So you’ve got modularity on the front of your rig, that’s good, probably the priority, but now what about the back?

Check out this article if you’ve missed it for a detailed discussion on what I find to be the ‘perfect’ assembly of gear to form the optimal modular magazine carriage:

www.thefull9.net/picnmix/

With the front business out of the way it’s time to look at the party in the back, in this case in the form of the TYR Tactical, LLC Standard Assaulters’ Zip-On Platform. 70oz hydration size to be exact. If you happen to use something like a JPC 2.0 or Vel Sys Scarab then you will already have zips built in to your rear plate bag and a few choices of modular back panel available to you. The great thing with the Tyr product however is that as long as you’ve got enough PALS real estate you can mount it to absolutely anything. Since the zip mounted panels aren’t currently something FirstSpear offer integrally with their PCs and I wanted that modularity on the rear as well as the front, I thought I’d see what I might be able to puzzle together.

There is a very substantial caveat here in that you need to really take the time to count your PALS rows and columns before purchasing any piece of kit like this. Especially from Tyr given the fact they not only are they a brand that’s up there in quality and price but also build almost everything to order and have a fair lead time. If there’s one thing buying lots of gear over many years has definitely taught me, it’s that it is crucial to take a few minutes and do a careful visual check of your current kit vs the size of what you’re buying. It may make you feel like you’re going a tad cross eyed trying to count PALS rows on a small website image but it’s so much better in the long run than waiting ages to get something just to find

This can apply to sizing on things like belts as well, but for large pouches and platforms it most definitely comes in handy. If you read the above linked article for example you’ll have seen a custom setup on the front of my MBAV cut FS Strandhogg – I had to very specifically buy the MBAV to make that whole thing happen as the SAPI cut I already had in my possession at the time simply lacked the necessary number of PALS rows to attach both the loop field and the female 1″ buckles. Just the same happened on the back as well, with the SAPI cut having the steeper angles at the top it lacked the necessary height of PALS rows, but the more rectangular MBAV provided more space and just manages to fit the Tyr panel.

As you can see the Tyr setup is simple to install, you just thread on the 2 separate zip mounts and you’re ready to attach any of the numerous panels that are on offer. There’s simple PALS panels like this one which have an internal space for a hydro, then there are other variants with sewn on pouches, one with a small pack and even one for specific breathing gear. Swapping between any of those, or indeed just going back to slick, takes around 30 seconds. The zip mounts have internal stiffening and are also available to buy on their own, so once you’ve bought a panel you can share that between multiple platforms if desired. Exactly the sort of product line-up that I like to see.

Construction wise they definitely went all out on bar-tacks and webbing as you can see in the pictures. Personally if an option was available with none of the loops on the panel itself and with slicked down zip mounts I’d go for that. Even though I’m often a critic of hypalon I’d actually like to see the zip mounts made from said material, or even just a lighter cordura since they’re mostly going be covered and protected when in use – that would shave a nice bit of bulk and weight by comparison to the current all-webbing design. There’s no denying the long term durability you’re getting here though.

The only slight shame is that there’s no commonality or cooperation between manufacturers even though these rear zip panels have become quite popular now. For example, just off the top of my head I know Crye, Tyr Tac, Velocity and LBX are all making them but none of them are interchangeable on account of the zip types and panel sizes. There has been some standardisation on the Velocity Systems spec for front placard mounting so it is possible, but there’s been a lot more demand in the market for the placards by comparison to rear panels so you can see how the current situation has come about.

The picture accompanying this post shows the 70oz panel attached to a Medium Ranger Green FirstSpear AAC back panel, I’ve since moved the entire setup to my Medium Multicam MBAV Strandhogg but fortunately both are tall enough to accommodate. Again if this is something you’d like to add to your own kit be sure to take the time and count/measure everything up.

Using this TYR Tactical, LLC Gunfighter-E as a jump off point, let us talk belts a little bit. Just as a priming note, from this point on I’ll be describing the depicted style as a simulated 3 row belt, or just simulated 3, since it basically does the job of 3 inches (vertically) of PALS space, despite only being a 2″ tall piece of gear.

First off, why choose the Tyr out of the dozens of options on the market for a belt that features 2 rows of half inch webbing with a 1 inch gap? Well first off bear in mind this was originally ordered nearly 2 years ago now so when I buy another belt of this type it may come from a different brand, however at that point there weren’t quite as many prime cut choices from the big names available. The two options that consistently came up in discussion were the Tyr Gunfighter and Ronin Tactics variant. Every drone and his dog was buying the Ronin which I personally believe is an overpriced piece of gear made by a company which has quite literally zero originality in its’ product design. Granted it is a long running debate as to the fact that there’s nothing new under the sun and especially so in the world of gear, which is somewhat true and almost every company copies some ideas in some form or another, but if your *entire* product line is seemingly comprised of intellectual theft you will not get any of my cash – end of story. That notion will probably rub some folks up the wrong way, but if you came here for niceties and appeasement of the popular brands/products instead of what I find to be the complete and raw truth, you made a bad decision. I think Ronin is great at marketing and social media… and that’s about it.

Obviously the materials the Tyr uses are more than up to the job, particularly reassuring is the main body of webbing being the same as some parachute harness straps I’ve worn, as well as the AUSTRIALPIN Cobra front and centre. If you want an example with regards the stitch work throughout I’d recommend taking a look at the sheer volume of thread in the zig-zag pattern to the right of the label and any of the bar-tacks that are visible. I’ve had traditional 3″ PALS belts in the past (and indeed plate carriers) where the bar-tacks in the PALS webbing could not take the strain applied over time by the tight MALICE clips on first generation HSGI TACOs. Even though those exact pouches are long out of production, I still judge any traditional webbing PALS (i.e. not laser cut) via an assessment of whether the tacks would hold up to mounting a legacy TACO over an extended period. If the strength is there to withstand that, the strength will be present for aggressive usage. The sewing on the grosgrain ribbon that is covering the cut ends of the webbing adjacent to the cobra buckle is at a low count per inch granted, however it is more of an aesthetic nicety than anything else and despite the appearance in the picture, is very much straight and level.

So yes it’s all built very nicely, the PALS is neatly in spec, the hook & loop interface you’d expect for a modern belt of this type is present and the spacer mesh ‘base belt’ that comes included is frankly a superb piece of design work. But absolutely nothing is perfect so what are the negatives? Primarily the design of the adjustment, whereby you are losing a good few columns of PALS in an area that will be quite crucial for a lot of people. That said, the disparity is not as drastic as first appearance would suggest and unless you need equipment mounted in front of your pistol on your weapon/strong side it is a simple matter of slightly offsetting the entire belt. It doesn’t take much of a shift to get your pistol mag pouches settled in the spot you’re likely to want to have them settled. Newer designs do facilitate adjustment in a better way and maybe an update would be a good move, however the Gunfighter design has been around a lot longer than many others and from what I’ve researched it did a fair amount in terms of growing the entire concept and popularity of simulated 3 row belts within the gear market.

Is there still any value in older style belt sleeves with 3 full rows of PALS vs a new 2″ belt with two half inch rows of webbing? In terms of full on PLCE or ALICE style setups yes, but I think you need to be mounting a great many pouches around your waist with a substantial combined internal volume before you make that step change to the old ‘warbelt’. Fact is the British Infantryman is the master of belt webbing and as the gear they use shows, PALS isn’t actually necessarily the best choice for setting up a belt as primary load carriage for a large amount of equipment. Some older and less modular, but more robust, systems tend to be the preference and I can understand that entirely. For myself in a hobby context when I only have a holster, dump pouch and a couple of mags on a belt, the much lower overall bulk of an unpadded 2″ belt is definitely the way to go. Even if just from a transportation perspective let alone anything else. Given how many years a great many folks have spent searching for a solution to their belt gear not bouncing around when running or riding up when crouching, there’s just no arguing the merit of the velcro interface compared to the classic old thickly padded 3″ belts that lacked said interface. Especially given that they tended to have extraneous mesh and cordura above and below the actual PALS rows, resulting in a belt that could be pushing 4 or 5 inches tall in places. Not conducive to unhindered quick movement.

In future I’ll be looking to the Raptor Tactical Odin Mark IV and Eagle Industries simulated 3 row belts as potential purchases.

Quick heads up – Level Peaks ‘Warehouse’ on eBay currently have various G3 lowers going for a steal. The regular NYCO combats are a good £100 less than UK stockists who actually have any stock, however the real uber bargains are the All Weathers which for some crazy reason are priced the exact same as the NYCO.

Since the Crye web store had their price hike on G3 stuff earlier this year even the Field All Weather have been over $360 and over $410 for the Combats. So if they have your size in (or even somewhere close), get yourself some sweet soft shell trousers with all the multitude of features that you like having on the standard variants.

They didn’t have any size that would work for me in Multicam in the combats, but I went one waist size up and got myself a set of the MC fields to replace and upgrade from my ECWCS L5 pants. I’ve already got 2 pairs of the AW Combats in the collection here so these fields will round out my options very nicely. And remember even the normal G3s are going for £300 in the UK and even more around other stores in Europe, so under 200 for the All Weathers is pretty much unprecedented.

Alternatively if you’re basic and/or never going to do stuff in the rain, they’ve got some MC Arid, Black and RG stock in normal NYCO G3 combats as well as some reasonable deals on the NYCO fields. Not nearly as much of a steal as the All Weathers though.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Crye-Precision-Pants-G3-Multicam-Arid-Military/292675871581?hash=item4424d7635d%3Am%3AmoJrCK7SoSXSn_6i7YyI6jg&var=591474327571&LH_PrefLoc=1&_sop=10&_nkw=crye&_sacat=0&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

If you’ve no idea what the High Speed Gear TACO line is by now then you need to just go and look that up because you are lagging behind the times my friend.

At this point I’d say HSGI are probably doing most of their business in TACO form, they have dozens of variants before you even get in to colour options and today I’d like to talk about the version I think might well be the best in breed. The one big caveat to that is that I’m yet to try the polymer TACO and there isn’t an abundance of information out there discussing it either, so things could change if I ever pick one up. Especially since the LT is the most expensive of the 3, with the original in the middle and the polymer model being cheapest.

Right now though we’re looking at the TACO LT standard size variant, PALS mounting (vs belt). I mention the PALS mounting specifically as it will do the job of the belt mount using some simple velcro one-wrap; check through my videos on YouTube to see the explanation of how to do that effectively. I’ll tend to opt for the classic original sizing versus any of the double stacks because I think the lower profile is a bonus in most situations and as far as magazine compatibility, the standard rifle mag size pouch is probably going to provide the widest range of service. That said if you have different needs then the HSGI range will cater to just about any desire.

The great prospect about the LT is that it claims to be 30% lighter than the original model and that was what I really wanted to test out because functionally it seems to perform exactly the same as the original. So if about a third of the weight can be shaved then that seems like an optimal trade deal. Granted you pay a few dollars more, but the cost to benefit in your own specific application is a very personal thing, so I won’t try and elaborate on every single usage possibility.

Now the standard pouch I’ve depicted here in the weight comparison is not the latest production model. There have been 3 styles of PALS backing on the regular TACO that I’m aware of; the original where the webbing was as tight to the back of the pouch as it could be which created essentially a global meme in terms of how stupidly hard it was to route the MALICE clips. Next came the pictured version which still used webbing, however the manufacturing process involved actually putting some slack/extra material in the mix to open up the loops, which certainly helps. Now the latest versions use a laser cut section of cordura which I’d imagine will make attachment a breeze compared to the originals, especially when combined with the HSG Clips.

Taking that in to consideration the standard pouch shown here may weigh a gram or so more than the current production but I think the differences are small enough to not warrant concern. As you’ll see from the scale numbers though, the 30% claim is not a lie at all, the percentage is pretty much dead on (even an underestimation to a small degree) both with and without the clips attached. We can also see that the 3-row MALICE clips weighed 19g per pair whereas the HSG Clips knock that down to 13g. MALICE are truly bomb proof of course and almost no amount of force that might realistically be applied would ever break them, but unless you’re so unlucky as to be dangled under a helicopter just by your pouch clips I very much doubt the HSGI alternative will ever fail you either. Whether the gen 2 MALICE with the skeletonised geometry and lower weight, but theoretically stronger securing method, might be an even better option I am unsure at this time but it’s a potential to perhaps bear in mind. We’re really getting in excessively deep in to the weeds at that point though for 99.99% of people.

I took a minute or so to give the LT pouch a close-in inspection and really nothing jumped out at me in terms of how or where the weight has been saved, the only obvious difference is the laminate backer piece but the disparity in mass between the laminate and webbing will only be a couple of grams I’d wager and doesn’t account for all of the weight saving. Either way, as I mentioned earlier functionality seems to be the exact same, so the LT is winning in that respect.

If a non-lidded pouch is suitable for your personal magazine carriage needs, i think that overall the TACO LT is very much worth considering. You can even use the webbing on the front to add a shingle style elastic retention if you’re planning to go parachuting with kit on. All the versatility and fast access of the original design, but shaving just a bit more weight off of your gear. Never a bad thing.

I’m taking a buddies’ advice and massively jumping my own queue to talk about a sort of gear system that I’ve been building up over the past few months. One which is pretty much pivotal to the end goal I’ve really been looking for for at least 4 or more years now. In the past I’ve always posted kit in chronological order of purchase, but that tends to mean any given notion I’ve adopted will have become much more popular in general after the 18-24 month delay I’m currently working through. Now, it’s nigh-on impossible to talk about this sort of thing without sounding astoundingly arrogant, but honestly at this point there’s almost nobody else that I look to when it comes to trying to formulate the all around best, most efficient load-carrying configurations available using quality nylon goods; aside from the manufacturers themselves (the ones that are innovating anyway). I look at the equipment I want to carry, decide on the ‘best’ pouches to carry it in then on the ‘best’ platform to mount those pouches to. Many years ago while starting out in airsoft before I joined the raf I would spend hours upon hours scrolling gear threads on forums to try and find the most optimal configurations that had already been dreamt up by people more experienced, knowledgeable and imaginative than myself, but truth be told I’ve mostly reached a point where looking at what other people do is no longer bearing of fruit; at least within the very specific niches for which I use this stuff. I still look around and certainly do not think I know everything because I don’t, but what I do know quite well is the best solution(s) for myself.

I have tried out and played around with more types of pouches and rigs than I can really remember now and granted sometimes I do occasionally experiment with some new configuration that turns out to be unwieldy, but after so many years of trying and failing I have to say I’ve gotten fairly good at knowing what will comfortably work and what won’t before ever actually using it. The ratio of successful attempts to failures is in a good place all things considered.

An idea I had begun to adopt a fair few years ago was the integration of modular placards in to 500D kit, because I was ending up with so many different PCs and chest rigs threaded with different size pouches just to facilitate various magazine styles that it had become prohibitive just in terms of storage space, let alone expenditure. I’m also pretty OCD about wanting to be able to use any given type of magazine with any given gear colourway and that’s just not a realistically achievable end state without using placards, not unless you have gargantuan amounts of money and storage capacity.

Then, only a matter of months ago, I had what I’d class as a pretty sharp-turn sort of moment. I’m hesitant to say lightbulb since that implies I was blazing a hitherto unexplored trail and I’m never the first person on the planet to come up with a good new idea, far from it, but it was a lightbulb just in terms of my own personal outlook and future planning. I looked at my ever growing collection of placards, looked at the Spiritus Systems Mk3 Chassis, looked back at the placards then thought “You know? I can do this in a much more efficient way”. Now when I say *I*, what I’m really meaning is I’d make use of the core concept that the folks at Spritus have crafted with their Chassis in order to form the centre point of a larger structure, one that facilitates any popular magazine type being quickly mounted to whichever style of rig one might lend their fancy to on a given occasion. So far, having played around with the depicted gear a little bit, I think I’m fairly firmly on the right track as far as achieving the stated goal.

When you look at the attached image, you can build the desired loadout by working from the top down if you like, but l will generally do things the other way around. First, decide on the weapon type you’ll be using and by extension the extra magazines you’ll be carrying. When we’re discussing the Spiritus chassis and D3CR-M then secondaries and other equipment may come in to play given the presence of the front pouch, but if you’re using a single cell placard (which Ferro offer in their ecosystem) then most likely it’ll just be a case of 2 to 4 box magazines. Next, you securely mount the appropriate insert for said magazines within the ‘core’ component, the keystone of the whole system. The more inserts you own, the more flexibility you have and not only are inserts cheaper and smaller than complete placards dedicated to one mag type, but they can of course also be moved around in to differently coloured/patterned nylon equipment. Finally, pick your mounting platform, clip in your two 1″ buckles and slap down the velcro at the back.

In the depicted example I’ve used what I initially purchased to begin building this system. Multicam being generally the most proliferant material choice for anything tactical, I started there. The inserts shown are the Spiritus elastic types for 556 NATO mags, modern double feed plastic 9mm mags (eg Scorpion and MPX) as well as classic metal 9mm mags (eg MP5 and Glock). If you use the slightly larger D3CR-M in place of the Spiritus Mk3, you’ll be able to use the Haley Strategic Partners inserts as well of course to include their MP2s and if you sew some hook back to back you should be good to use Ferro inserts as well; though I’ve not tested that out for myself just yet.

The pictured centre piece is the Spiritus chassis which happens to be fitted with a Bergspitze Customs zip for the front pouch and 1″ compression straps of my own design and manufacture. The Mk3 Chassis gives the greatest amount of modularity currently available on the market since it features 2 fully loop lined pouches versus the single one on the D3CR-M. Ferro offers a single cell modular placard (no front pouch) but their top mounted webbing is longer than the industry standard and won’t sit properly on most relevant plate carriers, as mentioned they also line the inside of one surface with hook instead of loop. Ferro also use G-Hooks, but the webbing is still 1″ so that can easily be changed if you’re able to modify around the other discrepancies. Edgar Sherman Design is planning on making something which can be pretty much thought of as a single cell Mk3, but that is an undetermined amount of time off in the future. Personally I’m exploring the single cell modular placard by having something custom made right now and I think it’s going to be a pretty damn good solution if I say so myself.

The flexibility to move between PC and chest rig with the same load of magazines is, for me, a great luxury. The PC option here is represented by the front panel from an MBAV cut FirstSpear Strandhogg, with a loop field from Dead Coyote Tac and 1″ female QASMs with webbing backers from J-Tac Custom Limited. I mildly frankenstein’d the chest rig platform next to it by using the Ferro chesty wide (following a Reptile House review & recommendation) with Spiritus fat straps taking the place of the included Ferro H-Harness, enabling any PALS pouches to be added to the sides and any hanging GP bag of your choice to be dropped in to the mix. There are of course lots of other cross compatibility options available like the HSP X-Harness or Flatpack, you can also use the Spiritus wings in place of the chesty wide and the same chest rig base will also easily mount Vel Sys and ESSTAC placards… the list goes on.

To boil it down, if you have the right gear (which may take a little while to assemble admittedly) you can pick almost any weapon type and be comfortably accommodated within either of the 2 most popular types of modern load carriage options. A belt line won’t really fit in to this placard system of course and you can maybe go with RTi mounted pouches to have speedy modularity in that arena, but right now I don’t have the perfect answer – the Raptor Tac version 4 belt may get there in future but we’ll see. A Vel Sys type PALS placard with TACOs was my previous entry in this context and it did do pretty well in terms of the fact it did support 556, x39 and 762 NATO mags, but then you’d need a different setup for many SMGs; particularly if you want to keep everything as neat and concisely mounted as possible. Not to mention of course the flaps and zips that can be added to the Mk3 and D3CR-M which allow for carrying of absolutely anything your magical little mind can conjure up.

I’m investing a fair bit right now in to extending the notion seen in the image across all the major colourways I want to have in my collection and that is costing a pretty penny, but if this flexibility is something you’d like in your gear locker it doesn’t necessarily have to make the wallet wince if you just focus on one pattern or colour.

Does it apply to most military personnel? Not really, it would be frankly useless on my personal work gear because all I ever need is old school 556 pouches woven on to my armour and that’ll never change. SOF perhaps, when a person might find themselves switching between a 556 carbine, 308 rifle and maybe an SMG under very specific circumstances; often wearing overt armour but perhaps sometimes going for a smaller rig when reconnaissance or concealment are the order of the day. Certainly the principle is applicable for the civilian shooter and airsoft or paintball player where the options for weaponry are almost limitless and no authority from above is dictating load carriage choice. As always, have a think for yourself, decide your priorities and check out every option you can before hitting Checkout.