Can anyone id my sleeping bag? (so I know it's rating)

[RAPPLEBY2000]

Hi i bought a bargain sleeping bag for £4 at a car boot sale.
I took a brief look at the bag before buying and knew it was a "90 pattern British army sleeping bag" and I cvould see it was in good condition.
When I got it home I wanted to give it a good wash but sadly the previous owner removed all the care and ID lables from the bag.
From a quick google I've been lead to believe there are 2 versions of the "90 Patt", "temperate" and "arctic".
With no label and not much knowledge on the bag, I watched a couple of Youtube videos one of which reviewed the bag (or similar bag) inside-out so I'm hoping for better insight here...

Here are the features:
it has 2 large large internal mesh pockets to dry socks.
on the outside a long webbing loop/handle on the foot end
it doesn't have internal ties to attatch a liner (which may well have been removed)
a 36" front zip with velcroed zip baffle
hood draw cords (just missing the cordlocks)
It weighs around 3kg
In the stuff sack (without compression) it stands 18" tall and around 11" wide
The stuff sack id (which i realise is a different product) says:

"Compression sack
(reduced shape)

2000
MSN 845-99-517-2656
ST1A /1328 AMDT 3"
​

any views greatly accepted,
Cheers.

 

[Erbswurst]

Perhaps you should ask an other question:

"My military sleeping bag weights 3 kg and is xxx cm long.
Is it a 90' arctic sleeping bag?"

Photo on top. Finished!

Usually a 3 kg sleeping bag is a warm winter sleeping bag.
That's for sure.

More I can't tell you. I am german.

 

[RAPPLEBY2000]

Hi sorry don't have photo handy,
and....i like to tell the whole story,

 

[Erbswurst]

Yes, ok.

But do it!

How long?

How wide at the shoulders?

How wide at the knees?

How wide at the feet?

Often sleeping bags are existing in a large and a small version.

The german military sleeping bags often are existing in three sizes!

And of course that usually results in a different weight.

 

[The Lord Poncho]

the 90 pattern sleeping bags that i've used have varied hugely in warmth and associated bulk/weight. There were various contracts let (an early one i had was manufactured by Mountain Equipment - particularly heavy and warm!), later versions i've used have been a lot thinner. Really just depends on the contract and how many times it has been put through the wash. I've never used one that wouldn't be good down to around 0c though.

 

[Billy-o]

Yes, those army sleeping bags provide great exercise, carrying them about. You'll sleep well, no matter what the rating

 

[MikeLA]

Great sleeping bags and the most important item of kit giving you a good nights sleep. Worth its weight and bulk. Think we used to get ours dry cleaned

 

[Erbswurst]

The washing mashine and the compression bag destroy the loft, but not the weight.

That is the problem with used army sleeping bags:

They are heavy and bulky and they stay it. But if you can buy them from the army they aren't any longer as warm as they had been before.

I use a lot of used army stuff. No where you get so high quality for such a small money.

But the sleeping bag I recommend to buy new!

I use the Snugpack Special Forces System (SF1 and SF2, Adapter and Bivvy bag) it works very well and is handmade in Britain.

But every civil sleeping bag is better for hiking than a used military sleeping bag.

For car and boat of course a surplus bag is a good option.

 

[Billy-o]

That's the thing about down bags .. even good ones .. they start out with some high rating and it is a true one, but sleep in it a couple of times and squish the feathers, the loft compresses and the rating goes down. I have found they kind of settle at a certain point, more or less and stay at that temperature for the useful life of the bag. I have a western mountaineering one and it definitely isn't the -20 it was at one time, which is a shame. My -10 one isn't either, but that just makes it a better summer bag

Try the trick of putting it in the tumble dryer on low with a couple of tennis balls in there too. It'll loosen the down up a bit. Well, it should .. depends how used it is. It'll still weigh 20 kilos at the end of the process though On the bright side, it will also be bigger

 

[tiger stacker]

The horizontal time machine, aka the bouncing bomb replaced by a modular system that requires a liner to avoid soiling from ahem detritus. So many were made its hard to find one pristine out there. There must be somewhere.

 

[Insel Affen]

But it sounds like the old issue sleeping bag from mid 90s which became the Arctic one. If it's about 3kg and packs down to about a 1/3 of the size of a bergen, then it's probably one of those.

(Tried to check the system for them, but it was a bad NSN. There's a number missing from the NSN, may be 8465 to start with - but you are right that the compression sack has a different NSN).

A great bag though.

 

[Duggie Bravo]

I thought the advantage of artificial fill is that the loft isn’t as impacted by leaving it in the stuff sack? Not compressed, just in the bag.

I have two issue bags, I presume they are arctic - we use them for hammocking in winter.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Buck]

Not the most up to date list but its on this one.

Doss Kit:

8305-99-130-2242 - bungee cord

8465-99-310-9203 - Thermarest


8465-99-084-5093 - Sleeping Bag, Arctic. Medium
8465-99-314-3139 - Sleeping bag, SNUGPAK CODE GREEN Softie 12 Osprey 4 season
8465-99-978-9194 - Sleeping Bag (Bouncing Bomb)

8465-99-517-2656 - Compression Sack
8465-99-769-7040 - Cover, Sleeping bag, DPM (Bivvy Bag)

8465-99-766-4578 - Net, Mosquito, Field Lightweight Sleeping Equipment. ST 3a/4408

 

[Joe tahkahikew]

Does it matter what its called? Why don't you just test it outside? Is it below freezing in UK ?

 

[Old Bones]

I thought the advantage of artificial fill is that the loft isn’t as impacted by leaving it in the stuff sack? Not compressed, just in the bag.

I have two issue bags, I presume they are arctic - we use them for hammocking in winter.


Sent using Tapatalk

Synthetic doesnt like being compressed in storage, even less than down (which will spring back with a proper wash, etc). I have never left either my synthetic or my down bags in their stuff sacks for storage - it just kills their loft. its really easy to just put them in a large sack for storage, which will really extend their life.

 

[RAPPLEBY2000]

Hi thanks for your replies,
I managed to find another bag that is identical in size weight and features.

it DOES have a label marked thus:

SLEEPING BAG
JL-8465-99-130-9145
SL32A/5614
1992
POLYWARM PRODUCTS LTD.
​

Just "sleeping bag" well that dosn't help anyone does it LOL!

Not sure what the "JL-" means on the NSN number I guess it's the manufacturer.
I did a quick google of the NSN and it's described on a couple of places place as the old school sleepingbag but as
Insel Affen mentioned at the time it was re-asigned the arctic sleeping bag,
my quest is complete.

​

(it also mentions DO NOT dry clean!)

 

[Buck]

The NSN is for a standard issue Sleeping System, it's rated down to -15 (when new) and has a synthetic lining.

 

[Billy-o]

Synthetic doesnt like being compressed in storage, even less than down (which will spring back with a proper wash, etc). I have never left either my synthetic or my down bags in their stuff sacks for storage - it just kills their loft. its really easy to just put them in a large sack for storage, which will really extend their life.

Yes, the big advantage of artificial fill is that you can keep warm in it when its wet.

The advantages of down are lightness, compactibiliity and breathability. But, you have to be super anal about not letting it get wet as the loft collapses. Also, goose down nice and light and pluffy (expensive)... duck feathers heavy and lumpy with less loft and many pointed pokey parts (cheap)

Did you try putting it in the dryer with a couple of tennis balls yet?

 

[Old Bones]

Yes, the big advantage of artificial fill is that you can keep warm in it when its wet.

The advantages of down are lightness, compactibiliity and breathability. But, you have to be super anal about not letting it get wet as the loft collapses. Also, goose down nice and light and pluffy (expensive)... duck feathers heavy and lumpy with less loft and many pointed pokey parts (cheap)

Did you try putting it in the dryer with a couple of tennis balls yet?

Thanks to hydropobic down and DWR shells. the idea that you have to be super careful with down is much less of an issue than it used to be, and frankly, I get the impression that a lot of the people who bought synthetic because of that advice tend to stick to it because it justifies what they bought. Synthetic can be fine, but my old Snugpak isnt all that lofty these days, and really takes an effort to get it into a stuff sack, even though its more 2 season than the 4 it started out. The reality is that you dont want to get any sleeping bag wet - synthetic or down, which is why you always put it in a decent dry bag, loft it out, etc. Yes, synthetic will keep you warmer while wet, but its no fun.

The reason why the army uses synthetic is pretty clear - more robust, will give limited warmth when wet, can chuck into a washing machine, etc. It doesnt need a long life span, because it will get wrecked or replaced well before the loft gives out. And thats why they use modular systems - one summer, one winter = a super warm bag when your in Norway, but not at too high a price.

If your a civilian, you wont bother, for the most part. MH and some others will do good synthetic bags , but looking at the civilian market, the mid and top level will all be down. And down had got a lot cheaper in real terms over the past couple of decades - there is still a hundred quid difference between the two, but Alpkit etc had really helped to close the gap. And duck feathers, from Alibaba, if you want to take a risk!

I just let my down bag loft in its storage bag. Sending it off to be cleaned every couple of years is fine, not too expensive (its much less hassle, for one thing), and really makes a difference to the loft.

 

[Billy-o]

Maybe that's so now, Old Bones, and it is a lovely thought.

I had a Rab down jacket three winters ago - wiht treated waterproof down. Turned out to be a bit of a fail in the wet, but maybe I was expecting too much of it. It went back, anyway