UKH

Hey guys,

Long time lurker but this is my first post here. A bit of context before we start - I'm 6'3, skinny build, and in the military for a career. I currently use a Buffalo 4S outer as my sleeping bag with a standard issue gore tex bivvy bag. As we move into winter, I'm looking to find a way to upgrade the warmth of the bag to 4 season and add a liner to protect it from me getting in convered in muck. 

 

I'm pushing the height limits of the bag already, so I don't think that putting another down/synthetic bag inside the Buffalo is really an option. What I want to ask is that if I used a larger snugpak softie 6 sleeping bag to boost the thermal rating, would this be okay going on the outside of the Buffalo? Or would it only be effective inside of the pile? And, as the softie 6 is pertex, will it be able to wick away moisture from the Shell of the Buffalo bag?

Finally, does anyone know of any sleeping bag liners that are good at wicking and also have a central zip to make it easier to get in and out? Can't be doing with faffing and untangling myself if I need to get out sharpish . They don't need to be warm, I just need something to keep the crap that's on me away from the inside of the bag .

 

Thank you in advance

 

In reply to regangriffin100:

Sounds as though you may be needing a bespoke system? Have you spoken to PHD? They are very experienced in sleeping bag design and and manufacture, and are very helpful.  Might be worth giving them a call. I'd be interested to learn how you get on if you do.

In reply to regangriffin100:

Ex military as well, in order to keep my bag clean I used to use either a really cotton liner which could be binned or washed and/or plastic bag over my boots. 

I also used to use the US modular system which although bulky is a great bit of kit IMHO.

Good luck with the other issues that you have raised. 

In reply to regangriffin100:

The overbag system may work but only if the softie is large enough .Being synthetic I think it will cope fine with being on the outside if the buffalo.

If it isn't big enough you could buy a purpose made overbag (expensive) or make one from pertex and thinsulate which can be found easily enough online.

It all makes for a very heavy and bulky system though. Aren't you tempted by a nice down bag? 

In reply to regangriffin100:

It may well be contacting Buffalo directly - they do manufacture in the UK still and will make specials. Very helpful company in my experience.

In reply to regangriffin100:

I'm not military but work in a... similar world. Occasionally.

I also use a cotton or even nylon liner inside my bag. My current selection of winter/manky boots activity bags are either an issue Arctic bag (crap unless you're 5'8" and narrow-shouldered) or a Mountain Equipment synthetic. 

An extra bag on the outside of the Buffalo will help with insulation, but I suspect you're going to come up with condensation issues - plus the faff of two bags, two zips and the dreaded twist-of-death when you turn over in the night.

If I were you I'd either be looking at a bigger Snugpak with a liner to keep it clean (I made one out of a knackered issue bivvy bag once) or something like the Buffalo Superbag - something that is pretty much designed for what you're asking for.

In reply to regangriffin100:

Ditch the Buffalo and go for something like the Snugpak Military range - they have a heavier weight liner for when you've got your boots on and some are available in extra long:

https://www.snugpak.com/military/military-sleeping-bags

In reply to regangriffin100:

How cold are we talking here?  I used to use a three/four season standard synthetic bag whose inner fabric was cotton rather than nylon, which I felt made it more robust.  If I was wearing boots at night I had a large home-made unproofed nylon  stuff sack with a loosely elasticated top that my feet went in.  If it was really cold I used to use my various warm layers as blankets inside instead of wearing them.  Good down to about -10.  Below that, I used to cheat and had a huge Mountain Equipment Annapurna duvet  in electric blue and bright yellow and I used to sneak that in, using it as a blanket too.  The bag was easy to wash, so it just went in the washing machine. 

In reply to regangriffin100:

Why don't you just use the issue bouncing bomb?

a. it is free.

b. it is warm enough for anything apart from true arctic conditions, we used them in scottish and falkland islands winter, they are fine. If you aren't warm enough wear your smock.

c. it works better when wet than any down bag and in the army you are always wet when you get in your bag therefore your bag will be wet.

d. 6'3" isn't overly tall for the bag we had guys who were 6'7" and didn't complain. It is also wide enough to fit you and your rifle which many civi sleeping bags aren't.

e. If you're worried about mud in your doss bag you're in the wrong job. However a sandbag over each boot before getting in does help keep the sods of mud falling off your boots.

The only time I didn't use the bomb was in summer conditions when I would use a light weight jungle doss bag.

Beware civi kit, down is worse than useless when wet. In my books the only crap bit of issued personally kit in the last few years is the Virtus shite.

In reply to JohnBson:

I had a hand in the programme that selected the bouncing bomb. I disagreed and thought that something less substantial was more appropriate, based on my experiences. But it went through on the basis of simplicity and training needs - no real need to teach people how to use layers at night to keep warm. I’ve got one at home still and it doesn’t get used.  Nothing wrong with civilian synthetic bags, or foretell bivi bags, especially if you’re trying to save weight.  ‘Soldier proof’  = heavy.  A well-cared for goretx bivi bag will last for years and weigh about half of its military equivalent. 

In reply to regangriffin100:

Cheers for the replies everyone .

 

In terms of temperature, I'm planning on using just the buffalo down to around freezing point, and then adding the snugpak for temperatures up to -10. Anything lower than that and it's time to break out the Arctic kit. It's worth mentioning that I've got a montage extreme smock I can sleep in if it's really Baltic

The reason I don't want the issue Arctic kit is that it's not issue anymore, we're now getting a copy of carinthia kit that's a modular system. Thing is, the lightweight bag that goes in between the outer and liner has a side zip, whereas the others have a central zip - which means you get stuck if youryo getting out in a hurry. Not to mention that it takes ages to dry and is mahoosive to hoof about with. 

 

I'd also like to put together my own modular style system that gives decent versatility, as well as works well when wet and dries fast .

 

The snugpak is quite a bit roomier than the buffalo, so would fit outside nicely. I was thinking that the fact that it's pertex would mean that it would, like the Buffalo, move any moisture away for it to evaporate, so condensation between the outside of the Buffalo and the snugpak inner would be removed. Or have I misunderstood that?

 

Would like to keep the price below 200 ish so unfortunately a PHD bag is out of the question . Also, a down bag just isn't going to take the abuse or constant wetness, so that's also out of the question. I've looked at a superbag from Buffalo and they don't perform well when wet and or add very much insulation .

Reason I use liners is  keep my bags cleaner, 'cause dirty down doesn't loft as well as clean down so isn't as warm. 

 

 

In reply to regangriffin100:

https://www.trekitt.co.uk/12678/products/snugpak-pilgrim-arctic-sleeping-ba...

One more option to consider.

I'd stick your Buffalo in the new issued outer bag though (get a large sized one). Issue tissue.

A full liner would just get annoying and twisted.

In reply to regangriffin100:

The clowns procuring kit at DE&S really do never fail to surprise me with their lack of understanding of operational requirements, or requirements specification, or general competence...

 

In reply to spenser:

I think you can still win a iPod if you fill in that feedback form in the ratpacks...

 

In reply to richprideaux:

I was never in any of the forces, just another bit of the MoD working as an engineer and 5 years as a cadet so I doubt my feedback would have been of much use.

In reply to due:

Do you think that putting it in the issue tissue would cause there to be condensation between the outside of the Buffalo and the inside of the issue kit? 

In reply to richprideaux:

Was that a RN specific thing?

In reply to spenser:

The trouble is that operational requirements are not necessarily compatible with each other.  As an example for helmets:

- stop a bullet (self-explanatory)

- provide impact protection (increase in injuries from people striking the roof of a vehicle in an IED incident)

- solve eye relief/sight interference problems

- provide maximum head coverage

- provided unrestricted vision in prone position and not contact body armour or load carriage equipment

- lightweight and compact

- fit all users

- integrate with headsets and hearing protection

- not too hot

The first isn't going to happen because it is in direct conflict with weight, and the characteristics of material for this also conflicts with the properties of material for impact protection.  So that will be a compromise, but in favour of which one?  Compact also conflicts with impact protection and one size fits all.  Coverage, especially over the temple, conflicts with integration with sights ( and how many sights must it integrate with?).  Harness shape has an impact on protection, but conflicts with integration with headsets and hearing protection.  And on and on and on.  Just when you think you have an answer, someone changes the priority of one of the characteristics.  And then it's got to provide the same levels of protection at -30 and +50, except the characteristics of the materials change over that range, so it won't: so which takes precedence, and does that precedence change if operational requirements change next week?

In reply to regangriffin100:

I've a softie 9 which may help with your softie 6 theory- if you're 6'3" and wearing boots it won't be long enough to cover your head - I'm almost 6'2" and it's only just big enough for me without footwear. The pertex skin will wick across it's surface (especially if you've washed any DWR off it had).

What about some sort of blanket over the top instead of an extra bag?

What about a Jerven bag? Or one of their liners? https://www.jerven.com/

In reply to nniff:

I 100% agree that soldier proof is heavy and when space, which was more of a concern, was at a premium I just took a jungle.

But I'd say that layering is also problematic, personally I'd rather have to only pack away the doss bag before making tracks if some ds decides to wake me early. Seen enough people piling in from heat exhaustion due to failure to remove layers. However I always did put function before comfort.

Luckily it's no longer a worry for me, my layering or my bag.

My experience with military kit design is that at the end of the day its very much a pr exercise; virtus was a prime example. An exoskeleton and various other features which actually increased load on the wearer and slowed them in performing almost every task. Scientifically provable and tested. Report completely ignored because it had to be seen that the army was doing something to help women.

In reply to nniff:

The answer is politics and the need to be seen to be doing something by spending money on gimmicks. Practical and good kit is left by the wayside as it is deemed 'out of date'. Typical government procurement.