sizing on modern cdn military clothingJune 14 2005 at 9:20 PM
|Chris Rodusek |
How does the sizing go on all the Canadian Military clothing? So does it go the smaller the number the larger the clothing item is?
Height and Chest/Waist
|June 14 2005, 10:18 PM |
If you're talking about current issue kit, a 4 digit number is used, incorporating height and chest or waist size in inches. For example, a piece of gear designed for someone approxiamtely 5'8" with a 40 inch chest would be labelled 7040. Gear for someone around 6' and a 46 inch chest would be 7346. Pant sizes use height and waist size, such at 6834, 7036, etc. These sizes apply to everything from pants and tunics to combat and flight gear. Shirt sizes are still issued using neck and arm length, such as 16/34 (16" neck, 34" arm).
The sizes change depending on who has the contract. For example, flight suits used to come in even sizes, such as 6838, 7040, 7042, etc. Then the sizes changed to numbers like 7345. With the new OD nomex flight gear, the size range is much wider with fewer increments. You can get 7344 or 7348, but not 7346.
Gone are the days of "Size 13", leaving it up to the individual to figure out what height/chest combo Size 13 would fit.
|June 15 2005, 8:06 AM |
The older sizes kind of worked in threes. I'm assuming these were the ones you are talking about. When it comes to size 1,2 and 3, they were for a short person skinny, regular , and rotund in that order. Sizes 4,5,and 6 wrere for a medium height skinny, regular and rotund, and sizes 7,8 and 9 were for normal height, skinny, regular and rotund. The sizes following were similar, although I believe there were 4 variatoins (went up to size 13) because of the variations once you got up to the taller people.
Until the sizes were learned, it was always confusing when a guy found that the size 7 and 8 coveralls were actually smaller on him than the size 6 which was cutting into his crotch.
The current cadpat is using the "inches" combination such as 7044 which means 5'10" tall with a 44 chest. I seem to recall there had been attempts at going to metric measurements, but noone over the age of 35 could understand what the heck they translated to.
I have used the word rotund here because one should no longer say "oh, you need a size short fat coverall"; that can get you a harrassment allegation these days.
|Rich in Vancouver|
Combat Clothing Sizes
|June 15 2005, 9:07 AM |
The sizes in the 70's could be confusing.
I was 6', 190 lbs, but wore size 1 Short Small Combat trousers. The "Short Small" part of the designation meant that they bloused nicely at the top of my combat boots without too much excess material. I did wear shirts/jackets that better reflected my size though.
Re: Combat Clothing Sizes
|June 15 2005, 2:22 PM |
Thanks guys for clearing that up for me, I was talking about the 80's system.
canadian Forces clothing size
|December 29 2017, 7:08 PM |
Actually when I was serving there were 3 sizes at the QM
1) too big
2) too small
3) effing lucky