And the only one I trust is SOFTT-W Gen 4. The others are complete garbage, including the popular CAT (unless you are willing to carry 4 because the windlasses are made of plastic and break with alarming frequency)
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but I do think it is narrow-minded to say all TQs other than the SOFTT-W are "garbage". There has already been a concession that early CATs may have had problems but to dismiss the last few generations because of an early failure seems unforgiving. To discount all others seems closed-minded. That is little difference than saying "Glocks are great, all others are junk." because a gun manufacturer had a hiccup with a model.
No bashing intended, only facts. While both are TCCC, CATs are known for windlass failures. SOFTT-W is not. Case closed.
Actually the SOFT-T had a 6% failure rate (vs. 4% of the CAT) at the
2007 NAVSEA Evalutions. One failure was windlass breaking the strap and the other two were the inability to secure the windlass. The CAT had two failures. The windlass broke the strap and the strap ripped out of the canvass. In neither did the windlass break. Regardless, a failure is still a failure.
CoTCCC doesn't recommend junk. They don't even recommend good. They only recommend TQs that pass their stringent testing. Currently there are eight CoTCCC non-pneumatic devices approved.
https://books.allogy.com/web/tenant/8/b ... 63343866/
CATs were first introduced into active service in 2005. Since then, they have aged 6 generations. Each generation brought improvements based on findings in combat. Assuming a new generation every other year brings us to the CAT-7.
Below are a couple of articles that discuss the CAT.
CAT Gen 6/Gen 7 Comparison
JSOM Spring 2016 Vol 16 Ed. 1
http://www.combattourniquet.com/wp-cont ... e-Gen7.pdf
Gen 7 has wider windlass with convex grooves and thicker plate (most frequent failure point on exposed TQs in the study below)
Exposed TQs have lower efficacy and higher breakage rates.
MILITARY MEDICINE, 176, 12:1400, 2011
In this study, from 2011*, conducted on Afghan exposed TQs recorded a 8% (14/166) breakage rated compared to unexposed TQs. Age of the TQs were not reported but exposed TQs had been subject to the Afhgan elements for at least 6 months. Of the breakage observed, 12 of 14 broke at the stabilization plate, 1 at the self adhering band, and 1 at the friction adapter (buckle). None broke at the windlass. Again, a failure is still a failure.
*Assuming a new generation every other year since 2005 this would make all the exposed TQs Gen 4 or earlier. If I am allowed to play out this assumption, by Gen 4, according to this research, there were no windlass failures on the exposed TQs and no failures on the unexposed TQs.
The
2012-13 Naval Medical Research Unit San Antonio Final Report found neither the CAT or SOFTT-W broke. Both did their job as did the RMT CBT, RMT TAC, EMT, and MET. The
2015 report backs the 2012 finding up except for the MET failing to meet >80% occlusion. I have not been able to find a more recent JOEFT.
From reading several other sources, including this
abstract there is a reasonable suggestion that some of the windlass failures may have been due to not pulling the strap tight enough initially thus requiring the applicator to over tighten the windlass in an effort to occlude blood flow. I will admit this is my own theory and, to my knowledge, does not have any research supporting it.
Without more detailed study or research I feel that North C-A-T Resources, LLC has figured out the windlass problems, if they in fact really existed, and remedied them. I have not found any research or documented findings that real CAT TQs have a significant issue with windlass failure.
CAT Myth
Here is my documentation, albeit non-exhaustive and certainly incomplete, to support that CAT tourniquets are not "garbage". I look forward to yours.
With that, you, I, and anyone else, can choose the TQ of their researched choice. I recommend to stay away from counterfeit TQs as there is
documentation of windlass and other failures.
I carry chewable children's Benadryl in the first aid kit for stings and other allergies.