The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Ergonomic Load Bearing Systems 

Author: Blackhawk Products Group 

Document No.: 229710 

Date Received: February 2010 

Award Number: 2006-IJ-CX-K039 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 

NIJ Funding Opportunity 2006-NIJ-1193 

NIJ Award 2006-IJ-CX-K039 

Officer Safety Equipment 

 

ERGONOMIC LOAD BEARING SYSTEMS

Submitted by: Blackhawk Products Group 

 6160 Commander Parkway 

 Norfolk, Virginia 23502 

This project was supported by Award No. 2006-IJ-CX-K039 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. NIJ defines publications as any planned, written, 

visual or sound material substantively based on the project, formally prepared by the grant recipient for 

dissemination to the public. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... ..........4 

2.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................... .4 

3.0 Outlining the Problem ....................................................................................5 

3.1 A Brief History of Police Equipment ......................................... ..........5 

3.2 Enter the Duty Belt ...............................................................................5 

3.3 Physical Problems Caused By The Duty Belt .........................................7 

3.4 The Issue of Appearance .........................................................................8 

3.5 Holistic Approach ....................................................................................8 

4.0 Initial Design Approaches and Concepts ........................................................9 

5.0 The Selected Suspender/Keeper System .........................................................11 

5.1 Description of Suspender/Keeper Systems Selected for Field Testing.....11 

 5.1.1 Boa Dial-Adjustable Version ....................................................11 

 5.1.2 Velcro Strap Adjustable Version ..............................................11 

5.2 Modifications to the Officer’s Uniform Shirt ..........................................12 

6.0 Field Testing ...................................................................................................................12 

6.1 Round I ....................................................................................................12 

6.2 Round II ...................................................................................................13

 

6.3 Round III...........................................................................13 

6.4 Field Testing Data and Feedback .............................................................14 

7.0 Results and Findings ........................................................................................................14 

7.1 Communicating with Field Testers; Gathering Data & Feedback.........14 

7.2 Positive Findings ......................................................................................15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
2 

 7.2.1 Increased Comfort .....................................................................15 

 7.2.2 No Need to Keep “Hitching Up” the Duty Belt .......... ...........15 

 7.2.3 Other Comments ........................................................................15 

7.3 Negative Comments ............................................................. 16 

 7.3.1 Discomfort in Wearing the Duty Belt Suspenders ................16 

 7.3.2 Difficulty in Attaching the Suspenders to the Duty Belt..........17 

 7.3.3 Restricted Freedom of Movement ...................................17 

 7.3.4 “Rocking” of the Duty Belt ..........................................17 

 7.3.5 No Room on Duty Belt to Attach Suspender Keepers .............17 

7.4 Summary of Feedback from Field Testers .....................................18 

7.5 Areas for Prototype Improvement, Further Development or 

 Research ............................................................................19 

7.5.1 Comfort of the Harness Straps on Neck & Shoulders.......................19 

 7.5.2 Chest Strap ...................................................................................19 

 7.5.3 Method of Attachment to Duty Belt ............................................19 

 7.5.4 Instructions for Uniform Shirt Modification ........................20 

 7.5.5 Instructions for Use of the Suspenders ....................................... 20 

 7.5.6 Suspender and Modified Uniform Shirt Appearance ..................21 

 7.5.7 Adaptation to Unconventional Duty Shirt Designs .....................21 

 7.5.8 Ease of Detaching and Re-Attaching ..........................................21 

 7.5.9 Sizing to Fit Smaller or Shorter-Waisted Officers ..................22 

 7.5.10 Problems with Abrasion and Fraying ........................................22 

 7.5.11 Back-Up Handgun Holster or Knife Pouch ...............................22 

 7.5.12 Slipping Adjustment Straps ..........................................22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
3 

8.0 Plans for Continued Development of the Concealable Duty Belt Suspender System.......22 

9.0 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................23 

10.0 Appendices 

10.1 Photo of non-concealable (traditional) duty suspenders.....................24 

10.2 Photos of equipment shirts, duty overshirts and tactical vests..............25 

10.3 Photos or Diagrams of Early Prototypes.......................................26 

10.4 Photo of Boa Adjustable System...............................................58 

10.5 Photo of Velcro Strap Adjustable System....................................59 

 

10.6 Uniform Shirt Modification Instruction Sheet.................................62 

10.7 Professional Biographies of Key Project Team Members...................63 

10.8 Field Test Telephone Survey Form (blank)...................................66 

10.9 Characteristics of Field Testers................................................70 

10.10 Tabulated Field Test Results..................................................72 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
4 

1.0 Introduction and Project History

In 2006, the NIJ awarded a grant to Blackhawk Products Group 

(“BLACKHAWK!”) to develop and test ergonomic load bearing systems, with the 

goal of alleviating the discomfort, fatigue and chronic physical problems 

reportedly suffered by many police officers as the result of the weight of their 

equipment-laden duty belts pressing on their hips, nerves and lower backs over 

many years in uniform. As stated by the NIJ in its “Solicitation for Concept 

Papers - Officer Safety Equipment” (Oct. 2005, CFDA Number 16,560), “Law 

enforcement officers need more ergonomic load-bearing systems that better 

distribute equipment weight over their bodies. Present equipment setups tend to 

cause back injuries.” The NIJ did not request a scientific or medical study 

confirming the injuries reportedly caused by police duty belts, but rather sought 

practical alternatives to the conventional duty belt as the method of carrying the 

officer’s equipment. At BLACKHAWK!’s request, the deadline for completion of 

this project was extended by NIJ, ultimately to October 31, 2009. 

BLACKHAWK! has developed a concealable, under-the-shirt suspender system 

that transfers some of the duty belt’s weight to the officer’s shoulders, relieving 

weight and pressure on the officer’s lower back and hips. The prototype system 

has now been field tested with good results and positive feedback. This report 

provides the technical details of BLACKHAWK!’s work on this NIJ-funded 

project. 

2.0 Executive Summary

 Police duty belts, and the weight and shape of the equipment carried on 

them, not only cause discomfort and fatigue to the officers wearing them, but over 

the years of the officer’s career are believed to cause chronic physical problems for 

some officers, including, it is believed, serious back, leg, hip and nerve ailments. 

Due to the conservative nature of the U.S. police community, and the demand that 

officers present a traditional and sharp appearance in uniform, the solution to these 

problems most likely to be accepted by the greatest number of police agencies 

appears to be a concealable duty belt suspender system which is worn underneath

the officer’s uniform shirt. The suspenders are attached with keepers to the duty 

belt through small openings sewn into the officer’s uniform shirt for this purpose. 

After considering different conceptual approaches to the load-bearing problem, 

and creating and analyzing prototypes of several of these concepts, 

BLACKHAWK! developed two versions of a “concealed” duty belt suspender 

system. Both versions were initially field tested by a small group of experienced 

officers (Round I), after which one of the two versions was selected for further 

testing. This selected prototype version was then field tested by a second group of 

officers (Round II). After minor refinements, the prototype was further field tested 

by a third group of officers (Round III). In total, the three groups of field testers 

represented a wide range of individual body types, sizes, ages, degrees of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
5 

experience, and physical condition. Data and comments were gathered from a 

total of 20 field testers, comprising 12 males and 8 females. The field testers, who 

were primarily patrol officers, used the suspenders on the job for lengths of time 

generally ranging from a few weeks to over eight months. With a few notable 

exceptions discussed below, the majority of the testers found that the suspenders 

provided significant improvement in the comfort of wearing their duty belts, 

and/or relieved the waist, hip and back pain they regularly experienced when 

wearing their duty belts. Accordingly, with minor refinements in design and 

materials as indicated by the field testing feedback, it thus appears that concealable 

duty belt suspenders of the type developed through this program may relieve the 

discomfort reportedly caused by police duty belts for many officers. The prototype 

suspender system may also prevent or alleviate the chronic physical problems 

reportedly caused by the long-term wearing of duty belts, although an appropriate 

medical study would likely be needed to definitively make this determination. 

3.0 Outlining the Problem

 3.1. A Brief History of Police Equipment. Police officers in the United 

States have, for roughly the past 150 years, carried most of the essential tools of 

their trade on their belts. In the mid-nineteenth century, the sole tool, at least for 

the officer policing in the big Eastern cities, was a nightstick. By the 1870’s, a 

revolver was common, at least in the West, along with spare cartridges, often 

carried in leather loops on the belt. Soon, handcuffs were added. By the 1960’s, 

many police began to carry portable radios on their belts. Today, the police 

officer’s “duty belt,” as it is called, often supports from 10 to as much as 20 

pounds or more of equipment, typically including a semi-automatic pistol in a 

heavily-constructed, rigid duty holster, a magazine pouch with two spare pistol 

magazines containing 12-18 rounds of ammunition each, one or two pairs of 

handcuffs (one of the field testers reported carrying four pairs of handcuffs), a 

radio with batteries, a baton (solid or expandable), a flashlight, pepper spray, 

rubber gloves in a glove case, and possibly a Taser, spare Taser cartridges, a cell 

phone, a duty knife with glass breaker and seat-belt cutter, a citation book (at least 

for the foot patrol officer), keys, and other items. 

 3.2 Enter the Duty Belt. The duty belt that provides the foundation on 

which the officer’s tools are supported has traditionally been a heavy, rigid, leather 

belt of so-called “Sam Browne” style, 2-1/4” wide, with a square or rectangular 

metal buckle. The better leather belts are made of two layers of leather, glued and 

stitched tightly together, to increase the belt’s stiffness for the purpose of 

supporting the holstered handgun and other items it must carry. In order to provide 

some support for the weight of the equipment, as well as the solid foundation 

needed in order for the officer to draw his handgun effectively from many of the 

newer security holsters (which often require a forward or rearward rocking motion 

of the handgun to unlock it from the holster, thus requiring a holster which does 

not, itself, move on the belt during the draw), the duty belt is often attached to the 

trousers belt beneath it by several “keepers” spaced at intervals around the belt. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
6 

These keepers are leather or synthetic straps, typically 1⁄2” to 3⁄4” wide, that are 

placed around both the duty belt and the trousers belt beneath it, after which the 

keeper is fastened into a closed loop either with two metal snaps or with Velcro to 

hold the two belts together and thus restrict the duty belt’s movement on the user’s 

waist. Alternatively, duty belts are sometimes made with hook-and-loop 

(“Velcro”) material on their underside, to attach them, without keepers, to a 

trousers belt faced with corresponding Velcro material. 

 The paramount purpose of the duty belt is, of course, to allow the officer to 

carry his most important items of equipment in a manner that will make them both 

secure, and readily accessible when needed. Especially critical items the officer 

must be able to draw quickly during a confrontation, such as the handgun or the 

baton, need to be positioned where they are easily reachable – ideally, in fact, 

reachable by either hand. Putting the holstered handgun, expandable baton, or 

similar objects too far back on the belt, however, can make them press 

uncomfortably into the back of the car seat when the officer is seated in a patrol 

car. Also conflicting with the need for equipment accessibility, any large object, 

such as a holstered handgun or a vertical magazine pouch, may press intolerably 

into the officer’s stomach or ribs at the belt’s top edge, and into the officer’s upper 

thighs at the bottom edge, when the officer is seated in a police car – a problem 

that gets worse if the officer puts on weight, as many do, after leaving the 

academy. 

Ideally, the weight of equipment should be evenly distributed on the 

officer’s right and left sides, rather than having all of the heaviest objects on one 

side. Officers are cautioned to put no hard or rigid items of equipment very far 

rearward of their hips, where the item could cause kidney or spine injuries if the 

officer were to fall on his back, or even just by sitting in a car seat, grinding the 

object into his back for hours on every tour of duty. 

The typical female officer, as well as more slender male officers, has an 

additional problem in not having as much “real estate” – that is, as much expanse 

of duty belt on which to position their equipment – as do officers with larger 

waistlines. Officers report that some departments are unsympathetic to their 

problems in this regard, expecting the officer with the 26-inch waist to carry the 

same items of equipment – and in the same relative locations on the belt, no less – 

as the officer with the 40-inch waist. Here, as in the selection of footwear, it is just 

not the case that “one size fits all.” Indeed, the slimmer officer, whether male or 

female, may simply not be able to carry every item of equipment that a larger 

officer carries – at least, not without wearing a backpack in addition to the duty 

belt. For such officers, even finding space for an additional belt keeper to stabilize 

the duty holster may present a challenge. 

In the past, many agencies further supported their Sam Browne belts with a 

leather strap, diagonally crossing the officer’s chest and going over one shoulder, 

attached to the duty belt front and back. These chest straps were sometimes made 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
7 

of breakaway design, in case an attacker sought to manhandle an officer by 

grabbing him by the strap during a fight. The single, diagonal shoulder strap did, 

at least, serve to transfer some of the weight carried on the duty belt from the 

officer’s hips to one shoulder. 

3.3 Physical Problems Caused by the Duty Belt. Today, however, few 

agencies still use the shoulder strap. The result is that all of the considerable 

weight of the duty belt presses downward on the officer’s hips. Depending on the 

officer’s physique, physical condition, the material and construction of the belt 

itself, the equipment carried on it, and the nature of the officer’s duties (e.g., foot 

patrol, vehicle patrol, etc.), the heavy duty belt presses down hard on the officer’s 

hips, and as it does so it constricts the officer’s lower back and reportedly presses 

on sensitive nerves. Some officers find their belts constantly sliding downward 

over their hips, requiring them to tug the belt back up again and again throughout 

their tour of duty. Tightening the belt in an attempt to keep it from sliding down 

increases the discomfort to the officer’s back, hips, and nerves. The tight belt 

sometimes causes the rigid shank and belt loop of the modern, high-security duty 

holster to bite into the officer’s hip, resulting in pain or potential physical 

problems. 

The hard bottom edge of the duty belt, usually not contoured for the curved 

shape of the human torso, often cuts into the officer’s hips, causing discomfort and 

physical problems. Experience both of the project team and of law enforcement 

officers in general indicates that some of the modern synthetic belts with plastic 

stiffening inserts between their layers can be the worst offenders in this regard due 

to their unyielding construction, while traditional leather duty belts are in the 

middle range of comfort (or discomfort), and woven nylon belts can be the least 

offensive of the three, as they tend to flex more and conform better to the shape of 

the officer’s waist and hips. Nylon belts offer the additional advantage that they 

are more easily sterilized after potential exposure to pathogens borne in blood or 

other bodily fluids to which the officer’s equipment may be exposed. Widening 

(with sewn-on edge binding) and padding the bottom edge of the duty belt, as 

some manufacturers’ models do, can further improve officer comfort and reduce 

physical problems. Sitting in a patrol car for extended periods of time, as many 

officers do, relieves some of the weight from the officer’s hips, but reportedly can 

result in a different set of lower back and/or nerve problems in return. 

 Studies and collective law enforcement experience indicate that over the 

officer’s ten, fifteen, twenty years or more wearing a duty belt, the belt’s weight 

and pressure often cause not only daily discomfort and fatigue, but also cause or 

contribute to a wide variety of chronic physical ailments, including lower back 

pain, lower back problems, leg and hip problems, numbness and tingling of the 

fronts of the upper thighs, sciatica and other nerve ailments. See, e.g., Janowitz, 

I., “Ergonomics Evaluation: Duty Belt/Holster Design” submitted to the 

California Highway Patrol, March 24, 1998; and Richard-Jacobi, K., “Duty 

Belts and Overuse Injuries,” NLETA Online Magazine, December 2003. In 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
8 

addition to duty belts, the above-cited CHP study found that careful holster 

selection and use could have a significant effect on the officer’s physical comfort 

and health, the critical aspects of the duty holster being its belt loop and shank 

design, the angle (cant) at which it positioned the handgun, and the placement of 

the holster in a location on the belt which is optimal for the given officer. 

3.4 The Issue of Appearance. U.S. law enforcement is a field that, 

perhaps due to its conservative nature, places a high value on tradition. Radical 

changes are slow in coming. Borrowing heavily from the military, the sharp, neat 

appearance of uniformed officers is of great importance in most agencies, and even 

a minor deviation from the agency’s dress code can subject the officer to 

reprimand or discipline. In the past, at least, some agencies were so insistent on 

the uniform appearance of their officers that they went so far as to require all 

officers to wear their holsters on the same side, regardless of whether the officer 

was right-handed or left-handed. While such an extreme demand for consistency 

may now, thankfully, be largely a thing of the past, it is clear to our project team 

that any major deviation from a traditional uniformed police appearance, such as 

wearing externally-visible suspenders, an equipment vest, or a uniform shirt with 

equipment pouches sewn into it, would at this time still be unacceptable to most 

U.S. police agencies, and thus would not offer a practical solution to the duty belt’s 

physical problems for the majority of officers who suffer – or may sooner or later 

suffer – from such problems. 

3.5 Holistic Approach. It should be recognized that the best approach to 

solving the physical problems caused by duty belts is not simply to adopt the 

under-the-shirt duty suspenders developed through this project. Instead, the duty 

suspenders should be viewed as one element (albeit an important one) of a total 

approach. As recommended by specialists in this field (see articles cited in 

Section 3.3 above) and also by several of our field testers, other elements of the 

total program should include: (1) the officer’s physical conditioning through 

regular exercise, including core strengthening and stretching exercises, (2) the 

officer’s maintenance of appropriate body weight, (3) selection of a good duty belt 

design, such as a 2” nylon belt with a padded lower edge, (4) careful consideration 

and selection of the equipment carried on the duty belt, so as to lighten the load to 

the greatest extent possible, consistent with officer safety and the job to be done, 

(5) careful positioning of the selected equipment on the duty belt, including even 

weight distribution on both sides of the body, and avoidance of items positioned 

where they could cause kidney or spine injuries, or are likely to cause other 

physical problems, (6) careful selection of the duty holster, including the design of 

the belt loop and shank, and the angle at which the handgun is canted, and (7) 

consideration of providing lumbar supports in police cars, as well as lumbar 

supports or ergonomically correct desk chairs for officers who spend many hours 

in the office at their desks or computers. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9 

4.0 Initial Design Approaches and Concepts

 BLACKHAWK!’s project team began by conducting various individual, 

small-group, and entire-team “brainstorming” sessions, after which three possible 

approaches to the police officer’s load bearing problem initially emerged. These 

three approaches were: (1) an improved duty belt and some sort of suspension 

system to transfer as much of the belt’s weight as possible off the officer’s hips, 

(2) an improved type of uniform pants, with cargo pockets (similar to the familiar 

military BDU’s) but also with fitted pouches to hold certain selected items of the 

officer’s required equipment, and (3) a uniform “equipment shirt” with secure 

pockets and pouches for certain items of equipment, similar in concept to a tactical 

vest, but closer to a uniform shirt in its general appearance. 

 The suspension systems initially considered included fairly complex underthe-shirt harnesses, and also futuristic-looking systems that utilized the carrier for 

the officer’s ballistic vest as the load-bearing element of the system, with various 

types of attachment mechanisms to connect the duty belt to the ballistic vest 

carrier. An outside consultant engaged by BLACKHAWK! helped to design some 

of these options, and prototypes were made of several of them, see Appendix 10.3. 

Initial attempts to modify uniform shirts so as to permit the straps of duty 

suspenders, concealed underneath the shirt, to pass through the shirt to attach to the 

duty belt, consisted of horizontal slots in the shirt, akin to giant buttonholes, with 

Velcro flap-style closures. See Appendix 10.3 at page 46 

 Ultimately, the team rejected these “futuristic” concepts and dropped them 

from further development at this time, for a number of reasons. It was felt that the 

equipment-carrying pants and shirt, if made to carry any significant pieces of the 

officer’s equipment, would not present the conventional, tailored, traditional 

uniformed appearance that the majority of U.S. police agencies seemed to demand, 

at least at the present time. The resulting appearance of the officer wearing these 

uniform items would, it was felt, range from “sloppy” (with bulging equipment 

pockets in pants and shirt) to perhaps “militaristic,” “SWAT-like,” or “too 

aggressive” in appearance to the public, rather than the neatly-uniformed, 

traditional-appearing officer who “serves and protects.” 

 In addition, the equipment pants and shirt concept, and the load bearing 

system using a specially-designed belt suspended from the officer’s ballistic vest 

carrier, were all highly dependent on the size and shape of the individual officer, 

the specific uniform type(s) utilized by his or her agency, the type of body armor 

worn (or, in some cases, not worn at all, or worn on some assignments or days and 

not on others) by the particular officer, etc. Many agencies in the temperate 

climate zone have different winter vs. warmer weather uniforms, and many 

agencies have different uniforms for specialized units (patrol, bike patrol, 

motorcycle patrol, marine patrol, aviation unit, equestrian officers, etc.). The 

result would be the need to design, set up production systems for, manufacture and 

market a myriad of different models and model variations, in order to address the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
10 

many styles of uniforms, belts, vests, carriers, and officer body types that would 

need to be accommodated in order to allow widespread use of the load bearing 

system developed. 

After careful consideration, and designing, building and analyzing several 

prototypes, the project team decided that neither the body armor carrier-based 

system nor the modified duty belt system would be a feasible approach, as either 

method would require police agencies, in many cases, to abandon their current 

body armor and/or duty belts, and purchase totally new equipment in order to 

employ these types of load bearing systems. The result, it was felt, would be that 

few agencies would try the new system, and any advantages the system might offer 

would thus be unavailable to the vast majority of police officers. 

 Accordingly, the project team’s thinking evolved toward a simpler 

suspender system, that would attach with keepers to any officer’s existing duty 

belt, but in which the suspenders themselves would be concealed underneath the 

officer’s shirt, so as to permit the agency to use its existing uniform(s) – with 

minor shirt modifications for the suspender attachment straps – and not be 

dependent on the agency, or the individual officer, using any specific brand or 

model of body armor, or even using body armor altogether. 

 On a world-wide basis, military forces faced with load bearing needs even 

more severe than the police officer’s have utilized external suspender systems from 

World War I through the present time. The U.S. military’s “Y” and “H” pattern 

suspenders, attaching by metal hooks to metal grommets in the webbing pistol belt, 

are well known, and do an admirable job of permitting substantial weight to be 

carried on the soldier’s belt by transferring a significant portion of that weight to 

the soldier’s shoulders. Another similar solution is the carpenter’s heavy-duty 

suspenders, used to support a tool belt that often carries a weight load similar to 

the police officer’s. 

 Police duty suspenders designed to be worn outside the officer’s shirt have 

been offered in the past by several manufacturers, and have been used by a number 

of agencies, where they have reportedly gotten positive results in transferring some 

of the weight of the duty belt equipment to the officer’s shoulders. See Appendix 

10.1. Problems with the exposed suspenders included: (1) their sloppy or nonconventional appearance, (2) the possibility of their catching on things and thereby 

entangling or entrapping the officer, and (3) the risk that an attacker could use the 

straps as an obvious means by which to grab and manhandle the officer during a 

fight. In response to concerns (2) and (3), some of these non-concealable duty 

suspenders were designed to attach to the duty belt with breakaway keepers that 

unsnapped when much force was applied to them. Some users reported frustration 

at having their keepers regularly unsnap in routine use; one officer (not a field 

tester) interviewed by a project team member demonstrated that he had sewn shut 

the breakaway keepers on his suspenders to keep them from unsnapping at 

inopportune moments. This officer reported a major improvement in his back 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
11 

problems since beginning to wear the duty suspenders, an improvement he said 

was clearly the result of wearing the suspenders. 

 At an interim progress meeting with the NIJ, both the “futuristic” concepts 

and the simpler, more universally-usable concealed suspender system were 

demonstrated by a PowerPoint presentation and, in some cases, in prototype form, 

and the pros and cons of each approach were discussed. The project team 

communicated to NIJ its inclination not to pursue the various “futuristic” concepts, 

and instead to focus its energies on the simpler, more universally-usable, concealed 

suspenders. The NIJ representative in charge of monitoring this project agreed, 

and the project’s further work was accordingly directed along the concealed 

suspenders approach. 

5.0 The Selected Suspender/Keeper System

5.1 Description of the Suspender/Keeper Systems Selected for Field Testing. 

 5.1.1 Boa Dial-Adjustable Version. The Boa version of the prototype 

suspenders consists of a padded harness passing over each of the user’s shoulders, 

similar in design to a handgun shoulder holster harness. A nylon strap with Velcro 

adjustment, or a circular plastic “X” juncture, connects the two shoulder sections 

behind the user’s neck, between the shoulder blades. Each shoulder harness passes 

over the front and rear of the shoulder, and joins below the user’s armpit, where 

the front and rear straps connect to a nylon pad. The nylon pad holds a knobshaped Boa Technology dial-type adjustment dial, by means of which the user can 

lengthen or shorten a loop of vinyl-covered steel wire by turning the dial. 

Attached to the bottom end of the dial-adjustable loops of wire on the user’s right 

and left sides are nylon straps with metal clips that attach to nylon belt keepers. 

The nylon strap and metal clip on each side passes through the slot in the officer’s 

modified uniform shirt, to allow the belt keeper to attach and provide support to 

the officer’s duty belt at a point approximately even with the side-seam of his 

uniform trousers. See photos, Appendix 10.4. 

 5.1.2 Velcro Strap Adjustable Version. The Velcro adjustable version of 

the prototype duty suspenders is similar to the Boa version, except that instead of 

the Boa adjustment knobs, it utilizes Velcro-controlled gross adjustments in the 

nylon straps that pass down from the right and left shoulder harnesses, combined 

with plastic adjustment buckles that permit the straps to be shortened or lengthened 

several inches to allow fine adjustments to be made by accessing the strap ends 

through the slots in the modified uniform shirts. The plastic buckles are quickdetachable by the user, by means of a glove-compatible pinch-to-release design. 

See photos, Appendix 10.5. Although the Boa adjusters are believed to be of high 

quality, the project team nevertheless felt the simplicity and less mechanical nature 

of the Velcro strap adjustable system would tend to make it more reliable in 

extended field use and under adverse conditions. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
12 

 Note that, with either the Boa or the Velcro adjustment system, the user has 

the option of determining how much of the duty belt’s weight he or she transfers 

off the hips and waist, and onto the shoulders. Slack suspenders will leave all or 

almost all of the weight and pressure on the user’s hips and waist, while tight 

suspenders can transfer virtually all of the duty belt’s weight to the user’s 

shoulders. Individual users may prefer to adjust the ratio based on their own 

comfort, physical condition, or the nature of activity in which they are engaged – 

for instance, foot patrol versus seated for long periods in a vehicle or behind a 

desk. Analogizing the duty suspenders to a backpack with shoulder straps and a 

hip belt, the user may also wish to tighten and loosen the suspenders from time to 

time during the day, to give either his shoulders or his hips a rest by temporarily 

transferring more of the weight to the other part of his body. 

 5.2 Modifications to Officer’s Uniform Shirt. In order to allow the 

attachment of the concealed suspenders to the duty belt, the officer’s uniform shirts 

must be modified to provide an opening through which to access the polymer 

pinch-clips on the nylon adjustment straps at the bottom ends of the suspenders on 

order to attach the suspenders to the duty belt keepers. The required opening is 

about 4” long, and is easily located and made by opening up a 4” section of the 

side seam on either side of a typical uniform shirt. See close-up photo of 

modified shirt opening in Appendix 10.5 on page 61. The extra material of the 

shirt’s front and back panels at the seam is sewn into a narrow hemmed edge on 

either side of the opening, and the opening is bar-tacked at its top and bottom to 

prevent the seam from opening any further. The modification can be done easily 

and inexpensively in a few minutes by a uniform supplier, or by any professional 

or amateur tailor or seamstress with a sewing machine. The field testers in Rounds 

I and II were supplied by BLACKHAWK! with uniform shirts that had been 

modified by a uniform supplier. Field testers in Round III were not provided with 

modified shirts, but had their uniform shirts modified themselves locally (typically 

by their uniform suppliers or a tailor) using a sheet containing a diagram and easyto-follow instructions provided by BLACKHAWK!. Comments from some field 

testers resulted in further refinement of the shirt modification instructions to their 

present form. See Appendix 10.6. In addition, consideration should be given to 

the best methods for modifying non-traditional uniform shirts, including bicycle 

patrol shirts and golf-type shirts (see Section 7.5.7 below). 

 

6.0 Field Testing

 6.1 Round I. In Round I of the field testing, prototype duty suspenders of 

both types (Velcro adjustable, and Boa adjustable) were provided to four testers 

who are all highly experienced police officers with many years of law enforcement 

service, and who are, in addition, nationally-recognized instructors of various law 

enforcement skills (firearms, defensive tactics, bicycle patrol tactics, etc.). These 

four officers were selected for the initial field testing because it was felt that their 

level of experience would make their comments and reactions most valuable in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
13 

refining the prototype suspenders for further field testing. After extensively testing 

the prototype suspenders themselves, two of these four testers then, in turn, each 

provided their prototypes to another officer in their agency to field test, making a 

total of six (6) field testers in Round I of the field tests. Four of these testers were 

male, and two female. They were of widely differing sizes, body types, and levels 

of physical conditioning, and some had physical ailments of the types reportedly 

caused by (or even, in some cases, medically diagnosed as being caused by) years 

of wearing police duty belts. Evaluation of the prototype suspenders by these 

testers took place from July through November, 2008. The testers used the 

prototype suspenders throughout a wide range of police duties, including routine 

patrol both on foot and in patrol cars, while seated in chairs, engaged in physical 

training activities, and on bicycle patrol. Some of the testers wore the prototype 

suspenders in their patrol activities every day for months. Several testers wore the 

prototype suspenders continuously for as long as twelve (12) hours at a time, and 

one wore the suspenders throughout a reported 50-60 working shifts. Some wore 

the suspenders while wearing their soft body armor, and others wore the 

suspenders, at least at times, without body armor. Preliminary feedback was 

gathered from the testers during and after their testing of the prototypes by 

telephone discussions, emails and letters, after which the prototypes they used 

were returned to BLACKHAWK! for inspection, evaluation and re-use. More 

detailed data and feedback were subsequently gathered from these six testers by 

means of a structured telephone interview, in which the interviewer solicited 

responses to questions on a printed survey form (see Section 7.0 and following, 

below). As a result of Round I, the prototype style using the Boa adjustment 

system was eliminated from further testing, in favor of the Velcro-adjustable 

system. 

6.2 Round II. In Round II of the field testing, Velcro-adjustable 

prototype duty suspenders were provided to a second group of five (5) field testers. 

Four of the five, comprising two males and two females, were from the Norfolk 

(Virginia) Police Department, selected because its proximity to the 

BLACKHAWK! factory allowed BLACKHAWK! to conduct an initial briefing 

session for these field testers on the use of the suspenders before the testing began. 

These four individuals were selected for their varying sizes and body types, and 

one was selected, in part, because of his duty-related back problems. The 

remaining (male) field tester in Round II is a nationally-recognized police firearms 

instructor and use of force training consultant. This second round of field testing 

began in February 2009, and several of the testers are still using the suspenders as 

this report is being prepared in October 2009. After they used the prototype 

suspenders for about two weeks, preliminary data and feedback was gathered from 

these field testers by means of structured telephone interviews using a printed 

survey form, with further feedback gathered in October 2009. 

 6.3 Round III. In Round III of the field testing, the National Law 

Enforcement Training Center (“NLETC”) distributed Velcro-adjustable duty belt 

suspenders to nine (9) officers in five different law enforcement agencies from 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
14 

whom data was gathered. (Duty belt suspenders were also distributed by NLETC 

to an additional four officers who either had not yet tried them, or who could not 

be reached to collect data, by the time of this report.) The field testers in this 

group included five males and four females. These field testers were selected by 

the NLETC, without any direct involvement by BLACKHAWK! Field testing by 

this group began in September 2009, with data and feedback gathered from the 

group by structured telephone interviews in the latter part of October 2009. 

 6.4 Field Testing Data and Feedback. Data and feedback from the three 

rounds of field tests is contained in Section 7.0 (“Results and Findings”) and in 

Appendices 10.09 and 10.10, below. 

7.0 Results and Findings

7.1 Communicating with Field Testers; Gathering Data and Feedback.

BLACKHAWK!’s initial communications with the field testers in Round I were 

primarily by telephone, after which the testers were sent prototype suspenders. 

Uniform shirts were provided to BLACKHAWK! by the testers, and were 

modified by BLACKHAWK! with side openings and returned to the testers for use 

in the evaluation. BLACKHAWK! communicated with the testers periodically 

over the following 2-4 months by telephone and email. Some of these testers 

provided written comments to BLACKHAWK! by email. At the end of each 

tester’s evaluation of the prototype suspenders, the prototypes were returned to 

BLACKHAWK! for inspection and re-issue to other testers. Testers were asked to 

sign a prototype evaluation agreement/non-disclosure agreement, and testers in 

Rounds I and II were given gift credits by BLACKHAWK!, redeemable for 

BLACKHAWK! products of the user’s choice. Unlike the field testers in the first 

two rounds, those in Round III did not receive BLACKHAWK! gift cards, their 

only incentive being the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of the loadbearing system. As mentioned above, four of the testers in Round II were from the 

Norfolk Police Department, which is located near the BLACKHAWK! facility in 

Norfolk, Virginia. This allowed these testers to be given a short briefing and 

demonstration of how to adjust and use the duty suspenders by a BLACKHAWK! 

employee at the start of the Round II field testing. Field testers from Rounds I, II 

and III all provided structured feedback by means of a telephone interview with a 

consultant engaged by BLACKHAWK! for the purpose. The field testers 

answered questions the consultant asked, using a printed telephone survey form, a 

copy of which is provided in Appendix 10.8. No attempt was made at any time to 

stifle negative comments or criticisms of the prototype suspenders; to the contrary, 

at all times BLACKHAWK! and its consultant made it clear that what was desired 

was the field tester’s honest opinions and reactions, including negative comments 

and criticisms where applicable. 

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
15 

7.2 Positive Findings. 

 7.2.1 Increased Comfort. Far and away, the field testers identified the 

major benefit of the prototype system as increased comfort in wearing their duty 

belt and/or the reduction of pain in the waist, hips and back, by better distributing 

the weight of the duty belt, shifting some of the weight off the officer’s hips and 

waist, and transferring it to the officer’s shoulders. Representative comments from 

the field testers on this feature included the following: 

 “The best feature was the transfer/distribution of weight and pressure from my 

 hips, waist and lower back to my shoulders.” (Field Tester II-1) 

 “[The best feature was] the distribution of the duty belt weight over more of my 

 body.” (Field Tester II-2) 

 “The best feature was taking the weight off my hip bones.” (Field Tester II-4 – 

female) 

“[The best feature was] taking the load off my waist – distributing it to my 

shoulders – and it helped my posture, too!” (Field Tester I-6) 

“The best [feature] was the weight distribution, instead of all of it on my hips.” 

(Field Tester I-3) 

“The best thing was the reduction of stress on my hips and lower back.” 

(Field Tester I-2) 

“ ... taking the weight off my lower back.” (Field Tester I-1) 

 7.2.2 No Need to Keep “Hitching Up” the Duty Belt. Several of the field 

testers commented that a major benefit was that the suspenders helped to keep their 

duty belt from slipping down in use. Representative comments are as follows: 

 “Also, it kept my duty belt from slipping down over my hips, which usually 

makes me have to keep tugging it back up throughout my shift. And by holding 

up the duty belt, I didn’t have to over-tighten the belt to keep it in place, which 

usually puts a lot of strain on my lower back.” (Field Tester II-1) 

“[The best feature was] holding my belt up.” (Field Tester I-5) 

 7.2.3 Other Comments. One tester apparently took for granted the 

benefit of the duty suspenders in distributing the duty belt’s weight from his hips 

to his shoulders, commenting that “[The best feature is that] they’re concealable – 

there’s no safety risk from someone grabbing on to them.” (Field Tester II-3) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
16 

 Asked for “any other comments,” one field tester said, “I wish I’d thought of it 

– it’s a very good design, well thought-out.” (Field Tester II-3) 

One field tester, who wore the prototype suspenders an estimated 50-60 

times (every patrol shift he worked for three months), simply asked, “When can I 

get a pair?” (Field Tester I-6) 

Another field tester, who found the suspenders relieved the pain he 

regularly experienced in his waist and back, commented, “I love them. Can I keep 

them? I don’t want to give them back.” (Field Tester III-4) 

One of the several female field testers (Field Tester I-4) who criticized the 

difficulty of detaching and reattaching the suspenders to use the toilet, commented 

that, although she knew this might not be the direction in which this research 

project was headed, or an alternative that would be acceptable to most police 

departments, the best solution for female officers might be a duty equipment vest, 

which they could simply slip off to use the toilet, and slip back on afterwards. See 

Sections 7.3 and 7.3.8 below for further discussion of this problem reported by 

several female officers. 

Another field tester (Field Tester II-2) suggested trying to eliminate the 

shoulder harness altogether, replacing it with a “V” (or “chevron-shaped”) 

reinforcing strap sewn to the inside of the officer’s shirt on either side of his or her 

torso, with the downward point of the “V” being an attachment point for the belt 

keepers. The officer felt that, especially with tight-fitted, elastic shirts such as bike 

patrol shirts, this might offer enough support for the duty belt that the suspenders 

could be eliminated. 

One field tester commented that, when he raised both arms at the same time 

to fire his weapon on the shooting range, the suspenders tended to exert downward 

force on his shoulders. Clearly, officers should practice firing while wearing their 

duty gear, including duty belt suspenders if used. 

7.3 Negative Comments. Negative comments were received primarily from 

female field testers, several of whom found the “one size fits all” suspenders they 

were given to evaluate uncomfortable, ill-fitting, or unduly restrictive of their 

freedom of movement. Categories of negative comment were as follows: 

 7.3.1 Discomfort in Wearing the Duty Belt Suspenders. Three of the 

female field testers (Field Testers III-1, III-3, and III-9) gave the suspenders only 

one (1) point out of a possible 10 points for “comfort.” Significantly, however, the 

other five female testers gave the suspenders an average of 8.1 points out of 10 for 

comfort, with individual ratings ranging from 6 points to 10 points, and one of 

these testers commented that she “didn’t even know she had them on.” (Field 

Tester III- The field testers who found the suspenders very uncomfortable were all 

wearing the “one size fits all” (now designated “Large/XL/XXL” size) prototype 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
17 

suspenders, before the Small/Medium size suspenders were developed. In 

addition, all three of these testers were from Round III, which, it was later 

determined, had received neither any written instructions nor any briefing or 

explanation of the proper way to adjust or wear the suspenders when the 

suspenders were distributed by NLETC. Two of these female testers complained 

that, when adjusted to take the weight of the duty belt off their hips, the adjustment 

straps “cut” (pressed) up under their armpits. The other tester simply described the 

discomfort as being caused by the suspenders being too restrictive of her ability to 

move, and also that the Velcro adjustments rubbed and annoyed her back just 

below her neck. One of these two individuals described herself as being “petite” 

and “short-waisted.” Significantly, the discomfort problem reported by these three 

(3) females was not experienced by the five (5) other female testers who used the 

suspender system. BLACKHAWK! believes the reported discomfort problem may 

result from the suspenders not being properly sized or adjusted for these users. 

More analysis and field testing will be needed to determine whether this is the 

case. 

 7.3.2 Difficulty in Attaching the Suspenders to the Duty Belt. Five (5) 

of the eight (8) female field testers gave the suspender system low marks (1 to 3 

points out of a possible 10) for ease of putting them on and taking them off. They 

uniformly commented on the difficulty of reattaching the suspenders to their duty 

belts after lowering their uniform trousers and duty belts to use the toilet. They 

commented that when they detached the suspenders from their duty belts, the 

suspender attachment straps were then hard to access again through the slots in 

their uniform shirts. The other three female field testers gave the suspender system 

5, 6 and 7 points out of 10, respectively, and one commented that putting the 

suspenders back on after using the restroom was “not so hard once you get used to 

it.” 

 7.3.3 Feeling that the Suspenders Restricted Freedom of Movement. 

One male and two female field testers (all from the same agency) criticized the 

suspenders for restricting their freedom of movement. The male field tester (Field 

Tester III-8) commented that he normally wears conventional, non-concealable 

suspenders with his duty belt, and finds them less restrictive. Also see section 

7.3.4

 7.3.4 “Rocking” of the Duty Belt. Field Tester III-8, who regularly wears 

conventional suspenders that attach front-and-rear to his duty belt, commented that 

he felt the single side attachment points of the BLACKHAWK! system caused his 

duty belt to “rock” back and forth. No other testers reported this problem. 

 

7.3.5 No Room on Duty Belt to Attach Suspender Keepers. One female 

field tester (Field Tester III-7) reported that due to her small waist and the other 

equipment she had to carry on her duty belt, she could only find room to attach the 

duty belt suspenders on one side (her gun side), but could find absolutely no space 

on the opposite side of her duty belt to place the keeper to attach the other 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
18 

suspender. Even so, she wore the suspender system for two weeks (10 shifts), and 

reported that it eased the weight of the duty belt, and the pain it caused her daily. 

She stated that if she could only find room to attach both sides of the suspenders, 

she would wear them on a regular basis. 

7.4 Summary of Feedback from Field Testers. Personal characteristics of the 

field testers and feedback from the field testing is provided in Appendices 10.09 

and 10.10 below. In summary: 

• 12 out of 20 field testers said they themselves would use the prototype duty 

suspenders on a regular basis. Significantly, 11 out of 12 male field testers 

said they would use the prototype suspenders on a regular basis, while 

only one of the eight female field testers said she would do so. Another 

female field tester (Tester III-7) said she would do so if she could find 

room on her duty belt to attach both suspenders (see Section 7.3.5 above).

• 18 out of 20 said they would recommend the duty suspenders to other 

officers. 

On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the worst, 10 being the best), the field testers 

gave the prototype suspenders scores which averaged: 

• 6.43 for comfort (with individual tester’s responses ranging from 1 to 10). 

Significantly, male field testers gave the suspenders an average comfort score 

of 7.23, while female field testers gave them an average score of 5.44. 

• 6.70 for improving the comfort or ease of wearing their duty belt

(individual scores ranging from 1 to 10). Male field testers gave the 

suspenders an average score of 8.0 in this category, while female testers gave 

them only 4.63. 

• 8.8 for allowing them to present a neat, professional appearance in 

uniform (with scores ranging from 4 to 10); and 

• 6.2 for ease or difficulty of putting the suspenders and duty shirt on, 

adjusting the suspenders as necessary, and removing the suspenders at the 

end of the shift (with scores ranging from 1 to 10). Significantly, male field 

testers gave the suspenders an average score of 7.54 points in this category, 

while female testers gave them an average of only 3.50 points. 

• The lowest average score was 5.10 in response to a question asking whether 

using the suspenders made the officer feel less tired/fatigued at the end of 

the day, with individual scores ranging from 1 to 10. Again there was a 

significant difference in scoring between the male and the female field testers, 

with males rating the suspenders an average of 6.42 points in this category, and 

females an average of 3.13 points. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
19 

Overall, these results indicate that, for many male and some female officers, 

concealable duty suspenders can be one viable solution to the problem of better 

distributing the weight of equipment the officer must carry, thus improving officer 

comfort levels and possibly reducing the reported duty belt related injuries. The 

results also indicate that further efforts should be made to analyze and, if possible, 

correct the problems noted by several of the female field testers. 

7.5 Areas for Prototype Improvement, Further Development or Research. 

Based on feedback from the field testing, the following areas were identified for 

further exploration, analysis and consideration: 

 7.5.1 Comfort of Harness Straps on Neck and Shoulders. Several field 

testers commented that, while they appreciated the transfer of weight off their hips 

and waist, the transfer produced a corresponding, if less significant, increase in 

discomfort where the harness straps crossed their shoulders and neck. Some 

testers reported this caused some soreness in their shoulders by the end of the shift. 

In part the degree of sensitivity of the user’s neck and shoulders may depend on 

whether or not body armor was worn under the suspenders, as body armor tends to 

distribute the transferred weight and soften the effect of the harness on the user’s 

upper body. Also, note that BLACKHAWK! produced two types of prototype 

harnesses, one using a wide, soft, suede-like material (called “lammy suede”) over 

the neck and shoulders, while the other used nylon webbing straps, which are 

narrower and not as soft. BLACKHAWK! has now refined the shoulder harness 

design to use the “lammy suede” material exclusively, in order to make the 

shoulder harness as comfortable as possible, even for users who, unlike most 

officers, will not be wearing the suspenders over body armor. In addition, the 

circular plastic “X” juncture behind the user’s neck used on some of the earlier 

prototypes has been replaced by a nylon strap-type connection, with care taken to 

avoid any exposed hook-and-loop material that could annoy the user’s skin if worn 

without intervening body armor. 

7.5.2 Chest Strap. Three field testers commented that they thought a chest 

strap, connecting the right front and left front shoulder straps, might help keep the 

shoulder harness halves from slipping off their shoulders in use, or to prevent the 

sensation that the harness could slip off their shoulders. 

 7.5.3 Method of Attachment to Duty Belt. One field tester criticized the 

shiny nickel-finished snaps that connected to the belt keepers in the early Boa 

adjustable version of the suspenders he field tested. The shiny metal snaps have 

subsequently been replaced by black plastic “glove-compatible” pinch-fasteners 

that require less fine motor coordination to manipulate. Several field testers 

commented that the suspenders’ belt keepers should be made as narrow and thin as 

possible, both to take up minimal space on an already-crowded duty belt, and 

because the thickness of the belt keepers can be annoying to the user when the duty 

belt presses the keepers into the user’s hips or waist. In response, BLACKHAWK! 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
20 

changed the keeper material, and the keepers used in the latest prototype 

suspenders are thinner than commonly available duty belt keepers. One field tester 

suggested a design that would allow the suspenders to attach to an officer’s 

existing belt keepers, rather than requiring additional keepers that are just for the 

suspenders. 

7.5.4 Instructions for Uniform Shirt Modification. BLACKHAWK! 

initially developed a diagram and instruction sheet for modifying a traditional 

uniform shirt to accommodate use of the duty suspenders. Two testers commented 

that the shirt modification instructions should be based on the actual location of the 

individual user’s duty belt, as worn, relative to his uniform shirt, rather than 

locating the suspender opening by measuring up a fixed distance from the bottom 

edge of the uniform shirt, as the initial draft of the instructions said to do. 

According to the two testers who recommended it, such a belt-location-based 

system would better allow for differences in officers’ physiques (short-waisted vs. 

long-waisted, etc.). In response, Blackhawk modified the shirt modification 

instructions to make them more “user friendly.” See Appendix 10.6. 

 7.5.5 Instructions for Use of the Suspenders. While several field testers 

described the initial set-up and use of the duty suspenders as “self explanatory,” if 

these duty suspenders are sold commercially, they should be accompanied by 

appropriate instructions for use, possibly containing line drawings or photographs 

to show how the suspenders are to be worn and adjusted. Consideration could be 

given to producing a DVD which could be shown to groups of officers by agencies 

issuing these duty suspenders, or to making a video clip available to individual 

users on line, showing the proper use and adjustment of the product. As 

mentioned by several field testers, a warning should probably be included in the 

materials, cautioning the user to be sure the positioning of the suspender keepers 

and straps does not interfere with the officer’s ability to draw or safely carry his or 

her service pistol or other critical equipment on the duty belt. Two field testers 

mentioned the possibility of the suspender strap interfering with the grip of their 

handguns; another field tester made a similar comment concerning interference 

between the suspender strap and the grip of his Taser. Instructions now prepared 

by BLACKHAWK! (see Appendix 10.6) have taken the above comments into 

consideration. Consideration should be given to the recommendation of one field 

tester, a physical fitness and defensive tactics instructor, that the instructions might 

also emphasize that an officer’s overall comfort, and possibly the potential to avoid 

or reduce duty-belt related ailments, depends not only on the use of duty belt 

suspenders, but also on other factors, including: (1) a program of regular exercise 

to maintain flexibility and core strength; (2) a proper balance of diet and exercise 

to avoid putting on excessive weight; (3) proper equipment selection, including a 

comfortable duty belt and holster, and the avoidance of an excessively heavy 

equipment load on the duty belt; (4) optimal positioning of the items of equipment 

on the duty belt; and (5) consideration of lumbar supports in patrol cars, and backhealthy desk chairs in the police station. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
21 

7.5.6 Suspender and Modified Uniform Shirt Appearance. Overall, the 

field testers rated the prototype system, including the modified uniform shirt, very 

high in allowing them to present a neat, professional appearance in uniform, and 

all but one tester felt their agencies would have no objection to the appearance of 

the modified shirt and suspender system. Several field testers commented that no 

one even noticed they were wearing the suspenders. Several other field testers, 

however, commented that a white undershirt or white body armor carrier could 

sometimes be seen through the suspender opening in the modified duty shirt. This 

was not a problem for officers whose uniform includes a dark-colored undershirt 

or body armor carrier (e.g., dark blue with a blue uniform, or dark brown with a 

brown uniform). In order to accommodate differences in posture and physical 

activities throughout the day, and variations in the exact positioning of the duty 

belt on the officer’s body, a slightly longer suspender opening is preferable to a 

more tightly-fitted one. For this reason, and for greater simplicity in measuring 

and modifying traditional uniform shirts, simply wearing a dark undershirt 

(provided the officer’s agency does not prohibit this) seems to be a simpler 

solution to the “undershirt visibility” problem than trying to create a suspender 

opening that fits tightly around the suspender straps. 

 7.5.7 Adaptation to Unconventional Duty Shirt Designs. As discussed 

above, traditional uniform shirts can easily and inexpensively be modified to 

permit the use of the prototype duty suspenders, and such shirts, in either longsleeve or short-sleeve configuration, undoubtedly represent the uniform shirts 

worn by most American police officers. Nevertheless, consideration should also 

be given to ways in which unconventional uniform shirts, such as bike patrol shirts 

and golf-type shirts, can be modified to permit the use of duty suspenders of this 

design as well. 

 7.5.8 Ease of Detaching and Re-Attaching. Several female testers 

commented that, due to the female officer’s need to undo the duty belt to lower 

their uniform trousers when using the toilet, it is important that the design permit 

easy detaching of the suspenders from the duty belt, and re-attaching when the 

officer is through using the toilet. One of these female testers was sufficiently 

bothered by the difficulty of detaching and re-attaching the suspenders that she 

said she would choose not to wear the prototype suspender system for that reason 

alone, due to the inconvenience factor and because she already “had so much other 

stuff to hook up each time” she put on her uniform. Several things are of note in 

this regard: (1) this particular tester did not currently have any of the physical 

ailments commonly associated with wearing heavy duty belts, and thus said she 

felt she had less to gain from using duty belt suspenders than officers who had 

problems wearing duty belts; and (2) despite the fact that she would not choose to 

wear the suspenders herself, she did not hesitate to say she would recommend 

them to others, who might benefit from them more than she would. This tester 

gave the suspenders only 3 points out of a possible 10 for ease of detaching and 

reattaching to the duty belt. Two other female testers gave the suspenders only one 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
22 

point (out of a possible 10) in this category, while two other females gave it only 2 

points out of 10. BLACKHAWK! has subsequently changed the prototype design 

to use glove-compatible, easily detachable and re-attachable pinch-fasteners to 

connect the suspender straps to the duty belt keepers, which should reduce the 

difficulty of detaching and re-attaching the suspenders when an officer dresses or 

undresses. 

 7.5.9 Sizing to Fit Smaller or Shorter-Waisted Officers. See Section 

7.3.1 above. BLACKHAWK!’s subsequent development of a smaller size 

prototype, designated “Small-Medium,” will hopefully solve the discomfort 

problem experienced by three (3) of the eight (8) female field testers. Further field 

testing will be needed to determine whether this is the case. 

 7.5.10 Problems With Abrasion and Fraying. One field tester (Field 

Tester I-2) reported that when he used the Boa system, the vinyl-covered steel 

adjustment wire eventually frayed, after which it would annoy his arm where it 

rubbed through his shirt. Another field tester (Field Tester II-2) reported that the 

Velcro-adjustable prototype caused some fraying of his UnderArmor undershirt. 

He felt it would not cause fraying of a conventional cotton undershirt, and in fact 

none of the other field testers reported such problems. 

 7.5.11 Back-Up Handgun Holster or Knife Pouch. Two of the field 

testers suggested that a holster could be provided that would attach to the 

suspenders, to keep a small back-up handgun concealed under the officer’s shirt, 

and/or that a pouch could be provided for a concealed tactical knife. Holsters are 

available from several manufacturers that hold back-up handguns on the side straps 

of the officer’s body armor, and some officers carry small handguns or knives in 

the trauma plate pockets of their ballistic vests. If desired, such a holster or knife 

pouch could easily be made for use in conjunction with the concealed duty 

suspenders. 

 7.5.12 Slipping Adjustment Straps. Two of the field testers commented 

that, during the course of their shift, the adjustment straps tended to slip (i.e., 

lengthen) somewhat in use, requiring that they readjust them periodically to 

maintain the degree of tension they wanted. Although these testers commented 

that the readjustment was easy to do, BLACKHAWK! is considering a 

modification in the design to eliminate this inconvenience. 

 

8.0 Plans for Continued Development of the Concealable Duty Belt Suspender System. At 

this point, it appears that the prototype concealable duty belt suspender system, 

with minimal further refinement in some of the areas indicated by the field testing, 

can offer significant benefits to many male and some female officers by reducing 

their discomfort in wearing heavy duty belts throughout long working shifts. It 

seems logical that use of the suspenders may also reduce the incidence or severity 

of back, nerve, leg and hip ailments commonly believed to be associated with the 

long-term use of duty belts. Ultimately, however, these physical benefits would 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
23 

need to be proven and documented by controlled medical studies of large numbers 

of police users over considerable periods of time. In the meantime, individual field 

testers and others report that duty belt suspenders provide relief from their back, 

hip, nerve or leg ailments, and the majority of field testers report that an 

improvement in comfort and/or reduction in fatigue is provided by the suspenders’ 

function in transferring a portion of the duty belt’s considerable weight off their 

hips and waist, and onto their shoulders. Further design work appears necessary in 

order to make the suspender system comfortable for more female users, as well as 

to make the suspenders easier to reattach to the duty belt after unsnapping them to 

use the restroom. BLACKHAWK! intends to continue working on refinement of 

the prototype design, testing any further modifications to ensure their efficacy and 

suitability for the widest range of potential users. 

9.0 Conclusion. Further work needs to be done to make the prototype suspender system 

acceptable to a larger number of female officers. Nevertheless, concealable duty 

belt suspenders of the prototype design appear at this point to be a viable concept 

that can offer a considerable improvement in comfort to hundreds of thousands of 

U.S. police officers who wear equipment-laden duty belts daily throughout their 

careers. In addition, such suspenders may possibly reduce the incidence and/or 

severity of physical ailments reportedly associated with the wearing of duty belts. 

While a long-term, scientific study would likely be needed in order to reach a 

definitive medical conclusion in this regard, feedback from the limited field testing 

conducted thus far indicates that concealable duty belt suspenders can, at a 

minimum, provide many officers who suffer from such ailments a means of 

reducing their pain, discomfort, or other symptoms, by taking a significant portion 

of the duty belt’s weight and pressure off their hips and waist. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
24 

10.0 Appendices 

10.1 Photo of non-concealable (traditional) duty suspenders 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
25 

10.2 Photos of equipment shirts, duty overshirts and tactical vests 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Original Concept #1

•The purpose was to story board a couple of different styles/ designs to 

refine down toward the final concept for prototyping.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation One

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation One

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation Two

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation Two

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation Three

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Ideation Three

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Refined Concept #2

•This concept was the refinement to one style from concept #2 and as a result a completed prototype for proof of concept •Accompanying pages show this concept prototype and list the drawbacks to this approach.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
BOA Concealment Armor Carrier

• Originally considered as best solution, however, there were drawbacks.1. Had to be used with a very specific armor package or purchase of new armor from BPG2. Would have to be “fitted” to each individual along with body armor to maintain correct body armor coverage3. Location of BOA reels on front of carrier were easy to access, but made the system feel “bulky”. This would have been accentuated by use with female officers as well as causing fit issues.4. BOA reels also have moving parts/cables-potential fail points and replacement part issues.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
BOA Concealment Armor Carrier 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
A. Prototype of Modified Duty Shirt

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Belt with BOA Enclosed System

Concept #3•This was an attempt to build the BOA system and adjustment thereof into the Duty Belt. While good in theory, daily usage as well as manufacturing proved to be problematic.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This was a concept that would route the BOA through the Duty Belt and attach to the Ballistic carrier.

The drawbacks to this system were very high•Extremely complicated to manufacture and very specific parts•BOA reel on the duty belt interfered with duty gear and lacing of duty belt accessories•Very difficult to take on and off – restroom issues.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Simplified BOA Attachment System

Concept #4•While this part and approach simplified manufacturing and did not use a specific carrier it had a high liability issue due to waround the body armor panels and pulling the body armor coverage down away from the arm pit, we chose to move away fapproach back to a shoulder carried adjustment.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Straps mounted to side portions pulled down body armor sides rendering this design non-effectiv

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
BOA Adjustable System

BOA Harness – Adjustable•Moves the BOA to the sides of the body•Universal Fit and can be used with any type of body armor•Still had mechanical moving parts which could potentially fail in the field.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Velcro Strap Adjustable System

Velcro Harness- Adjustable•Mechanical Version - least complicated•Broad range fit for any type of body armor or body type•No need to buy specific armor packages•No moving parts to fail

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Velcro Harness – Adjustable

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Velcro Harness Adjustable 

•The horizontal slit in the uniform shirt worked much better•Longer slit worked for longer and shorter torso officers•Required no additional pieces to modify

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ERGONOMIC DUTY BELT HARNESS

2. Top Shoulder 

 Harness Adjustment

Part #44H001BK & 44H002BK

1. Put on harness over body armor 

and adjust for comfort 

2. There is extra webbing on top and 

sides of shoulder harness, so once 

adjusted you can trim/cut by stitch 

mark and burn edge

3. Attach belt keepers to duty 

belt – belt keepers are removable 

(side release buckle)

4. Pull up on ladderlock to 

release tension

5. Pull webbing down to 

shorten length, adjust to 

a comfortable position

Ladderlock

Webbing

Side Release Buckle for Quick Release

Belt Keepers

• Instead of using the standard 

measurements provided in the above 

chart, you may prefer to put on your 

uniform shirt and duty belt as you 

normally wear them. Mark your shirt 

on both sides at the top of your belt 

(top edge of your pants), and start the 

slot opening at the marks.

• The slot opening should measure 

approximately 4” on the side seam.

•The edges of the slot opening should 

be reinforced with bar tack stitching 

to prevent shirt from tearing at the 

seam.

www.BLACKHAWK.com

BLACKHAWK!® NORFOLK, VA U.S.A. 1.800.694.5263

PGIM003BA

6. Put Duty Shirt on over top 

harness once it is adjusted 

to a comfortable position

Duty Shirt Modification Instructions:

As a guide for altering your duty 

shirt, please see below chart for 

measurements. 

Standard distance from bottom of 

shirt up to bottom of opening:

Small 6 1/2”

Medium 7 1/4”

Large 8”

X-Large 8 3/4”

XXL 9 1/2”

4” opening

See chart for 

measurements

up from bottom

WARNINGS: 

1. Be sure your placement of the duty belt harness does not interfere with drawing 

your handgun or other critical equipment.

2. At the shooting range, practice firing while wearing the duty belt harness to be 

sure it doesn’t interfere with use of your handgun or shoulder weapons.

3. Practice unsnapping the duty belt harness using the quick release side release 

buckles, to be sure you can remove your duty belt quickly in an emergency.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
63

10.7 Professional Biographies of Key Project Team Members 

 Fred Storms came to BLACKHAWK! after a 23-year career in the U.S. 

Air Force. His duties for the Air Force included responsibility for the construction 

and refinement of air crew life support equipment. This included advancing both 

safety and comfort in the areas of survival gear, vests, flight suits and harnesses. 

Mr. Storms is in charge of breadboarding and prototyping all of the sewn gear at 

BLACKHAWK!, including the prototype duty suspenders involved in this project. 

 Clif Cook owned an outdoor products manufacturing company that did 

contract work for Michaels of Oregon. When his company was purchased by 

Michaels, he became that company’s Vice-President of Manufacturing. Mr. 

Cook’s patent for making holsters from a synthetic, tri-layer laminate allowed 

Michaels to successfully enter the law enforcement market with a then-unique 

product line. He eventually left Michaels to start Delta Design Goup with Eric 

Yeates (see below), advancing the development in the use of superior, nontraditional synthetics for law enforcement duty gear. He is now Vice President of 

Manufacturing at BLACKHAWK!, where in addition to his administrative duties 

he continues to take an active role in the research and design of new products, 

including load-bearing equipment and these prototype duty suspenders.

 

Eric Yeates began his formal design career at Michaels of Oregon, where 

he was assigned to the R&D shop, helping to develop that company’s complete 

line of tri-layer laminate duty gear, as well as a number of duty and tactical 

holsters. He left Michaels to do contract design and consulting work, eventually 

joining Clif Cook to form Delta Design Group. When that firm was acquired by 

BLACKHAWK!, Mr. Yeates became Executive Director of BLACKHAWK!’s 

R&D operation in Norfolk, Virginia. He is responsible for the technical side of all 

product development within BLACKHAWK!’s ten divisions, including holsters, 

duty gear, military gear and clothing. His work at BLACKHAWK! has included 

design of holsters and molded duty gear, and extensive work with outside 

contractors in the areas of duty clothing, gloves and footwear. 

 Scott Ferros is BLACKHAWK!’s CFO. Mr. Ferros is a CPA licensed in 

several states. He holds a BBA from Western Michigan University and an MBA 

from the University of Portland. Prior to coming to BLACKHAWK! as its CFO, 

Mr. Ferros held a similar position at Michaels of Oregon. 

 Chuck Buis was a police officer with Dekalb County, Georgia. In addition 

to his primary duties as a detective, he was a certified defensive tactics instructor 

and officer survival instructor, leading to his now lifelong study of holsters, duty 

gear and related police equipment. He left police work to become a District Sales 

Manager for Smith & Wesson’s Law Enforcement Division, then progressed from 

there to become involved in the design and sale of police duty gear for Michaels of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Oregon, eventually becoming Director of the Law Enforcement Division for that 

company. He is currently Category Manager of the Holster, Belt and Duty Gear 

lines of products for BLACKHAWK!, where he is instrumental in the design and 

selection of the products that make up these revolutionary lines of duty gear. 

 Tom Marx was a Chicago police officer, field training officer and 

competitive shooter. He left the Chicago Police Department to take a full-time job 

as an instructor at the Smith & Wesson International Training Academy, which 

provided him with further experience in evaluating the workings and shortcomings 

of police duty equipment. Due to his degree in mechanical engineering, S&W 

promoted Tom to a position in the marketing department, where he worked with 

the engineering department to develop new products for law enforcement. Tom 

formed S&W’s Law Enforcement Support Team as a liaison with the engineering 

department, and was promoted to Director of Domestic Law Enforcement. He 

eventually left S&W to organize the Law Enforcement Division at Michaels of 

Oregon, where he worked in the overall development of that company’s law 

enforcement product line, designing and/or patenting a number of new products 

himself. His work included coordinating a group that developed a synthetic duty 

belt of the California Highway Patrol, meeting the sophisticated 

ergonomic/physiological requirements of that agency. His involvement in this 

duty belt suspender project included product conceptualization through the 

advanced prototype development and design selection stage. 

 Zach West began his career in 1994, when he founded a small sewing 

company focused on custom climbing, biking and kayaking gear. In 1999 he 

joined Dana Design, where he did research for load-bearing systems, and worked 

with prototype construction and new product development. He has subsequently 

worked in R&D and new product development for K2 Sports, and done freelance 

design work through his design firm, IDeology. BLACKHAWK! has availed itself 

of Mr. West’s extensive knowledge of fabrics, materials and manufacturing 

methods, load-bearing issues and human factors, in the conceptualization and 

design of the early prototypes in this project. 

 Emanuel Kapelsohn has been a nationally-recognized law enforcement 

firearms trainer and use of force consultant for some 30 years, training over 15,000 

people since 1979. During that time, his trainees have ranged from police 

academy recruits to senior instructors, tactical teams and countersnipers. A 

graduate of Yale University (with honors) and Harvard Law School, he has been a 

practicing trial lawyer, has written and reviewed use of force policies for law 

enforcement agencies, has chaired shooting review boards, has developed training 

curricula for agencies, states and manufacturers of police weaponry, has written 

over 100 published articles in the field of weapons and police training, has 

authored, co-authored or edited training standards and reference works used on a 

national basis, and has represented officers involved in shootings. He was 

Technical Editor of The Police Marksman magazine, and an editor of The Firearms 

Instructor magazine. He has also worked as an expert witness in civil and criminal 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
cases, in state and federal courts throughout the United States, in matters involving 

police training and tactics, weapons, use of force, and shooting scene 

reconstruction. As an expert witness, his clients have included the US Department 

of Justice, several federal agencies, major cities and police departments, and the 

Attorney Generals’ Offices of several states. He is an adjunct instructor in the 

Criminal Justice Department at Indiana University, where he teaches a course 

entitled “Police Use of Force.” He has served on the board of directors of the 

International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (“IALEFI”) for 

24 years and as vice president of that organization for some 18 years; was a charter 

member of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (“ASLET”), and 

has been a member of the National Tactical Officers Association (“NTOA”), the 

International Law Enforcement Educators’ and Trainers’ Association (“ILEETA”), 

and the American Society for Industrial Security (“ASIS”). He has been an active 

reserve deputy sheriff for some 14 years, with experience including training, 

warrant service and patrol. Mr. Kapelsohn performs his consulting work and 

conducts law enforcement training programs through his own company, The 

Peregrine Corporation, which has been in continuous operation since 1985. Both 

in his work as a police trainer, and in his work as a reserve police officer, Mr. 

Kapelsohn has worn, used and tested a variety of duty belts, holsters and related 

police equipment over the past 30 years. He has worked as a consultant to 

manufacturers of holsters and other police equipment, and as an expert witness in 

cases involving weapon retention and holster design. His participation in this 

project is as a consultant, field tester, gatherer of data and feedback (by telephone 

interviews with the other field testers, and to assist in preparing the final technical 

report. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
66

 10.8 Telephone Survey Form (blank) 

Questions for telephone survey of duty suspender testers: 2/4/09 rev. 

1. Name 

2. Sex 

3. Age 

4. Height 

5. Weight 

6. Law enforcement agency 

7. Nature of duty (patrol, plainclothes, investigative, training, bike patrol, motorcycle, etc.) - If 

duty is divided among several functions, please list and provide approximate percentage of your 

time spent in each function. 

8. How long have you been a law enforcement officer? 

9. How long have you worn a duty belt on a regular basis? 

10. Fitness level: 

 a. Do you consider yourself to be in good physical condition? 

 b. Do you consider yourself to be athletic? 

 c. Do you exercise regularly? (Describe) 

 d. Do you have any physical problems/illnesses/disabilities? (Describe) 

 e. Do you have/have you had back problems? (Describe) 

 f. Have you experienced numbness on the fronts of your upper legs/thighs? 

 g. Have you experienced strained/pulled muscles in your mid-back, possibly with 

 pain radiating toward your upper back or shoulders? 

 h. Have you had sciatica? 

 i. Have you had hip problems/hip pain? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
11. Have any of the above physical problems pre-dated your wearing of a police duty 

 belt? 

12. With regard to the above physical problems (note: specify which problem, if several 

 are listed above): 

 a. How long has the problem persisted? 

 b. How frequently have you experienced the problem? 

 c. When you are not working, or are working in a non-uniform assignment where 

 you are not wearing a duty belt, has the problem: 1. gone away 

 2. become less severe 

 3. stayed the same 

 4. gotten worse 

13. List the items you carry on your duty belt: 

14. Approximate weight of your duty belt with all equipment carried on it: 

15. Type of duty belt you use: a. nylon b. leather c. laminate (synthetic with 

 polymer stiffening insert) 

16. Has wearing your duty belt ever caused you physical problems, pain, discomfort? 

(Describe) 

17. Which model of Blackhawk duty suspenders did you test? a. Boa b. velcro 

adjustments 

18. How many times did you wear the Blackhawk duty suspenders? ______ times 

19. Between what dates did you wear them? From __________ to ___________, 2008. 

20. Length of time worn on each occasion: Average _______ hours per day 

 Shortest duration of wear on one occasion ________ hours. 

 Longest duration of wear on one occasion _______ hours. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
21. Did you use uniform shirts modified to accommodate the suspender system? ___ 

22. Did you wear a ballistic vest while wearing the suspender system? ___ 

23. Did you use the suspender system while: a. standing 

 b. walking 

 c. sitting in a car 

 d. sitting in a chair 

 e. other (bicycle patrol, motorcycle 

 patrol, etc.) 

24. Did you find the suspenders themselves comfortable to wear? (Rate from 1 to 10, 1 being the 

least comfortable, 10 being the most comfortable.) 

25. Did using the suspenders make it more comfortable/easier to wear your duty belt? (Rate 

from 1 to 10, 1 being the least improvement, 10 being the most improvement.) 

26. Did using the suspenders make you feel less tired/fatigued at the end of the day? (Rate from 

1 to 10, 1 being the least improvement, 10 being the most improvement.) 

27. Did using the suspenders (and modified duty shirt, if applicable) allow you to present a neat, 

professional appearance in uniform? (Rate from 1 to 10, 1 being the least neat/professional, 10 

being the most neat/professional.) 

28. How easy or difficult was it for you to put on the suspenders and modified uniform shirt, 

adjust the suspenders as needed, and remove the suspenders and shirt? (Rate from 1 to 10, 1 

being the most difficult to put on/adjust/remove, and 10 being the easiest to put 

on/adjust/remove.) 

29. Would you wear these suspenders on a regular basis? 

30. Would you recommend these suspenders to other officers? 

31. What do you feel is the best feature or benefit of these duty suspenders? 

32. What do you feel is the worst feature or aspect of these duty suspenders? 

 Please give your suggestions for improving this feature or aspect: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
69

33. What other recommendations or suggestions do you have with regard to this 

 product? 

34. Do you feel this product has any potential safety hazards or risks that should be taken 

 into consideration? (Explain) 

35. Do you feel any particular instructions, warnings or training are needed for the user 

 of this product? (Explain) 

36. If you had uniform shirts modified to accommodate these suspenders, how hard or 

 easy was that to have done? Not applicable (I didn’t have shirts modified.) 

Not difficult 

 Moderately difficult 

 Very difficult 

 Impossible 

37. Given the minimal visual “footprint” of the duty suspenders, and considering only 

 the appearance of the officer when wearing the duty suspenders, do you believe your 

 agency would have any objection to officers modifying their uniform shirts and 

 wearing these duty suspenders on duty? Yes No No opinion 

38. Given the benefits (if any) you believe are provided by these suspenders, do you 

 believe your agency would consider issuing duty suspenders of this general type to 

 its officers? Yes No No opinion 

39. What would you expect the price of these duty suspenders to be to the officer? 

 a. $15 to $24 

 b. $25 to $34 

 c. $35 to $44 

 d. $45 to $54 

 e. over $55 

40. Other comments: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
70

10.9 Characteristics of Field Testers 

 Sex: Male: 60% 

 Female: 40% 

 Age: 25-29: 1 

30-34: 3 

35-39: 5 

 40-44: 4 

45-49: 2 

 50-54: 2 

55-59: 3 

 Age, mean: 41.95 

 Height Range, Male: 5’7” to 6’3” 

 Mean Height, Male: 5’10.8” 

 Weight Range, Male: 175 to 238 lbs. 

 Mean Weight, Male: 209.5 lbs. 

 Height Range, Female: 5’2” to 5’9” 

 Mean Height, Female: 5’5.25” 

 Weight Range, Female: 119 to 160 lbs. 

 Mean Weight, Female: 135.88 lbs. 

 Number of years in law enforcement, least: 2 

 Number of years in law enforcement, most: 36 

 Number of years in law enforcement, mean: 16.3 

 Number of years wearing duty belt, least: 2 

Number of years wearing duty belt, most: 27 

Number of years wearing duty belt, mean: 15.8 

 Law enforcement duties: patrol 80% 

 other* 5% 

 mixed patrol/other* 15% 

 (* “other” includes training, command, investigative, etc.) 

 Officers who consider self to be in good physical condition: 90% 

 Officers who consider self to be “athletic”: 70% 

 Officers who exercise regularly (at least 3 times per week): 90% 

 Officers with back problems, post wearing duty belt: 55% 

 Officers with hip problems, post wearing duty belt: 35% 

 Officers with leg problems, post wearing duty belt: 30% 

 Has duty belt caused physical problems, pain, discomfort? yes 90% 

 no 10% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
71

 Items carried on duty belt: handgun & holster: 100% 

 spare magazines & pouch: 100% 

 handcuffs: one pair: 75% 

 two pairs: 20% 

 four pairs: 5% 

 baton: 50% 

 baton holder (only): 35% 

 pepper spray: 65% 

 flashlight: 55% 

 flashlight holder (only): 5% 

 radio: 100% 

 cell phone: 10% 

 pager: 5% 

 Taser: 55% 

 rubber gloves: 25% 

 keys/key case: 30% 

 knife/multi-tool: 10% 

 weapon light: 10% 

 Approximate weight of duty belt with equipment: least: 9 lbs. 

 most: 28 lbs. 

 don’t know: 35% 

 average: 16.42 lbs. 

 Type of duty belt used: leather 75% 

 nylon 10% 

 synthetic/laminate 15% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
10.10 Tabulation of Field Testing Results 

Number of times prototype suspenders worn: Round I: Least: 4x 

 Most: 55x 

 Mean: 24x 

 

 Round II: Least: 8x 

 Most: 30x 

 Mean: 14.2x 

 Round III: Least: 1x 

 Most: 30x 

 Mean: 9.72x 

Length of time worn in hours, per occasion worn: Shortest: 0.5 hour 

 Longest: 18 hours 

 Mean: 8.48 hours 

Was body armor worn while wearing suspenders? Yes: 90% 

 No: 10% 

Was modified uniform shirt worn while wearing suspenders? Yes: 100% 

 No: 0% 

Were suspenders comfortable? (1-10 scale, 1=least, 10=most): Range: 1 to 10 

 Mean: 6.43 

 Mean, male testers: 7.23 

 Mean, female testers 5.44 

Did suspenders make wearing duty belt more comfortable, easier? 

 (1-10 scale, 1=least improvement, 10= most improvement) Range: 1 to 10 

 Mean: 6.70 

 Mean, male testers: 8.0 

 Mean, female testers: 4.63 

Did using suspenders make you less tired at end of day? 

 (1-10 scale, 1=least improvement, 10=most improvement) Range: 1 to 10 

 Mean: 5.10 

 Mean, male testers: 6.42 

 Mean, female testers: 3.13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
73

Did wearing the suspenders and modified uniform shirt allow Range: 4 to 10 

you to present a neat, professional appearance in uniform? Mean 8.8 

(1 – 10 scale, 1=least neat, professional, 10=most neat, professional) 

How difficult was it to put on the suspenders and modified uniform 

Shirt, adjust the suspenders as needed, remove suspenders and shirt 

at end of shift? (1 -10 scale, 1=most difficult, 10=easiest) Range: 1 to 10 

 Mean: 6.2 

 Mean, Male testers: 7.54 

 Mean, Female testers: 3.50 

Would you wear these suspenders on a regular basis? Yes: 60% 

 No: 40% 

 Mean, Male testers: 92% 

 Mean, Female testers: 13% 

Would you recommend these suspenders to other officers? Yes: 90% 

 No: 10% 

Considering only the appearance of these suspenders and 

modified uniform shirt, do you believe your agency would allow 

officers to wear them? Yes: 95% 

 No: 5% 

Considering the benefits, if any, you believe these suspenders 

provide, do you believe your agency would consider issuing them 

to its officers: No: 40% 

 Yes: 55% 

 Yes, to officers with physical problems or medical needs: 5% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.