GORE-TEX Military Fabrics

Sneak Peek – Lifestraw Universal

July 10th, 2017

Lifestraw will soon be releasing the Lifestraw Universal.

It’s an adapter kit that allows you to turn your favorite water bottle into an instant water filter. The kit provides caps compatible with the most popular bottle brands including Nalgene, Camelbak, Hydro Flask, Kleen Kanteen, Under Armour, and even Gatorade.

The 2-stage filter removes 99.9999% of bacteria and 99.9% of protozoa while also reducing chemicals and bad taste or odors.

www.lifestraw.com

“New Calibers, the Fight to Come” by Frank Plumb

July 10th, 2017


In my efforts to enhance the lethality of US weapon systems, my intent has always been to bring more people into the discussion. I do my best to not speak in absolutes, I intend to discuss things conceptually. This is so that experts in the finer points of cartridge construction, rifle barrel design, and ballistics could help drive the conversation. I am not some tier one super hero. I do not pretend to know everything and I would be highly skeptical of anyone who claims they do. But I have little fear in speaking out. I know this community has what it is needed to help drive the development of what could be the last cartridge based systems fielded by the U.S military.

There have been a few shifts in my thinking. The first was a firefight in 2003. Before then I was always under the notion that 5.56×45 mm projectiles would be modified to meet the demands of combat environments. When your perspective is based on ½ mass time velocity squared, 5.56×45 appears to the end all be all. But, I landed in Ft Bragg in November of 2003, with a new perspective.

I’ve mentioned the King and Queen of combat marksmanship. Energy Transferred into the target is the Queen and Shot Placement is the King. That these elements combine into the probability of killing the enemy. In the mid 2000’s a study was released that said 5.56 bullets need to yaw to transfer energy. If the 5.56 bullet does not Yaw or “tumble” shot placement becomes even more critical. It can kill without it, but the kill probability drops substantially. The Army study said a 5.56 bullet needs 4.75 inches of body penetration to Yaw. The people we have been shooting at for the last 16 years are not known for being more than 5 inches thick.

Until this study was released, I believed that the 77grain bullet and other larger 5.56 projectiles were going to be the answer in most applications. I then discussed with my father, a famous sniper in LE circles, the USMC’s experiences in the transition from the M14 to the M16. Stories of grown Marines on the verge of crying from frustration in shooting the M16 the first time are still visceral to him. Had we gotten it wrong all those years ago? Did we hamstring our forces for a half century in the name of lighter weight? Did we marry light, cheap, and easy at the expense of lethality and the military half mile? (I feel we should have ALL rifles capable of engaging targets to 800m not 500m as some have suggested)

Around this same time, I had a chance meeting with a staffer from Senator Tom Coburns office. One conversation led to an email. This email turned into hours of phone calls and a white paper. This white paper was sent to the Secretary of the Army and became the Individual Carbine program. At the time, I was a senior NCO assigned to a NG SF ODA. Not really the center of gravity in weapons modernization. But I kept in contact with Senator Coburn and his staff. I advocated for multiple weapons platforms that I thought would be effective solutions.

But what I tried to communicate more than anything else was the projectile. The bullet we were shooting was more important than the gun we were shooting it with. DoD was so tied to 5.56×45 that it there was no way any small arm wouldn’t use it. The Individual Carbine was cancelled a few years ago because none of the weapons offered any cost/performance benefit over the M4. It is the same reason the SCAR ® Mk.16 was cancelled. They all shoot the same 5.56×45 cartridge. Like I said the bullet we shoot is more important than the gun. No change in bullet equals no change in rifle, the M4 lived on.

Not long after this I went to the SCAR fielding at 1st Special Forces Group. While I liked the Mk.16, I completely forgot about it the second I shot the MK.17 SCAR®. It felt new, light, and a lot like the future. It was European so it had some quirks like ergonomics and not enough room for all the lights and lasers. But the aftermarket would resolve that. I started digging around in my network about the first field reports. I talked to friends at 2nd Ranger Bn. and 3rd SFG. I had faith this was going to be the system that was going put it all together. That the SCAR was a SOPMOD away from perfection. I figured the SCAR® was the answer. Now we can really knock people in the dirt. Simply put 7.62×51 is very lethal, and I could do house work with this gun.

But there is a problem. 7.62×51 does not have the legs to be effective past 1000m. For those that know there has been a long-standing need to have a +1000m battle rifle. I’ve known this for well over a decade. Until recently not many people listened. Some are now. One who agreed early was Jim Schatz.

I met Jim Schatz when he came to Seattle in 2012 for a small arms conference. I had a friend use his credentials to get me in. I remember it was in the convention center in Seattle, Washington. The same place I would meet Alan Handl just a few months later that same year.

I was advising the staff of Senator Coburn at the time on the Individual Carbine program. I had many questions and doubts about case less ammunition. How do you clear malfunctions? Can it fire out of a battery? What happens when it does? Jim told me about his experiences with an experimental case-less gun. Well if I had doubts before, they were concrete reasons now. It’s a conversation that makes me utterly scared of LSAT. While these solutions maybe the future, they have serious technical hurdles to overcome. Also, advancements in polymer cases will be probably too far advanced to make the effort cost effective.

I remember mentioning to Jim the bane of our existence, the PKM. That we had no proper counter. The Mk.13 had been fielded in 300WM. But two Sniper rifles vs area suppressing hit and run machine gun teams is a losing bet. He agreed and mentioned 6.5 calibers as a solution. I kept in touch with Jim irregularly over the years. I did not know Jim other than infrequent conversations and occasional emails. But it was very clear Jim was a person of immense experience, knowledge and professionalism. His was often the first opinion I would seek, which he freely gave. I found myself coming to some of his conclusions, long after independently covering the same ground. His input cannot be stated enough. I know everyone it the HK community knew exactly who Jim was. Unfortunately, Jim died recently. His death could not be more untimely. For the battle he had always advocated for is about to be fought. I feel it should be him telling this story.

I believe the answer to our problems is 6.5 projectiles. In my opinion, in a 2-cartridge solution. Handl Defense believes that all our solutions must fit three primary parameters. Something we produce must; improve performance, support doctrine, and show a cost benefit. Everything I’ve ever gotten approved in the military fit these three same tenets. It had to work better, be in left/right limits, and be inexpensive.

The new cartridges we adopt across the force needs to fit into these parameters as well. There is perfection and then there is effective. Perfection can be the enemy of the good. We can seek a solution that has the best performance. If it does not fit doctrinal applications and it is expensive, it will not get adopted. I see two solutions in both 7.62×51 and 5.56×45 sized platforms that fit the bill. The solutions we seek should emulate current supply chain structures as much as possible. This will reduce the cost of introduction an absolute key for adoption. I see four contenders each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I will discuss each of them superficially now. There will be a more in-depth discussion about each in their own blog post later.

What I see in small case solutions. While there are as many options as there are opinions, these two options reflect the most likely solutions to upgrade from 5.56×45.

The first option is 300 Blackout. Now before you shut down your browser or scream ” it is for suppressed use only!” There is more than meets the eye with this cartridge. Many people have been working diligently to get more out of 300 Blackout. Some of them have been successful. The issue with 300 BLK is that historically there has been much more bullet drop at comparable ranges to 5.56×45. Initial versions dropped the height of a 6 foot man in about 350-375 meters as opposed to about 450-475 meters for 5.56×45. Understand also 300 BLK required more training for the end user. You had to become more instinctive in compensating for bullet drop. Then there are issues with mechanical reliability in piston guns, they often had to be suppressed to get the extra back pressure to insure effective functioning. Handl Defense has been successful with 300 Blackout in our modified FN SCAR® 17s. But there was serious reworking of the operating group.

Regardless of its issues, the 300 BLK penetrates a target and begins to yaw in the target almost instantly. This means it carries a higher chance of being lethal round. There are some experiments with smaller 300 BLK rounds that show real promise. One 300 BLK producer who was using a blended metal technology that was claiming 700 meters with minimal bullet drop. There have been some projectiles under 120 grains that are getting 2600 fps and more. This opens the door for a EPR type of round in say 90-100 grains to make 300 BLK effective to almost 700 meters. I am sure this will require longer barrels (16 in and up). Then the fact this cartridge is based on 5.56×45, makes it a very viable option. The cost savings transitioning from 5.56×45 to 300 BLK would save millions upon millions of dollars and could be implemented very quickly.

But for a 5.56 based gun solution, 6.5 Grendel needs serious consideration. 6.5 Grendel does not use a 5.56×45 case. Even though it can hold more powder and provide higher velocities, the fact it would require a new case to be adopted is its most serious draw back. The expense of new cases on top of other new expenses cannot be discounted in these budgetary environments. One other drawback to the 6.5 Grendel is that it would also reduce the number of rounds in the magazine by four. But for these drawbacks you get serious performance that will fit in an M4. 6.5 Grendel cartridges shooting lighter bullets (90-100 grains) can achieve 2900 fps. There is equal and in certain cases superior performance from 6.5 Grendel to the 7.62×51 147 grain M80 round. Sierra states that their 123grain 6.5 bullet has 2900 joules of energy at 2700 feet per second. An EPR type M80A1 or M855A1 cartridge in 6.5 Grendel could be a powerful solution for 5.56×45 based rifles. This could be the 800 meter solution for the M4. But startup costs and fewer rounds per man in a light infantry role could very easily stymie 6.5 Grendel.

When it comes to 7.62×51 cartridge solutions, I believe the requirement is that it must fit in SR 25 pattern magazine. One other item I have always pushed for is a common 7.62×51 magazine. I believe any mid-sized cartridge must fit in legacy 7.62×51 systems with minimal retooling.

The first is 6.5 Creedmoor. My first experience with this cartridge was in early 2013. I was testing the AK conversion kit Handl Defense was developing for FN SCAR® Mk.17. Another shooter was a lane or two over with a 6.5 Creedmoor match gun. I knew of the cartridge but I had never fired it. He allowed me to fire about 30 rounds out of the rifle. It was instantly apparent this was a new beast. Flatter, faster, and seriously tight groupings. Not unlike the first time you ride a Ducati superbike, you had no idea you were going that fast.

6.5 Creedmoor is immensely popular in precision shooting circles. There is a lot of data, history, and success behind the cartridge. There are numerous advocates across all shooting disciplines. 6.5 Creedmoor has high-BC 6.5 mm bullets fired at good velocities (2700-3000fps). It has a very similar trajectory to 300 Win Mag. and less recoil than 7.62x51mm. When you look at match grade 7.62x51mm like the 175 grain M118LR, the 6.5 Creedmoor has about ¼ less wind drift. It will have about 100 inches less drop at 1000 yards. Then even with 20% lower mass, the 6.5 Creedmoor will retain 20% more energy. It will also hit the target at 1000 yards at about 300 fps more speed.

The 6.5 Creedmoor does not use 7.62×51 as its parent case, which could present the same issue with 6.5 Grendel. Which might mean the adoption of a new case system wide and the extra expenses that go with that. I have had discussions with some re-loaders who say you can make 6.5 Creedmoor from 7.62×51 cases. It just takes extra work. If used military brass can be converted to 6.5 Creedmoor easily, it will overcome its biggest stumbling block. Think of all the ASPs across the military. Think of the millions upon millions of rounds of 7.62×51. Without a way to use them and reuse them, it will be harder to justify the caliber change. Remember this decision will be made by Generals and Politicians. They do not care that one cartridge has 300 extra FPS. its BC is 4% higher, or 2% more accurate at 1000m. They care about cost to benefit ratio for project that pales in comparison of strategic impact to the JSF or Virginia class attack subs.

Which leads me to 260 Remington. This cartridge does not have a portion of the following that 6.5 Creedmoor does. It has almost all of the same performance in SAMMI spec versions as 6.5 Creedmoor. But 6.5 Creedmoor is more developed, better supported, and does perform that little better. For match shooters that little bit better is all the difference. But that does not mean that 6.5 Creedmoor is the better fit. 260 also flies much like 300 Win Mag. It also has the high BC bullets. It also will provide overmatch to the PKM.

260 Remington has two things going for it. The first is cost. To convert the metric tons of 7.62×51 brass to 260 Rem is far simpler and straight forward. Converting 7.62×51 to 6.5 Creedmoor might be just and extra step or an extra tool. When we must add an extra 3-5 cents per round and multiply it by 2 billion, that could be all the difference.

The other thing 260 Remington has going for it is a group in the government is working very hard to close the small performance gap between 260 and 6.5 CM. I do not have permission to disclose the particulars so do not bother. Handl Defense has supported this effort in the government. I understand there will be implications of bias. Regardless, an optimized 260 Remington could provide near equal the performance of 6.5 Creedmoor. It could do this cheaper both in initial startup costs and over the lifecycle of the program. This is a serious advantage that cannot be discounted.

I recognize there is a lot in this post, and others, that I do not discuss. For example, I do not discuss doctrinal applications, or if that one 6.5 bullet could work in both 5.56 cases and 7.62 cases, or bullet composition. That even when I delve into the calibers that there will be a lot I leave out. Even in these posts themselves, I cannot cover it all. These blog posts are not intended to be closing arguments. They are intended to start discussions. I know this is a highly contentious subject, so I expect vigorous debate. Additionally, the e-mails I have gotten recently and other input is not only welcome, it is exactly what I seek. It is what we should seek from each other.

My next blog post will be about the King and Queen of combat marksmanship; shot placement and energy transfer.

This blog post is in Honor of James Richard Schatz, Jr. Who died March 16, 2017. He was a paratrooper and an Army Marksmanship Unit Instructor. God Bless him and his family.

-Frank Plumb

The article was shared ny permission from Handl Defense.

Update – SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Coxswain Helmet System Solicitation

July 10th, 2017

Natick has issued an update to the pre-solicitation for the SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Coxswain Helmet System.

“Final solicitation is estimated to be released end of July/beginning of August 2017. Proposals will be requested within 1-2 months of RFP release. The response date indicated for this notice is an estimate at this time.”

The new estimated response date, when proposals are due to the government, is Sep 15, 2017 12:00 pm Eastern which is a change from the original estimate of Jul 25, 2017 12:00 pm Eastern.

The SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Coxswain Helmet System will consist of a non-ballistic helmet system with modular accessories which will consist of a visor, ballistic mandible, non-ballistic (i.e. impact) mandible, and two piece ballistic appliqué. Additionally, the helmets require a variety of VAS Shrouds, Helmet Covers, Accessory Rails, Pads, Exterior Velcro sets, and Peltor Adapters.

The helmets will be offered in five sizes in Tan, Neutral Grey, AOR 1, AOR 2 and MultiCam.

The contract, when awarded will be valued at up to $95 million.

For full details, visit www.fbo.gov.

Sneak Peek – Massif FR Field Shirt & Pant

July 10th, 2017

Developed for Air Force Special Operations Command, the Massif Field Shirt and Pant are made from an FR blend and printed in MultiCam.

Available in XS-XXXL in short, regular and long lengths.

Look for this and other Massif products at this week’s Warrior East expo at the Va Beach Convention Center.

Millbrook Tactical Offers Preview of New Lowe Task Force Models

July 10th, 2017

NEW PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT – So pumped about the new LOWA line up for 2018. The new Elite EVO is absolutely sick!!! Z6 GTX, ZEPHYR GTX & INNOX GTX in grey…we know a few people that are gonna be excited about this!!! They will be available at our Ottawa & Petawawa locations spring 2018!

Elite EVO

ZEPHYR GTX & INNOX GTX

www.millbrookcanada.ca

The Burro – Elastic Rifle Magazine Pouch from Snake Eater Tactical

July 9th, 2017

Sneak Eater Tactical’s Burro is an open-top, elastic magazine pouch. It features 4″ elastic construction with three rows of PALS webbing and comes with two Malice clips. However, you can also use one-wrap to attach it to standard belts. Although it’s designed for use with magazines (30 round, 5.56 primarily, but it will also accept AK magazines) the Burro will also carry other items like radios.

The Burro is also available for pistol magazines. Like the rifle variant, it will accommodate other items like tourniquets. Offered in Black, Coyote, Ranger Green, Wolf Grey and MultiCam.

www.snakeeatertactical.com/product/rifle-magazine-pouch

Marine Corps’ Next-Generation Virtual Marksmanship Trainers Hit The Fleet

July 9th, 2017

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — The Marine Corps’ next-generation marksmanship trainer is headed to the fleet. The Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer III adds three new weapons, 3-D imagery, and enhanced training modes, giving Marines a better, more realistic training experience as they prepare for the complexities of modern warfare.


Master Sgt. Jorge Carrillo, staff non-commissioned officer-in-charge at Marksmanship Training Battalion aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, fires an M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon, one of the new additions to the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer III. The ISMT III adds three new weapons, 3-D imagery, and enhanced training modes, giving Marines a better, more realistic training experience as they prepare for the complexities of modern warfare. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Ashley Calingo)


New weapons, better graphics

The Marine Corps adopted virtual training in the mid-1990s as a way to sharpen Marines’ marksmanship skills. This first system—the Firearms Training Simulator—was designed primarily to train Marines for rifle and pistol qualifications. Over time, FATS evolved into ISMT, which added new weapons and video scenarios for Marines. ISMT III ups the ante by providing wireless connectivity to the M9 service pistol, M4 carbine and adding three new wireless weapons—the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher and M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapons.

“In the evolution of this training system, it went from a specific one to two weapon system and now pretty much covers the full spectrum of small arms weapons that are used by the Marine Corps today,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4 Matthew Harris, ISMT III project officer in Marine Corps Systems Command’s Training Systems. “ISMT helps to build fundamentals of muscle memory for Marines so that when they hit the range, they are ready to respond to real-life scenarios.”

Harris also noted that ISMT III includes filters for the squad day optic and machine gun day optic Marines use with the M27 and M240 to alleviate the problem of pixilation when shooting in a virtual environment.

“Before, if Marines used the optic inside the ISMT, they could see all of the pixilation because the optic would magnify what’s on the ISMT screen. ISMT III incorporates a diffuser, allowing Marines to use the optic inside the simulation without the blurry pixilation of the screen,” said Harris.

ISMT III also improves the user’s experience by providing 3D graphics and imagery that is consistent with the graphic capabilities offered by most gaming systems today, said Harris.

“The old system had very rudimentary, two-dimensional graphics,” said Harris. “In the old system, if you were looking at a tree, it would look flat from any angle. ISMT III offers industry-standard graphic imagery. So, instead of having an outline of a figure, you can actually see the roundness of the shoulder, the front and back of them as he’s moving to and from.”


Marine Corps’ next-generation virtual marksmanship trainers hit the fleet Cpls. Noah Paul and Geovanni Martinez, combat marksmanship coaches and Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer operators, fire M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles at the ISMT III training range aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. The M27 is one of three new weapons offered with the ISMT III. The M27 comes with enhanced squad day optics, which enable Marines to see their screens more clearly in a virtual environment. The ISMT III adds three new weapons, 3-D imagery, and enhanced training modes, giving Marines a better, more realistic training experience as they prepare for the complexities of modern warfare. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Ashley Calingo)


Enhanced training modes, capabilities

ISMT III also improves the user’s training experience with collective training mode capabilities and additional, enhanced training and judgement scenarios. The collective training mode is new to ISMT III and enables Marines to train side-by-side and work on a common objective before heading to the training range.

“Say you’re going to Twenty-Nine Palms and are going to run a range for a platoon-supported attack,” said Harris. “I can bring in a machine gun squad and have them go through—in collective mode—training to work on communication, target identification and suppression, ammunition consumption. Marines can now go through some of the minor details that they typically couldn’t do unless they went out to the range and fired live.”

Perhaps one of ISMT III’s greatest training enhancements is the addition of several authoring stations across the Corps that enable Marines—in conjunction with combat camera troops and other skilled video personnel—to film and upload their own scenarios.

“If Marines are looking for a specific training scenario that isn’t currently available, they can use the authoring station to create that scenario,” said Harris.

The 10 new judgement scenarios enable Marines to immerse themselves in realistic environments and situations—such as a vehicle checkpoint, a room clearing, gate operations or an active shooter situation. Harris said the new judgement scenarios are not just infantry-specific; they are “Marine Corps-esque” situations in which any Marine could potentially find him or herself.

ISMT III can also simulate moving targets, one of the upgraded training enhancements from previous ISMT iterations.

“One of the scenarios in ISMT III that wasn’t in the older version is that of a moving target,” said Master Sgt. Jorge Carrillo, staff noncommissioned officer-in-charge at Marksmanship Training Battalion aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico. “In this scenario, the target simulates movement, like it’s closing in on the shooter. In real life, the Marine closes in on the target, but you can’t really do that indoors. But because the screen simulates movement, you’re actually able to execute training as if you were doing it outside in the real world.”

“The best marksmen the military can offer”

The Corps has fielded around 200 of the 490 ISMT III systems destined for major Marine Corps bases, reserve duty sites, amphibious transport docks and amphibious assault ships worldwide. Land-based installations of ISMT III are projected to be finished by September 2018. Amphibious installations will occur concurrently, but may take more time to implement than land-based installations due to the need to retrofit the system onto designated spaces aboard each ship.

“Marksmanship is embedded in the Marine Corps,” said Carrillo. “As technology advances and weapons get better and more accurate, we need to teach Marines how to use those weapons and improve their marksmanship, so that we can continue to be the best marksmen the military can offer.”

By Ashley Calingo, MCSC Office of Public Affairs and Communication | Marine Corps Systems Command

UF PRO – Waterproof vs Water Repellent

July 9th, 2017

Author: Armin Wagner

There is quite a mix up regarding waterproof and water repellent textiles. Most of the times, these terms are used synonymously. But there is a big technical difference between them, especially when the expectation is to stay dry in adverse weather conditions.

The significant difference between a waterproof and a water repellent garment is that you’ll probably get wet in a water-repellent garment, especially when exposed to rain for a longer period or under certain wear conditions.

Whereas in a garment made of waterproof textiles one should stay dry, however long and in whatsoever conditions.

Continue reading to find out more about the pros and cons of waterproof and water-repellent clothing. We’ll also explain what DWR means and how you can retain it even after multiple washes.

HOW IS THE DIFFERENCE DEFINED?
The difference between water-repellent and waterproof garments is based on the definition which is applied by the textile industry for waterproofness.

International standards define a water entry pressure of 800mm (hydrostatic water column) above which a textile material (not the finished garment) can be called waterproof. Everything below that can be called only water-repellent.

WHAT IS A HYDROSTATIC WATER COLUMN?
A hydrostatic water column describes the amount of height of a theoretical column of water, which is pressing on the surface of the fabric. So the water column always corresponds to a certain pressure.

A water column of 10 meter (= 1.000 cm, = 10.000mm) equals a pressure of 1 bar, or 100Kilopascal.

WATER-REPELLENT CLOTHING.
As per definition, textiles with a water entry pressure below 800mm water column or 0,8 bar, can be called water repellent.

This might be enough to stay dry if one is only for a short time exposed to rain or any moisture, which is not pressed onto the textile.

As water-repellent materials usually do not contain any kind of membrane of compact coating, the so-called breathability of these materials is in most cases better than the one in waterproof materials.

This is quite logic, as they have a higher air permeability and also sweat, or better moisture vapour can permeate much easier.

WATERPROOF CLOTHING.
A waterproof material, as per definition above is not the guarantee for waterproof garments.

Also, the overall design of a garment has to prevent rain to enter into the inner layers of the clothing system. That means that all closures, all seams, all edges must block any potential water entry attempts.

To prevent moisture to penetrate the seams, all seams which connect the outside of a garment with the inside of it have to be sealed with a seam sealing tape.

These seals have to be durable to washing, drying and any kind of wear and tear. They have to be durably waterproof.

As water usually finds a way to enter, wherever there is the slightest possibility to enter, this is quite a challenge.

Especially around edges, one might experience that without proper barriers, moisture can be seen wicking around them and all the way up into the inside of a garment.

Critical are the lower hems of the torso and the sleeves, but also the edges of the hood are neuralgic areas for wicking effects. To avoid this, wicking barriers have to be applied in these areas.

DOES THAT DEFINITION ASSURE THE WEARER TO STAY ALWAYS DRY?
Especially while sitting or kneeling there might occur water entry pressures, which are much higher than 800mm.

That means that depending on how the garment is used the wearer still might get wet, even though the textile is classified by the above definition as waterproof.

Therefore, most of the high-performance waterproof garments are made of textiles, which block the water entry at much higher pressures.

GORE-TEX® laminates, for example, have been tested with a very sophisticated test instrument, which applied a water entry pressure of more than 100 meters. And still, there was no water penetration through the laminate.

Read more about the performances of GORE-TEX fabrics.

Today a truly reliable and durable waterproof performance can only be achieved with membrane-based products.

In these products, the membrane is the primary barrier to any water entry.

The chemical and physical characteristics of these membranes define not only the limits of the water entry pressure but also their durability.

Especially polyester and polyurethane based membranes seem to have a tendency to get weaker over time and sooner or later their performance drops below the critical thresholds.

This might be the result of UV radiation, ageing, flexing, high or low temperatures and of course also of numerous washing cycles.

Still, the bi-component ePTFE membranes, which are used by GORE-TEX®, Event and some other brand membrane manufacturers show the best results regarding the durability of its waterproof characteristics.

But what all of the membrane systems have in common is that if they are punctured, they will leak.

In fact this is the most common reason for all failures, which we experienced over the last 20 years.

Punctures can be caused by any kind of pointed, edged objects.

Very popular are for example pine needles which cover the ground in forests, thorns of bushes, but also dirt, which accumulates over time within the fabric structure.

DURABLE WATER-REPELLENT TREATMENT.
The water-repellent characteristic is in common textile materials achieved by a thermal and chemical treatment of the fabric during its manufacturing process.

This is called a DWR, or “durable water repellent finishing.

Even waterproof fabrics have a DWR treatment, even though the waterproof component (membrane or coating) by itself is already waterproof.

As a matter of fact, when we have the waterproof performance of our GORE-TEX® gear tested, then the DWR is completely washed down, and the garment still has to be waterproof.

So why is this?

4 REASONS WHY DWR IS APPLIED TO ALREADY WATERPROOFED CLOTHING.
1. PREVENTING LEAKS DUE TO SLOPPY CONSTRUCTION WORK

Applying DWR treatment to already waterproofed garments acts as a safeguard against sloppy construction of the sort that might permit leaks to develop following heavy usage or multiple washings.

Before a garment made of GORE-TEX® can be marketed, it must pass the GORE-TEX® Performance Standard (GPS) test to prove its waterproof-worthiness.

Conditioning approval to market a product upon passage of the GPS test is unique to GORE-TEX®.

Does that mean garments will not be waterproof if made of membrane products other than GORE-TEX®?

No.

It simply means that any GORE-TEX® garment you buy will come with a guarantee that it passed a demanding test to prove it is waterproof.

In order to conduct GPS testing, we first need to wash down the initial or subsequent DWR treatment so that any construction deficiencies can become evident.

2. DWR PREVENTS WATER FROM ADDING WEIGHT

All membrane products have an upper or outside fabric layer (also called the face fabric).

The membrane is always located behind this layer.

DWR prevents the face fabric from absorbing moisture or water.

This is important because absorbed water adds weight to the garment. In some cases, the weight gain can be significant.

Good DWR treatment ensures that the garment retains its actual weight, even after hours of exposure to heavy rain.

3. DWR AVOIDS PSEUDO-LEAKAGES

Another benefit of good DWR treatment is it prevents you from feeling as if the garment is leaking.

If the face fabric becomes soaking wet, it will create a sensation of clamminess between your body and the inner fabric.

The garment might not be actually leaking, but the clamminess can make you swear that it is.

It’s a nasty effect, no doubt about it. One way to fight that feeling of clamminess is to create interior “air cushions“, by using our air/pac® inserts.

The air/pac® inserts help enormously, but only in the exact position, where you place them – and where they are designed to go is in just the most critical areas.

In all the other areas, one has to rely on a proper DWR.

4. ACTS AS A TEMPORARY PATCH OVER MICRO HOLES

Sooner or later and after you’ve subjected your waterproof garment to rugged outdoor use, the membrane will almost surely develop micro-holes.

This is hard to avoid, especially when you wear a rucksack, chest rig, or similar other gear atop your garment.

Your garment is also bound to come into contact with pine needles, sand, earth and other small particles.

From this contact micro-damage to the garment’s membrane occurs.

You can minimize the potential for this problem by washing your garment thoroughly after outdoor use.

This helps flush away particles that can become trapped within the outer fabric structure – particles that, if left alone, will tend to burrow through the membrane.

DWR is your best defence. It can act as a temporary patch over micro-holes in the membrane, thereby keeping water and moisture at bay so that you can remain dry.

However, you won’t remain dry indefinitely. The patch effect lasts only until you subject your garment to pressure.

In light of all this, is it important to apply a DWR treatment to already waterproofed garments? Undoubtedly, yes!

But is it also important to apply a DWR treatment after a routine washing?

Very possibly. Here’s why.

DWR is not permanent; it loses its integrity over time and dissipates. So it needs to be renewed after a protracted time of wearing or many wash cycles.

However, there are some things you can do prior to applying DWR that will make the treatment’s effects last longer.

HOW TO RETAIN THE DWR?

Step 1: Check the quality of the DWR treatment

You can test the quality of the DWR by yourself. Just put some water on your gear and check if the water stays round like a little drop.

If this drop flattens and spreads immediately after applied, it gets absorbed by the outer fabric, then it might be the right time to do something aginst it.

Step 2: Iron or tumble-dry your clothing

You can reactivate the initially applied DWR simply by ironing the outer side of your rain gear.

This will help you to retain a good DWR performance for some time and before using some chemicals, which might pollute the water, and might also affect the breathability of your gear.

Also what you can do is to dry the clothing in a dryer and like this reactivate the DWR treatment to some degree.

Step 3 (in case step 2 isn’t sufficient): Apply water-repellent treatment

In case you think it’s time to apply something, then my personal preference is to apply the treatment solely on the outside of the garment, instead of the washing machine procedure.

Why? I prefer that on the inside of the jacket my body sweat is spread over an as big as possible surface so that it can evaporate through the membrane and to the outside as quickly as possible.

If there is DWR on the inside of the garment, then moisture might not spread that efficient, but condensate and run down the inside of the garment.

ARE GARMENTS MADE OF WATERPROOF LAMINATES ALWAYS WATERPROOF?
Not all clothes made out of a waterproof material are 100% waterproof. Its construction significantly defines the level of waterproofness.

As a matter of fact, also a lot of soft-shell garments are based on membranes with a water column of way over 800mm.

But due to its structure, the seam of soft-shell garments are impossible to be reliably sealed.

Therefore, water will after a longer time of rain exposure enter into the clothing.

Also, mechanical damages of the membrane, which might be the result of edged objects like dirt or pine needles can perforate the membrane.

These damages have to be professionally repaired.

If you encounter a potential leakage in your Monsoon waterproof garment, then please send them back to us with a precise description where you think the leakage occurred.

We will try to locate the damage and repair it for you.

About the author:

ARMIN WAGNER
is the mastermind behind all UF PRO® products. With over 25 years of experience in the textile industry for law enforcement and military units, and after working for some of the industry’s leading companies, like W.L. Gore, Second Chance and Armour Holdings, Armin finally landed at, as he describes it, his dream job, as the head of product development at UF PRO®.

www.ufpro.si