Jump to content

Gear Standardization


wquon

803 views

What to standardize will depend on each organization. I would recommend that the higher you go in an organization, the less control thy have over an individual. Because at the end of the day the doers know what they need on a specific mission. Avoid paralysis by analysis.

 

 

Here are some examples of standardization guidance at different levels;

 

State: 5.56 for primary, 9mm for secondary, & have 500 of each

 

Company: AR with 30 round pmag, Glock with 17 round double stack factory mags, & have 1k of each.

 

Platoon: have a 500 lumen (minimum) Streamlight that can take CR123s on your primary & secondary weapons, have a sling for your rifle, & a retention holster for you secondary.

 

Squad: Have a red dot for your primary & secondary.

 

Team: load out will be mission dependent

 

 

Standards make things run smoother and cause less confusion in chaos, or when supplies are low. So 55.6 is a standard, but if the group has different weapons you can’t simple toss a mag to a buddy who needs it without emptying it and loading it into a different style magazine. Another example is batteries. Streamlining to 1-3 different types of batteries would be a good thing. With NVDs, light, comms, GPS, hearing protection, etc batteries can become a big deal. I would also have you strongly consider quality rechargeables. (Amazon brand rechargeable AA and AAA are hard to beat. For CR123s and 18650s I would recommend the batteryjunction.com)

 

Layout of certain gear like IFAK contents would be a smart consideration as well.

 

Cammo, brand recommendation, lumen output, and much more can be addressed. Even attachment ability like Mlok for hand guards, or safarilands QLS system would make a unit very modular.

 

All this is great and can make a unit look cool, but functionality is the main focus here. As you get new people they shouldn’t be discouraged if they don’t have everything, work with them. However; if you have someone who is avoiding guidance and continually throwing money at “flavor of the month” gear and guns, you should have a talk.

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1
  • Thanks 1
  • 'Merica 1

13 Comments


Recommended Comments

I've been pondering the same issue because I have many weapons but don't own a glock and probly won't because I prefer Smith&Wesson and Springfield.I only just bought an PSA AR a month ago,new.although I have several Combloc weapons.so now I'm playing catch up on 5.56,.223.ive found that Sportsman's Guide has a great selection of surplus clothing and ballistic helmets.i think I paid 70 bucks for my helmet.it was made by amourers in London england.looks like nato but is an Italian design.fits great.they have sale now.you should be able to get everything you need from them,except ammo,I've got a bunch on backorder and just found out that's been pushed back another month.for what it's worth thanks

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I see where you are coming with on the topic of standardization, however, I am not sure I agree completely with locking down to a particular weapon/ammo type, or even specific locations for pouches on gear.  When I was in the military we were allowed a measure of latitude when it came to how we wanted the attachments placed on our plate carriers, so long as it made sense to us and it did not impede our effectiveness.  What works for some people does not work for others, so adjustments should be allowed for configuration.   

 

As for ammo and common magazines, I can definitely see the benefit of this, but you need to take into account that there are people out there that have been stockpiling ammunition for literally a decade or more now.  Some people have more than 100k rounds of 7.62x39mm and other former Combloc calibers in vast quantity.  Do we turn that away and tell them to get 5.56mm/.223?  Are we going to turn down those who have AK's and/or RPK's?  Heck no!  After leaving the military I worked for a larger police department for a while.  While they issued the Glock 21, they allowed their officers to use their own preference when it came to sidearms, so long as the firearm was approved by the department, and so long as the individual purchased the firearm on their own.

 

As for me, I personally prefer the AK74 over the AR15 platform.  That being said, I am a builder of many of my own rifles, and decided that I wanted to build an AK74 in 5.56mm, and that rifle uses AR15 mags.  My personal choice, and I am happy with the rifle.

 

I can see standardizing uniforms within a unit, but when one remembers that the firearms and ammunition are provided by the individual, I think that weapon and ammunition standardization is asking a bit much, especially in today's firearms economy.

  • Like 1
  • Cry 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tracce said:

 Do we turn that away and tell them to get 5.56mm/.223?  Are we going to turn down those who have AK's and/or RPK's?  Heck no! 

I think that weapon and ammunition standardization is asking a bit much, especially in today's firearms economy.

militias are voluntary. as such one cannot implement things with force, nor is uncle sam paying for things.

 

people can do whatever they want. that being said, if everyone has different stuff theyre setting themselves up for failure. If the group just has a couple who refuse to standardize, that person is a liability. this isnt new. militias that were in the colonies while we were still under the crown had standards of gear.

 

even with militias gaining popularity there is only a very small amount of people that are capable, competent, & consistent.

 

while we shouldnt be quick to kick ppl for not having the right items, it is understandable that getting said items may take time. and if someone had a surplus of the "wrong" ammo, i sure as heck wouldnt tell them to sell it lol.

Link to comment

In the military standardization makes a lot of sense, because there's a central distribution network. Equipment is issued from the top down. When people are providing their own weapons and ammo, it's a lot less important, because there's no distribution network that requires that sort of simplification. I think everybody *should* have an AR platform in standard caliber, but if somebody has an AK and plenty of ammo to run it, and they like that rifle, that's not inconveniencing anyone else. When there's no logistical network, most of the reason to have any sort of compatibility goes away. It's still better to have the same magazines, but the odds of that being important are not very high unless you're developing a central stockpile that everyone draws from. Tossing someone else a magazine because they ran out of ammo is something that rarely if ever happens, it is surprisingly hard to blow through 300 rounds of ammo, and anybody who does is probably wasting it, in which case I'm not giving them mine 😂

Another thing to consider: uniformity does make a unit look more professional, but that isn't always a good thing. If a militia has uniforms and then somebody in the militia does something illegal in that uniform, that's a recipe for easily prosecutable conspiracy charges for everybody, whether the prosecution is actually justified or not being totally irrelevant. Uniformity has downsides too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Corporal of Marines

Posted

13 hours ago, RZiggy said:

In the military standardization makes a lot of sense, because there's a central distribution network. Equipment is issued from the top down. When people are providing their own weapons and ammo, it's a lot less important, because there's no distribution network that requires that sort of simplification. I think everybody *should* have an AR platform in standard caliber, but if somebody has an AK and plenty of ammo to run it, and they like that rifle, that's not inconveniencing anyone else. When there's no logistical network, most of the reason to have any sort of compatibility goes away. It's still better to have the same magazines, but the odds of that being important are not very high unless you're developing a central stockpile that everyone draws from. Tossing someone else a magazine because they ran out of ammo is something that rarely if ever happens, it is surprisingly hard to blow through 300 rounds of ammo, and anybody who does is probably wasting it, in which case I'm not giving them mine 😂

Another thing to consider: uniformity does make a unit look more professional, but that isn't always a good thing. If a militia has uniforms and then somebody in the militia does something illegal in that uniform, that's a recipe for easily prosecutable conspiracy charges for everybody, whether the prosecution is actually justified or not being totally irrelevant. Uniformity has downsides too.

 

Link to comment
Corporal of Marines

Posted

I've had a saying for roughly 40 years or more:  You issue it to me and I'll use/wear it.  If I'm supplying my own "everything" then I get to choose the boots, helmet or what have you, that I prefer.  That goes double, if I acquired it BEFORE joining such and such unit.

 

That said, I agree that standardized ammo in 5.56 is a plus for the unit, so I got rid of my AK's a few years ago... I still think it's a better weapon, but that's a judgement call.

 

Cops wear all colors of utilities, but the idea of uniforms is to be able to ID your own people in a high stress situation.  I'm partial, as many units are, to the obsolete woodland  pattern; it's cheap, plentiful and effective.  Another option might be to wear blue bandanas or such, so you can easily spot your own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Carl H B

Posted

I feel that I would listen to a Special Forces, Ranger or Army Paratrooper first.  These units are the first to go and are always put into a tough position.   Think Panama.  Think Vietnam jungle operations.

 

Communications, recon and intel are are the most important elements for without these you will be in trouble because a shooting situation is the last element involved and if your unit is caught being to aggressive your unit will bring trouble for all militias.

 

Anyone worrying about weapons first is trigger happy, weapons are a last resort.  99.9% of you  have never fired on or shot a human being, it's not a great feeling after the fire fight is over but you do what you have to do for you only have each other or you perish.  The saying in the 82nd Airborne Division is , yes we fight for the flag, yes we fight for our Country but mostly we fight for each other.

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Carl H Bludau said:

Anyone worrying about weapons first is trigger happy, weapons are a last resort.  99.9% of you  have never fired on or shot a human being, it's not a great feeling after the fire fight is over but you do what you have to do for you only have each other or you perish.  The saying in the 82nd Airborne Division is , yes we fight for the flag, yes we fight for our Country but mostly we fight for each other.

I do generally agree. The main reason I was talking about firearms is because that is most likely the most expensive item a person will have, and is also where the most variety is available, and they were heavily referenced in the post. I'm not SF or anything special, I'm just a National Guard truck driver, but in my experience: training is king. I'd rather have a few really well trained guys with random equipment than a ton of people with gucci rifles that have never trained a day in their lives. My main concern about what the post is talking about is that requiring people to bring thousands of dollars in their own equipment might chase off people who have great experience, but not much money. You might lose people like: the licensed doctor with a mountain of medical supplies, who only owns a handgun for self defense, and doesn't want to spend 3 grand on weapons he really doesn't feel like he needs, or the ex SF guy who doesn't own that exact rifle and handgun, and all the listed attachments, and doesn't make enough money to get them. I'd rather have a well trained man with an ok rifle around, than an untrained man with an amazing rifle, and requiring everybody to have that amazing rifle essentially puts up a barrier to entry totally unrelated to skill, when as you say: Almost every situation is resolved without firing a shot.

Case and point: I was in a self defense situation 4 months ago. I was at work, two people broke in the back door because they thought the building was empty, I drew my CC, they ran, owner called the police and they got caught like an hour later. Nobody got shot, and no shots were fired. The fact that I had the training to know not to shoot, because I looked at their hands and saw they were empty, while they were still entering the building, was far more important than what gun I happened to be carrying (which was, by the way, a .25 acp berretta, don't judge me). Somebody with less training might have shot, and that would have been a BAD situation no matter what gun they had.

Link to comment
Carl H B

Posted

wquon,

 

Yes, cool is what some think is appropriate.  They do not know anything else but 'cool' is their thing.  This weapon, this vest, this is better than that and they have no training, no intel, no comms but the have 'cool' weapons and vests with 'this is the best camo'!

 

Not my type-these are the ones that will get people killed!  I wonder, have these people ever been on a 'real' ambush?  Have they ever been shot at?  Have they ever had one of their buddies die in a firefight?  The answer is no but they are cool!  Have they ever been on a roving patrol?  They haven't but they know all about weapons-give me a break.  Have they ever recovered AK 47s with the extractors broken?  But they talk about how the Chicom and Soviet weapons are so great.  If these were so great the US Army would have swapped to them for we had captured tons of them in Vietnam.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Carl H Bludau said:

Not my type-these are the ones that will get people killed!  I wonder, have these people ever been on a 'real' ambush?  Have they ever been shot at?  Have they ever had one of their buddies die in a firefight?  The answer is no but they are cool!  Have they ever been on a roving patrol?  They haven't but they know all about weapons-give me a break.  Have they ever recovered AK 47s with the extractors broken?  But they talk about how the Chicom and Soviet weapons are so great.  If these were so great the US Army would have swapped to them for we had captured tons of them in Vietnam.

to a point. only 1% of the US population is in the military (its speculated that only 3-5% even have the ability to join, but thats another topic), of that 1% a very small part of it is combat MOSs that actually have prolonged combat experience. you can't completely fault people for not having certain life experiences, but they should be open to learning. If youre telling someone to do something a particular way, it is a good idea to tell them why theyre doing it that way, or why we are not doing it there way. hopefully none will have those real life experiences, but training is the closest thing we have to it. if we train with our gear we should naturally find what works & what doesnt.

Link to comment
Carl H B

Posted

 

One of the problems getting Patriots together is that too many want to be in charge or the "I'm the only one that will make a great leader"  My first Company Commander was a Special Forces Officer, my second was nominated for the Medal of Honor but received the Distinguished Service Cross.  Except for the Special Forces Captain, all of the other Officers and Platoon Leaders were Ranger qualified.  I would look first to these types of leaders, including anyone who served in the SF, Rangers, Army Paratroopers, Marine SF and Force Recon for complete  training and leadership training.  There are many, from all services, that claim SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TRAINING but if none of this training was done under combat conditions they are 'wannabes'!

 

At this time there are a ton of Elite Infantry Troops available, use them.  I've witnessed E-4s leading squads and E-5 Platoon Sergeants in Vietnam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Carl H Bludau said:

 

One of the problems getting Patriots together is that too many want to be in charge or the "I'm the only one that will make a great leader"  My first Company Commander was a Special Forces Officer, my second was nominated for the Medal of Honor but received the Distinguished Service Cross.  Except for the Special Forces Captain, all of the other Officers and Platoon Leaders were Ranger qualified.  I would look first to these types of leaders, including anyone who served in the SF, Rangers, Army Paratroopers, Marine SF and Force Recon for complete  training and leadership training.  There are many, from all services, that claim SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TRAINING but if none of this training was done under combat conditions they are 'wannabes'!

 

yes, to a point. the military can be a toxic cesspool. In my years in the military I met very few good officers, and NCOs were a mixed bag. point being, theyre people too.

 

just because someone has knowledge of a certain thing does not make them good leaders. I get into that here - https://www.mymilitia.com/blogs/entry/261-rolesresponsibility-or-rank/

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Use of this site is confirmation and acceptance of your understanding of our Terms of Use , Privacy Policy and site Guidelines . We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.