TLR-7® X USB // Sidewinder Stalk®

RE Factor Tactical – Delta Trauma Kit

RE Factor Tactical designed the new Delta Trauma Kit around the premise of providing space of the the least amount of items needed to provide TCCC (Tactical Combat Casualty Care) standard of aid. Input was made by multiple SF 18Ds, Combat Medics and Physician Assitants and Tactical Medical Solutions worked on the pqckaging of the optional kit insert.


The Delta Trauma Kit is accessable using both hands and is made from a stretch material shell that allows the kit to grow if you decide to add additional items beyond what is in the Delta Trauma Kit Components. On the inside of the pouch they included an elastic band to retain the kit components as well as several slots to place needles, pens, NPA’s or other cycindrical objects.

In addition, there is a large plastic window, which allows you to place a 9 Line MEDEVAC or other reference guide. The kit easily removes from its protective sleeve via a one handed pull and pulls apart with the attached red handle. On the outter sheath we included a trauma shear holster on one side and a loop pouch on the other which gives the user the ability to mark it as a trauma kit. Finally we include two elastic loops on top of the kit which allow for a tourniquet to be placed and accessed via both hands.

Expandable design allows compact fit and additional items beyond what is included in the kit components
Elastic loops allow for various types of tourniquets
Integrated belt loops
Accessable via both hands
Clear window for quick reference guides
Integrated trauma shear holster
Trauma Components Kit (OPTIONAL see below)
R.A.T.S. Tourniquet (OPTIONAL)
Available in MultiCam
Made in the USA

Components Kit (OPTIONAL):
HALO Chest Seal (2 pack)
4″ Control Wrap
Nasopharyngeal Airway Tube (NPA)
Sterile Lubricant Jelly
(2) Z Fold Combat Gauze
(2) Compressed Gauze
14GA 3.25″ Decompression Needle
5.5″ Trauma Shears


23 Responses to “RE Factor Tactical – Delta Trauma Kit”

  1. jbgleason says:

    A bit surprised to see the RATS included with an otherwise pretty serious IFAK.

  2. Ben says:

    Packing heavy on the combat gauze. I would almost rather just have a bunch of H&H stuff than 2 of the combat gauze. There seem to be some conflicting opinions on carrying combat gauze; I know John Mosby doesn’t like, as well as quite a few other medics.

    • jbgleason says:

      Data on that? I was unaware of Mosbys comments but there is plenty of data (real peer reviewed and published science) supporting the Combat Gauze. You seem to imply it is worse than plain gauze? That would be a minority opinion. Frankly, if it weren’t for cost, I would carry all CG in lieu of regular gauze. The CG can serve both purposes while the opposite isn’t really true.

      My original comment above, on the converse, is based on the complete lack of any science behind the RATS.

      • Ben says:

        If you want, I can try to find a link. No, I’m not implying that it’s worse than plain gauze-I would even echo your opinion about cost. However, it is very expensive. In my opinion (and again, take it for what it’s worth) it might be better suited in small amounts (1 packet per man) supplemented by a larger amount of H&H gauze. But hey, the stuff works, and I’m not going to fault someone for carrying it. Not trying to cause a fuss or anything.

        • Chris says:

          One result from the NMRU study in 2012 was the amount of gauze used with Celox Gauze (53g) and Combat Gauze XL (49g) demonstrated a pronounced improvement over single dose applications (19g-21g). As the Conclusions state this was not the purpose of the study but it may demonstrate that more is better.

          I like the design of the kit and was about to pick up an ASO bag, may pick up one of these as well.

          • Ben says:

            Hadn’t heard that before-thanks for the share. I’m not at all bashing RE-Factor, and I hope it didn’t come across as such. And, as always, have a nice day.

        • RE Factor Tactical says:

          You are right it is very expensive, even for us. To be honest we don’t really make much off the medical items, they are more to complete the package. Again, the contents are what the ‘panel’ of medics recommended that they would carry if living in a perfect world, so that’s what we created. We purposefully left the cost of the medical items out of the decision on what to carry. We were most concerned with what worked.

    • RE Factor Tactical says:

      We chose the combat gauze after using it on live patients and seeing it actually working. I personally have never heard anyone talk bad about the combat gauze, quite the opposite. That being said there are opponents to everything out there. The older combat gauze had a lot of issues, to include burning (more so with the powder) and blood clots. However, it is arguably the best method on the market for stopping bleeders.

  3. d says:

    Meh, RATS.

    • SSD says:

      You could use whatever you’d like. That’s what the word ‘optional’ means.

  4. FLC says:
    Somedesigns something, someone improves on it.
    in the end The Soldier/sailor/Airman/Marine wins…
    Better kit. All for it!!!

    • Pierre says:

      Yes the design was originally made previous by so tech then copied by Natick and issued as the IFAK II to Army. Of course Natick claims they are designers of the flat IFAK!

      • RE Factor Tactical says:


        Honestly we weren’t aware of the SO Tech Flat IFAK until it was mentioned on our post. This original design was developed by an 82nd guy and purchased from him by REFT, then revamped to fit our specific needs. Since the original design we made 4 separate prototypes that were used in the field and each time it was altered based on user feedback. The original design was actually purchased back in 2012 and if anyone needs validation we have the emails to prove it.

        If we did in fact copy SO Tech, then we arguably also copied Mayflower, SOE Gear and First Spear. They all have a similar side pull-out design that is meant to be flat. Everyone makes an IFAK and they all carry medical items. The interior of this differs from SOTech, the size is different, the opening is different and it even has a different carry system. In addition it has a different TQ holder and a different Trauma Shear Holder. If you have further questions on it please feel free to reach out to us via and we can answer any specific questions you might have.

      • FLC says:

        You have no idea what you are talking about!

        • FLC says:

          Pierre that is

          • Pierre says:

            Please explain FLC? There have been posts in the past about the side pull IFAK and how so tech was copied by NATICK labs after coming up with the design. I believe they were involved in litigation about it. The SOE Mayflower and First Spear are all copies of the so tech. Fact their model came before Naticks announcement and all of these companies.

            For proof, easy Google search, this video shows finished product by so tech uploaded in February of 2012. If it’s finished product here then that means it was in design for at least 2 years.


            • Jon, OPT says:


              A lot of those designs were developed without being based on a another, they are not copies, they share a common trait of being side pull, but that doesn’t make it a copy.

              I remember Mayflower developing theirs, and then seeing FS’s and both were similar, but both also had unique traits.

              The concept comes from belt mounting an IFAK to the rear or side of an individual and making it ambidextrous. there really is only one logical way to skin that cat. As a dealer for all these manufacturers I can say that I carry most of them, and not for redundancy sake, but because each has its own unique take on the concept.

              The SO Tech version I know of was built for side mounting on armor and still having PALS on top, which none of the others offer.

              That’s my .02.

              As far as Natick goes, I have no idea about that, I don’t follow their activities that much, I’m just speaking from doing product selection for all these companies for an extensive amount of time and staying in touch with their R&D side.

              Jon, OPT

  5. Erik says:

    When they say TCCC, are they talking about the actual CoTCCC that’s the military Counsel on Tactical Combat Casualty Care, that doesn’t endorse any specific medical equipment, or are they talking about the company that trademarked the name TCCC, that put their branding on the RATS? Furthermore, I don’t trust ReFactor in regards to medical equipment since they rudely refused to provide any data on the efficacy of the RATS to a rather large Combat Medic Facebook group that I’m subscribed to.

  6. Jon, OPT says:

    Good simplistic approach by a maker of durable gear. All other arguments aside, the pouch is a good alternative to other side pull IFAKs.

    Jon, OPT