What are your thought on long waterproof coats for outdoor excursions?

>>1037432
Heavy and restrict movement. Their only valid application is horseback riding, for which they were invented and intended.

>>1037436
What is it with /out/ being a weak bunch of pussies?

>>1037440
What is it with /out/ ridiculing people that don't like to needlessly inconvenience themselves?

>>1037440
Please list all applications for a long waterproof coat OTHER than horseback riding where a shorter and lighter coat is not infinitely superior.

>>1037432
they r good especially for outdoor excursions

REASONS why r good:
long
waterproof
coat

>>1037446
A shorter coat is called a jacket. How heavy is half a meter of extra materials also see >>1037447
I bet you all choose a do it all survival knife because you get fatigue using an axe

>>1037432
>>>/cgl/
>>>/fa/

>>1037453
I wanted some actual opinions before I sunk any money into one instead of just "clothing is too heavy for me", It seems quite practical to me but just wanted to know if there's anything I might have overlooked

>>1037463
The obvious advantage to a large coat is that you can easily put it on over what you're wearing vs a soft shell jacket and pants that you'd have to change into, but in that case a poncho might work just as well if you don't mind having your legs drenched. I guess it depends on the climate where you're going, I wouldn't be hauling around a big coat in the desert in the summer, but I would have a poncho.

>>1037474
Yes. You're overlooking the fact that any coat or jacket or other upper garment that extends below the upper thigh, ESPECIALLY if it's heavy such as found in all trench coats and drover coats, restricts movement and needlessly tires you out.

As pointed out in the very first fucking post.

>>1037474
This was my thinking, I did want a long hard shell with ventilation but those are hard to find and I doubt I'd find one for less than £100

>>1037477
Whoops meant for >>1037463

>>1037436
>>1037446
Ugh, this exact same thread, and this exact same faggot talking smack about long coats.

>What are trench coats?
Specifically designed coats made for the rough hostile OUTDOOR conditions of trench warfare in WWI. Why did every military issue long coats for 100s of years? Armies are very /out/.

>Dusters are only designed for horseback riding
Dude, horseback riding IS an outdoor activity. Besides dusters were designed for more than just that you imbecile. The Texas rangers wore that shit for weeks on end in the harsh conditions of frontier Texas. They'd need more than a simple frock to deal with those tough conditions.

We fucking had a thread about this shit like two weeks ago. I told you off then and I'm telling you off again now. Fuck you for not learning your lesson the first time. If you don't like a coat, then don't wear it. Don't go on the internet and start making shit up. Get fucked.

File: Rain_Kilt.jpg (1MB, 1540x1155px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1540x1155px

>>1037463
I say go for it dude. It's not in vogue so you might get an odd look or two. But if you're out hiking in the woods, who cares? I prefer ponchos and rain capes because I can put my pack underneath them.

The funny part about rain gear is people have started making "rain kilts" and extensions for their jackets because their bottom halves are getting wet. Pic related looks like a very familiar length. Talk about reinventing the wheel.

>>1037484
>blah blah blah shit from over 100 years ago as if it's still relevant blah blah blah
They're fucking obsolete for anything other than horseback riding, which I specifically mentioned as the SOLE valid reason for having one in the very first fucking response ITT.

Trench coats historically were not waterproof and today usually are not waterproof (as well as primarily being a fashion accessory for suits or women), so they're irrelevant. They were an inelegant solution back then as well, and used mainly because they were cheap and easy to mass produce and not because they were noticeably better than other outer garments of the era.

Dusters and drover's coats are long specifically to provide brush protection to the legs while on horseback. This is also why they have the split back and the leg straps. They ARE NOT appropriate for ANYTHING OTHER THAN HORSEBACK, full fucking stop.

>We fucking had a thread about this shit like two weeks ago. I told you off then and I'm telling you off again now
You're still wrong and you're still mad. Wow. Also I wasn't in that thread or even knew of its existence, so seems like the majority consensus is you're a larping retard.

Comparing a raincoat vs. long jacket/parka+trousers, the coat is actually lighter. It also restricts movement though, which makes it unsuitable for all that fancy alpine climbing everyone obviously does.
On the other hand, a parka already protects you down to your ass. Your pants are also usually only one layer, quick drying and your legs produce a lot of warmth when you're moving, so getting wet there really isn't as much of a problem.
Either way, rain protection is supposed to be worn for short times only, so you either get a short hardshell under your gear, or a poncho/cape/whatever over it. I've never seen a technical raincoat.
>>1037484
>>1037560
Most (infantry) armies used wool coats or cloaks (cotton cloaks later on) against the rain. I don't know about the rangers (they probably had to protect their clothes from dust and brush so a cotton overcoat makes sense). Trench coats were a fashion piece for officers that couldn't be bothered to wear a rough and clumsy wool or cotton cloak. Soldiers didn't get them.

>>1037560
Dude, I don't know what the fuck your problem is or why you're such an insufferable cunt.

>I said 100s of years. Trench coats were still in use past the Vietnam war in the US. They're still in use in other nation's services as actual combat gear. Long coats were in use for hundreds of years, not just 100 years ago you dumbfuck.

>Historically were not waterproof
Where the fuck are you coming up with this? What are oiled and waxed fabrics?

>Today usually are not waterproof
Again, what kind of fucking world do you live in? Maybe some of the old ones you find in your mom's closet have lost their DWR treatment, but what the fuck are you talking about.

>Inelegant solution
Every side used them. If they were so inelegant, why did virtually all militaries adopt them. Why the widespread use for so long? Why did soldiers hang on to these ineffective, inelegant coats when they got back? Why did the civilian sector start manufacturing and selling these coats en masse? THEY WERE FUNCTIONAL AND PRACTICAL.

>Dusters provide brush protection to legs
What are chaps cocksucker?

>Split back and leg straps
Sure, some adaptations were made for horseback riding. Otherwise they would be a TRENCH COAT. And you know where people generally ride horses? OUTSIDE. If you can be comfortable in a coat while horseback riding, you can be comfortable being outside and hiking.

I don't even care that much about these fucking coats, but your stupidity enrages me. I don't understand why you hate long coats but seem to have some shitty half baked ideas about their history. My best guess is that you were "that" guy in highschool, who everyone laughed at because he wore a trench. You probly had a fedora too and did quite a few cringy things that you look back on now and hate yourself for. It's not our fault, and it's not the long coat's fault either. So fuck off with your bad attitude and shitty ideas.

>>1037600
No army used trench coats very much, or for soldiers at all. You might be thinking of greatcoats, which were for warmth first (and you can tough out a rain in it too). They're multifunctional.

NOBODY except for a very limited range of mounted people used cotton or even waxed cotton dusters. They're only useful against rain (if they're waxed, otherwise not for very long) and dust/brush, they're heavy and they're more expensive and less useful than a poncho or cape.

File: Plash Palatka.jpg (11KB, 261x193px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 261x193px

>>1037612
I use a plash palatka

>>1037432
see
>>1037436

Though, I used mine exclusively for fence repair during storms and used a 4-wheeler instead of a horse.

File: Back in nam.jpg (45KB, 705x1024px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 705x1024px

>>1037432

If you want it for hiking long distances then go for it. The only reason so many waterproofs are short today is because of climbing as the harness needs to fit at the waist and not be obstructed.

Because of this, most people are /fa/ggots who think the climbing jacket is a more fashionable hiking piece then the full length coat.

Full length coats were the norm right up to about the 80s. By this point, climbing was slowly starting to become a more popular sport.

>>1038035
Yeah, pretty much this. It's sort of like mountain bikes. Before the late 80's/early 90's most bikes were for riding on roads and were pretty good at it.

Then mountain biking became the "in" thing, and everyone started buying those instead- even if they were never going to use it for that purpose.

Now people ride mountain bikes around on paths and streets and don't realize how inefficient it is, or how much more comfortable they would be on a purpose made pavement bike.

The same can be said of fenders on bikes. Everyone wants to look like a pro.

I terms of warmth putting on another shirt is as good for keeping warmth as a heavy overcoat. A light poncho can be carried along and throwen on quickly. It can also double up as a ground sheet or tarp.

Overall big coats are only useful on day trips.

ITT:
Autist gets autistic about the rules of using long jackets.

>>1037504
Those guys are faggots

>>1037504
What do the plastic rods do.

File: disgusted.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>1038062
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>1037600
>trench coats were still in use past the Vietnam war in the US
Only as part of the *dress* uniform. Literally no military anywhere on the planet has produced one for field use past WW1, and no military on the planet has issued one for field use past WW2 (and those that got stuck using the WW1 era ones in WW2 were doing their damndest to replace them, because they were, gasp, heavy and impeded movement!).

>what are oiled and waxed fabrics?
Never used by any military because it was expensive and fragile compared to wool. It also didn't breathe so was only used in cold weather by the cowboys/Rangers/[insert another small niche group of horseback people who might have sometimes carried a gun you'll pull out of your ass next]

>the rest of that
You really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and it's becoming quite clear.

Go the fuck away.

File: IMG_20170614_173916310.jpg (559KB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 2592x1456px

>>1037600
>Your stupidity enrages me

Sounds like the fedora would be more suited for you friend.

>>1038252
haha bein this salty over fuckin coats, never change /out/

>>1038086
they're sounding rods for my giant member