wearing magazines low vs high on chest

[higgens]

i like wearing a chest rig up high on my chest and not low on my stomach. i think this makes it easier to shoot from prone and perform mag changes from prone. Most of the chest rigs i see for sale seem to be designed to be worn low on the stomach. Why is the low style popular?

i see the same with plate carriers, most put the magazine pouches at the bottom of the plate carrier with the top half of the carrier bare. why aren't magazine pouches placed higher up?

[SOW_0331]

Different strokes and all that.

Some folks keep their mags lower, and try to centralize the bulk and weight. That usually works best for when you're also carrying a pistol on your chest, and a radio....etc. Some things like QuietPro (old school) are attached to your carrier and it's better to keep it in place, same with those Serpa wheel lock things.

Slicker chest rigs, like a 4-5 mag carrier, are great for sitting higher on the chest. And those will usually be worn when you're keeping the bulk down for a reason, whether it be long range patrolling or carrying subs for a Mk11/12. Which is also easier to get good prone positions.

Pulling mags from either set up is a small adjustment, practice with what you have. Find out your intended use, how you plan to meet the challenge presented, then acquire gear accordingly.

[TehLlama]

Lower means more room to get to magazines from odd angles - I don't want to have to try and elevate my elbows above eye height to fish out a magazine, especially if it's my own body weight pinching the thing against my kit. It's a question of effort for range of motion, and pulling things at awkward angles woks best in the microwave oven sized space centered in front of your chest, anything above that means I'm having to work harder. As long as it's not low enough to interfere with lower body movement, I want it low, or off to the side. If you think about WHEN you would actually want to access magazine pouches for a fresh magazine, it becomes obvious why ease of access is not just a central priority, but THE priority, and anything slowing that down or making it more awkward (as it is mag changes are plenty easy to fumble), hence low.
The kind of stuff I want higher up is going to be smaller and more of an administrative nature (spare batteries, writing tools, electronics, paperwork, credentials, and hydration hoses).

[sua175]

Lower means more room to get to magazines from odd angles - I don't want to have to try and elevate my elbows above eye height to fish out a magazine, especially if it's my own body weight pinching the thing against my kit. It's a question of effort for range of motion, and pulling things at awkward angles woks best in the microwave oven sized space centered in front of your chest, anything above that means I'm having to work harder. As long as it's not low enough to interfere with lower body movement, I want it low, or off to the side. If you think about WHEN you would actually want to access magazine pouches for a fresh magazine, it becomes obvious why ease of access is not just a central priority, but THE priority, and anything slowing that down or making it more awkward (as it is mag changes are plenty easy to fumble), hence low.
The kind of stuff I want higher up is going to be smaller and more of an administrative nature (spare batteries, writing tools, electronics, paperwork, credentials, and hydration hoses).

This dude just spoke the truth. Never have mags high unless you have no choice. Laws of efficiency dictate that indexing your mags lower will make for a more effeicient reload. On My armor mags are as low as possible, only stuff like a garmin pouch, TQ etc.. go high. When I am just in a chest rig my mags are pretty much over my belly just above the belt line.

[SOW_0331]

A few times I'd argue in favor of high sitting mags;

1. Mounted Ops - In the turret, having mags at your normal center line will get you snagged. If you're driving or VC, getting in and out will be uncomfortable as shit if not dangerously slow.

2. Long Range Patrol - Like, 46 kilometers to your objective long. Days like that, I liked to carry less on my body, and use a medium sized pack. Keeping the mags higher I was still able to reach them just fine (though not the fastest mag changes ever, I admit) and I was able to use the kidney pad on the pack. On days like that I was more likely to be taken out of the fight by bad weight placement and support.

3. Concealment - Wearing a standard chest rig will be hard to hide under a big jacket, man dress, or ghillie blouse.

4. DM/SS - Precision shooting from difficult positions. Last thing you need getting in the way is a bulky chest rig. I've found that a split rig works better in those roles.

I'm not arguing with your principal idea, I agree that low is better. But I've found that there's enough legitimate use for chest rigs that allow the mags to sit high that it's worth training on and being proficient in if one can imagine being called into one of those roles. I know as a 1/75 guy you're not without experience, I don't mean to infer that in any way.

[Wake27]

I have to agree with everybody. As with most things, its situation dependent, but I definitely prefer them low.

[M&P15T]

I've been watching the Magpul Dynamics Carbine training video(s), where they discussed the different ways of carrying extra mags. Not for .mil, but for Joes and Janes. Haley liked to keep one or two mags on his belt in a carrier, as he felt they were faster than something up high on the chest.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that some Joe or Jane is going to have such a concern, but it's an interesting discussion.

[TehLlama]

It's a case where the first time you need to fire round #31 (or #21, etc.) the user needs access to that magazine in a pretty damned big hurry. It's a low probability of relevance thing, but the moment you're emptying that first magazine in anger, it starts being critically important.
FWIW, my .mil loadout kit for mounted/helo/other vehicular ops was: two mag pouches on the belt, and just a few of magazines in the center part of the plate carrier. It's a case of whichever is more convenient to grab, just get that mag - in the turret of our rather cramped CESAS MRAP, the belt mounted pouch was useless, but in the prone the belt pouch was tremendously more accessible than the chest mounted pouches. Travis isn't onto anything new, just making some more aware that primary weapon system magazines needn't be all in the same place.

Concealability and ability to carry spare rifle magazines to me are a very niche consideration, since spare rifle mags only matter if you have - a rifle. Not even a PDW type Mk18 with 20rd magazine conceals truly well, so running body armor and other support equipment means you're dressing to simply make it less painfully obvious that you're packing 110+ rounds and a 400m capable weapon system; and the sorts of folks with that as a legitimate need aren't exactly going to the internet for advice, since they have access to training and ammunition budgets to be creating those sorts of TTP's for themselves and others.

Instead, the biggest realistic consideration is being able to operate a motor vehicle (and/or work from within one) while kitted up, which means the default michelin man layout of an uber-plate carrier makes little sense, and it's back to a case where a condensed setup is more valuable. Next would be ability to work from the prone, since this is often the most overlooked need of gear - it's nice to see highly proficient shooters go to town from 7-50yd from standing or kneeling in the open or behind cover, but that's a case where fundamentals built there have value, but in a two-way range being close to the ground and not getting hit is typically the most practical place to be, and unless part of some highly trained team that's the location where time is going to be spent.

The last issue is how quickly can a kit get jocked up into - for a job where you're deliberately going into harm's way a bit of time can be fine (full plate carrier, belt, helmet, etc.), but if a simpler kit can be installed a lot more quickly, it's worth a lot more on the civilian side. Again, really low probability/rare need of needing ballistic protection and/or spare rifle magazines, but having to get jocked up reactively it doesn't make sense to have something that takes more than 30 seconds to get all set up with (including rifle w/ sling, sidearm), so something simpler (and preferably modular) makes a ton more sense.

For my part, after ditching the idea of stacking more than one magazine thick over ballistic protection, I've found that having magazines where I can get at them fast doesn't restrict my mobility all that much, and that stacking three rifle magazines front centered chest (low down), two magazines on the belt (support side, opposite secondary weapon) I have more than enough rounds for the carbine without making anything too inconvenient; and mostly making everything else about that thin (pistol magazine pouches w/ 4 spares, multitool, tertiary light); the last thing I'm sorting out finally is managing integration with backpacks - the TT/GreyGhost removable operator pack is a good 'almost there', but that's the biggest part where I'm not truly happy with my gear arrangements.

[Wake27]

It's a case where the first time you need to fire round #31 (or #21, etc.) the user needs access to that magazine in a pretty damned big hurry. It's a low probability of relevance thing, but the moment you're emptying that first magazine in anger, it starts being critically important.
FWIW, my .mil loadout kit for mounted/helo/other vehicular ops was: two mag pouches on the belt, and just a few of magazines in the center part of the plate carrier. It's a case of whichever is more convenient to grab, just get that mag - in the turret of our rather cramped CESAS MRAP, the belt mounted pouch was useless, but in the prone the belt pouch was tremendously more accessible than the chest mounted pouches. Travis isn't onto anything new, just making some more aware that primary weapon system magazines needn't be all in the same place.

Concealability and ability to carry spare rifle magazines to me are a very niche consideration, since spare rifle mags only matter if you have - a rifle. Not even a PDW type Mk18 with 20rd magazine conceals truly well, so running body armor and other support equipment means you're dressing to simply make it less painfully obvious that you're packing 110+ rounds and a 400m capable weapon system; and the sorts of folks with that as a legitimate need aren't exactly going to the internet for advice, since they have access to training and ammunition budgets to be creating those sorts of TTP's for themselves and others.

Instead, the biggest realistic consideration is being able to operate a motor vehicle (and/or work from within one) while kitted up, which means the default michelin man layout of an uber-plate carrier makes little sense, and it's back to a case where a condensed setup is more valuable. Next would be ability to work from the prone, since this is often the most overlooked need of gear - it's nice to see highly proficient shooters go to town from 7-50yd from standing or kneeling in the open or behind cover, but that's a case where fundamentals built there have value, but in a two-way range being close to the ground and not getting hit is typically the most practical place to be, and unless part of some highly trained team that's the location where time is going to be spent.

The last issue is how quickly can a kit get jocked up into - for a job where you're deliberately going into harm's way a bit of time can be fine (full plate carrier, belt, helmet, etc.), but if a simpler kit can be installed a lot more quickly, it's worth a lot more on the civilian side. Again, really low probability/rare need of needing ballistic protection and/or spare rifle magazines, but having to get jocked up reactively it doesn't make sense to have something that takes more than 30 seconds to get all set up with (including rifle w/ sling, sidearm), so something simpler (and preferably modular) makes a ton more sense.

For my part, after ditching the idea of stacking more than one magazine thick over ballistic protection, I've found that having magazines where I can get at them fast doesn't restrict my mobility all that much, and that stacking three rifle magazines front centered chest (low down), two magazines on the belt (support side, opposite secondary weapon) I have more than enough rounds for the carbine without making anything too inconvenient; and mostly making everything else about that thin (pistol magazine pouches w/ 4 spares, multitool, tertiary light); the last thing I'm sorting out finally is managing integration with backpacks - the TT/GreyGhost removable operator pack is a good 'almost there', but that's the biggest part where I'm not truly happy with my gear arrangements.

Well said. I run something very similar now, though with less on my belt. I don't know what PC you have, but have you looked at Mayflower's assault pack?

[TehLlama]

I'm running a USMC SPC I bartered off our interpreter for a carton of smokes - it's great for what it is, but I'm still holding out for an APC or LBT 6094 Slick type carrier that fits shooters cut plates and has just enough mounting points for a Mayflower modular chest rig attachment. That assaulter pack is baller, the LiteLok is yet more weight savings, but I'd prefer to have a truly quickly removable pack (instead of MOLLE speed) since part of the goal for my .civ armor suit is to be in a vehicle without having to change much, so the ROP is already pretty close, and if I repurpose some cummerbund bungee material on the male fastex buckles, I can just wrap them around the shoulder straps quickly and it's a decent fit, and use the flushmount for the bottom/side attachments, the same way as the chest rig. For a permanent pack that would be awesome, but if I wanted that setup I'd just go with an LBT Slick front panel and their integrated backpack setup.
For the price I snagged my TT ROP's, it's hard not to stick with those until something way better comes along, and when they're not in use doing that, I wear them riding my mountain bike (where they see more use, and curiously enough because of that extra use they do a better job of staying one camping insert bag away from being a useful go-bag).