Results 16 to 30 of 41
-
17 December 2012, 04:13 #16
Yes, more expensive gear is often better constructed than that which is less expensive. No, the vast majority of the people buying it are not ever going make use of 1/100 of the improved durability.
The other end of the spectrum is to buy clothing and gear that fits your needs and budget and view it as disposable. I've been buying Wrangler cargo pants for <$20/ea and have yet to destroy any, but if/when I do I'll simply throw them away. The fact that I can buy 10 pairs for what some people pay for one pair of ninja pants means I can afford to throw away 9 pair, and up until that 9 pair fail I have 10 pair to cycle through in different colors and/or sizes as needed.
In terms of jackets and the like, there are a lot of workwear companies that make clothes that are just as strong as the ninja companies but won't have the same ninja look. I have noticed that companies like Carhartt are becoming trendy again in the wider consumer market, which is also good in that you blend in with normal people. Being "grey" for me is more about not looking like a gun guy to other gun guys than it is about not having some gangbanger spot my Salomans and knowing I'm a ninja.
At the end of the day it's the individual ninja that has to decide if he requires $500 tabi boots or if a pair of $40 Chucks will work just as well. and since each ninja is buying his own shit with his own money, if he wants to burn that cash on a XXL TAD jacket where a gym membership would probably be better, it's his cash and his man-tits, he can do what he wants with them.WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
17 December 2012, 20:42 #17
I get all that. However, it comes down to purchasing what you feel will perform as you need it to, for the given task. Most folks won't get $800 value out of a parka, a few will. Manufacturers like Arc'teryx don't have the sales volume of the chain outfits, so profit is tied more to a higher individual purchase price.
-
18 December 2012, 01:47 #18
I agree Eric, Cost does not always equal value.
Imagine how much it would cost for me to fly to the middle east and come back with a mason jar full of Syrian desert sand. Do you think I can sell that jar on the open market here for a price anywhere near approaching my cost to obtain it?WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
19 December 2012, 15:09 #19
-
26 December 2012, 20:41 #20
-
27 December 2012, 04:33 #21
No, it means you're a fool.
If the alleged reason for buying ninja-wear is the fact that it lasts longer, then buying 10 of them to have extras would invalidate that argument.
But your post borders on exposing the real reason many people actually buy this stuff which is "hey! Look at me! I can afford to buy expensive ninja-wear!" Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's your money to spend as you see fit. If there's some hole you're trying to fill by buying expensive items, and this is filling that hole, rock on.WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
28 December 2012, 18:00 #22
Rob, come on, you can do better than ad hominem attacks. I understand this is a tough economy for a lot of people and, while I have some understanding of your specific problems, and have experienced your general lack of tact and myopic nature, calling someone a fool because they can afford good quality gear makes you look envious and petty to those not familiar with you.
However, I think you may have missed the point of quality gear. It is not simply about just pants that last longer. The reality is that technical gear the like of which Arc'teryx makes don't just last longer they actually provide better utility. While your $20 Wranglers work great at the range and your coffee shop, there are reasons people are willing to invest in quality gear that increase performance, efficiency and are also durable. Companies like Arc'teryx make gear that, breathe better, wick moisture, are abrasion resistant, have better cut and patterning for freedom of movement. Now I give you the fact that for posturing at the range your Wranglers with serve you well, but some of us like to hike, backpack, hunt, snow shoe etc. sometimes even in the cold, or heat and at elevations above sea level. Having quality gear when 16 miles from the nearest road and above 12,000 feet, carrying a quarter of an elk in your pack is sometimes worth more than the $80+/- I paid for a pair of good pants.
Should we take your approach that we can buy 5 Hi-Points for the price of a Glock?
Durability is a requirement of quality clothing, but I am usually more concerned with the performance of the equipment, will it keep me dry, warm/cool, protect me from the elements. If you were to come shooting will us this weekend outside of Fairplay Colorado, where the high temps will be around 24 and the elevation is above 12,000 ft, you might find that your Wranglers may not have been the best investment.
Rob try seeing things from a perspective different from your own, it is a big world out there and sometimes your one size fits all attitude, well it just doesn't fit, and you wouldn't want to appear foolish, would you?
Cameron
-
28 December 2012, 19:24 #23
Touché Cameron, touché... I'm not one who typically wants to get involved with a disagreement online, but I agree with you 100%.
The quality of gear is paramount (yes, price does matter for the consumer), but along with quality comes a price. As an infantry veteran, I dealt with plenty of "mil-spec" issued, shit quality kit... In fact, most of the TA-50 I was issued was sub-standard. True story: I had the crotch of a pair of ACU pants bust open on me in the middle of a firefight in Ramadi, IQ. Literally, my "C&B" were dangling in the breeze, while I was trading bullets with insurgents... No bueno.
While my ACU's were junk, my rack and other accessories were higher-end brand names, and never failed me once. With the exception of a few required issue items, most of my issued gear (rack, pouches, etc.) stayed state-side, and the stuff that went down range was purchased with my own dollars.
I'm a firm believer that quality matters, and that unfortunately for many of us, cost matters. But, as with weapon components, you get what you pay for.
For the "weekend warrior," "tactical yellow visor" or average 3-Gun competitor, some of these items don't make a difference. But for an individual who's daily business is to put themselves in harm's way, yeah, it matters.
So, if a $20 pair of Wanglers works on the range, as it should, fine. But do I want that same pair of Wanglers in the mountains of Afghanistan? Probably not.
What I want is the best possible gear that my wallet can afford, down to my socks... Some of the so-called overpriced, bandwagon, cool-guy, ninja gear, may or may not be the best, but Arc'Teryx stuff works! Yes it's ridiculously priced, but I don't know of anyone to date that has worn that gear out unless they tried to.
My opinion on all of it is: If you've never been on a two way firing range, don't knock it. If the ones that have been there are buying it, then it's probably a good purchase. So what if the fan boys buy it, it's their money, not yours.-Los
"I like my weapons like I like my women, slightly dirty, and well lubed."
-
7 January 2013, 10:12 #24
Pants
Jackets
Mid Layers
In my experience, they are a lot better than Wranglers....
-
7 January 2013, 18:14 #25
I'm jealous...
-Los
"I like my weapons like I like my women, slightly dirty, and well lubed."
-
7 January 2013, 19:06 #26Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 222
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
7 January 2013, 20:26 #27
-
8 January 2013, 16:28 #28
Hell, I'd be willing to trade 4 PMags for just one of those jackets...
-Los
"I like my weapons like I like my women, slightly dirty, and well lubed."
-
13 January 2013, 17:38 #29
There are times and places when Wranglers just don't cut it...
Last edited by Cameron; 24 February 2013 at 20:10.
-
13 January 2013, 23:05 #30