Let me preface this by saying I think the proliferation of tourniquets in tactical gear is great. I’m not a first responder or professional shooter but I keep one in my range bag and on my chest rig. And I’ve seen a lot of folks attaching them to their weapons. I’ll throw the number one name out there- Paul Howe, who when I see him do something with his gear I immediately start thinking I should do it.
I’m just wondering if your going to attach a first aid item to your weapon, your basically prioritizing one item over all others. I would think that item should be a pressure dressing. We have much better dressings than we used to (IDF dressings) A pressure dressing will work as a TQ, or as a chest seal in a pinch. I think carrying more dressings would be more important than any other single piece of gear.
Just curious if anyone else has had this thought.
And it’s not new…
You look at pics of ANZAC soldiers in Vietnam they all had a field dressing attached to their weapon
And I think it was SOP for a lot of the airborne in WWII
Back in my grunt days we only carried one dressing on our LBE, but when on the DMZ we made a point to have several more.
I think that the tq being priority has come about from our current conflicts, alot of amputations from ieds. Personally when I’m deployed I carry 3, one on my belt line kit, one on my PC/ chest rig and one attached to my rifle stock. Reasoning behind it all is even if a tq isn’t quite needed as long as we can get the casualty to a role 1 facility in time it isn’t going to hurt anything. On the other hand if a dude needs a tq but we first put on an Israeli, then were actually creating another step if a tq is needed.
A pressure dressing will work as a… pressure dressing “in a pinch”, it will not work as a TQ or chest seal.
If someone (possibly yourself) has an injury that requires a TQ or chest seal, use the appropriate item for the injury rather than trying to “improvise” a fix designed for something else.
BTW- Israeli bandages are not that much better than the old field dressings, there are better dressings out there than the Israeli bandage.
The US military has the lowest combat fatality rate in the history of recorded warfare, in large part due to the lessons learned from previous conflicts. So pictures of soldiers in past wars (who were never issued TQ’s or chest seals) carrying field dressings is irrelevant and misleading.
Having said that, carry whatever you feel is appropriate
I guess you missed the part where I said I carry a couple of TQs huh?
My question is this… if you can only carry so many items, would you rather be heavy on the thing that is more multi-purpose? You seemed to have missed the entire point, because undoubtedly the dressing makes a much better TQ than a TQ makes a dressing.
Kest gave me an awesome answer… makes sense if the most likely injury is a traumatic amputation I would rather have more TQs- makes sense and I will incorporate it in to my knowledge base.
I will say, beyond a doubt, that the IDF dressing is FAR greater than what we were issued in the 90s… if you think there is something better please enlighten.
Nope, I read where you stated that you kept TQ’s in your range bag and chest rig… and then proceeded to make the point that you think it would be more practical to carry an Israeli dressing.
Your false premise is “if you can only carry so many items”- where does that restriction come from? There are active duty ground pounders that roll outside the wire with 2 or 3 TQ’s and an IFAK, if its important to have then bring it with you.
A TQ, Israeli dressing and chest seal do not take up much room. If your medical skills are based on 1990’s doctrine then carry on with whatever is appropriate to your level of training.
I only use Israeli bandages for training and that’s only because I get them for free.
Designed by an 18D, he created the Olaes modular bandage and named it after SSgt Tony Olaes so that it would offer more flexibility in treating different injuries (not designed to be used as a chest seal or TQ by the way)
Do I did not suggest that I would get rid of my TQs I think having them is a great idea. The question is, if I’m gonna add one more thing should it be a TQ or a dressing. Sure those things don’t take up much space but I carry multiples of each.
Thank you for the link to the dressing, I see the main advantage as being the extra gauze to cover an exit wound.
I carry multiple TQ’s on me. I run warrants and track down violent criminals all day long. I keep a TQ in each cargo pocket, along with 3 sets of gloves, and an Oales bandage. The Oales is by far the best thing I’ve come across in a long time, and they’re cheap. The Oales also has the occlusive sheet which could be used for a tension pneumothorax. On top of that I have a kit on my plate carrier and an additional TQ in a LBT horizontal pouch that sits under the cummerbund. I also carry a full med kit loaded down with chem lights and 3 spare rifle mags just in case something goes very bad.
As for only one item, I’d take a TQ over anything else. I’m sure you know, but a TQ is designed to cut off the most severe types of bleeding. A pressure dressing is a step down from that and I would not put that much faith in a pressure dressing to act the same as a TQ. Pressure dressings have elastic in the bands, which isn’t conducive to locking down an artery. It also seems much easier to make a pressure dressing than it would a TQ.
If you could only have ONE item it would be a TQ- an item that, by definition, can only treat a wound to an extremity. OK
To make a reasonable facsimile of a pressure dressing you need a maxi-pad an ACE bandage(or roll of duct tape), to make a TQ you need a belt and a stick. Which would you rather be looking for when someone is bleeding out in front of you?
Let me rephrase the OP… “hey I carry pressure dressings and TQs, I noticed people attaching another something to the weapons, out of those two which would make more sense.”
Ok, let me rephrase. I’ve been in positions where I have applied TQ’s, make shift TQ’s, pressure dressings, and make shift pressure dressings.
For one item, yes, I’d rather carry a TQ that will cut off spurting blood from an artery, because I’d rather have the blood flow cut off that’s actually shooting out of me. A pressure dressing will not stop that nearly as effective.
A pressure dressing is for a lower level of bleeding. Everyone wears clothes. Pressure dressings can be made out of t shirts. The idea is to have an absorbent piece of material and something to hold it down. Hands work well, as will another piece of clothing that you tore off to make that dressing.
I know what I would rather deal with, because I’ve been in those positions.
Part of what you’re missing from some of these replies is that with the advent of body armor a larger percentage of serious wounds are going to be in the extremities. Certainly the sides are vulnerable, and inevitably shit will just happen. But I’m willing to bet that the statistics back that up.
John Doe as a citizen driving around town is more likely to come across someone with a crushed leg from a car accident, a missing hand from screwing around with a boat propeller, or a chainsaw accident than he is someone with holes in his torso from a gunfight.
I have applied a make shift TQ to a guy who was racing his friend in a SUV while he was riding a motor cycle. He center punched a light pole and severed his leg. I am not sure on this and am only throwing it out there, but I would bet there are more saved lives due to TQ’s than there are pressure dressings.
[QUOTE=Vendetta;1718416]A pressure dressing is for a lower level of bleeding. Everyone wears clothes. Pressure dressings can be made out of t shirts. The idea is to have an absorbent piece of material and something to hold it down. Hands work well, as will another piece of clothing that you tore off to make that dressing.
QUOTE]
Bingo. Yes, this does increase the risk of infection, but those who bleed to death from extremity bleeding will never die from an infection.
I’ve practiced emergency medicine for 10 years at multiple civilian level 1 trauma centers, 399th CSH Al Asad Iraq, and CJTF 82nd Afghanistan. This is in addition to thousands of hours of prehospital work as a paramedic before medschool and as a physician on Metro Lifeflight out of Cleveland, OH. I generally see 2-3 really FUBAR people per day.
Over 95% of the TQ’s that I’ve used in my career have been on multiple extremity amputations from IED blasts. I’ve used maybe 1 or 2 TQ’s for civilian industrial amputations. The only other civilian TQ that I recall using was for a high brachial artery knife wound where the laceration extended 20 cm from axilla to elbow along with a laceration through the contents of the right femoral triangle. This last TQ was a very unique situation caused by an hombre who knows how to use a knife. In other words, the actual need for a TQ in a civilian environment is actually very, very rare. I cannot recall using or needing a TQ for a civilian GSW in my career. That is because local, direct pressure is all that is needed to control even arterial bleeding from the vast majority of GSW injuries.
If I could only have one dressing, the Israeli Emergency Bandage would be my first choice. I’ve had great success with this dressing for 99% of the wounds that I’ve encountered outside of theater. It is also great for bleeding scalp wounds which are not amendable to a TQ ;).
My experience over 30 years as a surgeon on call for trauma at two different hospitals mirrors Sensei’s (although in this area, the trauma intensity is lower, there’s less penetrating trauma, and time-to-ER is shorter by military standards). Over the years I’ve been here, a patient coming in with a tourniquet would be extraordinarily rare. Likewise chest seals of any kind.
Tourniquets are great tools. First responders (some locations more than others) should all have one in their bag and know how to use it for the very rare circumstance that they might need it. As for the rest of us, it’s likely just another item of useless gear to lug around. OTOH, they’re cheap, small, and generally unlikely to do harm. It’s not a bad accessory for a civilian to add to their chest rig for just the right look. Along with a blood-type patch.
In a related discussion on another site, in regards to TQs for use on children, I suggested exploring different intervetions for haemorrhage control before using a TQ, like pressure points or direct pressure.
Someone stated that the use of pressure points/direct pressure was not taught as part of TCCC protocols, and used that fact as an indication of the ineffectiveness of those interventions.
While a TQ is very effective at what it’s meant to do, it is a CUF intervention when you are in a situation where other interventions are not feasable. The TQ did not render pressure points/direct pressure obsolete.
As to the OP’s question, what is the intended use for your setup? Are you LE/MIL? What other types of medical supplies do you carry?
The reasoning for Mr. Howe’s TQ on the buttstock is that the rifle is usually always with him, so a TQ is readily available even if he isn’t wearing his vest.
In a military unit, IFAK contents are pretty standard and the same across the board. The patients IFAK contents are for him. Same with the TQ, you preferably use the pt’s TQ on them, not your own.
And, as others have stated, the incidence of penetrating trauma is a lot higher in war zones than back home.
So, if you are carrying essentially a bleeder kit, and you have a TQ on your chest rig and in you range bag. Supplement this with combat gauze, rolled gauze and a proper dressing and you will do fine. There really is no need to have medical gear on your gun.
Both of these fads seem to stem from the desire to look cool. They have essentially zero practical application. In the case of TQ’s on a weapon, there is a very small chance of harm caused by snagging unintended objects.
As for the blood-type patches - it is safe for you to remove them. There is no medical facility in the US or the Middle East that is going to give you type-specific blood based on a patch that you wear on your sleeve or even your dog tags. Even if I wanted to do this, the blood bank at any reputable hospital would not release type-specific blood based on a patch unless they want the Joint Commission to shut them down. So, unless you are at the Battle of Kamdesh you can replace the blood-type patches with Jolly Roger.
Very interesting topic. I roll with a SWAT-T TQ on my buttstock. It is extremely low profile and nestles in the void of the ctr stock. Not as great as a CAT-TQ but it works as a TQ or pressure bandage. It’s light small, and low pro so i don’t worry about having it there. Might not look very cool, but I’m not a very cool looking guy anyway!
Nope, wilderness first responder certified, first aid, cpr ext. Never dealt with life threatening bleeding, just stitch worthy wounds and practice/play with tqs/pressure bandages at my WFR cert.
I know the limitations of the swat-t (hard to apply one handed and doesn’t cut off blood flow as much as a real tq). It’s there because it’s much less of a snag hazard then a SWAT-T and can be used for other things (cut into strips for cordage, used as a sling, fire starter, attaching gear ext).
