Menu

L119A1

A few weeks ago a couple of pictures surfaced showing a mix of UKSF and regulars training in the jungle. The guys in the pictures appear to be predominantly UKSF.

These features a number of A2s in rather interesting setups, different from the rather kitted out states we are used to seeing them in.

A couple had only flip up BUIS attached, with no LA-5s or optics, and paracord slings used – although to be honest some rather ghetto sling setups appear to be an enduring feature of UKSF setups, no matter how nice the kit they are issued. The rational for short rifles with no optics in the jungle is well established – they are less snaggable, well suited to short range engagements and the lack of optics reduces issues associated with high humidity. Also lurking in the pictures however is a much more conventional setup of LA-5 and ACOG. The L85 carried by a regular also uses just iron sights. If you’ve looked over my UKSF FAQ Vol 1, you’ll begin to see jungle setup weapons seem somewhat erratic still. These pictures show the first BUIS (although here they are the primary sights) used on A2s, and while Magpul MBUS Pro and MATech have been seen on L119A1s, atleast one of these appears to be a KAC 300m BUIS – it is hard to be completely definitive given the quality of pictures however.

One L119A2 features a pace counter secured round the magwell, which has been seen before, and is just a manual counter of the sort used by doormen – available cheaply on ebay. These are used for navigating in the jungle.

A final note on some of the kit on display, there appears to be a mix on MTP and multicam, with Taiga Jungle Uniform and a Patagonia L9 shirt among the stand out pieces of gear. Webbing appears to be used, and helmets on show are an Ops Core Carbon and Maritime, and a Virtus lid which presumably belongs to one of the regulars.

Many thanks to the person who originally shared the pictures for his permission to use them (I have cropped them and doubled down on the persec). He didn’t want his name shared, and he subsequently pulled the pictures, so wanted anonymity when they were reposted.

Rich’s journey with his build somewhat mirrors mine with my NGRS L119A1, and we both took similar routes with adding A2 uppers for a hybrid setup too. Thankfully I dodged his nightmare experience with AMS, mine was slow, but nowhere near the trial Rich went through. I’m sure it was an ordeal, but the quality of the build hopefully makes it worth it when all is said and done.

Well done to Rich on the excellent build, and I can only apologise for my previous recommendation of AMS – the work they did for me was great, but their behaviour with many others subsequent has been shocking.

The problem however comes from the fact the L119A1 enjoyed a pretty decent time in service with UKSF, at a time of great development in weapon technology and accessories, so setups across that life changed markedly. The L119A1 featured in the article is not a Task Force Black setup – but this is not made clear. The L119A1 still has a ‘Task Force Black’ tag running across the top of the page, which suggests it is meant to be a Task Force Black setup.

Let’s put aside the super geeky things of the L119A1s idiosyncrasies in terms of front end cap, type of KAC rail, receiver profiles and buffer tubes – that’s too in depth for a mainstream magazine, they shouldn’t be looking to bog down in detail, so I’ll only assess if they get the main parts right.

They move from front to back across the weapon, so I’ll do the same.

Firstly they recommend a Madbull Surefire replica – which isn’t really a great choice given it’s a rather ropey clone, but they do correctly identify the mods needed to make it a little better. They also give a mention to the excellent Perr Mike suppressors which remain the best option for builds of the TFB era. Their advice on flash hiders is passable, they neglect to mention the Surefire birdcage which would be most correct for the TFB era, but do mention the 216A, which is correct for L119A1s, but too late for the TFB era (they also mention one is pictured on the opposite page, which is isn’t).

They generally get the barrel lengths right, and the method of achieving them. They then go on to mention the 10in L119A1s have standard M4 front sights but with the bayonet lug “generally” removed – this should be “always”. They do however differentiate between 10in and 16in front sights, therefore avoiding a common mistake made.

They generally get the KAC RAS correct, but for the few geeky details I will bypass, and although the KAC vert grip advice is correct, there were others used. The article doesn’t mention the other correct accessories for the front end, and here they should have mentioned the Surefire M600 torch and a PEQ box. The accompanying photo shows a PEQ-15, which isn’t correct – this should be either a PEQ-2 for earlier TFB setups, or a FDE LA-5 (distinguished by the railed adjustment dials).

For the lower receiver they somewhat muddy the waters by referring to the rifle being made by Colt Canada, while showing Diemaco trademarks. Personally if building a TFB era weapon I would go for Diemaco – certainly for an early one, although it is possible very late TFB/K era weapons might have been Colt Canada marked. Airsoft International also recommend Airsoft Machine Shop for doing the engravings here – this I believe is grossly irresponsible. While Airsoft Machine Shop produce excellent work, if sending a part to them for work you are odds on to lose it, or at the very least get it back about 6-12 months later after having had to harass them in the interim. They have left so many people out of pocket and lacking parts that to recommend them at all is really poor.

Pistol grip wise they identify correctly the Storm Grip (Stowaway Grip), however they then seem to go off on a tangent about Hogue Grips, which have been seen (albeit rarely) on much later L119A1s. A Hogue grip wouldn’t be correct for a TFB impression, and for some reason AI seem to think they represent a nightmare choice for AEG users – I am not sure why given Toysoldier have produced a trademarked rubberised Hogue Grip which will take an AEG motor.

Next they address optics. The article inform us the least contentious choice is an Eotech 552 – while it is not wrong to use an Eotech 552, the least contentious choice is certainly an ACOG TA01NSN. AI then move on to the ACOG, but state the TA31 is the model used, which is incorrect – UKSF haven’t been pictured with this variant, and it would be a weird choice for a TFB kit. The additional information on wing mounts, mini RDS sights and DIS iron sights is broadly correct however.

They then move onto the stock and butt pad, which they get broadly correct, although mention the CTR would be incorrect for TFB era as it is too modern – this is right, although it does beg the question as to what was going on with the rest of the article.

Finally, while not mentioned in the article, the pictured sling mount on the example is a knock off Magpul ASAP, which is not correct for TFB era, and the example pictured isn’t a particularly good replica anyway.

Mercifully though they sign off this article with links to Warlord Tactical, who make excellent replica parts for the L119A1, and the L119 Owners Club group on Facebook, which I run, and where a lot can be learned about the platform.

Volume 13, Issue 13 of Airsoft International features a write up of how to achieve a Task Force Black kit, with an accompanying guide to building a L119A1, the issue weapon of UKSF at the time.

For those that don’t know, Task Force Black was the name given to the UKSF deployment to Baghdad in GW2, whose task was hunting ex regime individuals and later jihadists. It changed name to Task Force Knight partway through its existence, and worked extremely closely with American special operations forces in the city at the time. It represented a wholesale change in how UKSF equipped itelf and the missions it undertook, and the meshing of operations and information and they fed into an extremely taxing workload of raids. The UKSF elements involved were primarily SAS, with support from Signallers, Med and EOD specialists, and backed up by 1Para, later formally stood up as SFSG.

Task Force Black kit is quite consistent, compared to earlier period, since each man was issued a huge bag of kit, so they weren’t wanting for much – and it was all the same. Usually the helmet, ancillary equipment, weapons and plate carriers were all pretty consistent. The camouflage however was an eclectic mix of British and US patterns, often mixed and matched together, under the more consistent base.

The above lends the kit a somewhat unique and very appealing look, and for some time it was the ‘go to’ kit for airsofters wanting to run UKSF impressions. It has been somewhat overtaken by modern UKSF impressions, but the appeal does endure. The issues with the kit are primarily based off the fact it was envisaged that it would be used for a few hours at a time, in short engagements, transported to the target by vehicle or aircraft. It is therefore bulky, heavy and ill suited to going prone – or indeed any other mission but a direct action raid. It was also intended to be used in a punishing series of raids, often nightly, for six months – the kit is durable and as such heavier than today’s kit which does a similar job. Modern kit, leveraging new technologies in a sector which at the peak of the Global War On Terror had a large amount of investment in R&D, is much lighter and able to do the same job with less bulk and weight. Additionally, if a lightweight bit of kit does break, with greater SOF budgets it is not as problematic to replace.

Modern UKSF kits are therefore better suited to a wider range of activities, will be more comfortable and lighter, and allow us to indulge our inner geardo. TFB kits are often stowed in the back of gear cupboards, but a lot of us still love them – especially those who started UKSF Impressions when these were the only game in town for a modern kit.

The Airsoft International article is therefore a way to propel the kit back into the thoughts of both impressionists and mainstream airsofters who might be curious about dabbling in the impression and milsim scene. In this the typically sharp graphic work and high visual production values of the magazine help – although what will really make or break it is the quality of the information imparted in the article.

The review will focus on the accuracy of the guidance given and information imparted, and won’t really address the often painfully bad spelling, grammar and often nonsensical sentence structure – which appears now to be back with a vengeance, after the issue had been largely eliminated for a year or so.

Where pictures have been taken to illustrate points, text and images which aren’t salient have been blurred, so I’m not reproducing material from the magazine as a whole, regardless of the worth of it.

Reasons for Review Article

I realise analysing an article in the way I am about to can be perceived as aggressive, and be taken personally, so I will outline my reasoning for doing so.

Airsoft International, as a hobby and industry magazine with journalistic articles, opinion pieces, and guides, is trusted by a large number of people, across the airsoft community. The fact something is in print and on a shelf suggests a degree of reliability and research has gone into its making, and the information within can be trusted as being solidly researched and delivered without undue bias. Lately – this has not been the case.

Those new to the hobby, or impressions, may well rely upon the magazine for information on how to build impressions, and while the article does recognise that it is not perfect, it does give a lot of information and advice which will lead people wanting to achieve the same look to go out and spend their hard earned money on achieving an impression. I think it is reasonable therefore to expect the information to be right, or where corners have been cut for cost or ease, to highlight this.

Indeed AI’s social media posts would have you believe they are the biggest and best airsoft publication about, so I do not think it unfair to dig a bit deeper into an article to see if these claims are justified. The motivation for doing so was the fact that a rather disastrous and misleading attempt at a MARSOC impression guide was published recently, so upon hearing a Task Force Black impression guide was going to be published, this piqued the interest of impressionists who have an interest in this era.

I understand AI has to operate in an industry which is under pressure, and cannot have expertise in absolutely everything, but a basic knowledge of the subject matter should be attainable, and there are people who will offer input and guidance on specific areas within the community for free or little cost – indeed E27 didn’t receive or ask any payment for the article they assisted with.

The number of errors in some articles is staggering, and a cynic might suspect that often these are not always the product of ignorance, but rather ensuring a substantial portion of the suggested kit purchases for an impression or setup are available from the magazine’s sponsors.

General Criticisms

The article kicks off with a bit of background information about what Task Force Black was, and this is a worthwhile approach, I always think it is vital when putting together kit to understand clearly who uses it, what their job was and what they used it for. The synopsis however seems somewhat meandering and could certainly have been trimmed into a punchier, more informative overview.

Next the piece moves onto a paragraph musing on the choice between DCU and CCU uniform cuts, before basically saying you can use whichever you like – certainly a lot of patterns and cuts were used, but again this could have been a lot less waffly and more focused.

Then, we have five paragraphs on the MICH 2000 helmet. Those looking to build a Task Force Black impression will be disappointed to find out that those five paragraphs neglect to actually tell you how to put together a TFB helmet setup. The bulk of the section is devoted to the history and various models of the MICH – which wasn’t actually used by UKSF who instead used the Gentex TBH-II available at the time (not to be confused with its modern iteration). Often however replica MICH 2000s are used as TBH-II stand ins, since they are near identical. The varied paint jobs of TFB lids, the helmet covers they sometimes used, and the distinctive ‘choc-block’ counter weights are not mentioned, while the similarly ubiquitous and identifiable PVS-21 mounts also get scant mention.

We next encounter another paragraph on the history of DCU and CCU – because the first obviously left us wanting more.

Then we’re onto the RAV. We’re informed a Flyye RAV has been used since real Paraclete RAVs cost £300-400. The price of RAVs fluctuates a lot, dependant on availability, and it has been between about £400 to as little as £70 at various points in the last few years – and while they might be listed on ebay for substantial prices, I very much doubt they sell for that. The Flyye RAV is apparently £205 from Military 1st – I would be surprised however if you couldn’t get a real Paraclete RAV on the forums or ebay for around £200 with abit of patience.

It is also worth noting a fact which wasn’t completely made plain that while the Flyye effort isn’t a terrible replica, it has notable differences. Most obviously it is olive green rather than Smoke Green, like the Paraclete original. Additionally the Velcro on top isn’t properly interfaced with the shoulder elements, and the zip is green rather than black. It would certainly pay to go for a real RAV, considering the sizable cost of the replica – advising otherwise appears to benefit no one but Military 1st.

Then onto pouches, which for the kit should be primarily Blackhawk Industries molle pouches in Olive Drab – instead the article advises using Flyye patches in OG (they say Smoke Green is more accurate – but here they seem to have got mixed up with the RAV). Given the cost of the Flyye pouches, I am certain real Blackhawk is now very much cheaper on the second hand market. This section should have advised that, and cautioned against the Blackhawk versions using speed clips, but instead it again went for an easy option which benefits a sponsor. The example RAV also features a rather strange pouch setup which would make shouldering a rifle problematic, and is unlike anything I have seen in reference pictures. This feature really should have looked at the real products, common setups, differences between the RAV and RMV to help readers avoid common mistakes.

They correctly identify that the Serpa adaptor they show is the wrong type, but note, quite rightly, the real thing here is hard to source and commands a pretty substantial price.

Finally things are rounded out with another paragraph giving a brief history of ACU – because why not. A last box listing products used suggests 99% were available from Military 1st, which mathematically is not nearly the case. The accompanying L119A1 feature which follows will be reviewed in a follow up article.

For clarity I am not suggesting Military 1st directly influenced the writing or content of the article (I like the company and order from them semi regularly), I believe that to be the responsibility of AI. It just seems the magazine took the easy option in putting forward information that benefits a sponsor over the reader.

Reference Criticisms

Task Force Black is one for the few eras in UKSF history about which a substantial amount is known publicly. The book Task Force Black by Mark Urban details a great deal of what went on at the time, and the number of leaked pictures from the era is sizable. Therefore lack of reference material should be little impediment to a TFB impression, indeed the article features sixteen real reference pictures supporting it. Unfortunately of the sixteen photos accompanying the article, two are of Delta Force, two are of SFSG, two are of airsofters and one is of SEALs.

This immediately misleads readers, and given the huge amount of reference material the issue can’t be availability. I can only assume lack of research.

Copy Error, Paste Error

One of the increasingly irksome things about Airsoft International is that the magazine is increasingly dominated by advertisements – and most insidiously, advertisements masquerading as articles. This would be more forgivable if the guides and information that aren’t directly related to selling the products of sponsors were of good quality and original.

This is sadly not the case – the aforementioned MARSOC article in a previous issue contained a few prominent lines on the front of an article which were roundly mocked. This incongruous historical flourish may have been dismissed as simply as an unfortunate attempt at supporting context, but it suggested two things: Firstly a staggering lack of historical knowledge or ability to fact check before putting something into a magazine – Secondly a seeming lack of comprehension of how BC/AD dates work.

Everyone has an off day though, surely as photos of the lines juxtaposed with images of ancient Greek or Roman armour were circulated in the comments sections of Facebook posts the editor might just write off that little mistake and move on.

Alas not – the next month it has been copied and pasted, word for word, entirely uncorrected, into a prominent position in one of this month’s articles.

This seems to be outright disrespectful of the readership – recycling content a mere month after it first made an appearance, while getting it wrong. The intent of any publication should be to inform and entertain readers – not just fill space between ads.

Summary

Certainly I would encourage AI in the future, when putting together similar articles, to try and explore the possibility of having them compiled by someone who has at least a basic knowledge of the subject matter.

I would also say that while they obviously need to mention sponsors etc for commercial reasons, doing so in what is purportedly an article, not an advertisement, is misleading. This is especially the problem when the items they suggest be bought from said sponsor are often not correct, and nor in several cased are they cheaper than the correct option.

The magazine is slick, well presented and has a reputation in the community, but that is very fragile and a number of advert filled volumes replete with staggering amounts of filler and misinformation have knocked it – certainly it takes a lot more time to build a reputation than lose one.

If you follow the magazine’s guide, you will probably produce an Impression which is recognisably UKSF form the Task Force Black era. The major criticism though is that while recognisable, it will be some way off an accurate impression, and it won’t really save any money to counterbalance this inaccuracy. You may as well do it for the same cost and have the end product looking better and more accurate.

Most people interested in Diemacos, Colt Canada rifles and UKSF Impressions are now familiar with the L119A2 as used by UKSF, and first seen in use at Ex Winchester Accord. This L119A2, with the full rails top and bottom and partial rails to the front on the sides, with single slots to the rear sides and slick areas between, is fast becoming the ‘classic’ form.

Those with keen eyes and their ears to the ground may also know of the other variant (pictured above) of the L119A2 in British service, which features full side rails and a different sling mount. This second variant has been dubbed L119A2.5 informally by a couple of observers, but it seems to be really an alternate version of the same A2. Indeed while the full rail variant of the A2 is a contemporary to the familiar part rail type, in developmental terms it seems less advanced. Honestly, who uses the side rails in the middle?

It would seem therefore, more of a L119A1.9, if it must have a nickname.

As far as I can determine, the partial rail version is standard issue for UKSF units which have switched to the A2, while the full rail has been issued to other none UKSF users of the A2. Exactly what units I won’t expand upon.

All of this begs the reasonable question, ‘why the second variant?’

I learned of the full rail variant, some time before the only public picture about (as shown in this article) became public. I initially supposed these might be trial units which were tested before the design was later refined into the part rail type issued to UKSF – I am assured however this is not the case.

This is speculation – but I can suppose only two potential reasons, since I can’t fathom any functional benefit:

The full rail versions seem very similar to Canadian C8 IUR models used by their military and RCMP – although as yet I haven’t found an exact match, since most RCMP ones feature QD slots. It is possible the full rail IUR uppers were in stock at Colt Canada at time of order, and the production line was blocked out with other orders, so the full rail version would allow for a much shorter lead time and was therefore accepted.

Alternatively use of a full rail version may have been chosen since it, atleast at first glance, is more similar in features to an M4, which is a comparatively more common weapon, and so may arose less attention.

If anyone has any other hypotheses or guidance then please do proffer them – either for an addendum to this article, or private background knowledge.

The 15.7 in L119A2 upper is known about, and indeed a public picture is now available. It is not known at the moment if a long variant of the full rail version exists or is issued.

So no answers – but some interesting questions.

It is also interesting to note the single QD sling end plate used on the full rail version, which I believe to be Magpul ASAP-QD – an interesting alternative for those who dislike the standard ASAP.

As an aside, note the GG&G Vertical Grip, as alluded to in the recent The Reptile House article on the subject. On top of the picture from the London Bridge attacks, this is the second sighting of the accessory and makes it the stand out choice for those wanting an unquestioningly legit vertical grip for an A2.

In a thread I posted on the UKSF Impressions Facebook group I asked for a few Frequently Asked Questions related to UKSF Impressions which we could try and answer there. I took a few of these, and some which I have noticed posted regularly on that and other groups, such as the L119 Owners Club, and to have tried to answer them below.

I have used the odd bit of information from well informed people, but mostly I have based the answers upon pictured reference material, both public and private. I have avoided referencing things which I have not seen myself.

I am not mates with anyone in any UKSF units, although I do have the odd contact who has interesting information, none of that information is first hand either. The below has been based on careful collection and categorisation and research into evidence, although in some cases the evidence is understandably scant, in others it runs to hundreds if not thousands of images – it may be specifics are not quite right, or there are some noteworthy exceptions evidenced in things I haven’t seen, but I am pretty confident in the broad strokes of the answers below. If you have anything to add or query – get in touch though.

This first volume will be followed by others every so often, please do ask also if you have a question you want addressed in future instalments.

Have UKSF ever used LBT 6094s?

Given the popularity of the LBT6094, and the fact it is a great plate carrier, this question comes up a lot.

Individuals within UKSF, including the SAS, SBS and SFSG have used the LBT 6094 in multicam, although the latter is based on pictures of only one individual.

SBS have been seen using the LBT6094RS version, while SAS have been seeing using the standard version. Dates for usage appear to be from about 2010-2015, however it is hard to be precise.

If using the 6094 in a UKSF kit it would be wise to make sure all the other details are pretty close, to avoid it looking too much like a SEAL kit, and looking at the setups on the few UKSF 6094 pictures about will help greatly in getting the right look and time period sorted.

Have L119s been seen with Crane Stocks?

L119A1s have primarily only been seen with the old school CAR-15 style stock, and the later Colt Canada variant of it with the textured surface. Magpul CTRs and ACS stocks become increasingly common in the lifetime of the platform too.

The Crane Stock, or the SOPMOD Stock as it is otherwise known, has been seen however from about the mid-life of the platform. These stocks are uncommon, but have been pictured.

L119A2s have only been pictured with Magpul CTR or STR stocks in FDE.

What pistol grips are correct for a UKSF L119?

Lonestar Ordnance Stowaway Grip (commonly called the Storm Grip) is by far the most commonly pictured pistol grip on L119A1s – and is the only example seen on early setups.

Colt A2 standard grips are less common than the above but have been pictured regularly, particularly on mid-life L119A1s.

For later setups, about 2012-2015, more variation in setups and accessories begins to be seen so later era builds can include the below:

Magpul MIAD/MOE type grips, Hogue Overmoulded AR-15 Grip with finger grooves and UTG Model 4 AR-15 Ergonomic Grips do not appear to be particularly common, but have been pictured.

The only pistol grip pictured on an L119A2 is a Ergo Suregrip 2 in FDE. The exact model is abit of a guess, but it’s certainly an Ergo grip.

L119s in use with units other than UKSF (e.g. RMP CPU, RM FPG etc) have only been seen with Stowaway or Colt A2 type grips.

What do UKSF jungle kits look like?

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and occasional training or operational deployments in the UK have led to UKSF being pictured on several occasions, their training in jungle warfare finds its way onto film much less regularly.

Therefore to get a picture of what they use is a little less straight forward. It combines a combination of using the few pictures available with inference based on how regulars train in jungle operations. Greyed out individuals in the pictures are US MARSOC.

Kit setups appear to be typical light weight uniforms, a mix of Crye and MTP kit, including both shirts and UBACs – the one example pictured in full DPM above predates SFSGs issue of multicam, while the individual in trops is the only pictured example who may well be SAS, while the others are SFSG – so he may have more freedom to look ally (worth noting, the pictures has also been suggested to be a Pathfinder). Headwear is mostly boonie hats, often cut down, while load carrying kit is almost invariably webbing, in many cases it seems to be standard PLCE, although presumably more bespoke options are out there. Comms PPT/Tacmic is on the shoulder, machetes and scarves . There is one guy wearing a Blackhawk Helivest in the picture, and a contact has suggest that the guys have slick lightweight plate carriers in their bags for use in phases where contact is probable – this would be a departure from pictures of USKF in earlier eras where armour wasn’t used in jungle ops.

Weapons don’t hold to any neat categorisation. The SFSG spec L85s pictured for instance forego their PEQ-2s and optics to just run rails and iron sights, while the L119s pictured have a mix of ACOGs and DIS, while some have LA-5s while others do not. L119s are also more commonly the CQB variant, presumably for ease of carrying in dense foliage and due to the very short engagement distances in jungles.

When did MP5s stop being used?

MP5s have been associated with UKSF since Operation Nimrod, and not without good reason, they were used for many years for CQB and hostage rescue. In recent years however a combination of the fact UKSF have had huge operational experience with the L119 platform, the increasing likelihood of facing adversaries with body armour, and the advances in firearm technology have slowly pushed the MP5 to the periphery.

It is difficult to absolutely categorically pinpoint when the MP5 stopped seeing use. The last images of it in use by UKSF training were 2011, although images showing the Diemaco being used for roles which the MP5 would normally be associated with date from before that point.

MP5s saw use with specialist roles like dog handlers for longer than the rest of the various units using it. 2010-11 would probably represent the last date MP5s were seen pictured, however as early as 2003 Diemacos were being used for some tasks in CT work, and by 2005 they were being carried on raids in Iraq, and later in similar setups for CT training in the UK.

The MP5K seems to have continued to see use for some time after the full size MP5 was last seen, being used as a PDW with snipers and a concealable weapon. It is presumably still used for these roles.

Do UKSF use Warrior Assault Systems?

As a relatively inexpensive brand with durable, quality kit, WAS are popular among airsofters and often represent the first purchase of ‘proper’ kit for many. WAS also has strong credentials as a ‘real steel’ manufacturer, although many try to paint it as high quality airsoft gear, their plate carriers have been used by CTSFOs and PMCs, who trust their lives to the kit, while their various pouches and accessories are used by many soldiers to supplement issue kit.

Therefore it gets asked a lot to what degree it is used by UKSF.

In short – WAS is not greatly used insofar as plate carriers are concerned, however there are a handful of examples of the RICAS Compact and DCS being used by individual operators within the SAS and SFSG – but we are talking about so few they can be counted on one hand. It is presumed these items were private purchase and represented a perceived upgrade to whatever kit they were issued at the time, likely the Paraclete SOHPC – this does not seem an entirely surprising position to me, since I am no great fan of the SOPHC. With the issuing of Crye carriers they seem to have fallen out of use, and certainly haven’t been pictured for many years.

WAS pouches though have consistently cropped up individual kits, especially with SFSG. Their mag pouches and command panels both seemed to be relatively popular, and while their use has dropped off with greater quality and variety of issue kit, for specific roles they are certainly on the radar of the guys in UKSF – I regularly include their excellent foldable dump pouch on my kits, and judging by pictures a few guys do the same.

Interview: Rich Norman Pics: Snook Snaps and Jay E27 is a UKSF Impression group based in the UK. – E27’s IG bio. As understated as the Regiment they are influenced by, E27 are titans of the UKSF impression scene. A remarkable feat, given that the group formed barely 16 months ago. I have a few […]