Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: Several new TQs approved by TC3 Committee

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    573
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Superior? Please do share your methodology in coming to this conclusion.
    Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.

    At least that's what attracted me to the design.
    ...they should have seen that arms in their citizens' hands could not make them tyrants, but that evil orders of government make a city tyrannize. Since they had a good government, they did not have to fear their own arms.
    --Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha-17 View Post
    Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.

    At least that's what attracted me to the design.
    Nailed it!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha-17 View Post
    Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.

    At least that's what attracted me to the design.

    So, not factual evidence based medicine?

    Got it.
    Worry less, Train more.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    573
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacticaldesire View Post
    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.
    ...they should have seen that arms in their citizens' hands could not make them tyrants, but that evil orders of government make a city tyrannize. Since they had a good government, they did not have to fear their own arms.
    --Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    598
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.
    The current CAT GEN7 has a thicker windlass, single buckle and I've not had issues with the stitching.

    Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not.
    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.

    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,115
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    Todd
    Colt/BCM

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha-17 View Post
    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. .
    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 View Post
    Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not
    Actually, yes. Especially when it's a item where failure results in death.

    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.
    Worry less, Train more.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    225
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd00000 View Post
    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.
    I would advise against relying on the RATs for anything other than animals.
    Worry less, Train more.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    573
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacticaldesire View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    ...they should have seen that arms in their citizens' hands could not make them tyrants, but that evil orders of government make a city tyrannize. Since they had a good government, they did not have to fear their own arms.
    --Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    2,038
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Iíve 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: Iím not against new stuff. I just wonít be an early adopter. Risk vs reward and all.
    Last edited by 1168; 03-31-20 at 10:38.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •