AR15.Com Archives
 What is the difference between 500D Cordura and 1000D Cordura?
goldeneye  [Member]
9/4/2011 10:01:20 AM
I am looking at chest rigs and I see that some are 500D Cordura, but others are 1000D Cordura, what is the difference? Is it thickness of the material or what? Also, is one stronger than the other?
Paid Advertisement
--
SSeric02  [Team Member]
9/4/2011 10:17:47 AM
500 is the lighter weight stuff, like what the military issue MOLLE gear is made from. 1000 is heavier, typically what most of the Eagle and other top brands' stuff is made from.
jinx667  [Team Member]
9/4/2011 11:56:34 AM
500D is lighter, but more than sufficient for most applications. We are seeing more companies use it, as often 1000D is overkill and the weight penalty is not worth it.

Some argue that the weight is difference is negligible, but ounces in the morning are pounds by the evening.
Layer60  [Member]
9/4/2011 2:09:28 PM
Thread count. 1000D Cordura is extremely rugged material.
goldeneye  [Member]
9/4/2011 3:12:44 PM
I'm thinking about getting the TAG Intrepid Chest Rig, does anyone know which material it is made from?
NapeSticksToKids  [Team Member]
9/4/2011 3:23:15 PM
Originally Posted By goldeneye:
I'm thinking about getting the TAG Intrepid Chest Rig, does anyone know which material it is made from?


good enough material for whatever youre using it for.
Swat_dude  [Member]
9/4/2011 4:56:03 PM
Originally Posted By Layer60:
Thread count. 1000D Cordura is extremely rugged material.


The rating has nothing to do with thread count. D stands for denier and 1000 denier is 11 oz. of fabric per square yard and 500 denier is 5.5 oz. per square yard. The post that said it is a different weight is exactly correct. It gives that the thcker or more populous nylon fibers in 1000 denier will be stronger than 500 denier.
raf  [Site Staff]
9/4/2011 7:14:58 PM
As noted above, 500D is half the weight, per square unit of measurement, than 1000D.

All other things being equal, the ability to withstand abrasion is probably greater with 1000D fabrics than similar 500D fabrics.

In an ideal world, gear mfrs would use fabrics and webbing suited to the most likely intended use in order to save weight.

IOW, gear most commonly subjected to abrasion, such as gear worn on the soldier's front, would be made of stouter stuff than other gear that would not be subjected to the soldier crawling and dragging the gear over the ground.

This differential use of materails gets to be quite expensive to design and manufacture, while offering only slight weight savings. Still,
the Mil, who sets materials standards, might be wise to consider lighter-weight fabrics and materials in many instances. Gear manufacturers rather dislike the concept, as it makes things a lot more difficult for them, and the people who promulgate Mil-Specs
dislike the concept as it makes designing gear––and materials used––more difficult, as well as more costly for the Gov't.
Still, differential use of materials is something of an unexplored concept in tactical gear-making.
With the upcoming wind-down in the various conflicts in which the US is currently engaged, gear mfrs will be struggling to generate sales in the future, and differential use of materials might possibly be one way for some gear mfrs to distinguish themselves and their gear.
eggrolly  [Member]
9/4/2011 7:41:42 PM
Originally Posted By Swat_dude:
Originally Posted By Layer60:
Thread count. 1000D Cordura is extremely rugged material.


The rating has nothing to do with thread count. D stands for denier and 1000 denier is 11 oz. of fabric per square yard and 500 denier is 5.5 oz. per square yard. The post that said it is a different weight is exactly correct. It gives that the thcker or more populous nylon fibers in 1000 denier will be stronger than 500 denier.


Its 1000 grams per 9000 meters of a 1000D whereas 500 grams per 9000 meters of 500D

The strength that you are concern about? The tensile strength or spreading apart stress is what most folks are concerned with. You will break before the gear material fails... Abrasion resistance is what most are referring to... And the degree of which is dependent on construction and design
Layer60  [Member]
9/5/2011 1:33:27 PM
Originally Posted By Swat_dude:
Originally Posted By Layer60:
Thread count. 1000D Cordura is extremely rugged material.


The rating has nothing to do with thread count. D stands for denier and 1000 denier is 11 oz. of fabric per square yard and 500 denier is 5.5 oz. per square yard. The post that said it is a different weight is exactly correct. It gives that the thcker or more populous nylon fibers in 1000 denier will be stronger than 500 denier.


I stand corrected. Apologies.
eggrolly  [Member]
9/5/2011 2:27:34 PM
Originally Posted By raf:
As noted above, 500D is half the weight, per square unit of measurement, than 1000D.

All other things being equal, the ability to withstand abrasion is probably greater with 1000D fabrics than similar 500D fabrics.

In an ideal world, gear mfrs would use fabrics and webbing suited to the most likely intended use in order to save weight.

IOW, gear most commonly subjected to abrasion, such as gear worn on the soldier's front, would be made of stouter stuff than other gear that would not be subjected to the soldier crawling and dragging the gear over the ground.

This differential use of materails gets to be quite expensive to design and manufacture, while offering only slight weight savings. Still,
the Mil, who sets materials standards, might be wise to consider lighter-weight fabrics and materials in many instances. Gear manufacturers rather dislike the concept, as it makes things a lot more difficult for them, and the people who promulgate Mil-Specs
dislike the concept as it makes designing gear––and materials used––more difficult, as well as more costly for the Gov't.
Still, differential use of materials is something of an unexplored concept in tactical gear-making.
With the upcoming wind-down in the various conflicts in which the US is currently engaged, gear mfrs will be struggling to generate sales in the future, and differential use of materials might possibly be one way for some gear mfrs to distinguish themselves and their gear.



Its not as unexplored as you may think, the civilian market can only bear a certain expanse of gear offerings - it isnt that we dislike "the differential" it whether the market will bear the COST of designing new kit, and whether theres enough market segment to bear the flood of new kit... Every once in a while, there will be the new shiny thing that everyone must have, never mind that it doesnt do anything new at a core level, and folks would be hardpressed to explain why they want it outside of it solely being the New Shiny Thing.

as far as mixmastering materials and fabrics, I am working on the 1/4lb (4oz) M4 chest rig and 4 oz AK47 rig... but again to what point does it get ridiculous because something has to be sacrificed in order to gain in other areas


The run of the mill joe Q consumer who is jumping on the gearwagon solely to ride with the Joneses, is not going to care one way or the other on differential use of material. At the end of the day, will kit do the job for which they intended it to be used for.

if gear is designed smartly then the designers have accounted for mitigation of abrasion and stress points at all sewing anchors alongside proper material employment.


Layer60  [Member]
9/5/2011 2:50:09 PM
Originally Posted By eggrolly:
Originally Posted By raf:
As noted above, 500D is half the weight, per square unit of measurement, than 1000D.

All other things being equal, the ability to withstand abrasion is probably greater with 1000D fabrics than similar 500D fabrics.

In an ideal world, gear mfrs would use fabrics and webbing suited to the most likely intended use in order to save weight.

IOW, gear most commonly subjected to abrasion, such as gear worn on the soldier's front, would be made of stouter stuff than other gear that would not be subjected to the soldier crawling and dragging the gear over the ground.

This differential use of materails gets to be quite expensive to design and manufacture, while offering only slight weight savings. Still,
the Mil, who sets materials standards, might be wise to consider lighter-weight fabrics and materials in many instances. Gear manufacturers rather dislike the concept, as it makes things a lot more difficult for them, and the people who promulgate Mil-Specs
dislike the concept as it makes designing gear––and materials used––more difficult, as well as more costly for the Gov't.
Still, differential use of materials is something of an unexplored concept in tactical gear-making.
With the upcoming wind-down in the various conflicts in which the US is currently engaged, gear mfrs will be struggling to generate sales in the future, and differential use of materials might possibly be one way for some gear mfrs to distinguish themselves and their gear.



Its not as unexplored as you may think, the civilian market can only bear a certain expanse of gear offerings - it isnt that we dislike "the differential" it whether the market will bear the COST of designing new kit, and whether theres enough market segment to bear the flood of new kit... Every once in a while, there will be the new shiny thing that everyone must have, never mind that it doesnt do anything new at a core level, and folks would be hardpressed to explain why they want it outside of it solely being the New Shiny Thing.

as far as mixmastering materials and fabrics, I am working on the 1/4lb (4oz) M4 chest rig and 4 oz AK47 rig... but again to what point does it get ridiculous because something has to be sacrificed in order to gain in other areas


The run of the mill joe Q consumer who is jumping on the gearwagon solely to ride with the Joneses, is not going to care one way or the other on differential use of material. At the end of the day, will kit do the job for which they intended it to be used for.

if gear is designed smartly then the designers have accounted for mitigation of abrasion and stress points at all sewing anchors alongside proper material employment.




I must agree. In my opinion, trying too hard to push the envelope, especially where materials research and related process engineering are concerned, winds up consolidating the number of companies that can even hope to comply into a few of the largest hands, such as BAE, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. We're dangerously close to that point now. Doing so can stifle innovation, rather than encourage it. I have seen it personally on many occasions.
Paid Advertisement
--