Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) ... Edited April 29, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob01 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 Guys feel free to start another thread for this argument and not clutter up my thread. This thread is about Invictus Practicals gear. Not trademarks or other arguments. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter413 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Not being on this to be loved.....being on this explain something that Jesse tried to slander. I'm not being the bad guy here....rather. Just doing the damage control that Jesse set me up for. Hunter....you are as well wrong. I am sure you have ties to IP.....but if you want to continue to say that that I've copied.....then maybe you should buy one when they are available.....and test them out. You will find that any claim I've made here to be true..... I'll not go into the way you posted a response to my company FB page, nor the way you responded when I tried to actually have a meaningfull conversation with you. Basically, I really don't personal time for the way you or Jesse act off the forums.....but the way you act on the forums will give clue to those reading how you attack in private....thank you...you were blocked as was Jesse. Regards' Tim Okay so send me a return label for my two quad loads I have of yours and swap them for this when they come out and I'll try it out. In regards to my response it is screenshoted to the IP facebook page and I don't think anyone would say that I was being malicious. I actually stated that I ran your 6 up for a long time because the first gen of the IP caddies as well as your quads had shell retention issues. As far as the post on your fb page I said yours had issues which you admitted to me that they did (in the screenshots) and told everyone they could buy the one that works from IP now. Also yes I have ties to IP but just like any other company that I do I have those ties because no only does their product work and make me more competitive I can also talk to them and have respect for them. You questioning my manhood and then blocking me before I could even respond was quite amusing and I will continue to laugh at you for a while. So please keep working your "angle" if it makes the mouse trap better than so be it and I'm glad for it but don't question how I responded when you were the one acting like a fool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter413 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Guys feel free to start another thread for this argument and not clutter up my thread. This thread is about Invictus Practicals gear. Not trademarks or other arguments. Thanks. I really am sorry Rob I didn't intend on doing that at all. I can't start a new one or I would have. One positive is that its at the top of the forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter413 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 There are only so many aspects to our beloved game and every invention or innovation is going to be improved upon without a doubt. If Taccom wasn't copying the EXACT design then maybe they should have at minimum not put out a photo that looks EXACTLY like a hulk colored IP caddie. Or at least not be offended immediately when they receive criticism for doing so. Well said. Jesse will you start a new thread? And add my screenshots from the IP fbook page because I'm obviously new on here and have no idea how to post a photo and can't start a thread bc of post count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urikagold Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is some of the best advertising for IP caddies ever! Everyone has already been talking about them and they have been on backorder so that means they are selling well. Now even if guys weren't considering buying them, which they should, they will be logging onto the FB, Instagram, or website and at least give them a look. Kevin couldn't have drawn it up better himself. I am sure the Tac Com "version" is based on a new and untapped method of loading a shotgun. I think if it hadn't looked like a copy this thread wouldn't have gone down the road that it has. Invictus Practical has come out with something that will be an industry leader for quite some time. I have dang near tried every caddie on the market including the Tac Com. They were my least favorite of any of them. That is the truth and not just me jumping on the hate train. So far for me the IP caddies take the cake and I will be a loyal customer and advocate for as long as Kevin's product ups my game. I think that anyone who has or will have IP caddies will say the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireman489 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) . Edited April 29, 2014 by fireman489 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) ... Edited April 29, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thank you Jesse.....that proves my point greatly!!......you da man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gondo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 So the difference is the taccom caddy added a hook on the end of the shell holder so you cant quad load? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) ... Edited April 29, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Well I got no dog in this hunt as I don't load with these types of holders, but to answer tacticalCOWBOY's question from the last page. No these cat fights don't happen very often, but when they do Jesse is almost always involved.......or me but I get a pass this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) . Edited April 29, 2014 by alma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 It's nice to see innovation and it's clear to me that TacCom is taking some successful elements of IP and looking to improve on them. The interlocking design for holding shells was the reason I was interested in the IP. That element has not been copied but an alternative method for retention with different benefits and deficiencies has been presented. The arms race for shotgun carriers continues and I will be interested to see how performance improves. Not sure about what elements IP had patented but I would suppose TacCom did its homework before coming out with an alternative. Another question for the open forum, how does having the shells all side by side compare with the 8Up style that separates the two pairs of quads? I am concerned about grabbing too many. The shells stacked close together like the 2.8 is a huge space saver but you gotta be more deliberate. The Q8 spaced sister allows me to grip it an rip it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob01 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 I like more space as well. The fine motor skills for me falter some with the speed and stress of competition so it's easier to reach down and grab just 4 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I like more space as well. The fine motor skills for me falter some with the speed and stress of competition so it's easier to reach down and grab just 4 or 2. Exactly. IMHO The 2.8 is a must have for the big shotgun stage with a full belt. The varying height makes grabbing a set without disrupting the next set much better. I plan to stack two tight together for 16 rounds in about the space of most 8 rd Caddy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) It's nice to see innovation and it's clear to me that TacCom is taking some successful elements of IP and looking to improve on them. The interlocking design for holding shells was the reason I was interested in the IP. That element has not been copied but an alternative method for retention with different benefits and deficiencies has been presented. The arms race for shotgun carriers continues and I will be interested to see how performance improves. Not sure about what elements IP had patented but I would suppose TacCom did its homework before coming out with an alternative. Another question for the open forum, how does having the shells all side by side compare with the 8Up style that separates the two pairs of quads? I am concerned about grabbing too many. Good question on all 8 being side by side.....the first ones to do that was Carbon Arms. And then, while not well known....Mark Otto. Now IP is doing it. Makes for a compact setup for sure. It seems that with AP's and our dedicated 4 load.....most people can't rip 2 out without disturbing the other. Some can however. So we decided to follow suit with slamming the shells closer together but trying to add yet another benefit of making the angle more practical for side grabs of the belt and chest rigs. Should make for faster and smoother grabs. It's just a more ergonomical design that makes sense and is the next progression. I suspect that you will see more of this feature in the near future. A couple of our shooters are making plates to present the shells canted out some so they do not have pull straight out from the body....so we incorporated that into the new design. While using our proven clip design from the QUADLOAD's, we've just tilted them out so that the angle is pretty radical....pretty much the same that our shooters have done. Yes.....you need to be more deliberate for sure. But you get an option of 2 or 4 and a smaller space....saving about a 1/2 of an inch over our QUAD's....which can be HUGE in this game of "on the belt space" on big shotgun stages. Edited April 28, 2014 by TRUBL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) ... Edited April 29, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 It's nice to see innovation and it's clear to me that TacCom is taking some successful elements of IP and looking to improve on them. The interlocking design for holding shells was the reason I was interested in the IP. That element has not been copied but an alternative method for retention with different benefits and deficiencies has been presented. The arms race for shotgun carriers continues and I will be interested to see how performance improves. Not sure about what elements IP had patented but I would suppose TacCom did its homework before coming out with an alternative. Another question for the open forum, how does having the shells all side by side compare with the 8Up style that separates the two pairs of quads? I am concerned about grabbing too many. Good question on all 8 being side by side.....the first ones to do that was Carbon Arms. And then, while not well known....Mark Otto. Now IP is doing it. Makes for a compact setup for sure. It seems that with AP's and our dedicated 4 load.....most people can't rip 2 out without disturbing the other. Some can however. So we decided to follow suit with slamming the shells closer together but trying to add yet another benefit of making the angle more practical for side grabs of the belt and chest rigs. Should make for faster and smoother grabs. It's just a more ergonomical design that makes sense and is the next progression. I suspect that you will see more of this feature in the near future.A couple of our shooters are making plates to present the shells canted out some so they do not have pull straight out from the body....so we incorporated that into the new design. While using our proven clip design from the QUADLOAD's, we've just tilted them out so that the angle is pretty radical....pretty much the same that our shooters have done. Yes.....you need to be more deliberate for sure. But you get an option of 2 or 4 and a smaller space....saving about a 1/2 of an inch over our QUAD's....which can be HUGE in this game of "on the belt space" on big shotgun stages. Geez msn go spoil your own threads. It's rude to be posting in the competitions threads. Tacky! Hey Jesse....keep proving me right.....you da man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) . Edited April 29, 2014 by alma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) ... Edited April 29, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Jesse, have you done any mixed belts-loading with weak hand and load two or load four? Its hard to quad load while moving. I really like the 2.8 Invictus carrier I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 It's nice to see innovation and it's clear to me that TacCom is taking some successful elements of IP and looking to improve on them. The interlocking design for holding shells was the reason I was interested in the IP. That element has not been copied but an alternative method for retention with different benefits and deficiencies has been presented. The arms race for shotgun carriers continues and I will be interested to see how performance improves. Not sure about what elements IP had patented but I would suppose TacCom did its homework before coming out with an alternative. Another question for the open forum, how does having the shells all side by side compare with the 8Up style that separates the two pairs of quads? I am concerned about grabbing too many. Good question on all 8 being side by side.....the first ones to do that was Carbon Arms. And then, while not well known....Mark Otto. Now IP is doing it. Makes for a compact setup for sure. It seems that with AP's and our dedicated 4 load.....most people can't rip 2 out without disturbing the other. Some can however. So we decided to follow suit with slamming the shells closer together but trying to add yet another benefit of making the angle more practical for side grabs of the belt and chest rigs. Should make for faster and smoother grabs. It's just a more ergonomical design that makes sense and is the next progression. I suspect that you will see more of this feature in the near future.A couple of our shooters are making plates to present the shells canted out some so they do not have pull straight out from the body....so we incorporated that into the new design. While using our proven clip design from the QUADLOAD's, we've just tilted them out so that the angle is pretty radical....pretty much the same that our shooters have done. Yes.....you need to be more deliberate for sure. But you get an option of 2 or 4 and a smaller space....saving about a 1/2 of an inch over our QUAD's....which can be HUGE in this game of "on the belt space" on big shotgun stages. Geez msn go spoil your own threads. It's rude to be posting in the competitions threads. Tacky! ...Because it was obviously him who introduced the new TacCom carriers into this thread in the first place. Tacky. Thank you Alma.....Jesse was the one who wasn't able to spot the difference, but was able to bring it in......I wish he hadn't. I didn't want to be in this thread. I think Jesse has something for me.....and he won't let anything pass with out trying to put a dig on me. I'll not play his game....I do however, want people to know that I've not copied a design....any more than anyone who has come out with a QUAD set up after the one I came out with 1.5 years ago.....well....they look the same.....but even I have the smarts to figure out that they are different in subtle ways. Just like our current design. Jesse must of missed that........but he did see it....even proved me right. So I'm not sure why he is still doggin me. I was just answering your question....as you had mentioned TACCOm in your post. Alma, if I was out of line.......I am sorry. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Jesse, have you done any mixed belts-loading with weak hand and load two or load four? Its hard to quad load while moving. I really like the 2.8 Invictus carrier I got. I can run pretty fast while loading. Part that slows you down is grabbing shells. It's not in a nice box like the old days of weakhand loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobollocks Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I got mine in from back order, and I've been able to get some use in with it for practice and a couple of club matches. As others have mentioned, Kevin is awesome to deal with, and he really goes out of his way to take care of his customers. The 2.8s themselves are SOLID as a rock. Holy hell. It's nice to see big slabs of aluminum when more and more gear is being made out of plastic. Though the price is a bit hard to swallow compared to something like a Kydex pistol mag carrier, you really do see where the money goes. It's actually easier for me to grab 4 with these than it is 2, and I think that's a function of how my hand finds the shells in the first place. With my FSLs, grabbing 2 is super, super easy, but shells tend to shift from side to side when I grab them, so loading 4 is tough. Everyone's shaped a little different, and every course is different, though, so it's certainly not an end-all comparison. I'll probably wind up doing some comparisons, but since loading 4 requires me to be more deliberate and loading 2 requires a bit more movement, I bet it'll come out the same. Even though the IPs are compact, if you need 16-24 shells on your belt for a long SG course, you'll have to put some care into orienting them so they don't interfere with each other. The retention is excellent. I haven't proned out with them, but they hold the shells very securely when I'm running around. In short, Kevin's the man and he makes an excellent caddy in every possible respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now