R.A.T.S. – Rapid Application Tourniquet System


The Rapid Application Tourniquet System, or RATS tourniquet, is a lightweight tourniquet made of 1/2″ flat bungee cord and a unique locking cleat. Its construction allows the RATS to be rolled up into a compact size for storage in a first aid kit, survival kit, or other gear.


18 Responses to “R.A.T.S. – Rapid Application Tourniquet System”

  1. Devdoc says:

    Hmmm.. Not sure yet . Seems neat, small packable.
    But definitely would need some vetting before it gets issued .
    TCcC is in-bedded in our heads it’s hard to adopt new TWs.

    But I would like someone to come out with a new TQ.. Small compact.

  2. ColtSSBR says:

    How do you use this one handed for self aid?

  3. Nate says:

    Doesn’t look easy to use one handed. Also, despite the fact that he covered the recommended distance down the length of his thigh, I imagine the narrow material would still cause tissue damage to the covered area. That may not be important, but existing tourniquets solve both of those problems.

  4. DGR says:

    Cool concept, but far off from real world use. Mandatory 2 hand use, and its all or nothing. So you have to complete the 3 wraps and then lock it in order to work. If you have to stop after a single or double wrap then you don’t have the necessary width of the tourniquet to avoid catastrophic tissue damage due to the very narrow cord. Not sure I see the advantage compared to other systems here. The size is a plus, but I think it sacrifices to much versatility to get that smaller size……

    • Doc says:

      Agreed, and is seems you’d need some room to manipulate it. Particularly on self use upper extremities.

      Nice idea, but I think it can be fine tuned. For one, it definitely needs a wider strap. That current tubing is going to destroy tissue much faster than if it was wider and can disperse that pressure.

  5. Doc B says:

    CAT > this.

  6. DH says:

    These are being used and vetted, “real world”. One handed use is no problem, in fact it has been shown to be much faster than windless styled tourniquets one or two handed. How many have tried a CAT one handed, on their own arm, with blood, and routing the running end correctly not half assing it. When time to stop a gushing bleeder is the most critical aspect of using a tourniquet why are we concerned about potential tissue damage? I would take maybe having tissue damage over loosing an extra ???ml of blood any day. My professional experience has seen multiple CATS broken and various other misuses and failures. Bottom line, if you have not had one in your hands and used it in LTT or real world, wait to comment or condemn.

    • Luke says:

      Intelligent speculation based on prior experience and rational analysis is the devil. Every single person should buy every single product and do their own testing. On everything.

  7. Sean says:

    Having recently used this in a medical course where we each operator tested the RATs versus CAT, SOF-T, MET Gen III, the SWAT-T and ranger ratchet – the RATS crushed all of the above tourniquets in one-handed ease of operation, speed, and pressure. Truly impressive

    – Stop being haters, open your mind and try something new….you might be surprised.

    • Doc says:

      Sounds like a comprehensive study. Putting all those TQs through the ringer…all while sitting in a well lit, air conditioned classroom more than likely…

      Did any of you simulate TQ application with an arm pinned? With major nerve damage causing a limb to be immobile? Or amputated? How about in the dark?

      No hating here, I just know a bit of tactical medicine and am putting my opinion in the hat. Maybe the RATS guy listens to guys with experience and takes the info towards improvement, or not. Either way, I’m staying with what has been proven to work consistently.

  8. Tom says:

    “Most effective and fastest tourniquet on the market.”

    Those are bold claims. Does the company intend to provide more data to support them? All I can find at the moment is the video linked here.

    I am naturally skeptical but interested.

  9. Eric B says:

    I’m going to go with a good old skepticism, but not outright condemnation. To be frank, I fear what is new and won’t jump on the bandwagon just because it looks cool.

    I have questions and concerns like other posters here and I would like to get my hands on the RATS to really give it a try. I may buy one just for that reason alone!

    I think the video from the manufacturer is insufficient to extole the virtues of this product, such as they may be. They would be better served posting a few more videos showing one-hand application, application on a trauma mannequin (since piggies are off limits), movement of a patient with TK to see how much (if at all) it expands or slackens during said movement, etc.

    As others have said, watching the video I cannot see how this TK is superior in one-hand self-application under stress. I also worry about the narrowness of the strap. Yes, of course nerve damage is preferable to death, but if a better option is available that saves lives and doesn’t cause damage then I’ll stick with that. Kirkham shows the leg application compresses a wide swatch of tissue, but only when the user remembers to space the strap properly during application. Under stress, I fear it might be too easy to apply incorrectly and to just stack the straps on top of each other, creating a very narrow area of compression.

    Again, these are my impressions from a short video and little write-up. I’m not trolling here, saying this is complete shit. I think I’ll buy one and check it out. I would also like to see a video about the RATS Tourniquet Belt advertised on their website.

    • Eric B says:

      Ugh, replace all TKs with TQs. Carry on

    • Chris says:

      Agree – The video does not do the company any favors. It may be awesome but the video does not demonstrate that.

  10. Chris says:

    “Either way, Iā€™m staying with what has been proven to work consistently.”

    Doc (above)

    This, until it is vetted by third party testing I will stick with the CAT. It is the same with the RevMedx XStat Hemostatic Plunger, everyone is in love with it, so what if it has been in PM, Fox, NBC, CBS, and the Blaze, until USAISR or NAMRU get their hands on it at test it, it is still just an idea.

    Same thing applies here, while this may be an awesome thing and may be better, I put my faith in the Quantitative and Qualitative Research.

  11. jrexilius says:

    The only thing I can really add to the discussion above is to say that I know one of the guys involved in this and can say that he is not lacking in “real world” experience in austere, hostile environs in different theaters and I strongly suspect that they’ve gotten usage in live situations. I’d, personally, trust his experience and recommendations on products like these.

    i’d also say I suspect that there is no one, holy TQ that rules them all and is actually the “best”. The SWAT-T has it’s strengths, as does the CAT and the SOF-T, at least from the training I’ve gone through (I’m not a combat medic who has had to apply tons of these). I’ve heard damn good, experienced combat medics disagree as to which one they prefer so I kinda suspect that it’s not quite a slam dunk, whichever you prefer.

    I’m with Eric B on this one and will likely buy one for testing, and bring it to my next medical training for further testing and discussion. The form-factor is attractive enough for me to look into it, but I’ve had problems putting any TQ on myself one-handed under different conditions (training) to know that I still need practice and haven’t found the perfect one yet.