Soldier 95 V Soldier 2000?

[greasemonkey]

Sounds like a bad B Movie, doesn't it?

I'm thinking about getting a jacket from a surplus shop, but I'm not sure which one to get. Obviously, the 2000 version should be better, but what is the difference?

[Maggot]

About 5 years.

[greasemonkey]

Budum - tish!

Walked right in to that one, eh?

[Chinook220]

Get the Dpm issue windproof as issued to troops deploying to Iraq 2005 onwards (green version better for uk)

On evilbay search DPM Windproof it's the right one if it has a very small pocket on one of the arms, think it was for a combi tool but not sure.

Saw one for £18. Don't get CS95 smocks they are evil!!! They keep the cold/ water in and the collar will rub your neck and chin raw.

Just my 2p worth

Regards chinook

[greasemonkey]

How waterproof is it?

[Fin]

Don't get CS95 smocks they are evil!!! They keep the cold/ water in and the collar will rub your neck and chin

+1 on that - sound advice! 1995 was a year of procurement evil! The ripstop outer jacket is simply the most abominable thing ever conceived by man - don't ever buy one, and if you own one - pay someone to take it away! The 2000 smock - essentially an arctic smock with tabbed buttons is pretty good - I still wear mine for work - although I still wear my original arctic smock when hunting bunnies.

[greasemonkey]

I thought that the ripstop version might be better, I think because I read the name "ripstop", I'm glad I asked here first!

[Fin]

How waterproof is it?

To answer the question directly - slightly more waterproof than ventile - new ones have some sort of treatment that causes water to bead...but once it's soaked, or after you've washed it a few times then I would say they're water resistant rather than proofed - and this time less resistant than ventile, being a lighter fabric - if you have a wool layer underneath the jacket though, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Like I said - keep a wool layer underneath the jacket (when it's cold) and expect to stay dry. In warmer downpours - expect to be damp - but not uncomfortably so, and for me, they beat wandering around sounding like a crisp packet in the latest techno outer garment.

[Graham_S]

I used the CS95 jacket for years without problems.
I quite liked mine, I wore it every day out in all weathers without problems.
It was windproof, reasonably water resistant (I treated it with Nikwax cottonproof every so often) and had an amazing amount of storage in the pockets.

[The Lord Poncho]

Get the Dpm issue windproof as issued to troops deploying to Iraq 2005 onwards (green version better for uk)

Be careful if seeking out a plain green smock- as these are not issue kit as far as i'm aware, and therefore likely to be chinese knock offs- some quality is ok, some not. The little pocket in the sleeve of the 2005 onwards smocks (with the wired hood and the zip up chest pockets) is for an avalanch transponder i believe. I'm not too up on these things, but the original cs95 jacket was ripstop, no hood, cs 2000 used the same outer jacket, but the lightweight trousers and shirt contained more man made fibre, and had a tighter weave, then early 2000's, the jacket became a polycotton material (not ripstop) with the same design. Around 2005, this polycotton jacket grew a hood (but the rest of the design remained unchanged), and the latest incarnation sports the addition of velcro patches on the sleeves for adding badges etc. It's a goood, robust jacket that keeps the weather out for a while and is comfy to wear.

[Chinook220]

By green I did in fact mean uk DPM. But sound advice on Chinese knock offs.

[swampy99]

I have heard that the little pocket is for the morphine coffin. This is so every one knows where the pain relief is if you get shot same as it is to carry your first field dressing in the left map pocket and not taped to your strap, helmet or rifle. In the heat of a contact you know where your first aid stuff is.

[Rabbitsmacker]

latest stuff is far better than 95, however, the 94 patt smocks were very good, also the new windproof is excellent in the mk 1 or mk2 mesh lined model. however, you cant beat sas windproofs, good baggy cut, light weight, and very comfortable. i have 3. love them

[mrmike]

latest stuff is far better than 95, however, the 94 patt smocks were very good, also the new windproof is excellent in the mk 1 or mk2 mesh lined model. however, you cant beat sas windproofs, good baggy cut, light weight, and very comfortable. i have 3. love them

Aaah, but how do you tell a genuine sas windproof? I have been thinking about getting something like this but its too easy for someone on tinterweb to describe any smock as sas....

[Rabbitsmacker]

Aaah, but how do you tell a genuine sas windproof? I have been thinking about getting something like this but its too easy for someone on tinterweb to describe any smock as sas....

if it's new and they have more than one its a good bet its not pukka, a lot of the sellers on ebay pump out the repros in batches. genuine as follows..

they do not have zippered chest pockets, the velcro on the wrists is a small tab of material not a long strap of velcro as on the standard issue windproof.

if it say's 'wire removed' its an arctic smock, which, is no different apart from the hood shape, which is actually quite good, huge, but good.
the buttons are standard sewn on not canadian slots. the material is 100% cotton but is never stated on the item as such, so if the mix is given as anything else in description its not genuine, no mix is given on labels inside anyway. the label should be olive green either a plasticated version or a cloth type. nato stock number should be the right one, they can vary though by a couple of digits, i have a early 90's type, which has late eighties type camo, and chest pockets are stitched on level, and a mid nineties model which is a bit thicker, 95 patt camo print, and angled pockets, the numbers differ my the last digit only which i assume relates to the print or the pockets.

look for recognized military manufacturers if possible, one of mine is 'cookson and clegg' very good quality.

sizing has to be either 'size 1, size 2, size 3 etc etc' which is old money, generally the bigger the number the larger they are, or nato sizes which are either a long 10 or so digits with a a dash in between the first and second half, or a comb of old nato sizes and new, 170/96 or 190/120 or similar. sizeing saying s,m,l etc often indicates private purchase, eg, arktis, survival aids, white labels anyweher on the product mean non-genuine unless its the card label attached from stores.
elastic in the hem is not old windproof style, but current standard type.

pen/combi pouch on left arm since mid eighties, ffd pocket on back of right arm since early 90's. no ffd pocket means first generation current type smock from around the falklands era. mid 70's and before they were still using the ww2 style albeit in the modern dpm and full zip, mid 70's to late 80's using new style with bulgy pockets, cammo print shows green and yellow to have overlapping printing pattern which looks like an extra colour or border around the 2 colours when touching each other.

biggest give away though, the shoulders have no seam along them, the standard windproof is based on a combat jacket and has a seam along the shoulders. the SAS/Royal Marine windproof has a smooth shoulder and the arms have larger underarm cut, the lack of a seam on the shoulder has been in place since ww2 as the criteria of sf is to carry very heavy loads on their backs, the seem and epps are not present on the smock to reduce wear and chafing to the shoulders.

but generally they are very common on ebay once you know what you're looking for. here are acouple of links, i have no connection just show a range... oh and, the windproofs were not specifically issued to sf, the stocks were available if you could get them on issue, eg. marines being deployed to norway got the arctic windproof, or similar, the more dry cold windy stuff u did the more they were issued. so its a bit of a mis-info to consider it sf only.

original early RMarine arctic smocks have a rank tab front and back, the rear one phased out as they caught and rubbed on everything eg camo nets. SAS smocks 95% don't have any rank tabs, silvermans models do, as did survival aids, arktis and all the other private models, but MOD issued them without.


original, in average worn condition.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ORIGINAL-SAS-W...item415b66ff1e
silvermans smock, rank tab on front.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1-NEW-SAS-DPM-...item2a0e035bac

below SAS smock listed as para smock. note large underarm gussets. SAS smocks available in 2000 camo also, so modern 'old style' are available.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/british-army-p...item2a125eff1d
below genuine RM arctic smock. bulgy pockets, ffd on right arm, wire in hood unless removed. Rank tab on front.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/military-windp...item1c1d4eddf5




below is modern standard windproof, actually very good, and used by sf but is not old style sas smock, quick ID is the zip on the chest pocket, and pockets are envelope style not bulgy.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SAS-Smock-/170...item27bc8bbc1b

below is same type as above but properly described
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WOODLAND-DPM-C...item4cf87cb3bc

[Rabbitsmacker]

oh price wise, i paid £10 for my older one, was a bargain, i took a risk on it, its fab, my newer type which was brand new i paid £45 for it. i would say as a collector, if its a 70's early 80's issue its worth in good nick up to £90 at a push, later types are worth from average 'hammered' condition, remember, a lot of elite troops doing horrible stings in mud and dirt equals heavy wear, you should consider £10-25 a bargain. new upto £45-60. mdoern windproof which is very good, i bought a brand new one for £8 delievered. usually used ones are £15, new £25. if its mesh lined, its a mk 2 new type windproof, and very very good. £anything below £70 is a happy days.

[Rabbitsmacker]

if yr feeling very flush, ww2 issue come up too...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

[mrmike]

Cheers rabbitsmacker. You certainly know your smocks.......
Trying to decide now between the current issue one and probably 90's...

[Rabbitsmacker]

Cheers rabbitsmacker. You certainly know your smocks.......
Trying to decide now between the current issue one and probably 90's...

well, everyones got a perversion about something i suppose! mines smocks! lol, just know when i was originally after one years ag i got stung and did some research and got the collecting bug, smocks and webbing lol.
my choice would always be the sas type due mainly to the lightweight soft feel material, and the cut, i just feel the modern one is a bit of a restrictive cut once you've worn the sas type. but i have to say the modern one is bombproof build quality and it will never let you down. hope your choice does well for you

[Rabbitsmacker]

i took my early nineties smock up angle tarn in the lakes in march!

[mrmike]

Ok, that's made my mind up, 90's sas type (if I can sneak it past the missus)

[Rabbitsmacker]

Ok, that's made my mind up, 90's sas type (if I can sneak it past the missus)

well if u have any doubts over the type before ordering i don't mind having a look at a link for you if you pm to help spot a genuine one. plenty on ebay at the mo, like i said i'll have a look for you first if you want.

[mrmike]

Very kind of you, cheers

[The Lord Poncho]

Good choice- the old style windproofs are brilliant. You can always mod them yourself as well to bring them up to date- sew loops in the pockets, add a compass pocket, and zips under the arms. Just got back from wearing one all weekend in the rain- dries so quickly, and its incredibly comfortable.

[Fin]

if it's new and they have more than one its a good bet its not pukka, a lot of the sellers on ebay pump out the repros in batches. genuine as follows..

they do not have zippered chest pockets, the velcro on the wrists is a small tab of material not a long strap of velcro as on the standard issue windproof.

if it say's 'wire removed' its an arctic smock, which, is no different apart from the hood shape, which is actually quite good, huge, but good.
the buttons are standard sewn on not canadian slots. the material is 100% cotton but is never stated on the item as such, so if the mix is given as anything else in description its not genuine, no mix is given on labels inside anyway. the label should be olive green either a plasticated version or a cloth type. nato stock number should be the right one, they can vary though by a couple of digits, i have a early 90's type, which has late eighties type camo, and chest pockets are stitched on level, and a mid nineties model which is a bit thicker, 95 patt camo print, and angled pockets, the numbers differ my the last digit only which i assume relates to the print or the pockets.

look for recognized military manufacturers if possible, one of mine is 'cookson and clegg' very good quality.

sizing has to be either 'size 1, size 2, size 3 etc etc' which is old money, generally the bigger the number the larger they are, or nato sizes which are either a long 10 or so digits with a a dash in between the first and second half, or a comb of old nato sizes and new, 170/96 or 190/120 or similar. sizeing saying s,m,l etc often indicates private purchase, eg, arktis, survival aids, white labels anyweher on the product mean non-genuine unless its the card label attached from stores.
elastic in the hem is not old windproof style, but current standard type.

pen/combi pouch on left arm since mid eighties, ffd pocket on back of right arm since early 90's. no ffd pocket means first generation current type smock from around the falklands era. mid 70's and before they were still using the ww2 style albeit in the modern dpm and full zip, mid 70's to late 80's using new style with bulgy pockets, cammo print shows green and yellow to have overlapping printing pattern which looks like an extra colour or border around the 2 colours when touching each other.

biggest give away though, the shoulders have no seam along them, the standard windproof is based on a combat jacket and has a seam along the shoulders. the SAS/Royal Marine windproof has a smooth shoulder and the arms have larger underarm cut, the lack of a seam on the shoulder has been in place since ww2 as the criteria of sf is to carry very heavy loads on their backs, the seem and epps are not present on the smock to reduce wear and chafing to the shoulders.

but generally they are very common on ebay once you know what you're looking for. here are acouple of links, i have no connection just show a range... oh and, the windproofs were not specifically issued to sf, the stocks were available if you could get them on issue, eg. marines being deployed to norway got the arctic windproof, or similar, the more dry cold windy stuff u did the more they were issued. so its a bit of a mis-info to consider it sf only.

original early RMarine arctic smocks have a rank tab front and back, the rear one phased out as they caught and rubbed on everything eg camo nets. SAS smocks 95% don't have any rank tabs, silvermans models do, as did survival aids, arktis and all the other private models, but MOD issued them without.


original, in average worn condition.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ORIGINAL-SAS-W...item415b66ff1e
silvermans smock, rank tab on front.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1-NEW-SAS-DPM-...item2a0e035bac

below SAS smock listed as para smock. note large underarm gussets. SAS smocks available in 2000 camo also, so modern 'old style' are available.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/british-army-p...item2a125eff1d
below genuine RM arctic smock. bulgy pockets, ffd on right arm, wire in hood unless removed. Rank tab on front.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/military-windp...item1c1d4eddf5




below is modern standard windproof, actually very good, and used by sf but is not old style sas smock, quick ID is the zip on the chest pocket, and pockets are envelope style not bulgy.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SAS-Smock-/170...item27bc8bbc1b

below is same type as above but properly described
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WOODLAND-DPM-C...item4cf87cb3bc

Wow! - Top summary Rabbitsmacker - The subject of military smocks often comes up and I can see this being the reference post we will visit again. My old 90's SAS smock is my bunny hunter jacket (rank tab on the front only) - it's the one I really don't mind getting trashed. I'm shortly to leave the army after 25 years and may keep (or "lose!") the latest issue smock as it is very well made and I like the material.

[Fin]

Good choice- the old style windproofs are brilliant. You can always mod them yourself as well to bring them up to date- sew loops in the pockets, add a compass pocket, and zips under the arms. Just got back from wearing one all weekend in the rain- dries so quickly, and its incredibly comfortable.

What he said!..I've had mine for years and it has been thoroughly abused - still going strong.

[Beardy]

I must be a bit of a strange one in that I always preferred the 95 ripstop jacket to the later 'windproof' models.

With the ripstop one the material is lightweight and quick drying. It's just there as a shell, still very durable, but it can be used fine in summer conditions for example without being too much. If you're cold, you just put something on underneath it. The 2005 type hooded one (and the one before it, that was the same design as the ripstop but the same material as the current one) seem to be made from a too thick material to allow coolness and drying out easily - you're redders in summer, and constantly damp in winter.

The addition of a hood further complicates matters as it tries to wrap itself around the myriad shoulder straps you are wearing, or indeed your sling. It's not as if anyone actually wears the hood in any case, and if a hood was wanted with the ripstop you could just get a button on one that fitted into the pre-made buttonholes under the collar, no dramas. I can't help but think that it is popular with the lads because it is hooded and so has the same look as a gucci 'sas smock' - but the reason that smock was so popular was because of the gabardine material used. The current polycotton is pretty far removed from that, and as far as 'windproof' goes, it doesn't actually seem to stop that much wind.

The current type is fine for use in camp and working in so to speak (and if you're looking for a robust, affordable outer layer and you are more likely to be back in front of a warm fire of an evening than having to shiver in it outdoors then you will probably find it ticks your boxes), but I very much miss my old ripstop for going to the field in. Wish you could still get them.

[The Lord Poncho]

Not sure i agree with you Beardy! Seeing the old ripstop jackets in use next to the newer polycotton ones, and the polycotton definitely appears to dry quicker. I agree though- it is a little warmer than the ripstop. I never have problems with the hood getting in the way (and i use it loose, not rolled up), and like how i can make the neck closure nice and snug. From a military perspective, there are occaisions when i have worn my hood too- sleeping for example, or on survival courses where warmth is everything. As far as professionalism goes, I've seen badged SF wear their hoods too! I suppose there is a time/place for everything.

All that said, nine times out of ten, I opt for my issued (old style) windproof.

[The Lord Poncho]

1995 was a year of procurement evil!

Really? Soldier '95 brought in the concept of layering which had been used in the outdoor fraternity for years. It replaced a field uniform that included a button up woolen or cotton shirt with collar and cuffs, a heavy woolen pullover, and a jacket and trousers that took an age to dry. Instead we got a quick(er) drying jacket, lightweight fast drying trousers without loads of buttons round the waist to dig into you, a wicking roll neck thermal top, and a fleece jacket. + a whole load of other stuff like goretex lined gloves. At the time, i thought it was amazing!

[Fin]

Really? Soldier '95 brought in the concept of layering which had been used in the outdoor fraternity for years. It replaced a field uniform that included a button up woolen or cotton shirt with collar and cuffs, a heavy woolen pullover, and a jacket and trousers that took an age to dry. Instead we got a quick(er) drying jacket, lightweight fast drying trousers without loads of buttons round the waist to dig into you, a wicking roll neck thermal top, and a fleece jacket. + a whole load of other stuff like goretex lined gloves. At the time, i thought it was amazing!

Agreed - the concept was good (anything that got rid of hairy shirts was good!) - unfortunately it went to the lowest bidder! The quality was awful (on ops my pistol holster rubbed through the fabric of my trousers in about a week) and the sizing was bizarre - a common theme being too short arms on shirts and jackets and trousers that were designed for women (small waist, huge hips) - we did get issued Matterhorns though (prior to the pro boot being issued) which was, like you said - amazing! Not sure I agree on the quicker drying trousers - combats? yes definitely but the old lightweights are still the quickest drying trousers in my experience and mine still get an outing on occasion - despite my aversion to synthetics.

Horses for courses on the rip stop - my feelings against it were probably clouded by the fact that I already had the excellent older stylee SAS smock issued - I tried it a couple of times before retiring it to the attic where it remains to this day.