High Ground Media, LLC

Introduced in 2015, the Series 300 Boot by Propper is footwear intending to meet the exacting needs of the US military, law enforcement, and civilians. Its key elements ensure breathability, support, and positive traction for any mission or all day wear. The provided pair for review were worn for a period of over 30 days and several shooting matches.

From the top, the Series 300 is designed to meet or exceed the exact specifications of US Army Regulations 670-1, and is fully Berry compliant.

The collar of the boot is padded for comfort, while the laces and track feature a friction-resistant design. Elsewhere, each boot has quadruple-line stitching at all stress points to ensure strength and durability.

At the midpoint, the suede and nylon material allow for breathability and rapid moisture wicking in light-to-moderate moisture environments, and include nylon-coated brass drainage vents.

The foot and sole designs are the most critical in footwear and the Series 300 offers extensive features that ensure comfort and performance. The surrounding material includes a dual layer of memory foam with an antimicrobial outer later. The footbed is contoured for arch support and an active application by the wearer. The bottom interior of the Series 300 features Dri-Lex® (a moisture management lining) and Aegis® Shield (a type of coating that aids in antimicrobial defense).

Inside the sole is a polyethylene plate that gives the Series 300 rigidity and support necessary when carrying extensive loads or long-distance use. On the bottom of the sole are several unique aspects that ensure a positive grip regardless of the environment. The Vibram® dual density rubber outsole includes self-cleaning lugs that prevents the buildup of debris. The heel, outsole and toe are lined in a V40 rubber compound to resist abrasion, while the heel and toe are serrated to aid in grip.

The Series 300 Boot comes only offered in tan suede (the only authorized color/material under AR 670-1) and comes in sizes 5M to 15W.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): At a listed MSRP of $179.99 the Series 300 is a basic field boot with an explicit design on supporting the military. This makes the 300 components and materials of sufficient quality to meet rigorous testing and evaluation before being considered milspec compliant. It also means that the materials are appropriately priced for the quantity used (not too expensive, not too cheap). Alternative footwear that is similarly designed would be Oakley’s Field Assault Boots ($170) or Light Assault Boot ($150), Garmont’s T8 Boot ($154), or Danner’s Tachyon ($149). These were all boots that met the same AR 670-1 compliance and were of roughly similar materials. It also demonstrates the range of cost in footwear and that the Series 300 is in the higher spectrum (although not the most expensive, such as Danner’s Rivot ($339) which includes a steel toe and waterproofing).
• Comfort – Good (4/5): Worn for over a period of 30 days, the Series 300 was noted to be a soft upper boot with light ankle support. The boot’s tongue was attached and padded to boot almost to the top which made it very comfortable and aided in protecting the ankle from laces or being pinched. While not needed, the Series 300 came with Fast Fit inserts to help those needing the added support to achieve the perfect fit. The boot’s tread provided solid grip on rock and in mud, and was worn during at the Red October Match at Sparta, IL wherein it rained the entire time. While the boot was saturated on the exterior, the light moisture did not penetrate the interior and foot area. It is likely, given the nylon and lightweight materials, that the boot would become saturated throughout if worn in heavy water, such as a stream or pond, and given its padding in the sole the boot would take some time to dry out. The rigid polyethylene plate gave good arch support and held enough flexibility to allow flex when taking a knee or articulating during movement.
• Durability – Good (4/5): For durability the Series 300 boot held up well through hard use, but the suede on the exterior of the toe area and heel scarred easily (something common to boots using this type of material). This is attributed to when moving from firing positions, digging in the toe or heel to get initial traction or support. While superficial, this scarring did not penetrate to the deeper layers of the outer suede. The tread held up well over rock, sand and mud and easily cleared any rocks stuck in the lugs. The track laces held up well and did not burn the nylon laces through friction when tightened.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): Functionally, the Series 300 Boot was lightweight and wore well. Over the course of several matches and as EDC wear the boot performed admirably. The dual external material of suede and nylon had the same performance as traditional jungle or desert boots issued by the military up until the early 2000s. The drainage vents also had an adequate, if average, performance and afforded the foot sufficient breathability but did little to aid in wicking the moisture out of the boot once the material was saturated. If one recommendation could be made to Propper on improvement to the Series 300, it would be to rubberize the toe and heel (similar to Blackhawk’s Warrior Wear boot) to both add reinforcement to high stress/impact areas while further protecting the material.
• Weight – Average (3/5): Each Series 300 boot weighed approximately 1.15 pounds (or just over 18 ounces), or just about four pounds for the pair. This weight is attributed to the added elements of reinforcement built into the sole. In comparison, the Field Assault Boots (14 ounces per boot), Light Assault Boot (9.2 ounces per boot) demonstrate how some manufactures balance overall weight, with less reinforcement features or thinner material that the Series 300 had. Other boots, such as the T8 Boot (19 ounces per boot) have that added reinforcement and materials, and come in at comparable weight. These give the Series 300 boot an average weight for its features that will ensure its longevity in performance.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://www.propper.com/propper-series-300r-boot.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.

Released circa 2013, the L5AWM is a 30-round capacity rifle magazine by Lancer Systems for a variety of Colt-patterned ARs. The L5AWM gives users a blended design with stainless steel feed lips for strength, and a polymer body for minimal weight.

As a whole, the L5AWM body is made from impact/stain resistant polymer rated to perform in extreme environmental conditions (40F to +180F).

Starting at the top, the L5AWM’s hybrid body begins with a hardened steel feed lip assembly. This assembly is molded to the upper magazine and not removable. It also greatly strengthens the upper tower of the magazine’s body from excessive impacts from the bolt in full-auto or when running suppressors. The L5AWM also features an anti-tilt, self-lubricating follower and stainless steel spring that ensure consistent feeding of ammunition. Slots at the rear of the steel lip assembly help seat stripper clips guides to speed in the loading of ammunition.

The L5AWM has a consistent curve throughout the length of the magazine to aid in reliable function. The bottom half of the magazine has a raised magazine stop line and ribbed grip surface along the exterior surfaces for tactile improved control. The L5AWM comes in a variety of clear and translucent options, each with 20- and 30-round count markings that enable for full-length and immediate visual recognition of ammo count.

At the bottom, the removable polymer floorplate is separated from the interior base plate using a round or similar pointed object to release the locking mechanism. The floorplates also include optional drain holes for those working in maritime operations.

The L5AWM magazine is only available in a Translucent Smoke (featured), Translucent Clear, Translucent Dark Earth, Opaque Black, and Opaque FDE.

Specifications:

• Compatible with M4/M16/AR15, SCAR16, HK416, ARX160, SIG556, ARC, SIG MCX, IWI Tavor, IWI X95, SA80, chambered in 5.56x45mm / .223 Remington.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): Priced between $16.30 – $21.99 (color dependent), the cost of the L5AWM reflects not only the materials, but uniqueness of its optional clear or translucent body. In addition, the L5AWM is one of the few hybrid polymer magazines with a stainless steel feed lip that brings forward the best of both magazine types. When placed in comparison to other market magazines; the Series 2 ($14.99 – $16.99) by Hexmag, or the Gen2 MOE ($15.95) and Gen3 ($17.95) by Magpul Industries, appear on the higher scale of cost against straight polymer magazines. But in relation to full stainless steel magazines, the price (depending on vendor and quality) can run approx. $16/per with no option for a clear or translucent body. So, it becomes a balancing decision on the part of the consumer where the materials and function of the L5AWM is appropriate (or average) in relation to its cost.
• Comfort – Excellent (5/5): The L5AWM was used for a period of 30 days in various training iterations, and what stood out the most for its comfort was the notable stainless-steel spring, which felt stiffer and held more potential energy than other magazines. This gave the follower a positive and consistent pressure against the ammunition and thus, a solid feeding into the chamber. The translucent sidewalls allowed for immediate recognition of ammo count in light environments or outdoors, and was aesthetically appealing as well. As an AR magazine in general, the L5AWM magazine was as comfortable in the hand as other polymer-based magazine on the market. The robust contour features gave a solid tactile feel over the entire bottom half of the magazine regardless if the shooter was wearing gloves or not. This helped in stripping the magazine out, driving it home into the magwell, or with manipulation in/out of pouches.
• Durability – Good (4/5): The biggest positive aspect to the durability to the L5AWM magazines laid in the polymer’s resiliency (or the ability of the polymer to flex and then return to its pre-determined shape). The sidewalls appeared to be slightly thinner in comparison to Magpul’s Gen3 magazines, but the reinforced gripping surface of the L5AWM added additional thickness along key areas. Three drop tests to several fully-loaded L5AWM magazines were conducted from a height of approx. six feet, with the feed ramps down in an attempt to get a direct strike. In each iteration, despite striking a concrete surface, only 1-2 rounds were typically ejected and the feed lips or follower were never compromised beyond simple surface marring. Internet research did find at least one example in 2016 of the L5AWM’s polymer follower being damaged during drop testing due to the front end shearing off—and it would be recommended to Lancer to consider bolstering the follower. Other examples demonstrated people driving over the L5AWM with no adverse effects. It should be noted, much like many other polymer-based products, users should avoid prolonged direct UV exposure to the L5AWM in that it may affect the molecular resiliency of the product (i.e. becomes brittle).
• Functionality – Excellent (5/5): From a functional aspect, the biggest positive feature of the L5AWM was its hardened steel feed lip assembly. There was plenty of documented examples of use in the field and on the range, of dropped polymer magazines striking the upper tower, or on full-auto/suppressed, cracking the feed lips. This problem appeared exacerbated by the mass of cartridges once the magazine was fully loaded. Lancer Systems attempted to resolve this concern by making three of the four sides to the feed lip assembly molded steel for added strength. It was noted during evaluations that a fully loaded L5AWM magazine did appropriately seat and lock in the magwell with the bolt closed/forward. The sidewalls of the magazine while thinner, did not bulge and they remained parallel under the spring’s tension of a full 30-rounds. Another added function of the L5AWM was the anti-tilt follower filled up the space inside the magazine more than other brands, leaving less room for potential debris.
• Weight – Average (3/5): With its weight of 4.8 ounces (empty), the L5AWM has a mass appropriate (or average) for its hybrid design—bringing together its polymer body and stainless steel feed lip assembly. The next alternative would be full stainless steel magazines, such as by ASC, which have an average weight of up to 6.4 ounces. In comparison to other polymer-based magazines; Magpul Industries Gen2 MOE (4.6 ounces) or Gen3 (5 ounces), as well as Hexmag’s Series 2 (4.6 ounces), or Daniel Defense’s DD Magazine (7 ounces) all demonstrate the variance in weight due to differences in magazine design and material. This placed the L5AWM within the average weight of the competitors noted.

Overall Rating – Good (20/25)

Product Link: https://lancer-systems.com/product/l5awm-30-magazine/

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.

Sometimes you don’t need a full-on medical pouch to carry just a few bandages. Other times you have a need to keep a multi-tool handy. For some, a can of their chosen vice. But whatever use you find for it, the BooBoo Pouch by Blue Force Gear provides a small and easily accessed pocket for any need.

Exterior

Made from predominantly 500D Cordura, the BooBoo Pouch uses TEX 70 bonded nylon thread throughout for maximum durability. A simple, envelope-style pocket with fold-over lid, the BooBoo Pouch is secured via hook-and-loop with a Ball-Loaded Index Point (BLIP) pull tab. Blue Force Gear’s BLIP helps provide maximum tangibility regardless of conditions.

The lid itself is made separately from ULTRAcomp laminate, giving it a threaded strength greater than 1000D nylon. The bottom of the BooBoo Pouch features a single drainage grommet.

On the rear of the BooBoo Pouch is BFG’s patented Helium Whisper attachment system that minimizes material while sacrificing none of the durability.

Interior

Inside the BooBoo Pouch are two elastic cuffs that can aid in organization of smaller items while leaving the interior pocket available for larger items.

Specifications:

• Overall Size: 1″ (W) x 4″ (L) x 4″ (H)

The BooBoo Pouch is available in Multicam (featured), Black, Coyote Brown, OD Green, and Wolf Grey.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Fair (2/5): For $32.95 the BooBoo Pouch (BBP) is a small accessory or medical pouch, similar to Tactical Tailor’s Fight Light Accessory Pouch H1 ($22.54) or ITS’s Tactical EDC Slimline Pouch ($25.99). While it is difficult to find a direct comparison in size/dimension to market alternatives, those mentioned are roughly of similar overall storage capacity. And while the BBP costs more, one explanation for the added cost is the alternatives are both somewhat bulkier than the BBP thanks in large part to the BBP’s specific weight-reducing materials and attachment system. So the consumer will need to consider what is gained over the added cost.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): Realistically, the BBP’s diminutive weight was hardly noticeable before being mounted on a belt, and less so in comparison to other magazine or medical pouches. And even when loaded with the average Band-Aids or other accessories, the weight neither detracted from other items on the belt, nor was offsetting enough to pull the wearer’s belt over. The soft-shell exterior of the pouch easily conformed to the items inside while the interior elastic bands kept things secure.
• Durability – Good (4/5): The BBP, being made from 500D Cordura and using ULTRAcomp laminate, was extremely strong for its size. The storage capacity and weight of items loaded likely never came close to exceeding the tensile or abrasion strength of the material. In essence, unless purposeful or direct damage/negligence is done to the BBP, it will likely outlast other most other pouches (or you may even damage the belt/bag’s MOLLE/PALS field before the ULTRAcomp laminate becomes compromised).
• Functionality – Good (4/5): When loaded with a variety of items, the BBP had an appealing level of versatility as either a small aid pouch or for accessory storage. It kept Band-Aids, keys, tweezers, Chapstick, and a variety of other pocket-sized items secure. The best use for the BBP was forward on the belt where it could be used for immediate access and kept items out of pants pockets. But the pouch was also easily mounted on backpacks that expand the BBP’s application beyond a gunbelt. The BLIP provided a solid point of contact and made separating the hook-and-loop easy.
• Weight – Average (3/5): As noted above, the BBP’s diminutive weight of 37 grams, or 1.30 ounces, (empty) made it hardly noticeable, even when loaded. In comparison, the BBP’s weight was also proportional to other similar-sized accessory pouches, such as the EDC Slimline by ITS that is 1.6 ounces (empty).

Overall Rating – Above Average (17/25)

Product Link: https://www.blueforcegear.com/boo-boo-pouch.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.