The GLOCK 43 is a popular choice for EDC for good reason. When Mas Ayoob first reviewed it for Personal Defense World he said, “Jamming when fired from a limp-wrist hold is a concern with many autopistols, but there’s no reason to be concerned about that with the G43 from what I could see.
“I ‘barely held’ the test G43, with wrist and elbow deliberately limp, and while there was profound muzzle jump at each shot, the pistol cycled every time. The G43 also ran fine when fired upside down, which some gunsmiths think is a good test of an autoloader’s cyclic reliability.” That’s probably one of the reasons Nwprepped chose it as his EDC gun.
And the TQ’s strap-width actually looks adequate for use…
that’s the RATS tq, sleeved rubber and meant to go around the limb several times before you lock it in. Does the job.
Show me the clinical data and the CoTCCC approval that says it works.
Also, the CAT is what most people including LEOs carry…so if they need to use my gear I want them to know how. Especially on me!
I understand the reluctance. The RATS is a controversial device (in no small part to questionable marketing practices by the parent company), and the CAT and SOF-T effectiveness and ease of use is well documented. I can certainly see why experts and professionals accustomed to use of the CAT are reluctant to change to something of substantially different design.
The RATS is also a whole lot easier to carry if you don’t want to rock cargo pants or a duty belt. It HAS been proven in actual lifesaving use and clinical tests, and I have no problem with it.
Also CoTCCC doesn’t approve any medical device. They have recommended the CAT and SOF-T. That doesn’t mean the RATS is bad. It’s different, for sure. Some wonder if its narrower profile could cause ligature-type injury (It hasn’t in use so far, AFAIK)
If you can comfortably carry a SOF-T or CAT, then by all means carry it. At least have one in your range bag, vehicle, or trauma kit. For the times you can’t, I see this thing as filling a need. It works and it works for me.
“CONCLUSION: All three tactical tourniquets showed substantial capacity for hemorrhage control. However, the two new tourniquet models (RATS and TMT) did not offer any improvement over the C-A-T, which is currently issued to military services. Indeed, one of the new models, the RATS, was inferior to the C-A-T in terms of speed of application and simulated loss of blood. Opportunities were detected for refinements in design of the two new tourniquets that may offer future improvements in their performance.” -Preliminary Comparison of New and Established Tactical Tourniquets in a Manikin Hemorrhage Model. 2016
not as good as the CAT. I don’t think it ever claimed to be. But it works.
The RATS having to go around the limb several times suffers from a capstan effect. The “bungee,” or whatever RATS calls it, won’t slide uniformly around the limb as it is pulled. The friction increased with each wrap, so you’re only pulling tight the last wrap or so.
The soldiersystems article was by the Jeff Kirkham (inventor/owner), so that’s hardly an impartial study. It’s more an infomertial. He only showed the absence of Doppler pulse for a couple seconds, while other studies require a 1 minute absence to show effectiveness. He also didn’t show the blood pressure of the calm and relaxed volunteer. The other article used a dummy and a few samples (2 users, 30 tests). I can’t see the full article to see if the data shows “blood” pressure, what stoppage criteria they used, etc. You can easily google a ton of articles bashing RATS, but I didn’t find any peer reviewed articles showing effectiveness.
I’m not saying the others are perfect. I have seen studies that show the SWAT-T (another cheap and light TQ) can be effective sometimes, but has 50% failure rates with high blood pressure and legs (I think of mine more of a “duct tape”-like utility product than a TQ – use with SAMS, use as a wrap to secure a bandage or foreign object, etc, maybe use as a TQ if I used up all the good ones). The link below shows evaluations of the tourniquets after real use. It shows the CAT is misapplied, the windlass breaks, or other failures happen almost 20% of the time. The SOF-T failure rate was less than 10%, and EMT was similar, but had a much smaller sample size. It doesn’t mention the generations used for these, so the current ones might be better. BTW, improvised only showed 25% effectiveness. Until I see similar quality studies on the RATS, I’m avoiding it.
The initial “TCCC Approved” scandal also puts me off. If it was any good, why go through the dishonesty? There are lots of endorsements or “used by” for RATS, but they seem to come from agencies that have received them as donations or at substantial discount, or talk about how great a guy Jeff is. Jeff may be a saint, but it doesn’t mean his invention is fantastic.
Link is broken as hell, but thanks for the discussion!
It seems to me there’s a lot of personal bias in articles against the RATS, so it’s kind of hard to weigh them and ferret out useful data. More clinical studies would for sure be helpful!
“Show me the clinical data and the CoTCCC approval that says it works.”
So, Jon, you say it sucks?
This is my photo. I actually swapped my carry TQ from a rats to a SOFTT-W. When folded correctly the Softt-w is almost the same size as the the Rats, hence the switch. I now keep the rats tq as my backup in my backpack.
CYA Supply holsters are excellent. Great choice!
It’s been great so far!
I keep trying to get it to malfunction shooting one handed with my support hand, and I can’t. Which is why it’s on my offside hip IWB as a BUG to my appendix 26, 30S, or M&P Shield 45.
Great pistol that shoots bigger than it really is.
The 43 is a great ccw choice. I have 3 of them and have yet to have an issue after thousands of rounds shot.
Just gonna leave this