Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
At least that's what attracted me to the design.
Printable View
Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
At least that's what attracted me to the design.
Nailed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha-17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha-17
So, not factual evidence based medicine?
Got it.
Depends on how you define "factual evidence-based medicine"? Improved features are "factual evidence." Something that gets the job done and is easier to use is better. Something that doesn't break (and yes, I've broken CATs in training) would also be better. Would I love to see more impartial testing of the Recon Medical offering? Absolutely, that'd be great and might inspire improvements to the design that will only be revealed by independent testing. Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticaldesire
The current CAT GEN7 has a thicker windlass, single buckle and I've not had issues with the stitching.Quote:
Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.
It depends on the product. When we're talking about a pierce of lifesaving kit, yes. Until such time that it has been thoroughly tested by a reputable authority and demonstrated a good track record, there's no way I'm going to put a TQ (not just this one) into service. When I deploy a CAT, I know what to expect. When I teach classes, we discuss knockoffs and that at best, they're an unknown.Quote:
Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not.
I guess we can agree to disagree and good on anyone that at least carries something and knows what to do with it. The CAT does cost twice as much, but I don't sweat the extra $15 and it's made in the USA (not China). Even though the CATs I use at work are not purchased by me, I bought additional ones (and a couple GEN 4 SOF TT-W) on my dime to carry in my personal kits.
I recieved the RATs TQ and it seems like it would work as a one handed TQ, but it is not less bulky than a CAT.
CATs (a 1 time use item) broken in training have often been applied dozens of times up to that point. I've never seen or heard of a CAT 7 breaking in real world applications. Not saying it can't or hasn't happened, but not often enough to use a $15 amazon knock-off in place. There's also nothing to say that any of those features are an actual improvement outside of dubious claims made by the manufacturer with no backing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha-17
Actually, yes. Especially when it's a item where failure results in death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha-17
Cut corners to save money in other things, not medical gear. I'll eat Ramen for a week before I try to save $15 on a TQ that's supposed to save a loved one, a co-worker, or my life.
I've used recons for training, because $15 a pop is easier to swallow than $30 for that role, but I wouldn't use or recommend them for real world applications unless a credible org like TCCC, TeCCC, NAEMT, DoD etc. say otherwise. "NTOA Member tested and approved 2018" means absolutely nothing.
There's too many other vetted options to bother with an unknown quantity.
I would advise against relying on the RATs for anything other than animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd00000
These were military-issued Gen 6 Cats straight out of the package. I've seen it happen more than once. Heck, I've seen them come out of the package broken because Joe Snuffy had dropped something on his IFAK or landed wrong in a jump. I also remember the big hoopla about not having a TQ stored outside the IFAK because of them degrading through UV light exposure. Outliers to be sure, but they happen, and features that combat these issues are nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticaldesire
The complaints about Recon's offering boil down to it's not NAR, it's $15, and X group hasn't approved it. That's really no different than a decade ago when the "Colt 6920s or nothing" mentality ruled the roost. The argument that "you can spend $X and get a real CAT!" works as long as you ignore the improvements Recon has made, the price doesn't really matter, and the reasons for them not being approved seem mostly to lack of testing. I've got plenty of CATs, both Gen 6 and 7, I just like Recon's offering. They're an improved clone design, and given time, I think they'll be accepted.
All that said, I am trying to keep an open mind. If anyone has actual data about them failing or being rejected (as opposed to simply not being tested enough by third parties) I'd love to see it. Everything I've seen about them has been overwhelmingly positive, which matches my own experience.
I’ve got this new drug. It will control your heart rhythm better than Amiodarone, but it has not been FDA approved, and this is not part of a trial. Try it. Its better.
Edit: I’m not against new stuff. I just won’t be an early adopter. Risk vs reward and all.