reason, you should own one in 5.56 for your first AR. It is not the best of any world (no intermediate cartridgeis), but it works and it’s what you’ll find in many people’s hands when need be. It’s not my own favorite round by any means but I know it works from experience. For that matter all of them discussed here work, it’s just a matter of how the logistics figure into the equation long-term. And that answer for the AR-15 is 5.56, period. The design is not going away anytime in the foreseeable future and adding one to your arsenal in its basic form is a logical move. Keep it simple and you’ll keep it effective. Avoid gimmicks, buy quality and train often.
I was recently going through an old journal I kept when I was a young Survivalist (15 years old), and I came across a self assessment test that I apparently thought was important enough to write out verbatim in 1985 (I decided to re-write it in a Word format now). I have copied what I had written in the journal here for your own perusal and use. It was originally put out by a company called “Safety City” of Washington D.C.. I tried to find out if they still existed, but all attempts at googling that business showed nothing available. Some people think that if it’s not the latest and greatest info (this is 32 years old), it is “obviously” sub par. Think what you will, but I challenge you to come up with a more exhaustive generalized skills and equipment checklist. Enjoy.
Taken about the same time that I wrote this assessment down.
There are four sections that you can complete for each topic within each category. “Interest Level”, the “Present Skill Level”, a “Desired Skill Level”, and finally the “Willing To Develop/Provide Training For Others” section.
Section One would be your “INTEREST LEVEL”.
Under “Interest Level” is three categories, “NONE”, “SOME”, and “HIGH”. These are self explanatory.
Section Two would be your “PRESENT SKILL LEVEL”.
The four levels of skill are, “NONE”, “APPRENTICE”, “JOURNEYMAN”, and “MASTER”. Be honest with yourself, it is a self assessment. You will never get better if you aren’t honest with yourself about where you are presently at.
Section Three is “DESIRED SKILL LEVEL”.
If you indicated in the “Interest Level” section that your interest was high in a given area, fill out your “Desired Skill Level” for those areas. Those levels would be “APPRENTICE’, “JOURNEYMAN” and “MASTER”. This will give you something to strive for.
Last but not least is Section Four which is “WILLING TO DEVELOP/PROVIDE TRAINING FOR OTHERS” and consists of whether you are willing to teach any area that you have a “Master’s” level of skill in. This is just a simple “YES” or “NO”.
Two things I added to my list years ago in the “Other” sections of two of the categories were as follows: in Category “G” I included “Trapping“, because if you are going to include “Hunting” and “Fishing’ as their own categories, “Trapping” deserves it’s own too. I also added “ATV Systems“ to Category “I”, because they are not an automobile, and they have many more “Survivalist” oriented capabilities than a motorcycle.
Sometimes it is very hard to get an idea of what you need to learn or invest in, where you are at with skills and equipment, and where you want to be regarding skills and gear. Hopefully, this assessment will help you figure out some of those needs.
Still striving to complete the assessment 32 years later, but I’m a lot closer.