windproof smocks - old vs new?

#1
wothcha,

i was wondering if arrsers could help me out on a 'which one should i get' query...

being a sad, fat old man i've taken to rough shooting, and to facilitate this i was thinking of getting a windproof smock of the kind i lovingly remember from the early nineties - light, comfortable, quick drying etc...

however, i find that there is a huge range of 'windproof smocks' on the market - the type i vaguely remember: four bulgy pockets, wired hood, thin, light, quick drying and pretty weatherproof, (smock, combat, windproof, arctic(?)) and a much cheaper, much more widely available version (smock, combat, windproof, woodland DP) with four pockets, two zipped in chest pockets, wired hood etc... now, the latter version appears to me to be much heaver and thicker than the old version i was used to (unless alzhiemers is creaping in), and i was wondering if there is a significant difference between the two in terms of comfort, quick drying, wind/showerproof'ness'...?

any advice gratefully recieved.
 
#2
The old one you and I know was in 100% cotton gaberdine. Well the ones I had in the early 80's were. The modern cr*p is a cotton/nylon blend. Can't comment on comparing them as I only knew the old ones.

Then the pale DPM camo is more ally. And the simple 4 outside pockets , 2 inner and poachers ? All yer need son !

Unfortunately the gaberdine ones don't wear well and are getting harder to find. A mint one went recently of ebay for over £200.

D_B
 
#3
Think you have answered your own question.

Old was light, quick drying etc
New is heavier, not so fast drying but is warmer.

I still use my old one for bunny busting although its faded to hell now..infact, it looks like the new cam being issued in 'stan ;)
 
#4
to be fair the new standard smock is lighyearsr better than what was issued and if its just for bunny bashing
 
S

stevieni22

Guest
#5
The new ones are crap mate stick to the old ones, i havent worn the new one yet and that was through a Pl Sjt role at depot.
 
#8
IMOO it's a good smock/Jacket, it does the job, it's hard wearing and it's free.
 
#9
The old one you and I know was in 100% cotton gaberdine. Well the ones I had in the early 80's were. The modern cr*p is a cotton/nylon blend. Can't comment on comparing them as I only knew the old ones.

Then the pale DPM camo is more ally. And the simple 4 outside pockets , 2 inner and poachers ? All yer need son !

Unfortunately the gaberdine ones don't wear well and are getting harder to find. A mint one went recently of ebay for over £200.

D_B
So true! :frown: I wore my artic windproof as much as I could get away with and black nasty was used to seal the holes from the inside of the pockets towards the end of it's life!
 
#10
I have an old and quite faded windproof smock and was wondering is there a decent wind proofing solution I could buy and wash in to my jacket making it, once more, windproof?
 
#11
I had an old school one too, but some pikey cnut decided they wanted it more than me, as Boxy says the new ones are hard wearing and a good smock, but the key word here is they are free.
 
#12
I looked at it when it was given to me, and then i looked at the crow wearing it and seen how my screws who wore it hated it, drew from the facts and made my assumption that its w@nk.
Fair enough.

I have an old one (dad's) and a new style (issue), it does seem to me that the new fabric is a bit more hard wearing than the old stuff. Maybe it's just deceiving, but it does seem a bit more 'rugged' to me.

The pockets are bigger and the Canadian pockets have got to be considered a win - especially in gloves the old style windproof buttons were a bit gash, and aren't sewn on to the best of standards. I guess people just enjoy sticking the little squares of sniper tape on. The zipped chest pockets are also a bit of a win. On the flip side, the ventilation of the old one is much better and it folds away much smaller. The new one practically needs a daysack to itself.

I found my old windproof much better out on the det - it was comfier, lighter, and cooler; so for lounging around in a wagon or on a deck chair outside the tent it was spot on. But for the warry stuff I must say I used my issued newer one. because I did think it was a bit more rugged / hard wearing, but mainly because, as raised, it's free; and if you tear it on a bit of sharp metal or something you can go and give the QM the shredded bits of it and get a new one... free.


Still, I find it funny that back in the days of the 95 Ripstop (with the little squares), everyone thought it was well ally to go out and spend £100 on the SAS smock, which was a more rugged material, and let's face it, the rolled up hood is all part of the look (even though it's never used as a hood). As soon as it went on general issue, "ah.. it's shoite!"
 
#14
#16
Fair enough.

I have an old one (dad's) and a new style (issue), it does seem to me that the new fabric is a bit more hard wearing than the old stuff. Maybe it's just deceiving, but it does seem a bit more 'rugged' to me.

The pockets are bigger and the Canadian pockets have got to be considered a win - especially in gloves the old style windproof buttons were a bit gash, and aren't sewn on to the best of standards. I guess people just enjoy sticking the little squares of sniper tape on. The zipped chest pockets are also a bit of a win. On the flip side, the ventilation of the old one is much better and it folds away much smaller. The new one practically needs a daysack to itself.

I found my old windproof much better out on the det - it was comfier, lighter, and cooler; so for lounging around in a wagon or on a deck chair outside the tent it was spot on. But for the warry stuff I must say I used my issued newer one. because I did think it was a bit more rugged / hard wearing, but mainly because, as raised, it's free; and if you tear it on a bit of sharp metal or something you can go and give the QM the shredded bits of it and get a new one... free.


Still, I find it funny that back in the days of the 95 Ripstop (with the little squares), everyone thought it was well ally to go out and spend £100 on the SAS smock, which was a more rugged material, and let's face it, the rolled up hood is all part of the look (even though it's never used as a hood). As soon as it went on general issue, "ah.. it's shoite!"
Most of my cadets are now walking around with the latest pattern with the Velcro admin panels on both arms. Already some are velcro backing their star badges, quals etc; And now the QM 'can't get brassards' anymore. Coincidence?
 
#17
The old ones were optimised for Norwegian arctic winter operations: a very very cold, but dry, and clean environment.

Used for infantry soldiering in temperate climates, they quickly accumulate muck which abrades the fibres, and (like all pure cotton garments) they suddenly - and after not very long - fall apart on you.

The more recent Combat 95 took the design of the Arctic windproof (much admired after unpleasantness in the SaarfAtlantic), and translated it into a robust polycotton ripstop fabric garment, that is comfortable, practical and durable, with added goodies like buttons that don't fall off, and 'bars' inside the pockets to tie your compass, whistle, compo can opener (yes I am f#cking ancient) to.

If you had to wear any of the bog-standard combats that preceded it - especially the ghastly early 90s cheapos with single-stictched seams you will understand why Cbts 95 were 'to kill for' when thy first were issued.

Anyone griping about Cbts 95 smocks has really never suffered from bad kit, trust me.

The originals windproof smocks were not bad (indeed were excellent in their intended environment) but overall I'd recommend the more recent version, unreservedly.
 
#18
Stonker, an excellent post - especially about the shit before C95!!! How I longed for the return of my lined combats, where the buttons stayed on (less for cam nets!) and the pockets actually held their contents without seams giving way!!!.........Although I still loved my artic smock above all else! :wink:
 
#19
Stonker, an excellent post - especially about the shit before C95!!! How I longed for the return of my lined combats, where the buttons stayed on (less for cam nets!) and the pockets actually held their contents without seams giving way!!!.........And the kit trebled in weight when it rained, and took a fortnight to dry out :wink:
Fixed it for you.

That's why you loved the windproof more than you loved your mum.:-D
 
S

stevieni22

Guest
#20
and if you tear it on a bit of sharp metal or something you can go and give the QM the shredded bits of it and get a new one... free.


Still, I find it funny that back in the days of the 95 Ripstop (with the little squares), everyone thought it was well ally to go out and spend £100 on the SAS smock, which was a more rugged material, and let's face it, the rolled up hood is all part of the look (even though it's never used as a hood). As soon as it went on general issue, "ah.. it's shoite!"[/QUOTE]

Hood rolled up? thats not how riflemen do it mate its cooler to have the hood down and actually use it on ranges etc as a hood.As for ripping it get it patched up all adds to the vintage ally look and personally i hate the zip pockets - more pockets means more kit!
You can get good reproduction copy's from the likes of John Bull or HM Supplies and always get a 190/112 bigger the better for use with webbing and ECBA.But hey thats just my opinion and most blokes i did PSBC with, and my blokes in my Pl were the same apart from the odd pikey who wont part with some cash.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C'Norfolk Military Clothing & Boots 4
DB_Cooper Weapons, Equipment & Rations 11
Baldrick_dogsbody Infantry 47

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top