Austrialpin - No Comparison

USMC Plate Carrier Gen III

The Marine Corps developed this Gen III design for their Plate Carrier and is currently working through the wickets to get it into production.

Look for lots of new equipment for the Marine Infantryman in the near future.

43 Responses to “USMC Plate Carrier Gen III”

  1. james says:

    they state the reduction in weight… what was the reduction in coverage? and buckles do not make a release system… they are cool buckles but that is where it ends?

  2. jjj0309 says:

    And for the surplus store in more longer near future too. My utmost thank you to USMC and surplus store owners for expanding my wardrobe and arsenal with quality USGI, Made In USA gears while not making me bankrupt. At the range I’m spiritually and externally jarhead.
    Jokes aside, I’m amazed how this plate carrier is dream carrier of all common man would have think about. I can’t hardly find any flaw from spec and appearance. I hope there’s no future GI related issue to be found out like ILBE did with being virtually incompatible with PC.
    Glad to see Corps listen to it’s grunts.

    • Joe says:

      What is this gibberish? Russian Bot much?

      • Texas says:

        All he’s saying is that he likes it, and can’t wait to add yet another piece to his collection of USMC moto gear, like his MARPAT boonie hat he probably wears everywhere.

        Just because he’s pedantic doesn’t mean he’s a bot, let alone Russian.

  3. Lasse says:

    I’m still surprised that they only managed to get 4 columns on the front flap of what looks like a Medium vest when the rest of the industry fits in 6..

  4. Kevin says:

    ALCON,

    I was at the industry day for this, mentioned the concern about the buckles located over the collar bones being a bad idea for a variety of reasons…Ms. Jordan’s answer: “Just wear your rucksack shoulder straps further out”. I mentioned the previous conflicts with rucksacks and body armor that had caused problems with legacy systems and procurement: “Well, I design the backpacks too”. The carrier uses laser cut PALS on the front portion and conventional 1″ webbing on the rear where there would appear to be no technical reason not to use laser cut as well. QR systems have been replaced in this design by FS Tubes since they(PM-ICE) have identified that QR systems ‘were more trouble than they were worth’. The “scalable” design of the carrier results in a lot of confusing and redundant layers of fabric, and it
    would seem that this item is intended to also serve as a load carriage system in hot weather when used without ballistics. (As per a directed question.) At the pre-brief, we were told that PM-ICE wanted industry input. At our block, we were told to shut up and color. IMO this thing should have been shown to industry as a concept demonstrator and then industry given a shopping list of features and targets to meet. The goal of this system is to build one armor system that each non-Aviation Marine can use to build an armor system to meet their needs, from Military Police to 03XX trigger pullers, and I don’t see
    how anybody will be happy with this. There is no wicking or cooling material on the inside of the carrier, no easy way to open over the shoulder to allow upper torso ventilation, minimal shoulder padding through those low-profile shoulder straps, some very badly designed side plate pockets…whole lot of “please don’t do this” in one platform.

    This is the USMC’s (I think) 7th bite at the apple for procuring a new body armor system since the IBA since OIF1?

    • Joe says:

      I had a similar experience when I was one of the test dummies for this and the ruck.
      Staff didn’t really care about feedback.
      “How does the pack feel?”
      ‘I don’t know’
      “Why?”
      ‘There isn’t any weight in it and I’m just standing here’

      Flawed from the start.

    • Joe says:

      They could have just bought a First Spear Carrier and been done with it.

  5. JBar says:

    “At our block, we were told to shut up and color“. Hahahahahaha

  6. Marcus says:

    I still like my old Eagle SPC. But I guess that qualifies me as old.

  7. Loopy says:

    Note to the Marines: One phone call to Condor and all your problems are solved.

    • DERP says:

      Yup, one call to king of crap gear, and you can have the finest of crap gear. Instead of wasting your money on in spec bad designs, you can waste it on completely out of spec horrible designs, with folded over nylon for webbing. Because when you buy shit, make sure the shit you buy is actual real shit.

    • Joe says:

      No. Just no.

  8. Mr. Schmuckateli says:

    I wonder if Eagle is going to “outsource” the manufacturing to indentured servant sewers in Puerto Rico this time too.

    • Alamo says:

      Indentured servant? you mean disable vets and civilians? Because that’s what they are, and it’s not outsourcing because is still the US.

  9. Mr. Schmuckateli says:

    Delete previous – please.

    • Mr. Schmuckateli says:

      People arent ready to know what goes on with those big name companies

      • Matt says:

        Such as? I’m interested in your personal insight.

      • Andrew Wall says:

        Mr Schmuckateli,

        As and industry insider, I too am interested in your point. Please educate those of us who “aren’t ready to know” as to how doing business in PR is bad….

  10. Will says:

    Looks like it needs that little Bridger gadget installed that’s been featured on here.

  11. Alex says:

    So i hope that someone high ranking in the Marines reads this. Basically this new carrier is almost as the genII carrier, I can tell you this because I own a manufacturing company and we have done the current carrier hundreds of times. What is funny is that this new version has to use firstspear buckles and the laser cut material has to be brookwood. It is starting to feel like someone was paid a lot of money to have only this products as the only approved material. Now firstspear has made their buckles available to everyone, this means that this is a win win situation for them and brookwood has it guaranteed that their products is the only choice.

  12. James says:

    The other big issue is the First Spear patent on laser cutting laminates for MOLLE/PALS slits. If you look at the latest updated solicitation for this Gen III plate carrier, it now calls out the First Spear patent in the product description.

    How can the government call this a “government owned design” when it requires the use of the First spear patent to laser cut the laminate fabrics for the MOLLE/PALS slits?

    How is industry going to deal with this?

    Is everyone going to get sued by First Spear that does Laser cut MOLLE designs or will industry band together like they did on the moral patch patent fiasco when those guys started suing people?

    There are at least 20+ companies now making laser cut designs that could band together and fight any lawsuit from Firstspear if they model it after the crowd funded patent defense of the moral patch patent episode.

    Nothing against First Spear, however it’s crazy that they were able to get a patent on something that has so much prior art and been done before.

    I hope First Spear does not tarnish and possibly destroy their brand by suing everyone over this patent. It would help industry if they released some kind of statement if they plan to sue people or give a waiver to everyone.

    • Stepan1983 says:

      For feck sake, patent on “laser cutting laminates for MOLLE/PALS slits” is like patent on 4 wheels for car. Everyone is doing that now. I am sure their patent is about specific fabric combination and specific slit geometry.

      • Andrew says:

        Stepan1983 – True but it does not change the fact that they have the paper to sue someone over. I was in the final stages of purchasing a laser last week when I saw the info on the patent. Needless to say, unfortunately my laser purchase is on hold. Which really sucks because it will hold back design improvements.

        Having worked on some of the previous Army (the new MSV 3.0 uses laser cut MOLLE) and Marine armor programs I’m shocked that the government would have backed themselves into such a corner by even “listing” the companies patent. Kind of reminds me of the whole Crye Precision MultiCAM deal.

        Shame on the US Patent and Trade office for not researching this better. I’m seeing more and more patents issued that conflict with this patent that patent only to have the patent office come back at a later date and “retract” the patent. Many times they just let lawyers go make a killing doing the research that the patent office should have done.

        Just my $0.02 from someone on the design side…..

        • Stepan1983 says:

          Ive made a quick research – their patented technology is “Pocket Attachment System” and its about strange pouches and platforms with Velcro laminated to inside surface. It has nothing to do with lasercut slit in laminate itself, just make sure you don’t laminate it with loop Velcro on inside surface. Just relax, there is no problem.

          By the way, Italian company 2M – Due Emme (plastic hardware) made an analog of Tubes – it is cheaper and there is no stupid First Spear system “Prove that you are worthy and we will consider selling you some of our precious buckles”

          • Andrew says:

            From what I’ve been told this past week is that it covers both the laminate with Velcro as well as the “laser cut MOLLE”. This is the reason that others are changing the “slit” (see ArmorExpress) to get at least some distance from the patent. I’ll try and look up the section that is of concern to the industry.

        • Andrew says:

          Here is the patent in question.

          https://patents.google.com/patent/US9565922

        • Andrew says:

          This is the section that has me concerned….

          Claims (23)

          What is claimed is:

          1. An attachment system, comprising:
          a platform having a front side, an opposite back side, and a plurality of slits through the platform arranged in a predetermined pattern of vertically aligned and spaced apart rows, configured for receiving elements for attaching at least one holder to the platform, wherein the platform is supported by and comprises an element of a carrier configured to be worn on a user’s body with the back side of the platform facing the carrier and the front side facing outwardly for carrying the at least one holder at a desired location adjacent to the front side; and
          the platform being comprised of laminated layers, the back side disposed in opposing relation to a surface of the carrier or a backing element forming a generally flat cavity therebetween, the platform and the carrier or backing element having generally coextensive peripheral edge portions attached together and bounding and substantially enclosing the flat cavity providing a barrier to entry of particulates thereabout, and the slits being defined and bound by opposing edges of the laminated layers, each of the edges bounding the slits comprising a hardened fusion of the laminated layers.

          • Crackers says:

            That’s truly insane. After I did some initial work, I know that various suppliers who made laminates were showing laser cut Molle slits in 2009 and 2010.

            • James says:

              Please contact them, upload any and all info online and post the link here and on gearmaker.org

              We can win this if we all stick together, share the info we know and our resources!

  13. James says:

    The 1st claim in the patent is the biggest issue. In simple terms, First Spear got a patent for cutting slits in a laminate were the edges of the slits are fused. That means all laser cutting, ultrasonic knife cut, heat knife cut, heating up soldering iron to cut a slit, etc. All the ways to cut MOLLE/PALS into a laminate that is required to keep it from fraying.

    When you search the patent, search for the word fuse. On top of this, they have a child patent pending off of this main patent that they are plugging all the loopholes that were in the granted patent.

    The first Claim is below, the exact wording is: “each of the edges bounding the slits comprising a hardened fusion of the laminated layers.”

    1. An attachment system, comprising:
    a platform having a front side, an opposite back side, and a plurality of slits through the platform arranged in a predetermined pattern of vertically aligned and spaced apart rows, configured for receiving elements for attaching at least one holder to the platform, wherein the platform is supported by and comprises an element of a carrier configured to be worn on a user’s body with the back side of the platform facing the carrier and the front side facing outwardly for carrying the at least one holder at a desired location adjacent to the front side; and
    the platform being comprised of laminated layers, the back side disposed in opposing relation to a surface of the carrier or a backing element forming a generally flat cavity therebetween, the platform and the carrier or backing element having generally coextensive peripheral edge portions attached together and bounding and substantially enclosing the flat cavity providing a barrier to entry of particulates thereabout, and the slits being defined and bound by opposing edges of the laminated layers, each of the edges bounding the slits comprising a hardened fusion of the laminated layers.

  14. James says:

    What do we do now?

    We’ll have to band together to defend each other. We can form a coalition to share resources and information to be successful.

    This patent can be beaten and we can win. The first spear patent is too broad and there are several examples of prior art/it being done before in the public domain prior to the first spear and crye patents being filed.

    If you get a cease and desist from First Spear, go to gearmaker.org and make a post letting us know what’s happened. A lot of industry is on that forum and we can all support each other there. Try to stay anonymous for now if possible when posting.

    Companies like Blue Force gear are in direct violation of this patent, so are Direct Action Gear and Tactical tailor since they make Direct Action Gear’s products. First Spear would go after all the big money makers first, however we all need to support each other if law suits are filed by First Spear.

    The cease and desist letter means nothing until they file a law suit against you, so keep calm and reach out to industry if you get one.

    Armor Express, Velocity Systems/Mayflower and others with the Triangle MOLLE/PALs geometry should be in violation as well because they laser cut and fuse the edges of their cut geometries.

    If we all pledge $100, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 to a legal fund to support this effort we can win.

    There is no way the first spear patent or Crye’s laser cutting patent will hold up in court once you get subject matter experts on the stand to testifying and introduce evidence that fusing laminate slits, MOLLE/PALS laser cutting, etc has been done well before 2010.

    First Spear’s Child Patent for reference (This should be it): US15431377

    Crye Patent for Reference (Note that the Crye patent was filed first, the same year the First Spear patent was filed, however because the Crye patent was not published publicly by the patent office before the first spear patent was filed, it would not be considered prior art for first spear. First spear slid under the door with their patent, if the crye patent application would have been made public then first spear would not have received theirs). We don’t see first spear and crye suing each other because first spear licenses some crye designs and buys the metal crye shoulder buckles for some of their plate carriers and vests.

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US9173436B2/en?inventor=Caleb+Clark+Crye&page=2

    • Crackers says:

      2010? Uh, We made a laser cut molle plate carrier for Ivan that was fielded in 2008. I probably still have documentation and crap about it. That’s a ridiculous claim.

      • James says:

        Crackers,

        Please post this info online and share the link here and on gearmaker.org. You would helping the industry!

  15. Lone Element says:

    Uhh…My eyes glazed over when I hit the patent infringement horse shit….. My have things changed, so let me get this straight there’s a civilian chick in charge of PPE for the Marine Corps??? I think this carrier is a fine selection for Pogues, for combat arms cats, its a donkey fuck show. I can’t believe that with all the amazing advances in load combat load carriage and protection this is what the Marine corps has chosen….. The Eagle AERO would have been a beautiful scalable, high performance COTS option. How many tax dollars got wasted on this piece of shit??

    • Cool Arrow Kicker says:

      Since 2011 Infantry Combat Equipment has adopted the motto: “You don’t need operational experience or know how the gear is used, you just need to know how to do acquisitions”

      Not one person on the current armor and load bearing team is or was a grunt.

  16. James says:

    If you want to continue discussing this topic, head over to this forum. All are welcome.

    http://gearmaker.org/index.php?topic=1446.msg8032;topicseen#msg8032

  17. Luke says:

    Tooth zipper for the side plate closure? that’s my first red flag something is fishy.