Posted: 10/24/2011 4:32:17 PM EDT
|
Is anyone using one of these for a BOB? Does the military even still use in ACU? If you have one do you like it or dislike it?
Thanks for your input. |
| I've only seen one or two guys on here that cheer for the CFP-90. It sorta got lost in the haze between ALICE Land and MOLLE World. I believe it's biggest issue is it's size and some "Plastic" piece that can be prone to breakage and takes the pack out of commission. Just my $0.02 from my own online wanderings. |
| Skip the CFP 90. The original version was tested by instructors at the USMC Mountain Warfare Traing Center, and was made by Lowe Alpine. The production version was made by other companies, and they skimped on stitching and materials. During trips to the MWTC, we had a lot, maybe over 50%, with broken buckles and blown stitching. Get a different pack. |
|
I have one, and use it occasionally. It has a large volume, so it's best for winter/long distance.
The plastic piece that can deteriorate with age/break is present on the earlier GI packs, perhaps not on the later GI versions, and not at all on the copies. Avoid putting needless strain on the plastic piece (duck's foot, I call it) buy never picking up the loaded pack by a single shoulder strap; use the lift-loop at top to pick up the pack to move it, and, if possible, don the pack when pack is on the ground. If the pack is fully loaded, you'll want to don it this way out of necessity. I got a couple of spare (2-piece) duck's feet from the original mfr, Lowe, and made up a couple using auto seat belt webbing, and having my local cobbler stitch up the thing. The original took decades to break; just carefully examine any duck's foot for cracking. If it's beginning to show cracks, plan on replacing it soon, before it gives out on a hike. Even if the duck's foot breaks entirely, there are auxiliary straps that will get you home. One could have the Duck's foot made out of aluminum, and that would solve the problem altogether. Your gunsmith could probably do this. `Other than that single issue, it's a good pack for its type. |
|
Quoted:
Skip the CFP 90. The original version was tested by instructors at the USMC Mountain Warfare Traing Center, and was made by Lowe Alpine. The production version was made by other companies, and they skimped on stitching and materials. During trips to the MWTC, we had a lot, maybe over 50%, with broken buckles and blown stitching. Get a different pack. I have heard complaints about non-Lowe-mfd units blowing-out stitching. I've never seen one that blew out, but presumably they were discarded, and that explains that. Can you describe how the stitching blew out? Did the actual stitching fail, or did the material on one side or the other of the stitching un-ravel? I have been told that the Lowe-mfd units had a brown bottom/sleeping system compartment, and the later, much more common GI units had a green bottom. |
|
The stitching failed. I heard that some of the cost cutting measures (save $10 per pack on how ever many thousand packs) on the production packs included sub-standard thread and plastic, and also shorter straps, which caused big problems for larger guys trying to use the day pack. I think even the aluminum stays were substandard.
The production packs did have green bottoms. I'm not sure about the test packs. The duck's foot you are referring to slid up and down a plastic rail for adjustment and was tightened in place with two screws on the production packs. I'm not positive, but I believe the actual Lowe Alpine test versions used Lowe's "Ladder-Lock" adjustment, which was the same as was used in their larger commercial packs at that time (late 80s/ early 90s). The ducks foot would occasionally pull out. I know a few guys who had the stitching reinforced and the shoulder straps sewn to the pack body right above where they placed the duck foot. It was a shame the production models were so poorly executed. They actually were a pretty decent idea in the age before hard body armor, especially as a cold weather pack. When comparing ALICE, CFP, and ILBE, and MOLLE, the CFP is noticeably lower quality. It isn't even close, The current pack of the Army is the MOLLE (pronounced "molly") with the attached sleeping bag compartment. USMC uses the ILBE, which is based on an Arc Teryx pack. The USMC is looking at switching soon to a different pack. |
|
Quoted:
Slightly off topic but why is the USMC looking for another pack? The first iteration of the Marine pack, ILBE, was found to be very deficient with regards to Marines wearing body armor. Trials have been ongoing, and i have not heard of a final result. Personally speaking, and with an eye towards inevitable reductions in the military budget, IMHO the Marines and the Army might be well-served to better co-ordinate gear and uniform requirements and purchases. Lean times for the Mil are coming, folks, and the Mil had best play it smart. I have a soft spot in my heart for the Marines, but nevertheless I can't see different combat gear/uniforms foe seperate services. Put all the Service Branch taapes on the uniforms/gear that one wants to differentiate the Branches. Folks, the Mil has blown a LOT of money during the last decade, some justified as experiments, some money blown just 'cause it was there to spend. That's coming to a screeching halt, and soon. Guaranteed that future times are a LOT leaner. Having seperate ground uniforms for all the services is stupid. How many different types of boots for ground troops are needed? The good news, if you can call it that, is that the Mil will continue to provide (hopefully) decent issue gear, and allow the Soldier/Marine to augment his issued gear with "APPROVED" aftermarket gear. So, the Soldier/Marine spends some of his own $ to augment his gear, and his/her money spent is money the Mil does not have to spend. You can figure this out, I'm sure. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slightly off topic but why is the USMC looking for another pack? The first iteration of the Marine pack, ILBE, was found to be very deficient with regards to Marines wearing body armor. Trials have been ongoing, and i have not heard of a final result. Personally speaking, and with an eye towards inevitable reductions in the military budget, IMHO the Marines and the Army might be well-served to better co-ordinate gear and uniform requirements and purchases. Lean times for the Mil are coming, folks, and the Mil had best play it smart. I have a soft spot in my heart for the Marines, but nevertheless I can't see different combat gear/uniforms foe seperate services. Put all the Service Branch taapes on the uniforms/gear that one wants to differentiate the Branches. Folks, the Mil has blown a LOT of money during the last decade, some justified as experiments, some money blown just 'cause it was there to spend. That's coming to a screeching halt, and soon. Guaranteed that future times are a LOT leaner. Having seperate ground uniforms for all the services is stupid. How many different types of boots for ground troops are needed? The good news, if you can call it that, is that the Mil will continue to provide (hopefully) decent issue gear, and allow the Soldier/Marine to augment his issued gear with "APPROVED" aftermarket gear. So, the Soldier/Marine spends some of his own $ to augment his gear, and his/her money spent is money the Mil does not have to spend. You can figure this out, I'm sure. wasn't this Robert Macnimara's argument for all services to adopt the M16? Anywho back to the topic at hand I personally have been thinking about going with the ILBE pack for camping and what have you but I just picked up a large ACU molle ruck for 20.00 so Ill see how that goes first. |
|
Quoted:
Skip the CFP 90. The original version was tested by instructors at the USMC Mountain Warfare Traing Center, and was made by Lowe Alpine. The production version was made by other companies, and they skimped on stitching and materials. During trips to the MWTC, we had a lot, maybe over 50%, with broken buckles and blown stitching. Get a different pack. I've used the original CFP90 and I also used it in MWTC in the late 90s and 2001. Did the cold weather survival school there and was issued the CFP90. I always liked it although I never had the later poor quality versions. It was a good pack. |
|
Quoted:
Slightly off topic but why is the USMC looking for another pack? Among other reasons, the pack is too small. With the full sleep system inside the pack, you don't have room for much else. It's a good pack...for a 3 day backpacking trip. It's not good for a Marine who has to carry food, ammo, and essentials for a month at an outpost in Afghanistan. |
|
I replaced my large alice BOB with a CFP90, and used it for a couple of seasons. Not a bad pack, more comfortable than the alice.
The ILBE is a good pack if you don't have a HUGE sleeping bag (MSS, FTRSS) because it doesn't have the room for it without adding on the patrol pack. My buddy runs one, and he likes it, but will admit that his sleeping bag takes up most of the space in the pack. I've had about every iteration of the issued rucksacks going back to ALICE, as well as some decent civvie packs, and I'll tell you this, if you want a better than mil-spec, save up and/or scour for deals, and buy a Kifaru. I'm currently running an EMR, and its a helluva piece of gear. |
|
The seabees currently issue this pack and it sucks. I think the only reason they are issuing them to us is because some bean counter saw there where like 50 bagillion in a warehouse somewhere and decided it would be good so he or she could get their bonus.
Horrible pack. |