Army SF & SOF Pics

[Jorge14]

[SGTOmegaM14]

From those colors I would have to say 1918 Earth Brown looks closer/better.

[medic23]

i'd have to agree with the above!

[Freddyfourfinger]

My Paraclete RAV with my Eagle Seal-setup pouches and PACA LOWIS.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2007 by Freddyfourfinger

[HeuteGegangen]

May I ask why you have the PACA under the RAV?

[medic23]

*edit*damn you Heute!

Edited November 9, 2007 by medic23

[Murph]

What the Arabic on the side pouch all about?

[Jaager]

it will most likely say infidel or stay back 100m or you will be shot

Edited November 9, 2007 by Jaager

[Murph]

YAWN - That's original.

 

LOLZ!

[101matt1]

IIRC, the soft armor under the RAV is there because the plates in the RAV won't always completely stop the bullets. Better safe than sorry when it comes to 7.62's. Same concept with all the people wearing CIRAS and PACAs under them. Better safe than sorry when it's real steel, and if you are trying to be spot on with a loadout, then you might add that to your collection.

[chillindrdude]

if you are only placing hard plate armor in the RAV, then yes, you need a soft armor carrier underneath for adequate protection. ALL plate armor (even "standalone") require soft armor (kevlar) backer. Although a round will not penetrate plate armor (appropriate for the rated round), the impact itself will still cause serious injury or death without a soft armor backer. Most people choose the RAV because it can carry both soft and plate armor in one package. hence why you don't see many folks wearing a soft armor carrier (like a PACA) under a RAV or CIRAS.

 

if i remember correctly, Level III will stop most 7.62 rounds. Level IV should stop 7.62 AP (armor piercing) rounds. Again, Level III and IV plates will require soft armor (usually Level III or IIIA) underneath to prevent serious impact injuries or death.

 

 

[HeuteGegangen]

PACA and RAV both carry hard and soft armor... This is just mall ninja to the max

[t3hDesertFox]

Eh? I know the RAV is an armor carrier (Soft and plates), but I'm pretty sure the PACA is just soft armor. Amirite?

[Agent Hunk]

Mine had spots for hard plates. Wouldn't want them in such a carrier but it has spots for em.

 

I think some plates can be used without soft armor under them it's just not a good idea as the round's impact leaves a nasty bruise reguardless.

[medic23]

ok now we all know why he did it.... he's going to be robbing a bank cause its just silly to do that in airsoft.

[Freddyfourfinger]

I think its time I explain...

The only reason the PACA is in the picture is because i had to have some structure to keep the RAV standing for the photos.

Because my SAPI plates is in my other vest.

 

So there we ended all speculations

 

Eagle CIRAS-LAND with the same pouches displayed earlier.

 

[TheLair]

if you are only placing hard plate armor in the RAV, then yes, you need a soft armor carrier underneath for adequate protection. ALL plate armor (even "standalone") require soft armor (kevlar) backer. Although a round will not penetrate plate armor (appropriate for the rated round), the impact itself will still cause serious injury or death without a soft armor backer. Most people choose the RAV because it can carry both soft and plate armor in one package. hence why you don't see many folks wearing a soft armor carrier (like a PACA) under a RAV or CIRAS.

 

if i remember correctly, Level III will stop most 7.62 rounds. Level IV should stop 7.62 AP (armor piercing) rounds. Again, Level III and IV plates will require soft armor (usually Level III or IIIA) underneath to prevent serious impact injuries or death.

 

Not exactly true. You don't need soft armor under all plates, and in some cases its really unnecessary. Quote from a friend:

A Level IV "Stand-alone" plate or any other "Stand-alone" plate means that the plate stops the threat projectile and complies with the NIJ standard for penetration and back face deformation on it's own accord and without soft armor behind the plate

Edited November 10, 2007 by TheLair

[chillindrdude]

my "no-frills" ACH/MICH helmet

[Murph]

Here's my Ranger Impression:

 

I worked with what I had for gear, so aside from an "authentic" look, what do you all think?

 

Edit: Forgot my Bijan kneepads... doh!

Edited November 23, 2007 by Murph

[[BS]_MARS]

I worked with what I had for gear, so aside from an "authentic" look, what do you all think?

 

 

Well it isn't a Ranger impression if you have no Ranger gear, your weapon is wrong, you have too much facial hair, and your flag is worn incorrectly. I think the idea of an impression is that it looks like to person or persons you're portraying. About the only thing that it ranger-ish is the BDU.

[Skarclaw]

Here's my Ranger Impression:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d132/Com...r0001-small.jpg

 

I worked with what I had for gear, so aside from an "authentic" look, what do you all think?

 

Edit: Forgot my Bijan kneepads... doh!

 

Why bother?

[Murph]

Well it isn't a Ranger impression if you have no Ranger gear, your weapon is wrong, you have too much facial hair, and your flag is worn incorrectly. I think the idea of an impression is that it looks like to person or persons you're portraying. About the only thing that it ranger-ish is the BDU.

 

You're right... I should just shut up and let these pictures do the talking.

 

 

[felts27]

You're right... I should just shut up and let these pictures do the talking.

 

 

like it dude well said that should shut em up lolol liken it

[79TransAm]

Not sure if your saying this, but those guys in the pics are not RANGERS

[fr00b]

You're right... I should just shut up and let these pictures do the talking.

 

Yeah, i think i can see what they're saying...