Army surplus Gore-tex clothing: any good?
Marco Cinnirella
I'm in the market for a decent waterproof jacket and am staggered by
the cost of Sprayway, Berghaus, Loewe, etc. in the UK, especially
garments with the Gore-tex waterproofing. I did notice that Army
surplus web sites in the UK seem to be offering much cheaper gore-tex
jackets - I think they tend to be US army surplus, and are almost
always under Ł100. I just wondered if anyone had ever compaired this
sort of jacket with the likes of those produced by the manufacturers
listed above? On the face of it the army surplus seems much better
value, as long as you don't mind wearing camouflage gear instead of
the latest and greatest 'designer-label' outdoor wear.
Any comments/thoughts welcome!
Marco
Chris Gilbert
> I'm in the market for a decent waterproof jacket and am staggered by
> the cost of Sprayway, Berghaus, Loewe, etc. in the UK, especially
> garments with the Gore-tex waterproofing. I did notice that Army
> surplus web sites in the UK seem to be offering much cheaper gore-tex
> jackets
I've looked at this a few times as well and I've already got a fair
bit of kit this way. You are much better off actually visiting a
surplus store. While a lot of the kit on offer is clearly used
(although usually in good repair and clean) I woudn't go for a used
Goretx jacket as there is a chance that it will not perform. Stores,
however, often stock surplus *unused* kit, not necessarily in camo
either. It very much depends on what they've been able to get hold of
from the services. You may have a job finding your ideal size, much of
the outer shell stuff I've seen is Oversize, so a visit is definitely
worthwhile. Goretex is Goretex, though, no matter which shop you get
it from.
Chris
Jhimmy
made from gore-tex for less then a £100. But it's usually luck getting the
jackets as they sell out very quickly up here on Tyneside.
Jhimmy
john goldfine
"Marco Cinnirella" <m.cinn...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a5a84975.0304...@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I did notice that Army
> surplus web sites in the UK seem to be offering much cheaper gore-tex
> sort of jacket with the likes of those produced by the manufacturers
>
I've owned branded goretex and diaplex jackets. In my experience, in time
they lose waterproofness and no amount of reproofing ever makes them safe or
satisfactory for the kind of weather UK walkers face every day. Seems a
shame to pay full freight.
I've also owned, much more cheaply, a surplus US ECWCS camo goretex coat and
a surplus British army goretex coat. The US is heavier, has pitzips, many
useful huge pockets, velcro, ultra heavy 2-way zippers, cordlocks
everywhere, snowskirts, etc. It's great! Cost online: $150 USD, free
shipping and no tax. The British military coat is very light, has NO
pockets, but is fine for packing, very waterproof and only cost $80 USD. It
was advertized as used, but appeared absolutely virgin. I also have goretex
trousers, courtesy of the Dutch military, and they work fine.
Only problem is the camo difference between the coats and trousers
occasionally makes the obsessive-compulsive in me a bit nervous as I walk
along. Then there was the lad in Chipping Campden who saw me coming and
said, "Look Mum, a soldier!"
Antony
> "Marco Cinnirella" <m.cinn...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:a5a84975.0304...@posting.google.com...
<snip> The British military coat is very light, has NO
> pockets, <snip>
Some do have pockets. Mine does, at chest level, wired hood too. Cost
me £50 about 3-4 yrs ago and it's performed just fine in UK rain,
Scottish winters etc. I'd concur with comments above in that you're
best tracking down a shop that has them and going there to get fit
right etc, tho I guess that applies to most things
Antony
john goldfine
"Antony" <antony....@rbi.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> Some do have pockets. Mine does, at chest level, wired hood too.
I rather enjoyed the lack of pockets, at least in theory, as it's an ancient
and not so ancient idea that military uniforms do NOT need pockets, as only
idle folk, not soldiers, would carry their hands in such a slack way, and
naturally God made packs and shoulders to carry everything else a man might
need. In practice, I wish to God there were pockets. In compensation, this
jacket is extremely light-weight and the price was unbeatable. Your 50
pounds about equals my 80 USD.
Bernie Hughes
from an army/navy outlet and lasted for years. The only downside was the
fact they only came in extra large. It was like wearing Gore-Tex waders. The
different camouflage pattern bothered me too, but that's getting deep into
weirdo country...
--
Bernie Hughes
john goldfine
"Bernie Hughes" <agentm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xxzja.58$YL...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hey, who you calling a weirdo! :)
It is disconcerting to look down and see the skirt of the coat in one camo
pattern and the knees of the pants bobbing along in a SLIGHTLY different
one. We all know how the mind wanders and darts as we walk, or at least
this obsessive-compulsive's does. I keep trying to justify, compensate,
modify, reconcile those two camo patterns. Next thing I know I've walked a
mile through glorious countryside noticing nothing but camo patterns. Is it
the just cheap drugs I'm hooked on?
>
My Dutch goretex trousers also were designed for the Dutch Army basketball
team field manuever group. So, not only do I see eyeball-twizzling camo,
but I see a lot of it too. Advantages: I can pull the cuffs right over the
tops of my boots and the legs have so much material that the cuffs stay in
place, even with high stepping. Disadvantages: just as I get through moping
over the unmatching camo patterns, I begin thinking of what the WWII
paratroopers were called: 'those devils in baggy pants.' And I look down
and say, 'Hmm, that's me.' The phrase 'devil in baggy pants, devil in baggy
pants' then haunts me for more miles.... Well, the NG isn't here to offer
psychological advice, eh?
Leigh
> Only problem is the camo difference between the coats and trousers
> occasionally makes the obsessive-compulsive in me a bit nervous as I
> walk along. Then there was the lad in Chipping Campden who saw me
> coming and said, "Look Mum, a soldier!"
Nice to see I'm not the only one who endures this - green or desert camo
outfit, army type rucksack and No.2 shaved slaphead often walking down the
side of the hill gets the comments from the 'casual walkers' of;
"Are the rest of the battalion behind you then or are you catching them
up?".
I just smile and walk on thinking how they will dehydrate before me!
Leigh...
Martin Richardson
Cinnirella <m.cinn...@rhul.ac.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
>I'm in the market for a decent waterproof jacket and am staggered by
>the cost of Sprayway, Berghaus, Loewe, etc. in the UK, especially
>garments with the Gore-tex waterproofing. I did notice that Army
>surplus web sites in the UK seem to be offering much cheaper gore-tex
>jackets - I think they tend to be US army surplus, and are almost
>sort of jacket with the likes of those produced by the manufacturers
>listed above? On the face of it the army surplus seems much better
>value, as long as you don't mind wearing camouflage gear instead of
>the latest and greatest 'designer-label' outdoor wear.
>
you think that looking like a mercenary US soldier murdering innocent
civilians in Iraq is a trifle naff?
US army camouflaged to look like desert = OK
Iraq army camouflaged to look like city dwellers = evil
--
Martin Richardson
199/284 Munros 335/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls
john goldfine
"Martin Richardson" writes
> I'm not usually that much bothered about matters sartorial - but don't
> you think that looking like a mercenary US soldier murdering innocent
> civilians in Iraq is a trifle naff?
>
> US army camouflaged to look like desert = OK
> Iraq army camouflaged to look like city dwellers = evil
>
"Mercenary?" A mercenary is a soldier who fights solely for money or one
who hires out to a foreign power. The US Army is not paid highly compared
to civilian labor--though as an all-volunteer army, it's paid more than an
army of conscripts. 'Mercenary' doesn't fit the case.
"Murdering"--that would mean the US Army (and the British division in Iraq
as well?) is gratuitously or intentionally targeting civilians, using them
as shields or pawns, purposely destroying residential neighborhoods with no
military value with the sole idea of vengeance or bloodlust. Is this what
you see reported?
Camouflage is intended to make a soldier less visible to the enemy, less of
a target for fire. Perfectly legitimate. But the soldier must be in
uniform to be a legitimate combatant--if out of uniform, he may
understandably be considered a spy or engaged in (the technical term in the
Geneva Convention) 'perfidy.' There's no parallel between wearing desert
camo uniforms and disguising oneself as a civilian in order to close with an
enemy force. That would put civilians at risk (and has in Iraq.) Have you
seen reports of US or UK troops endangering civilians by shedding uniforms
for civilian dress?
When I first began hiking in the sixties, much of the gear available (packs,
canteens, web belts, raingear etc) was military surplus, often World War II
and even World War I surplus. Of course, this was the time of the Vietnam
War, and those of us not there certainly had no desire to go there, but we
never thoughtin that pre-post-modern, pre-semiotics-obsessed era that our
clothes would be humorlessly taken at face value, describing us as
militarist warmongers because we dressed in bits of surplus military garb.
Far too literal. We were ironic modernists, for heaven sake, and understand
perfectly well what the fad for Sergeant Pepper uniforms meant.
Martin, if you see me in the Yorkshire Dales in May and it's damp, there
I'll be in my surplus military Brit and Dutch goretex, making a statement.
The statement is not: I'm a proud swaggering cocky American twit wearing
camo gear to remind everyone of rivers of blood.
My statement is: I need to be safe, dry, and warm--and cheaply--and nothing
to do with my politics, morals, ethics, or sense of the tides of history.
Too naive?
Brian
<snip>
>
> My statement is: I need to be safe, dry, and warm--and cheaply--and
> nothing to do with my politics, morals, ethics, or sense of the tides
> of history. Too naive?
>
Same as me. I am a fan of Army Surplus, I bought a 1992 German Camo jacket
for general hiking in. Reason I went for that was I found the British Camo
jackets weren't long enough in the back! OK, so it is not waterproof, but
at 15 quid it was a good bargain, and it doesn't matter if it gets tatty.
Similarly, I bought an ex army german poncho, mainly to keep in the boot of
the car in case I break down or something. Also shove it in the bottom
of my backpack if the weather looks dodgy when I am out walking. At least
I can shelter under it and be nice and toasty warm!
Why spend lots of money on new gear when you can (with a bit of luck) buy
army surplus gear for a lot less? OK so it may not be in top grade
condition, but it suits me fine, and lets me be dry & warm for little cost.
regards
--
Brian
Marco Cinnirella
>
>
> My statement is: I need to be safe, dry, and warm--and cheaply--and nothing
> to do with my politics, morals, ethics, or sense of the tides of history.
> Too naive?
Here, here - when I started off this thread I just wanted honest
advice about army surplus goretex because I was cheesed off with the
rip-off prices charged for goretex clothing by outdoor stores. I don't
particularly WANT to look like a mercenary or squaddie, but I can't
afford to be decked out in the latest £200+ Loewe Alpine gear either.
Let's not turn the thread into a political one - please!
Marco.
Richard J Webb
>
>US army camouflaged to look like desert = OK
>Iraq army camouflaged to look like city dwellers = evil
>
US + Puppets special forces dressed as iraqis = Very OK......
Mind the British army used to consider any dull clothing unsporting
'Manchester United kit with long trousers' The Now show R4 4/4/03
Seriously wanting to avoid another political thread drift, I have been
to plenty of places where it's perhaps not a good idea to look
'military' especially in a non standard uniform.
Richard Webb
Bernie Hughes
>you think that looking like a mercenary US soldier murdering innocent
>civilians in Iraq is a trifle naff?
I wore ex-army type gear on the hills for years. It's often cheaper and just
as effective as the TGO 'Manakin with matching accessories' approach. It
also keeps you out of view of the landed gentry etc. Eventually my wife
banned it, finding it, as you say, a bit naff. The comment above is clearly
well OT and inflammatory. The idea that wearing army clothing reveals an
urge to murder peasants & steal their oil is a bit thick to be honest.
Bernie
http://iraqbodycount.net
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of "john goldfine" <johngol...@acadia.net> wrote:
>> I'm not usually that much bothered about matters sartorial - but don't
>> you think that looking like a mercenary US soldier murdering innocent
>> civilians in Iraq is a trifle naff?
>>
>> US army camouflaged to look like desert = OK
>> Iraq army camouflaged to look like city dwellers = evil
>>
> "Mercenary?" A mercenary is a soldier who fights solely for money or one
> who hires out to a foreign power.
That's good timing. They profiled only yesterday a US marine who got killed
in the current war. He was granted posthumous US citizenship.
> The US Army is not paid highly compared
> to civilian labor
It's better than prison, isn't it? Don't a lot of your criminals get it as
an either/or choice? And the rest - aren't many of them there precisely
because it's the only paying job they can get?
> --though as an all-volunteer army, it's paid more than an
> army of conscripts. 'Mercenary' doesn't fit the case.
But for the politicians it does: since the end of the Cold War, they
desparately need a war every few years to promote arms export earnings.
Bush has another motive: to divide Europe, undermine the Euro's
credibility, and keep it from challenging the Dollar for the
world's currency reserves.
> "Murdering"
Yes. And kidnapping.
Couple of weeks ago, we had another story. A british pensioner was held
for three weeks on the word of US "intelligence". He was fortunate to
be in a civilised country (South Africa) that wasn't going to hand him
over with absolutely no evidence, and after three weeks they dropped the
case, admitting they'd got the wrong man.
All those kidnap victims in the new Gulag on Cuba weren't so fortunate.
--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars?
Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5, Germany 0.8
(The Economist, July 2002)
Fran
> 'those devils in baggy pants.' And I look down
> and say, 'Hmm, that's me.' The phrase 'devil in baggy pants, devil in baggy
> pants' then haunts me for more miles.... Well, the NG isn't here to offer
It's when you're buying X^manyL because of necessity that
you want to worry :-(
I *really* need to get fit and lose some weight/bulk...
--
Fran
Teach my children not to speak to strangers?
Good grief no. Everyone I know was a stranger to me once -
including my own children.
Then again, in some ways they still are.
Katherine
>
> That's good timing. They profiled only yesterday a US marine who
> got killed in the current war. He was granted posthumous US
> citizenship.
He was just months from gaining citizenship. Unlike the UK, we still
allow immigration.
>
> It's better than prison, isn't it? Don't a lot of your criminals
> get it as an either/or choice?
NO
And the rest - aren't many of them
> there precisely because it's the only paying job they can get?
Often they are in there because of the training they can get, not
because it is 'the only paying job they can get.' Many are 18, 19, 20
and just out of high school.
I am very opposed to this war as are many here in the U.S. However, I
don't like the misrepresentation of the last few postings. I usually
stay out of political discussions in this ng because I consider myself a
visitor, but I couldn't let this one go.
Katherine
Paul Cummings
"Marco Cinnirella" <m.cinn...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a5a84975.0304...@posting.google.com...
>
> I'm in the market for a decent waterproof jacket and am staggered by
> the cost of Sprayway, Berghaus, Loewe, etc. in the UK, especially
> garments with the Gore-tex waterproofing. I did notice that Army
> surplus web sites in the UK seem to be offering much cheaper gore-tex
> jackets - I think they tend to be US army surplus, and are almost
> sort of jacket with the likes of those produced by the manufacturers
> listed above? On the face of it the army surplus seems much better
> value, as long as you don't mind wearing camouflage gear instead of
> the latest and greatest 'designer-label' outdoor wear.
>
> Any comments/thoughts welcome!
>
> Marco
I pity poor Marco, asked for advice and got trapped in the headlights of
politics. My poor Blocked Sender file has been filling up with people from
this one thread. I hope they don't have any more sensible views on walking
rather than politics or I will miss out.
In answer to Marco's question, I have used military gear both inside and
outside the military for many years. I find that it is worse than the best
civilian gear, but much cheaper (free if you know a good RQMS). The
American cold weather coat I had was the warmest coat I ever owned. Wasn't
waterproof though, so it went in the end. Military boots (until recently)
are crap though.
Regards,
Paul
Mike West
"Paul Cummings" wrote:
> Military boots (until recently) are crap though.
There was a recent news story about a British
soldier in Iraq who said that the Iraqi issue boots were
much better than his military issue -- which were
disintegrating in the heat.
Anyone know where the Iraqi boots are made, or
for?
--
Mike W
Mike West
"Bernie Hughes" <agentm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xxzja.58$YL...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
But when traveling deep in weirdo country,
"different" camouflage is precisely the thing!
--
Mike W
Mike West
"Mike West" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:391ka.2381$Tb6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sorry, I deleted some text. The question was
"what defects in British boots I should be looking
out for?"
Fran
> I usually
> stay out of political discussions in this ng because I consider myself a
> visitor, but I couldn't let this one go.
>
> Katherine
I don't blame you for wanting to put the record straight
Katherine. It seems to me that much as we might slag each
other's country off at times the balance of pros and
againsts for this current war is about the same on both
sides of the Pond. It terrifies me that such young people
are in a war situation; just as it breaks my heart to see
children the same age as my own fighting for Iraq. My
children are at school and have the freedom to do so many
things - but there have been photographs in our newspapers
recently of children - some as young as 10 - dressed up in
uniforms and carrying rifles, whose only idea of 'fun' seems
to be fighting their enemy - i.e. us. It doesn't bear
thinking about that our (UK & US) soldiers will be called
upon to defend themselves against these youngsters and may
therefore have to kill them or be killed. I can't imagine
how they will do it or what sort of counselling they are
going to need afterwards. And how will they face their own
families, knowing that they have killed young children in
war? *Shudder*
--
Fran
Teach my children not to speak to strangers?
Good grief no. Everyone I know was a stranger to me once -
including my children.
Then again, in some ways they still are...
Martin Richardson
>who hires out to a foreign power. The US Army is not paid highly compared
>to civilian labor--though as an all-volunteer army, it's paid more than an
>army of conscripts. 'Mercenary' doesn't fit the case.
>
and British soldiers? They work for money and they are not involved in
defending their own country from attack.
>"Murdering"--that would mean the US Army (and the British division in Iraq
>as well?) is gratuitously or intentionally targeting civilians, using them
>as shields or pawns, purposely destroying residential neighborhoods with no
>military value with the sole idea of vengeance or bloodlust. Is this what
>you see reported?
>
murderer - or at least guilty of manslaughter.
Sorry to anyone if this is the wrong forum for this discussion. I wasn't
intending to keep it going - however, I did not want my first message to
be seen as a troll.
It is just that most people who go around wearing army surplus tend to
be members or sympathetic to BNP or National Front.
And, when this stupid war results in thousands of new recruits to
terrorism I wouldn't want to look like an American or British
imperialist soldier who went to fight in Irag on behalf of the oil
companies.
Paul Saunders
> To my mind anyone who kills someone else other than in self defence is a
> murderer - or at least guilty of manslaughter.
It's not the same thing when you're ordered to do it. It's also not the
same thing when the person you're shooting at is trying to kill you. But
let's not get into that.
> It is just that most people who go around wearing army surplus tend to
> be members or sympathetic to BNP or National Front.
I'm not the kind of person who takes offence at remarks like that, but if I
were then I would be offended by it. I've often worn army surplus gear and
I have no such sympathies, and I'd guess that most people who buy army
surplus (for walking purposes at least) also have no such sympathies. What
evidence do you have to support that statement?
I perceive army surplus as cheap walking gear, nothing more, and I'm very
surprised that you'd think such a thing about any walker who wears it. Are
there many other people out there who make such assumptions?
> And, when this stupid war results in thousands of new recruits to
> terrorism I wouldn't want to look like an American or British
> imperialist soldier who went to fight in Irag on behalf of the oil
> companies.
I certainly wouldn't go on holiday to the Middle East any time soon wearing
camo gear, but as far as the UK is concerned, I'd be far more worried about
a terrorist attack dressed as a civilian walking around the streets of
London than I would wandering around the hills of Wales in camo gear.
Picking off a lone soldier lookalike on an empty hillside is hardly a
terrorist's style, they prefer to go for maximum damage to innocent
civilians in a busy built-up area with maximum publicity. Get some
perspective Martin!
BTW, if you really want an argument, I'm sure that there are many aspects of
Photoshop that we don't see eye to eye on. ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Paul Rooney
<mar...@thequiff.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Mercenary?" A mercenary is a soldier who fights solely for money or one
>>who hires out to a foreign power. The US Army is not paid highly compared
>>to civilian labor--though as an all-volunteer army, it's paid more than an
>>army of conscripts. 'Mercenary' doesn't fit the case.
>>
>What part of your definition of a mercenary does not apply to American
>and British soldiers?
A mercenary is usually taken to mean a soldier who will fight for
*any* country so long as he's paid, not a professional soldier in the
service of his own country's armed forces.
And just because you happen to believe that killing, other than in
self-defence, is murder, it doesn't make it true: the meaning of
'murder', just like 'mercenary', isn't a matter of individual choice!
--
Paul
54 Wainwrights
http://www.paulrooney.connectfree.co.uk/myweb/index.htm
(Under construction).
The Reid
>What part of your definition of a mercenary does not apply to American
>and British soldiers? They work for money and they are not involved in
>defending their own country from attack.
mercenary
a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
The key word is foreign. Whatever you might think of the political
decisions of TB & GB, members of out armed forces are not mercenaries.
Save your insults for the politicians not the tommy who has to get
shot at carrying out thier misguided instructions.
(The german troops who invaded the Sudetanland for Hitler were not
mercenaries either).
--
Mike Reid
Spanish regional cooking at
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
Mike West
"Martin Richardson" wrote:
>
> And, when this stupid war results in thousands of new recruits to
> terrorism I wouldn't want to look like an American or British
> imperialist soldier who went to fight in Irag on behalf of the oil
> companies.
Prepare yourself for some shocking news: Terrorists
are wonderfully democratic about whom they murder.
They really don't care who you are or what you're wearing.
They focus on quantity, not quality.
--
Mike West
Gordon
>>>
>What part of your definition of a mercenary does not apply to American
>and British soldiers? They work for money and they are not involved in
>defending their own country from attack.
>>"Murdering"--that would mean the US Army (and the British division in Iraq
>>as well?) is gratuitously or intentionally targeting civilians, using them
>>as shields or pawns, purposely destroying residential neighborhoods with no
>>military value with the sole idea of vengeance or bloodlust. Is this what
>>you see reported?
>>
>To my mind anyone who kills someone else other than in self defence is a
>murderer - or at least guilty of manslaughter.
>
>Sorry to anyone if this is the wrong forum for this discussion. I wasn't
>intending to keep it going - however, I did not want my first message to
>be seen as a troll.
>
>It is just that most people who go around wearing army surplus tend to
>be members or sympathetic to BNP or National Front.
>
>And, when this stupid war results in thousands of new recruits to
>terrorism I wouldn't want to look like an American or British
>imperialist soldier who went to fight in Irag on behalf of the oil
>companies.
>
Last week we met a guy who was wearing these new fancy 'desert gear'
trousers, excellent camouflage in our green and pleasant land, I must
say. ;-)
I found myself, thinking: "Is he a squaddie on leave, a person who
likes the association with the current war, or just a poser"?
--
Gordon
The Reid
>I found myself, thinking: "Is he a squaddie on leave, a person who
>likes the association with the current war, or just a poser"?
Judging by the local paper i'm using to stand my paint pot on there is
a range of fashion trouser out called "Khakis".
Richard J Webb
>
>I certainly wouldn't go on holiday to the Middle East any time soon wearing
>camo gear, but as far as the UK is concerned, I'd be far more worried about
>a terrorist attack dressed as a civilian walking around the streets of
>London than I would wandering around the hills of Wales in camo gear.
>Picking off a lone soldier lookalike on an empty hillside is hardly a
>terrorist's style, they prefer to go for maximum damage to innocent
>civilians in a busy built-up area with maximum publicity. Get some
>perspective Martin!
As someone who has blundered through an IRA training camp whilst out
marilyn bagging, I think I will stick to tweed for anti goml cammo.
Richard Webb
Trog
"Nick Kew" <ni...@fenris.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:hrip6b...@jarl.webthing.com...
W. D. Grey
<news_...@leighs.org> writes
>"Are the rest of the battalion behind you then or are you catching them
>up?".
The last time I encountered the Army on exercise on Fan Brycheiniog,
first I met one soldier then some minutes later another - this carried
on most of the morning. They were coming from everywhere, some must have
covered miles judging from the direction they were coming.
On the way home later in the day I passed one by Madam Patti's pile at
Graig-y-Nos. he had a hell of a way to go to catch up.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
John Phillimore
>I've owned branded goretex and diaplex jackets. In my experience, in time
>they lose waterproofness and no amount of reproofing ever makes them safe or
>satisfactory for the kind of weather UK walkers face every day.
I have been advised by people involved in the design and manufacture
of military Gortex clothing, that the waterproofness is restored by
tumble drying or ironing with a warm iron (apparently realignes the
fibers or something!). Not sure about the ironing but have tumble
dried mine many times and it is as waterproof as the day i got it.
Regards
John Phillimore
s...@NOSPAM35thoxfordscouts.org.uk
SL @ 35th Oxford (Blackbird Leys) Scout Group
W. D. Grey
<slNO...@35thoxfordscouts.org.uk> writes
>I have been advised by people involved in the design and manufacture
>of military Gortex clothing, that the waterproofness is restored by
>tumble drying or ironing with a warm iron (apparently realignes the
>fibers or something!). Not sure about the ironing but have tumble
>dried mine many times and it is as waterproof as the day i got it.
Apparently the re-proofing agent needs heat to activate it. Not having a
tumble drier and not wanting to iron the Gortex jacket, I dried it using
a hair dryer. This proved to be about 80% successful. I'll try a tumble
dryer next time - a friend will help on this score hopefully.
Pam Scruton
<alex...@xxxfreeuk.com> whispered in my ear:
>I must have has one of the first Goretex coats. Originally they were
>guaranteed unconditionally and mine separated after a couple of
>seasons and began to leak.
I never had an unconditionally guaranteed coat but I've never had one
fail on me apart from my first which delaminated around the collar
after three years of almost daily wear. I have re-proofed it and it
is now used as a "rough-work" waterproof. My second jacket never
failed in terms of waterproofing and I think that was because I
followed the recommendation of the sales staff to wash it regularly
(certainly before it started to look dirty) re-proof it and then
tumble it dry. I wore it almost daily for nearly 8 years until I
slipped on a rock and my jacket got badly torn. (Rather it than me!)
>I cannot understand how tumbler drying would restore the proofing.
Neither can I, but I'm not a chemist specialising in the properties of
Gore-tex. However I've never had any problems with waterproofing so I
must be doing something right!
--
Pam
Take out the dog to reply
www.scrutons.co.uk
Chris Townsend
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> writes
The heat is for the water repellent treatment on the outside of the
garment that stops water from soaking into the outer fabric. When this
water repellency fails the garment doesn't leak but the outer becomes
saturated, which cuts down the breathability so that more condensation
forms inside. Eventually the water repellency will wear off and need
replacing with one of the wash-in products from Nikwax or Grangers.
The Gore-tex membrane that is the actual waterproof layer isn't affected
by the heat (unless you apply too much and it melts!). Once this
membrane fails the garment will leak at that point. You can't make
Gore-tex waterproof again. (If it's a tear or a hole you could sew on a
Gore-tex patch and seal the seams).
David Laight
> I cannot understand how tumbler drying would restore the proofing.
I believe it improves the water repellency by actually melting the
surface of the fibers. When they set they do so with a nice shiny
finish.
David
Tony Henley
>
>I have been advised by people involved in the design and manufacture
>of military Gortex clothing, that the waterproofness is restored by
>tumble drying or ironing with a warm iron (apparently realignes the
>fibers or something!). Not sure about the ironing but have tumble
>dried mine many times and it is as waterproof as the day i got it.
>
>Regards
>
>John Phillimore
>s...@NOSPAM35thoxfordscouts.org.uk
>
to any manufacturers' label actually recommends the use of a tumble
drier to restore "waterproofness".