High Ground Media, LLC

Introduced in 2016 as a slim, modular backpack, the Plan C is part of the Hazard 4 line of dual-strap backpacks. Similar to the Patrol, the Plan C offers a functional pack that is ideal for range, field, or daily life and can be expanded through the attachment of additional pouches (sold separately).

Made from 1000D Cordura and treated for water repellence, the Plan C is a continuation of the Plan B, a single strap variant that allows for cross-shoulder carry. However, in the Plan C the 20” (H) x 8” (L) x 7” (D) pack has a dual strap design that allows for a more traditional carry.

Exterior

Starting at the front, the top of the Plan C features the same 6.7″ (H) x 3.1″ (W) x 2.4″ (D) type of thermoformed shell storage pocket as the Patrol, which is secured via dual zippers.

Below the thermoformed pocket is a 11.8″ (H) x 6.7″ (W) x 1.8″ (D) accessory pocket with several sleeve pockets for smaller, immediate need items. The exterior of the lower accessory pocket has laser-cut MOLLE and (female) hook-and-loop fields.

Both sides of the Plan C feature an extensive, top-to-bottom field of MOLLE webbing with a pocket on either side for a water bottle. Dual compression straps with slide release buckles help ensure the weight remains secure.

On the top, the Plan C includes dual access ports into the main storage compartment for hydration bladders or communication wiring. A reinforced carry handle is on both the top and bottom for a variety of stowage configurations.

The backpanel has the same thermoformed material to create five padded panels configured to create airflow and improve breathability. The dual shoulder straps are anchored at the top of the backpanel using X-pattern reinforcement stitching. The shoulder straps include hook-and-loop retention tabs for hydration tubes, and webbing segments to either hang a variety of accessories or reposition the sternum strap. Behind the thermoformed backpanel is a 19.7″ (H) x 6.7″ (W) x 0.6″ (D) zipper-secured storage compartment for either a 3L hydration bladder, tablets or documents.

Interior

The main storage compartment is accessed via dual zippers, and includes mesh pockets on both the interior and support side of the pack. The interior sides are also lined with a velour material that allows the internal divider (with (male) hook-and-loop panels) to be adjusted based on the user’s needs at the time.

Specifications:

• 1000D Cordura
• YKK zippers with paracord pull tabs
• Thermoformed storage pocket

The Plan C is available in either Coyote (featured) or Black.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Good (4/5): At $176.65 the Plan C is intended to be a moderate-sized, modular backpack that allows the user to have either a slim day pack, or plenty of fields by which to add MOLLE-based pouches for added functionality. Being made from 1000D Cordura, for its size and YKK zippers the Plan C is at a good price point for its materials. Alternative market comparisons could be made to Eberlestock’s Switchblade ($199), 5.11’s Covert M4 Backpack ($129.95), or the Noveske Discreet Backpack ($236) by First Spear. While other backpacks, often at a higher price, maintain a more urban profile, they often do so at a sacrifice to the opportunity to expand the pack. Additionally, source of manufacturing and hardware also play into overall market prices, and as such the Plan C is well priced among its competitors.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): With a moderate level of closed cell foam padding in the shoulders, and the thermoformed back panels, the Plan C was comfortable to wear. The narrow design helped ensure it stayed between the shoulders regardless of weight distribution. It was unlikely the user could overload the pack beyond the point of comfort since the main storage area is of moderate size. Carrying an AR pistol, broken down, was easy and the storage compartment allotted for the pistol’s components as well as some extra space. All the YKK zippers opened/closed smoothly, although it would have been preferred for the paracord pull tabs to be either rubberized or anchored in a plastic cap for tactile control.
• Durability – Excellent (5/5): The 1000D Cordura had a significant level abrasion resistance as needed for life on the range or in the field. Throughout the Plan C, bartack and X-type stitching was noted reinforcing the shoulder strap connection points, drag handles, as well as zippers and MOLLE webbing. All zippers functioned easily and smoothly, and the coils did not cross thread (though it would be an improvement to use a thicker zipper coil in the future). The velour interior made for easy adjustment of the interior divider, though over time that (male) hook-and-loop material may begin to wear the velour down to where it is less secure. Throughout evaluations, no lose threads or popped stitching were noticed.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): As a modular, light backpack the Plan C provided a plethora of opportunity. It had sufficient size to serve as an EDC pack, or held balanced MOLLE fields on the sides and front to expand the Plan C into a more robust backpack. The thermoformed storage pocket provided sufficient protection to sensitive items that still needed immediate access, such as electronics or a GPS. All zippers had an excess strip of material to cover the zipper from moisture and limit the risk of potential saturation along those lines. A recommendation for Hazard 4 would be the inclusion of a compression/retention strap in the interior of the main storage compartment. While the use of the internal divider was helpful, it did not give that solid retention to secure the contents and was more intended to divide the interior for smaller items.
• Weight – Average (3/5): Coming in at 2.2 pounds (empty) the Plan C was a very lightweight and balanced light/moderate backpack, that gave the wearer the option to expand…provided it was done evenly. If weight or pouches were added to the front exterior laser-cut MOLLE, this addition in weight was more or less unnoticeable. However, if you added the pouch to only one side of MOLLE panels, and not both for equal balance of overall weight, then the disparity was readily apparent. This should be in mind when the user opts to expand the Plan C. In comparison the Eberlestock’s Switchblade (3.10 pounds), and 5.11’s Covert M4 Backpack (2.2 pounds) are both of a more of a traditional design and material for low-profile backpacks, whereas the Noveske Discreet Backpack (0.44 pounds) utilizes more lightweight and commercial materials to maintain that discrete appearance. This would place the Plan C at an appropriate (or average) weight for its materials and design within the current market.

Overall Rating – Good (20/25)

Product Link: https://www.hazard4.com/packs/day-packs/plan-c.html

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

 

Debuted in 2012, Crye Precision released its Adaptive Vest System, or AVS, to offer the military a scalable system that could range from low-profile carrier to full assault configurations. Eventually, the AVS would go on to replace the Modular Body Armor Vest system and become the premiere armor system for military special forces. Sold as individual components, the AVS enables the end-user a broad array of configurations that best suit their mission or individual needs. Because of its longevity and popularity, an extensive aftermarket has also developed around the AVS.

Made from dominantly 500D Cordura nylon, the AVS is offered in a base configuration (used for this review), a two or three band skeletal cummerbund configuration, and the full assault configuration (which includes multiple pouches for magazines and side armor). While each configuration is different and for different mission needs, the base configuration consists of (1) the AVS Harness (which comes from Crye with a single-band, adjustable retention strap), and (2) the AVS Plate Bags (which will include Crye’s shoulder covers, and the Tweave shoulder strap sleeves).

AVS Harness

The AVS Harness is a patterned unique back panel that integrates both rear shoulder strap, and side cummerbunds. Inside the harness, is a semi-rigid sheet of 1/8” thick polymer that gives the AVS both structure and support under heavy load, in much the same method as a supportive exoskeleton.

The shoulder element of the harness includes steel cinch D-rings and hook-and-loop (female) material to allow adjustment in the length of shoulder strap.

The back panel of the AVS Harness itself includes various attachment points for mounting the rear plate bag, optional cummerbunds, and the elastic shock cord. This partitioned design allows the AVS Harness to flex to a minor degree and enable a more comfortable range in motion.

Each cummerbund wing of the AVS Harness includes two bands of MOLLE-spaced nylon on each side for attaching various side panels, pouches, or other accessories.

The forward tabs of the cummerbund insert into the corresponding slots on the interior of the front plate bag to give added support and transfer that load across both the plate bag and harness. The adjustable single strap that comes with the base configuration is secured to the front plate bag, then cinched. ***Editor’s Note: For the purposes of this review, the adjustable single strap cummerbund that comes included with the AVS harness was replaced with a skeletonized QD cummerbund from MOS Tactical, and thus will not be included in review.

The interior of the AVS Harness has a full-length soft, one-wrap hook-and-loop material that can be used for protecting exposed skin or attaching Crye’s AVS Harness Pad Set (sold separately).

Product Link: https://www.cryeprecision.com/AVS-Harness

AVS Plate Bags

Crye has developed three different AVS plate bags, which are based around the cut-type of the ballistic plate worn. These three plate bags are SAPI, MBAV, and Swimmer (for the purposes of this review, SAPI was selected). The front AVS Plate Bag features a hook-and-loop secured admin pouch at the top for flat items, pens, or smaller field items. On the admin pouch’s exterior is a 3” x 4” hook-and-loop (female) field for attaching identification or morale patches. The hook-and-loop is also slotted for MOLLE compatibility and attach items as needed. The bottom half of the front plate bag is double pocketed and dedicated to a 6” x 10” hook-and-loop (female) field used for attaching various AVS placards or other aftermarket items.

The rear AVS Plate Bag has a full-field of MOLLE-slotted nylon bands for attaching any matching back panel or pack. Additionally, a 3” x 4” hook-and-loop (female) field is on the upper quarter for attaching identification or morale patches. A simple nylon drag handle is at the top of the rear plate bag, and secured to the carrier via hook-and-loop. Along both sides of the rear plate bag are Crye’s YKK-patterned #10 oversized zippers, used to secure any associated back panel or accessory with matching zipper spacing.

The interior of both the front and back carrier bag include slots and webbing for attaching the various elements of the bags to the AVS Harness, or hook-and-loop panels for adjusting the shoulder straps.

Plates are inserted into both the front and rear plate bags through hook-and-loop envelope enclosures that are secured via hook-and-loop.

Product Link: https://www.cryeprecision.com/AVS-Standard-Plate-Pouch-Set

Placards

Crye does offer rifle placards specific to mounting on the AVS, while other companies also offer conversion kits, such as the Adaptive Vest Placard by AXL Advanced, that can adapt most slide-release buckle placards to the AVS as well. It should be noted that in either case, any hook-and-loop (male) backed placard will secure to the front plate bag through its corresponding fabric. The Crye Detachable Flap, M4 allots for the standard three-magazine pouch, with over-the-top flap to each pouch that secures it in place.

Product Link: https://www.cryeprecision.com/AVS-Detachable-Flap-M4

The Crye AVS is available in Multicam (featured), Black, Coyote, and OD Green, whereas it ranges in size between Small to XLarge.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Fair (2/5): The cost of Crye’s AVS is not cheap by any stretch. Even with the base configuration (with modified cummerbund for this review), the cost of the AVS harness ($291) and AVS plate bags (sold as a front/back set) in either the Standard ($383), MBAV ($387), or Swimmer Cut ($355) are still very steep in terms of the current market. Add into that, accessories like the skeletal cummerbund ($50-$65) and Detachable M4 Flap ($113) to that total investment. Given the time the platform has been on the market, there are extensive third-party accessories for the AVS, but those are separate to the core function of the base configuration. Thus, even the base configuration of the AVS can run north of $1,100 with other setups costing more. Consumers must remember the AVS, as developed by Crye, was to meet a specific military need, and thus has a price point consummate with federal coffers that have no bottom. Crye set the price point for the AVS so high specifically to tailor to one client, and exclude others. In relationship between function and cost, the AVS does provide an almost unrivaled level of support and structure for a plate carrier, even after 12 years in production. But to reiterate, the level of weight the AVS can support is designed to address what soldiers must bear, not civilians. So a majority of the AVS’s functional design is unnecessary for most who are not in a professional capacity to warrant this level of load-bearing support. In contrast, complete carrier setups from Shaw Concepts Arc Carrier ($545), Ferro Concepts FCPC V5 ($385), T3 Gear G2 ($415), or Grey Ghost Gear’s SMU ($324) all illustrate the departure in cost between a carrier intended for the Department of Defense, as opposed to those from commercial companies. For its design, materials, and function to support large amounts of weight, the AVS still makes for a fair price point considering what the end-user gains (if used to its full abilities).  
• Comfort – Good (4/5): The real comfort aspect of the AVS comes with the harness, which is key in mitigating the load bearing weight around the torso evenly. The semi-rigid polymer material inside it adds to that support and makes the overall carrier extremely comfortable regardless of the weight attached to it. There was also some ability to adjust plate height and circumference of the outer cummerbund to find a preferred fit using the multiple hook-and-loop adjustments. The included shoulder padding did anchor into the harness via hook-and-loop in the shoulder straps that prevented slippage, but the ones that come with the harness were lacking in thickness given how much weight the AVS can support. Aftermarket pads (such as the Structured Shoulder Pads by AXL Advanced sold separately) do address that need. When assembled, it did take a little getting used to having both the inner harness tabs to insert to the front carrier, in addition to the cummerbund (basically there were two cummerbunds), but that was what aided in structural support. Again, the polymer inserts to the harness and plate bags created the structure necessary that allowed the AVS to sit around the torso, rather than bearing all that weight down exclusively from the shoulder straps. There were additional Crye accessories, such as the AVS Harness Pads, that could be attached to the interior of the AVS and increase the level of comfort, but really they serve to address airflow behind the carrier and mitigate heat that becomes trapped against the torso (which was notable during the review). The AVS was designed in a time where these were not factors when designing the plate bag interiors like seen commonly on the market of today. One thing observed was also how the dimensions of the harness made stowing the AVS slightly difficult as the semi-rigid structure prevented the carrier from being folded up. Perhaps the only negative observation made in terms of comfort was that as more items/weight were added to the AVS, and accessories added to increase padding or comfort, the bulkier the carrier’s profile became. This could become problematic in narrow doorways or hallways. End-users may experience that as they shift their AVS into heavier setups, the shoulder covers that come with the AVS are not padded sufficiently, so Crye does offer the AVS Padded Shoulder Cover (purchased separately but included with this review). Over the AVS’ 12-year tenure, other companies, like AXL Advanced have offered their Structural Shoulder Pads, to improve the AVS shoulder straps with added rigidity/padding. Despite that, no impacts to shouldering a rifle or limitations in range of motion via arms or torso were experienced regardless of which shoulder padding type was utilized. One common issue noted in research was from those within the Medium size range reported the AVS harness was excessively large, resulting in overlap of the harness’s cummerbund tabs and causing a pressure point against the chest. In these instances, the resolution was to simply step-down to a Small sized harness. Crye does post an AVS sizing chart, but this is also relative to the individual’s torso dimensions as well.
• Durability – Average (3/5): From a standpoint of durability, the AVS is made from the same 500D Cordura nylon as commonly found in most tactical products 12 years ago and today (although newer materials like laminate nylon are quickly gaining popularity), and gives the overall carrier an appropriate (or average) level of durability to resist friction. Extensive bartack stitching, box and X-pattern reinforcement, were noted at key stress points, all of which reflected the carrier’s added intent to address the needs of the military. The AVS was designed from the start to survive harsh battlefield abuse. However, these high levels of durability add to manufacturing cost, and likely play a role into why AVS components have such a high price tag. At no point in evaluations were any threading, seams, or fabric observed to be fraying or presented signs of premature wear. Hook-and-loop panels functioned correctly, and did not wear excessively. The semi-rigid polymer inserts in the harness and carrier bags did gradually take on a more curved profile as the AVS was worn in. However, the polymer inserts were also what provided the structural support and did not split, crack, or otherwise fail to maintain resilience over usage.
• Functionality – Excellent (5/5): Functionally, the AVS was (back when it came out, and now) one of the most complex plate carrier systems to setup and adjust, due to its purpose as a scalable system. So end-users should take note to follow the directions included in the manual as it includes setup for all variations of the AVS, as well as setup of the emergency doffing cable. The alternative configurations of the AVS gave it one of the larger ranges in diversity between light(er) needs, to fully armored—yet regardless still maintained its weight distribution. A majority of the AVS’ functional design was for distributing high levels of worn weight on the soldier to around their torso, which directly plays into comfort and preventing fatigue. The one caveat was if the AVS was configured and worn without the harness—in which case the functional aspect of the carrier’s design for weight distribution (especially for heavier loads) was lost. Another aspect to be aware of, if end-users opt for cummerbund upgrades that are not from Crye (such as in this review opting for a three-band style with First Spear tubes from MOS Tactical) be sure to check if it does/doesn’t come with the necessitating tri-glide buckles as some aftermarket companies do not provide those and they are needed to attach the cummerbund to the harness. Perhaps one challenge end-users will find is as they add more items between the base configuration and assault, is the bulker (and heavier) the AVS obviously becomes. The split between the two halves of the harness (once assembled) did provide minimal articulation and ventilation while the AVS was worn, but only in relation to the rear carrier bag (which remains fixed). Adjusting the various hook-and-loop panels to find an ideal fit between the harness and shoulder straps did take time, but paid dividends in the end. Still, other MOLLE fields on the cummerbund, rear plate bag, and aftermarket accessories gave the AVS extensive room to be configured beyond the manufacture’s setting by adding additional pouches or accessories to meet the end-users specific mission needs. Some elements of the AVS however, did reflect its age—with elements like magazine retention (via only the detachable M4 flap with over-the-top flaps rather than open-top), or dedicated heat mitigation channels on the plate bag interiors not included in the design, whereas these are features are dominantly industry standards now. As stated previously, there are a large variety of aftermarket products to support the AVS, and with enough dedicated searching end-users can find something to meet their individual needs. Civilians should consider if the AVS is truly something they need (balancing that with the AVS’ cost), as their requirements for training and personal safety differ vastly from professionals/MIL/LEO.
• Weight – Fair (2/5): Weight of a plate carrier is always a concern. In the case of the AVS, it is among the heaviest on the market with a complete base configuration (determinate by sizeing) weighing in at approximately 50 ounces (or 3.13 pounds) without plates. As individual components, the AVS plate bags (both front/rear) measured 24.6 ounces, the harness (with single band cummerbund) itself was 23.6 ounces, and the M4 detachable flap was a lighter 4.0 ounces. Not included to that total would be other accessories added, like side armor, pack, or other pouches. Obviously, not only did material play a part in this weight, but also the added polymer inserts inside the plate bags and harness (which is something most carriers do not have) that gave those pieces structure and support. If the AVS becomes saturated (i.e. through rain or sweat) it can gain almost as much as 40% more weight. However, because of its stability as a carrier, the AVS was neither off-balancing nor fatiguing on the shoulders during dynamic movements. This illustrated why so much of the AVS’ design is around weight mitigation/distribution, as not only does the end-user have to contend with the carrier itself, but what is added to it in gear or accessories. In contrast, the complete Arc V2 Carrier (39.75 ounces) from Shaw Concepts, Ferro’s FCPC V5 (23.8 ounces), T3 Gear’s G2 (48 ounces), or Grey Ghost Gear’s SMU (24 ounces) all illustrate how Crye’s AVS is at the upper end of the current market in carriers. But that weight comes with added functional reinforcement and structural support that almost no other carriers have. So it becomes an appropriate (or averaged) draw, whereby the consumer will need to carefully consider their intended use, budget, and weight if thinking of upgrading to Crye Precision’s AVS.

Overall Rating – Average (16/25)

Product Link: https://www.cryeprecision.com/vests/avs

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via High Ground Media, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Released in 2020, the 2.0 is the latest iteration of the Technical Glove offered by Magpul to bring together dynamic materials while offering the maximum dexterity possible. The Technical Glove 2.0 has full coverage and is designed to support law enforcement, military, and private shooters alike.

Made overall from a dual chassis combination of synthetic nylon and premium suede leather, the Technical Glove 2.0 affords the maximum degree of breathability possible, with adequate enclosure around the hand and fingers. This suede material extends up and around the palm and across thumb, for increased protection.

Each finger has a flexible design, and the forefinger is tapered to allow for easy access and manipulation of firearm controls or equipment.

The Technical Glove 2.0 includes an elastic nylon cuff around the wrist bone that secures the glove, as well as anchors a reinforced suede pull loop that aids in donning the glove.

The Technical Glove 2.0 is available in Black (featured) and Coyote, while is available in sizes between Small and 2XL.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Excellent (5/5): At $29.95 the Technical Glove 2.0 is made from a thin, dual layer of synthetic nylon and best used as a short-term tactical or utility glove.  The expected lifespan of which would most likely be roughly six months. The most direct market competitors to the Technical Glove 2.0 is the Full Dexterity Tactical (FDT) Delta+ Glove ($39.95) from SKD, the Specialty 0.5mm Glove ($31.99) from Mechanix, or the Men’s Lightweight Patrol Glove ($29.99) from First Tactical. All of these show that while all the listed gloves are unique in some fashion, the Technical Glove 2.0 was the cheapest and an excellent value as a minimalist glove that maximizes dexterity.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): The materials involved in the Technical Glove 2.0 had an excellent amount of flex and breathability when used, that gave the wearer a very good level of comfort. The elastic cuff was initially very tight on first usage, but wore in during the time of review to an appropriate (or average) comfortable level that while applying pressure, didn’t necessitate problems donning/doffing. The materials between the thumb and forefinger, and along the elastic cuff where the greatest amount of stress takes place, held the only notable double line stitching for added strength. It should be noted this type of glove is good for indoor or temperate climates, but not colder temperatures as its lightweight and breathable material is not intended to serve as a winter or outdoor glove.
• Durability – Average (3/5): Given the materials in the 2.0 glove focused appropriately (of average) on maximizing tactile sensation with the thin layered material providing little protection to the back of the hand or knuckles, the durability of the gloves will most likely last only six months under continual usage on the range. Consumers need to understand that this is the tradeoff in these type of thin gloves (that maximize tactile sensation), and is one shared among the market alternatives noted above. The more protective and durable the glove, the less tactile sense is provided. During the 30-day evaluation period the only negative aspect to the glove’s durability observed was some wear and fraying long the outer edges of the elastic nylon cuff that rubs against the wrist and fabrics. Additionally, some minor thread fraying at the fingertips was also observed. This fraying was most acute at areas on the glove that brushed against hook-and-loop (male) fabric that is often very abrasive to soft fabrics. While this fraying was minimal, it could become problematic over the glove’s expected lifespan. A recommended area of improvement for Magpul would be to consider an elastic cuff or similar fabric to enclose the exposed edge and minimize the fraying/separation.
• Functionality – Average (3/5): From a functional aspect, the Technical Glove 2.0 performed appropriately (or average) as a pair of shooter gloves or around the workbench. Correctly sized, the fingers and range of motion in the overall palm was correct and without restriction. Positive tactile sensation was maintained to the trigger, tools, or various control groups given the thin layer of the synthetic nylon, and dexterity during magazine changes and function drills was not impaired to any notable degree. The index fingertip was able to manipulate smartphone screens without issue. The support loop on the inside wrist was well anchored, but there was only sufficient loop material to be of use on carabiners for retention/storage, and left very little material to get a finger through to assist in donning the glove.  
• Weight – Average (3/5): At 1.7 ounces (for the pair) the Technical Glove 2.0 was very lightweight and gave a near “naked” feel that provided very good tactile sense to the trigger control group, and magazines. The weight itself was neither distracting nor fatiguing; and in comparison to the other market alternatives – the Full Dexterity Tactical (FDT) Delta+ Glove (0.32 ounces) from SKD, the Specialty 0.5mm Glove (2.4 ounces) from Mechanix, or the Men’s Lightweight Patrol Glove (1.7 ounces) from First Tactical all demonstrate the Technical Glove 2.0 is appropriate (or average) weight for the market.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://magpul.com/apparel-gear/accessories/gloves/magpul-technical-glove-2.html

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via High Ground Media, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.