I have changed my website domain and my new blog is at adaptivecomtac.com
​I am shifting my blog from an ad-based blog to a subscription based-blog. I will be discussing my tactical knowledge there and covering how to assemble and maintain a training, practice, and readiness network/system for your skills. I am shifting from just doing weapons reviews to also diving deep into the serious topic of skill acquisition, enhancement, and maintaining readiness. This will be through a focus on being adaptive, and being ready to be combative with a tactical mindset. Join me there. Many of my better articles are being refined and transferred to that site. I plan to allow this site to expire and run out before I delete this site and domain.

When it comes to being able to shoot, it is nice to be able to stand there and put your rounds on target when you need to. However, your ability to apply effective marksmanship while using cover and after quick movement in or out of different shooting positions is even better. This is a real test of a shooters' agility and discipline. The SAS developed this test decades ago and ended up sharing it with the author of the book 'Rattenkrieg' where it was well described, as well as many other tests and drills for aspiring shooters. This is a test for those who dare to put their body and ego to the test.

To conduct this test, load your firearm with at least 14 rounds, and begin in a good standing position with your pistol at the ready. On signal, fire 2 rounds standing, 2 rounds kneeling, 2 rounds prone, roll over for 2 rounds from the supine position, 2 rounds prone, 2 rounds kneeling, and finally 2 rounds standing. It is simple, but it's just not going to be easy to maneuver this fast and hit with great precision within 14 seconds. I am not ashamed that the best time I have been able to pull off clean is about 16 seconds.

When conducting this test, make sure that your target is appropriate for your skill level. Basically, I recommend that your target be no smaller than a 8" plate. However, if you are focusing one precision, maybe going smaller is a good idea, or if you want to force yourself to make better hits without skimping on time, smaller targets are probably a good idea. However, I still caution to stay within reason and only have a target you can competently hit without destroying your time too bad. I have made that mistake where I had a 3x5 card 10 yards away and had a time double that of the standard. I invalidated the agility aspect of the test and turned it into a timed marksmanship test. Try to steer from doing this. The goal is have a reasonable target for your skills.

Another thing for you to note is that when you are in the prone and supine positions, it may be a good idea to have a separate target that is close to the ground so you are not threatening to shoot over your range berm when in these low positions. It shouldn't rob you of any time since you will merely perform a visual shift in focus from a top target to one that is more in line with your position on the ground.

Depending on the firearm you are using for this test, you may have more or less capacity than is needed. If you have more capacity, no problem. If you have less ammo, consider this test while giving your time standard flexibility for incorporating a reload. If you want to increase the challenge, demand one round in each position to test agility more than recoil control and accuracy. If accuracy in these positions is a bigger concern, obviously add more rounds on target in each position. Have fun with it and use your imagination. Just be sure to adjust your time standards appropriately to match the modifications you will be making to the original course of fire.

Instead of seeing this test as a way of testing precision and speed, perhaps we can test coordination and stability of the upper body and core. I have used the frame of this test to give myself quite the workout in recent years. The way I go about it is keeping either a rifle or pistol aimed in on a small target while conducting the transitional movements that would be performed in the test. The key here is to keep both hands on the weapon and pause for only one second in each position to get perfect stability before moving to the next position. This will take a bit of coordination to keep your aim true, but being fast isn't necessarily the goal. The goal is to maintain your aim on target and be able to keep it trained on your target while conducting movements such as getting in and out of different shooting positions. If you are going slow, that is just more time under tension for your core and arms, so not a big problem. If you want to try this, do it one handed when two hands is relatively easy for you.

Though this test was developed to test the British SAS performance with their pistols, I believe this test is well suited for adaptation to other weapon systems and even ways of stressing and building the body off the range. If you dare to give this test a chance, I think you will be pleasantly challenged and motivated to work harder and improve yourself as a shooter. I know this was the result this test has had on myself.

Selecting the proper gear is not an easy task, but there are plenty of general rules that you can keep in mind when making your selections. I am going to try to take you through the steps of good selection based on my experience with combat pants and using them in rough conditions. This is mostly going to be a discussion about how an individual can shop for combat uniforms/clothing when they are not bogged down by unit requirements or the military uniform restrictions.

Most of what you need to look for in a combat uniform is going to be dependent on how your loadout is set up and what you can live with. First thing I want to discuss is what kind of gear you are probably gonna want to have on your person, or in your uniform. This gear will be on you at all times and will need to be located in areas that are easy to reach, or just out of the way, depending on what it is and how often it will be used. For example, things like chap stick, bug repellent, sun screen, TP, face paint, note gear, and folding knives are not items you will most likely find yourself needing in a hurry. Therefore, they can be taken off the vest and put in pockets. The location on your person will most likely be determined on the construction of the item, the weight, and the priority.

The materials chosen for your clothing will possibly make or break you in the field. There are a variety of material combinations used in uniforms. There is 100% cotton in twill or with rip-stop. This is generally the weakest and will tend to rip, fade, and deteriorate relatively quick regardless of it having rip-stop. Twill is generally not very rip resistant, however it generally is more wear and fade resistant across the material plain. Next there is the all too popular 50/50 cotton nylon combo which is renown for its' light weight, durability, and resistance to fading This can also come with or without rip-stop, but it may be more durable and have better insulation if it has ripstop. Lastly, you will see that there is a mix of cotton and polyester. The normal ratio with this synthetic fabric blend is 65% cotton/35% polyester. There are some where you will see 60/40, but mostly in foreign manufactured clothing. Regardless, this blend is known to be one of the thicker, tougher, and longer lasting blends. In my experience, the material outlasts the stitching, depending on how it is stitched and in what areas. I find that a BDU made in this blend can suffer from failed stitching in the crotch. My theory is that the polyester is so tough and it has little give, which translates the stress directly to the stitching. The rip-stop does not help this issue much, and I would say this is only really useful in wet and cold climates due to how well it insulates. Otherwise, I think the user is running the risk of overheating themselves for a slight increase in durability and fade resistance. 

The next thing to discuss is how the material is used in the construction. As I stated, the BDU and ACU style uniform pants seem to suffer from the overall stiff characteristics of poly-cotton. However, many tactical pants are constructed with this blend with great success. I find that having reinforced stitching in certain vital areas like the inseam and crotch tend to work well all around, massively increasing your pant durability. Also, I am always a fan of a good gusseted crotch. This is something that has yet to be incorporated in many uniforms, but that is because NYCO generally does a good job of giving slightly, releasing tension on the stitching. Most tactical pants have hard materials for long life and durability while the military uniforms are typically going for overall performance capability in the field or in the office. 

I generally feel that pants and shirts/blouses have different construction requirements. For example, pants see the most movement in combat. You running, kneeling, sitting, falling, and crawling wears on the pants more than the shirt, for the most part. This means that you may want to make sure your pants are built tough. If you are not in the military, you will typically have the luxury to decide things like wearing poly-cotton tactical pants and a cotton twill blouse. The blouse or shirt does not typically rank high for me in terms of needing the highest durability. For one thing, the top is mostly covered with gear, and also the top needs to be able to breathe. However, having a thick and insulating shirt or blouse may not be a bad idea, depending on how much you are gonna be on the move. There are many things you will want to keep in mind when making a choice. But remember that materials are an important component you are best to keep in mind.

Pockets are a handy feature on clothing. However, the pockets on your clothing can also be a waste of space. Until you put all your gear on and get out into the field, I feel most people will not respect how important pocket angles, size, construction, and location are. Take wearing something like an Arktis K170 for instance. 

​This vest fully encompasses the chest region, making pockets and even camouflage in that area pointless. With this vest, it is well within reason to just wear something like a combat shirt. However, if you want items off your arms and legs, you could still settle for a BDU or ACU pattern shirt. The pockets on the ACU are more useful since they are small and angled, yet the velcro they use is less than ideal for noise discipline and service life. The old school BDU design has it's place in things like the old ALICE LBE gear, which allows you to use all the shirt pockets with relative ease since the belt ideally fits between the top and bottom blouse pockets. 

Selecting the color of your uniform is a touchy subject for many people. It honestly should be. Don't just go out and grab some crap like UCP. For me, I think that something like OD green boonies and pants is completely acceptable for a wooded area where the dominant color is green. However, your blouse or jacket may be better off in a camouflage pattern that compliments that specific environment. i could go on for a long while about this type of subject, but that is material for another article. 

Typically, when you say to someone that you still use the IIFS or LBV88 Enhanced instead of the newer modular MOLLE gear, you will get a look like you are out of your mind. Apparently using this older load bearing gear never did anyone any good in history. Everyone can have their opinions of course, and in this article, I intend to clarify mine. My opinion is going to be based on my experiences, training, needs, etc. Just keep that in mind before passing harsh judgement and drawing conclusions about why I do or don't care for certain things. My comparison will be against the MOLLE version of the IIFS, which is the current military issue MOLLE LBV like the one I was issued.

The LBV88 Enhanced or IIFS (Individual Integrated Fighting System) was developed in the mid 1980s as a possible replacement to the older ALICE (All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment) system. The idea was to have this vest carry the ammunition and grenades on the torso in sewn on pouches and free up space on the pistol belt where ALICE pouches would still be utilized. The first generation of the vests showed the magazine pouches being vertically sewn on solid material panels. Testing showed that they needed to upgrade the vest to allow breathing, so the following generation (Enhanced) solved this breathing issue. The update also changed the angle of the magazine pouches to have them angled inward to allow for easier reloads.

The updated LBV88 Enhanced saw about a decade of service with the Army, but MOLLE quickly pushed this system out. Personally, I don't think that this system got too much of a chance to develop, but at this point I am happy with it's ability to use the ALICE gear, which is inexpensive and still pretty good gear IMO.

The LBV88 Enhanced has the ability to be fitted to the individual wearer, with great flexibility in order to accommodate wearing with body armor. For the most part, you can adjust this system out as far as your pistol belt will let you. That being said, with this system holding pretty tight to the body and being pretty low in profile, it does not really feel as heavy as it actually is when it is loaded to the brim with your beans, bullets, and band-aids. 

The current love for the modular characteristics of MOLLE is obvious, but I am not so convinced of it's load bearing characteristics being better or equal to the old school design of the LBV88 Enhanced. I wore MOLLE for years and always found that it can be difficult to distribute the weight around the body, while also maintaining a low profile. There are ways, such as certain vests and such that allow you to wrap gear around in a 360 degree circumference. However, with the standard being to have vertical magazine pouches on your belly or chest, most people will find the weight uncomfortable once they run around and fight in this gear. Keeping the gear close and tight to the body is what gives the LBV88 Enhanced the edge. Even on the MOLLE LBV I was issued, there were few adjustment points and it was a bit tedious just to get it adjusted right. Not to mention that making any adjustments will require you to remove your attached pouches.

The LBV88 Enhanced is limited on what it can carry on the vest. If you have 5.56 magazines, you will only be able to stash 6 mags on the vest, and forget about carrying 308 unless the vest will be for gear and you will just use ALICE pouches for ammo. Then you have two frag grenade pouches which can be used for other stuff as well. The pistol belt that you will be attaching the LBV88 Enhanced to gives you room for everything else. Think of the LBV88 Enhanced as just being a way to free up room for the pistol belt to carry more. Six rifle magazines is not alot, but you can still add more ammo on your pistol belt if 6 magazines aren't enough. Personally, I think the LBV88 Enhanced has an issue with the location of the grenade pouches. I feel that they interfere with the pistol belt and take up valuable room that an extra ammo pouch could fill. Granted I have options such as swapping a canteen for ammo, but really I don't like the idea of having to substitute. But with everything there is going to be some give and take.

Comfort is kind of relative and a bit hard to come by when you are gearing up. However, it does play a part in what people select and how they setup their gear. I wanted to evaluate these two things from the perspective of just having the gear on, and while doing everyday tasks as a gunfighter.

Personally, the MOLLE LBV is just fine and comfy as long as it is not overloaded with ammo. I would also say that it would still benefit from shoulder padding. Granted, the LBV was designed around the idea of being put over body armor, but not everyone has body armor like what the military uses. In many cases, you will see plate carriers and body armor with thin straps and little padding. Another thing to consider is that even if loaded properly, the MOLLE LBV will force your pouches to be vertical, which is not so ergonomic when reloading, in my experience. Not to mention that having alot of pouches on the front and alot of crap in general will make doing manipulations tedious and give you a larger profile to snag on crap and stick out as a larger target. Also, being in the prone with alot of stuff in front can be a pain. Even kneeling has been taxing for me if I am loaded down enough. Get too much crap in all these readily accessible pouches all over the place and you will pay for it. Lastly, just think about how taxing it is on the back when the majority of the crap you are carrying is put up on the torso. That may explain your achy breaky back after a long day of notionally operating at your local range.

The LBV88 Enhanced has comfort down pretty well for me. I find the padding of the shoulder straps to be perfect and comfortable. Also, since I have the pistol belt arranged to have weight symmetry I have most of my bulk and weight around my waist. Also, the pouches I have on me are pretty low in profile. Any excess crap that I have is stuffed in my buttpack. This keeps it out of the way, and helps keep my back supported. With the mag pouches angled and up high, I find that going in the prone is much more comfortable. With the double mag pouch being high and the single mag pouch being low, I think it was intentional after realizing that having crap lower on the body makes being in the prone uncomfortable and hurts your ability to maintain a low profile. One complaint I have heard from people is that ALICE clips bother them on their pistol belts. However, I have not had that issue due to the fact that I wear my pistol belt just above my love handles and it is slightly loose. I think it helps that I don't really have any gear right on my sides. If you are low on ammo in a gunfight, the priority should be to break contact and that should give you time to fish out some more boom fuel or have a buddy do it. If that isn't possible, then you should switch to your pistol and get scootin'.

When it comes to making a choice in gear, it is pretty straight forward. Quality and price need to be balanced. Since this ALICE gear and IIFS gear was made in large numbers, it is not too difficult to find it on the market for a fair price, even new. I recommend new any time you can get it. Only exception would be if you are able to see and inspect the used gear with your own eyes at a shop. Realistically, I would say my whole ensemble cost me less than $200 just for the gear to set it all up. I went mostly new on everything so that would drive up the costs. But I actually spent more than that since I made the mistake of buying additional items I didn't even need just to have them. It happens, and then you use your gear and get wise.​

In order to get into a MOLLE LBV, you will probably be spending about a hundred dollars more than the LBV88 Enhanced setup cost. This is because manufacturers loooooove to overcharge for just a simple magazine pouch. I would say you are looking at a pretty high price to go with MOLLE. However, if you don't want certain pouches like grenade pouches, then you are not gonna have to buy them. You have lots of options available in color and manufacturers, but in general you are paying alot for something that shouldn't cost all that much. However, if you are going to use MOLLE and basically replicate the setup you would have on the LBV88 Enhanced, you will probably have better luck getting into it for a comparable price.

First off, I would say that the good thing about MOLLE is that it is the main thing used in the military, so you will easily find surplus stuff for cheap. Yes it is also modular so you can get a good setup and have it setup right where you want it. The options out there are frankly endless as long as you have the dough to pay for it. Lastly, MOLLE gear typically is pretty secure and will last a while.

The bad thing about MOLLE is that it seems it is more about modularity and less about actual ergonomics and function. Loading up on MOLLE pouches will cause you to feel like a turtle. With MOLLE, it seems that people want to have a pouch for everything, which causes poor weight distribution and eventually back issues. It is expensive to get the right gear and it takes time to figure out where you want all your gear to go.

The LBV88 Enhanced has great load bearing characteristics and does not get in the way at all. The vest, when properly fitted, has a low profile and feels very light, even when the pistol belt is loaded up to the max. The angled mag pouches are very ergonomic and make reloads a breeze. Also, the way the mag pouches are setup, this vest is very comfortable to wear in the prone. All the pouches are permanent so you just have to adjust to their location, though they are very easy to get to and are simple to figure out. The setup is not too expensive to get into and they last a long time.

I personally wish that the grenade pouches could be removed or that they were put elsewhere. They impede the user from mounting certain things on the front like a compass or mag pouches. The mag pouches are only good for 5.56 rifle mags and there is no adjustment on the retention flap for tightening them. Once the velcro and button goes, your mag pouch is pretty much toast.

In my opinion, the LBV88 Enhanced is not perfect, but it does fit the bill and offers a good amount of ergonomics, carrying capacity, durability, and ease of use in order to justify going backwards in tech. The performance I get out of it is greater than most people who run MOLLE systems. Granted I have limited room on the belt, I am able to make up for it with my buttpack and carry my less needed extras like more ammo and chemlights. I am not saying that MOLLE LBVs are garbage, but I will say that they are not exactly true load bearing vests like the LBV88 Enhanced. I personally just love the system because of the wonderful flexibility it offers along with the ease of use. Just my two cents.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say this to justify their crappy pistol or caliber choice. You know, so they can admit defeat but try to bring you down with them by trying to get you to think you are all in the same crappy situation. This doesn't fly for me for several reasons, and I hope a little logic will cause you to agree.

There are several reasons why a pistol could become your primary. If you are carrying a pistol for concealed carry, then it is your primary. If you are a Law Enforcement Officer, it is going to be your primary most of the time. If you are out of ammo or suffer a catastrophic failure of your rifle in combat, your pistol will quickly become your primary. In all these cases, you might see that the reason for using the pistol is out of necessity, not out of fashion. No matter what the case is, you might want to take using the pistol seriously since it is no longer a back up option but instead your greatest weapon available to save your life and the lives of others.

When people say a pistol is just to get you to your rifle, I can't help but ask them what they are going to do if they draw their pistol against someone as a civilian. Are they going to initially engage with their pistol and then flee the scene and come back with a rifle? What about when you are out of ammo or your rifle is broken? Are you just going to run to the next rifle no matter the cost? Do you really think you will have the time to do that when you are down to your pistol? Of course, if the option is there, then take it. However, I think that people get a little dramatic due to watching too many westerns and action movies. If you are indeed on your way to grabbing a battlefield pickup, sure a pistol will serve you in the interim. However, this is rare and people give this idea a little too much attention.

How many times have people claimed a pistol "is just to get you to your rifle" in order to justify their inability to hit their target, or their poor choice of caliber or type of defense ammunition? I personally can't even count how many times this has happened. It is highly annoying and it is frankly scary to think there are people out there like this that carry a gun for self defense. I imagine that these people have spent just as little time learning about their laws. Usually I hear people like this also boasting how they will kill someone if they do something as simple as touching them. This is a dangerous frame of mind to have, especially in today's environment of people hating anyone who owns a gun. All I ask is that people get legitimate training, practice in a practical way often, and study their local deadly force laws. But perhaps that is too much to ask these days. In the age of information with the internet at our fingertips, it seems stupidity is becoming more popular than ever.

Too many times people will cite the fact that pistol rounds have less POWER than a rifle round. This is true, but it seems that the intent of these individuals is to insinuate that power is a display of effectiveness. There are plenty of reports from police agencies using fast and light .357 Magnum rounds that can't penetrate worth a crap and also using 5.56 rounds that fragment and fail to penetrate even to the rib cage. Power is not the solution in determining effectiveness. Just because a pistol round has less power than a rifle, it doesn't automatically mean that the pistol does not have the ability to kill. Don't become part of this camp that tries to use this argument. Those that cling to this argument are typically just trying to find a reason for their incompetence and lack of skill.

If you have other options out there, what use do you have for a pistol? Well quite simply, the pistol is a great weapon for close quarters depending on the caliber, and as long as you aren't loading it with shallow penetrating rounds like the HST. It is handy at close distances and the proper caliber and loading can keep you in the fight with very effective results if you can make good hits. Don't think that a pistol is useless just because a rifle can give more range and power. If you wanted to get picky, I would argue that knives have little to no value anymore since they don't have the POWER or RANGE of a pistol. In fact, wouldn't it be funny to just respond to someone making ridiculous claims that a knife is just to get you to your pistol? How about going further and saying that harsh language is only to get you to your knife? If we are going to accept ridiculous statements, why not just go all the way?

When you think about it, a pistol is a secondary weapon for a soldier, and a primary for those that need something light and handy. In either case, the only reason you are going to logically use your pistol is because it is the best option available and a rifle is not an option. I don't understand how people can miss this fact, but it seems to be a common issue. Hopefully, people will stop trending towards ignorance and stupid statements, but the future is uncertain and we have a chance to be better.

If you frequent alot of gun forums and talk to alot of the people on them, you may notice a peculiar pattern. These people, not all of them, seem to be the source for alot of the theories that other people adopt. Things like "stopping power" and "my gun is accurate" are seen on almost all posts. Now this doesn't mean that these places are not a source of knowledge, but I would advise people to learn things from credible sources. If one of these characters is able to reply to every single post and response on the post day in and day out, where do they get the time to learn about anything from experience?

One particular subject I feel obligated to cover is something that was said to me on a post that I started. In giving a short review of a pistol that I have tested, someone commented that it was not "mainstream" and that if it isn't adopted by the US military or law enforcement, he wasn't interested. You may guess that I immediately responded with a quick evaluation of that standard and why that is not a particularly smart thing to do.  But let us evaluate why this mindset is not a good one and will never really work out.
First thing we need to realize is the fact that there is a definitive difference between the guns you have access to, and what these companies are making for the government contracts they are filling. In many cases, such as the Beretta M9 used by the military, the technology has seen little to no improvement from the original contract specs. The 92FS on the other hand, has seen all the technological updates, resulting in the pistol being able to last even longer than its military counterpart. And also, you might notice that the components and parts on the civilian M9 are not the same as the ones used by the military. It has the same parts as the 92FS, which means that it is far from being a real M9. Plus, the government contracts are very specific with strict requirements not put in regular production guns, like testing the action with proof loads and scanning the metal for defects.
This pattern is the same for pretty much all manufacturers, and usually means that the springs are tighter, night sights are standard, and some parts are reinforced for longer life. Some manufacturers like H&K seem to produce all their pistols to the same specs, no matter if it is for a government contract or not. The USP being the exception for the German military. The P8 was made just to fill the niche of the German military, who wanted a different safety mechanism style and standard rifling. But most of the time, like in my old USP, the entire pistol was the same as one off the shelf, even though it was a pistol made for a Washington State Agency. That being said, it is common for agencies to want more, which would mean night sights, and a different finish.
For the most part, the pistols you are getting are not going to be the same as the ones that these federal agencies get. Sig, Beretta, and Glock are some of the top companies in the US for contracts with the government, and they have very different specs for almost everything from springs to finishes. Don't think that you are getting a genuine piece of hardware that is being used by these government agencies today, because really, you are not going to.