From, http://ezinearticl...fication&id=903837 ByChip Morgan Duty belts have always held great importance in the police force. It is the final piece of uniform equipment we put on before we head out the door and it is almost always the first duty item we remove when the shift is over! We hate 'em, we cuss 'em, we squirm around all shift while wearing them, but duty belts serve as a necessary means by which to carry that all-important police equipment while leaving our hands free. Duty belts restrict our movements, keep us from sitting properly in vehicles and hang us up on things like seatbelts, etc. while exiting our vehicles. The trick has always been to wear the best duty belt we can, while striking that important compromise between safety and comfort. A little history: In the old days, Coppers only had to carry a few items: a weapon and a holster, maybe a nightstick (which was usually twirled on a leather loop and held by the wrist, not on the duty belt) a "call box" key and a set of handcuffs! Contrast that with today's officer, who sometimes resembles a modern pack mule, loaded down with safety equipment. The duty belts of today carry an average of (10) ten pounds of equipment, and sometimes even hold up to 15 pounds. The items carried on the modern duty belt may include: (2) two or more sets of handcuffs and keys, a flashlight, one or (2) two batons or impact weapons, LOTS of ammunition in heavy speedloaders or magazines, a tape recorder, O.C. spray and holster, a Taser and, of course, the duty weapon. Of course, add to this the nearly mandatory soft body armor we all wear (which ALL pinches us between the bottom of the vest and our duty belt) and we are carrying tons of uncomfortable, ill-fitting junk. No wonder modern officers all have backaches at the end of the day! Ask the workplace insurance companies, physical therapists, doctors and chiropractors who deal daily with police officers and their backaches, they'll corroborate what I'm saying: duty belts are breaking our backs! Due to the excessive weight requirements of belt-carried safety gear demanded today, it is absolutely necessary for duty belts to be properly fitted, properly supported and made of strong, stiff-edged material that will support the weight of the equipment without "rolling" or "sagging." Furthermore, the properly fitting duty belt can't be overly stiff or restrictive, as this causes backaches or binds the officers needlessly. An ill-fitting duty belt will at some point turn into a health and safety hazard, causing pinching, fatigue, back pain, hip/back misalignment and bruising. All police officers are built differently, with different body types. Additionally, female police officers are built differently than male officers and require a properly fitted duty belt. Therefore, duty belts must be made to fit all body types, frames and sizes. But, even if we get a properly-fitted duty belt, made from the latest materials, that's still not enough. I think we should revisit the "Sam Browne" belts of yesteryear. Remember those shoulder straps that helped hold up the weight of the duty belt? Before they became just ornamental junk on dress uniforms, they actually had a purpose. Hunters and soldiers in the field know that only so much weight can be carried around the waist before fatigue, soreness and hip problems set in. Therefore, all first-class hunting and military waist packs (called fanny packs) have shoulder straps to help distribute the weight evenly. Think about it - structurally, our shoulders are designed to carry and support weight. Instead of trying to keep a duty belt from slipping down around our waists by cinching it tighter and tighter, why don't we have shoulder straps going up to our shoulders to support that weight? Hunters and military troops know that "fanny packs" can only support so much weight before they become more of a hindrance than an asset. Yet law enforcement suppliers (and agencies) continue to perpetuate the problem by making the same old thing. The modern version of the uniform duty belt differs from the old leather belts primarily in the materials used for construction. This allows for thinner belts, but who cares? That's not the fundamental problem, no matter what tricky Kevlar backed material you develop, we are still trying to support 15 pounds of stuff around our waists by basically using friction! I wish law enforcement gear manufacturers would come out with good-looking, properly fitting duty gear which has shoulder-based structural support. They don't have to reinvent the wheel, military and hunting applications already are shoulder supported. They could copy what works and give us what we need Give our backs a break!

Amen!

http://www.station...ambrowne_belts.htm

Amen to that my friend. My back aches in some very not fun ways after a 12 hour shift... I don't carry anything more than I need to, I find it is the belt that is most uncomfortable.

He forgot to mention the radio.

none of our medics or emt's in Alaska wear the belts with holsters... we have medic pants which hold the shears, light, pen, and whatever, plus the two cargo pocket.... i put tons of gloves in mine, and stethoscope, can fit to, or around your neck. and then the radio just clipped to your back pocket.. all other gear is carried in from the ambulance.... NO BACK PAIN!! except for all the obese people up here..... fuck that allways sucks

Allow me to introduce you to your new best friend:

http://www.copsplus.com/prodnum2406.php

These are the BEST 30 bucks you'll ever spend.

It's just a rough guess, but I'd say it'll reduce strain/weight on your back by 25% at least.

Before, my back would be killing me after about 6 hours. Now, I can go a full 12 hour shift with minimal discomfort (as opposed to the shooting pains I used to have).

I got a real kick out of reading that post about duty belts.

On the side over the years I've switched from armed security to doing personal protection work for a number of different clients. I ended up swapping to a duty belt over the years from getting tired of adjusting gear on and off my regular pants belt, fitting things around the belt loops, and not always wanting to wear a thick and huge belt to keep from sagging, just to wear on my work pants.

Though not as loaded down as a typical police officer, I see what the rant is about. Depending on the client and the situation you end up getting so much stuff on your belt that when you DONT need the equipment right at the moment (even though its handy to have it there) it can be a royal pain. And +1 about the gripe of the belt smacking against the bottom edge of under-layer worn vests.

My newer vest is actually alot better at not doing that. The design of the dual-layer kevlar/aramid is formed in such a way and fits the carrier so that it sits very close and tight to the body, doesnt pinch like the old one used to, and provides better side protection than before as well.

If your department allows you to purchase vests outside of the departmental standard (within the range of ballistic protection necessary, and by a competent manufacturer), and if you have the money, I'd suggest looking at some of the newer vests. Some of them now are even ultra light weight and the carriers tuck in and stay tucked alot better when being somewhat active.

They can get pretty pricey though, but when you're wearing them for hours and hours on end, it gets to be worth it after you get home.

why use a duty belt? I find my tac vest not a strain on my body even with 4x30rnd 5.56mm mags, 4 grenades, 200 loose 5.56mmrnds, 2 belts of 250 5.56 or 7.62 for the MGer, a canteen of water, a bayonet and some other etc crap...Seems like the load bearing tac vest has a major one up on a belt...why does LE only use them for tactical teams?