Modified clothing for preppers

[Brent S]

I think good bluejeans are hard to beat. There tough, warm, and don't stand out. I really want to be comfortable and not noticed. One thing I would miss would be my sneakers. I wear sketchers shape ups. They have a really high arch and are the thickest soft rubber soles of any shoe I've ever worn. They aren't great with walking on rough terrain, but really help my feet on concrete. I always thought people were crazy to pay 100 bucks on a pair of sneakers. I couldn't care less about a brand name, but comfort is another story. I'm willing to pay for my feet not to ache at the end of the day.

 

[Gazrok]

Not only that, but expensive sneakers simply last and wear longer.
I too could care less about brand names, but quality is another matter.
In shoes, really is a difference.

Of course, even buying 3 pairs at $20 each (for same duration) is STILL cheaper than spending $130 on a pair of sneakers too, so that does have to be a factor.

 

[Brent S]

They had quit making the shape ups for a while, but are just now starting again. They had a bunch of lawsuits due to the advertising promising fitness just from wearing their shoes. Anyways, my wife got me a pair for Father's Day. Just in time too, as my last pair was about worn out and looking ratty.

 

[Gazrok]

I just can't walk in them things...feel funny.

 

[Brent S]

I just can't walk in them things...feel funny.

Yeah, that's why I said they aren't good for rough terrain. It took a while to get broke in to them . They do have more soft rubber and a really high arch than any other shoe I've ever tried. If you are standing on concrete all day like I am, there great though.

 

[Grim8627]

I never was big on name brand sneakers but I got 2 nice pairs of nikes just to see if they'd last. $80 each is a lot to me but It's going on 6 years for the first pair and they aren't even close to going bad so I tossed them in my get home bag in my truck. Plus I still have the other pair to use.

 

[user 6501]

It is a survival skill to know what to wear and not wear in your area; also the area you live in may be vastly different than the area(s) you have to work in.

Do not look odd by makes mods that stick out. My area is city so I don't worry about dressing for the woods, just crappy weather. I have a ton of sources for hiking gear and both civy and tactical packs abound here.

The mods you want are those that allow you to carry extra gear that gives your more survivability than the avg Joe while still looking like the avg Joe.

When I want to stand out I'll wear my IDF t-shirt; I got a "Nice shirt"comment and a smile from a woman in military uniform.

As for vests, I took a black (I wear a lot of black) BDU shirt and cut the thread at the sleeves for make a 4 pocket vest, it looks less fishy than my tan fishing survival vest.

 

[lonewolf]

my wife keeps telling me I've got enough jackets and boots...but what does she know?

 

[user 6493]

well I'll say this,lots of camo,,,,I am trying not to be seen,,,you don't need a lot of tactical things,,,I would think most of us will hunker down somewhere and only go out once in a while

 

[lonewolf]

yes, camo is my favourite colour, and being in the countryside its normal working gear here so nobody looks twice.
and I've never had to modify anything, it works pretty good as it is.

 

[user 6501]

Camo has become a noun, but the more important "camouflage" is a verb, you must actively work at your camouflage and in a gang area you don't want to look like Mr. Hunter or Mr. Money bags. If in the woods then you don't want to look like a gang banger.

 

[lonewolf]

Camo has become a noun, but the more important "camouflage" is a verb, you must actively work at your camouflage and in a gang area you don't want to look like Mr. Hunter or Mr. Money bags. If in the woods then you don't want to look like a gang banger.

nope we're all law abiding around here, no gangs.

 

[Gazrok]

Thanks muchly, I'm surprised the south did not win with TX on board, perhaps NEXT time ?

Funny thing about the Civil War....most still assume it was about slavery. It really was more about states' rights vs. the Fed. A lot of the South had already moved to less slaves, and more of a sharecropping model, because it simply worked better (and in the long run, more cost effective, as slaves grew families, and then worked as a family unit to better both themselves and the plantations). But, you have to remember the time. Originally, the US was really more of a collection of different states that did a LOT of things differently at the state level...even their own money, etc. So the Fed coming in and saying what they could and couldn't do, didn't fly so well, especially when it threatened dire economic consequences.

Even now, Texas and California do a LOT of things differently than the rest of the nation, for example.

Can't really see a "next time" between north and south...mostly because it's a very different nation now. More of an overall nation first, individual state second....the reverse situation that it was during the Civil War.

 

[user 6501]

Gazrok, that sucks. Canada is a "overall nation first" and I really like the idea of the State having more power than the Feds.

 

[Silent Earth]

Gazrok, that sucks. Canada is a "overall nation first" and I really like the idea of the State having more power than the Feds.

So do many Englishmen, We want an English Parliament to serve the needs of the English people. The Scots , welsh and irish have their own governments but the majority English do not. We have NO say in most Scots, Welsh or Irish decision making but they can and do interfere in English only issues.