I'm jealous.

I just have a misc sack of ammo.

>>17434
I don't know about Costco but a lot of the ones I see for sale online all the time are made in Taiwan by companies that have US government contracts for their manufacture, made to those specifications.

>>17436
It was either Cabela's or Dicks that had flimsy China ones I saw.

http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/Ammo-Cans.html

I get mine here, brand new. They also usually have great deals on 5.56

Well them 99 syrup yen special Cambodian tire shelves seem to be holding up.

They're rated for a shitton of weight, quite a bit more than I have on them, and feature KEYMOD shelf spacing. You can also set them up in a modular horizontal arrangement for extra tactical.

Figures. Oakley seems like the only company offering what I'm looking for. But, they restrict it to military and police. As a filthy civvy, I don't qualify for the Standard Issue bullshit.

I hate that program. Give them a hell of a discount, but don't make it exclusive to them goddammit.

I guess I could always go this route, lol.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Military-Issue-BCG-Birth-Control-Glasses-Frames-USGI-S9-NOS-Many-Sizes-/311610116826

After discovering Wiley X's Worksight line, I exchanged some emails with them and found out they're almost exactly what I'm looking for. Cool thing is they all come with the side panels you can attach to the temples, so I don't have to search for one or modify one to fit whatever glasses I get.

Now I need to squirrel away some money and see if I can afford a pair within a reasonable timeline.

>>17416
They don't restrict it to LE/Mil, you just have to go through an optometrist who is also an official Oakley vendor, you can't do it yourself online.

I have RX Fuel Cells for driving and shooting, fishing, hunting ETC. Coveted them for years but finally found out my local dealer (who also does my RX safety glasses for work) is a dealer and got the hook up.

Unfortunately that means you're pretty much stuck paying retail. No fishing around for the best deal online. :\

>>17420
I remember looking at it in the past and Oakley saying "restricted to LE/mil."

Oh, well. I like dis.

http://www.wileyx.com/ProductDetail/wscon01_wx-contour-matte-black-frame

Fits my criteria, I especially like how the removable side panels are part of the design.

I just have to save up, I have some bigger stuff to take care of at the moment.

>>17363
I like the Dyncorp hat.

What's up with the leather flat cap? You into S&M with 19th century paper boys?

>>17364
No, he's just a terrible-looking hipster faggot.

I've never been a hat guy mostly because I wear something like a size 7 3/4 fitted ball cap. The ol' dome is just too big for most one-size-fits-all hats to actually fit without causing a headache, tearing up the hat or looking dumb.

>>17367
I'm happy I'm 7 1/8. It's a pretty common size.

I feel weird without a hat, I love having a cover. I don't know if it's bad for me, like if it causes hair loss or something. So far so good, healthy and thick hair. It's why I got $900 the one time I sold my hair.

My current go to headwear for day to day stuffs.

"Moderate" muslims don't even have the decency to not condone terrorist actions.

>>15666
A good belt will cost you some dosh. But it means you won't need to spend money for a good long while on another one if you buy right.

>>15672
Yeah, I figure that. I'm really liking the Maxpedition belt the poster above you mentioned. I might jump on that when I have the opportunity.

>>15667
>Little bit of a follow up since this thread was resurrected just liek babby jeezus.
Is that frowned upon? I find it best to use an existing thread if what I want to say is covered by the thread's topic, even if said thread is... oh, shit. Last July? God damn, this is a slow board!

>>15696
Same here. If I can necrobump an old discussion that fits my needs, I'd rather do that.

Belgian Browning Hi-Power holster.
Yeah, more expensive than a nylon or other type of plastic form-fitting holster, but much more stylish.

  Ancient shoes - with tales of falling over https://youtu.be/-3qTniJsoEg
In this video, I (Lindybeige) share my experiences of falling over in various forms of authentic period footwear. The materials available to the ancients for footwear were nowhere near as good as modern plastics and rubbers for shoe souls.

Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.

  Fighting shoes - authentiboots and pattens https://youtu.be/xlcd0B0cVqU
The second of my authentiboot-related videos, this time dealing with the issue of how much difference leather-soled boots make to footwork in combat, and how much better modern materials are for shoe soles. Modern rubbers and plastics are grippy, hard-wearing, flexible, and waterproof. The ancients had nothing that was all those things.

Link to 'Living in the Past' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_the_Past_(TV_series) This is credited with being the world's first 'reality TV' programme. It was the most efficient piece of television ever made (at least at the time) measured in terms of cost of production to viewing figures ratio. I am very jealous of the people who got to do this. It is amazing that there are not opportunities to do this today. I'm sure that that there are many people willing to give it a try.

Living in the Past (1978 Iron Age reality tv) - part 1 https://youtu.be/2e7ZLWz3UMw
In 1978 12 adults and 3 children were selected from around 1000 volunteers for the first 'reality tv' series by living for a year on an Iron Age farm as Iron Age people. This film looks back at the original shows and what has happened to them in the 30 years since then.

  How to make moccasins part 1 https://youtu.be/R1jiJ4qsdVk

  How to make moccasins part 2 https://youtu.be/0zcpUz3Q6Fo

  >>17121
Just watched this, divided up into six parts, but here it is in one 59 minute video (but the audio is poor):
IRON AGE REALITY - LIVING IN THE PAST - Discovery History Science (full documentary) https://youtu.be/V0cfOQ13AuM

>>16980

>Anyone here have any ideas on why it seems to be a .mil only thing?

Because they're stupid unless you're wearing bulky armor that restricts access to your waist, or would get in the way of you having to quickly don the armor on or off (if you're wounded, or it's time to suit up and get moving quick)

Go run with one on, go walk through doorways, go try to draw while seated in a vehicle. A proper holster and belt that supports the weapon (especially a heavier fully loaded double stack, 1911, big wheel gun) you will notice the weight very quickly. I usually notice a thigh rig/drop leg is either too tight and gets fatiguing/annoying, or too loose where it flops around and gets annoying.

Well, at least you can think on the bright side, they make an awesome tourniquet if you get shot in that leg, as they tend to cut off circulation anyway! And they make you look like a huge mallninja faggot.

What Revived says is exactly right and especially with my limited experience, I don't have anything to add to it.

I can offer an alternative, though. I run a Safariland holster on my battle belt, and it's attached to my belt using the low ride Universal Belt Loop (UBL) option. It doesn't ride as low as a thigh holster, but it puts it (for me) at a level that offers most of the same benefits. Comfortable and out of the way for the most part and should clear anything your shoulders clear, stays very stable at all times. The downside is it doesn't necessarily work great when you're sitting in a chair with arms or a car seat. It's not terrible but not great either. But, like I said, it's the best alternative I've found to a thigh rig. Clears waist length jackets, backpacks, armor carriers (not an issue for me anyway), stuff like that.

You were effectively working statically with wear of that holster. You weren't patrolling, you had a workspace that was the size of what, a 20 foot conex? Try doing a walk/run for 12 miles with one.

The only reason to use a dropleg is if you have mandatory equipment requirements that preclude being able to access effectively with a low-ride hip holster, or absolutely no other option.

They're awkward, they're unwieldly, and they're horrible for real field use as a general rule.

Low crawling, they're in the dirt where/when a hip holster isn't.

If you have to RUN with them, they're even worse. They're horrible if you cinch them down to where they don't move, because now you're restricting circulation on that leg. They make your uniform bunch up and pinch. They are absolutely despicable for long distance wear, as they're going to literally wear a hole in your leg.

They are also a safety hazard as they can get hung up easier than anything else other than a slung rifle if you happen to have a shit hover and can't rotate fully on the rope due to the airframe shifting when fastroping, and they can cause issues parachuting.

For civilian use, they're even worse due to the fact that you can't draw seated if you're driving.

The draw is slower. Significantly, actually.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>16980
>Pic is what I would one day like for my BHP but the guy who made it seems to be out of business.

If you ever had to run with that thing that 1911 would come flying out just like the spaghetti would come flying out of your pockets as you have to explain to your buddies why you need them to help you look for your obsolete "pistol."

Goggles for dogs --doggles?
http://www.operatorchan.org/g/res/14200.html#14246