DPM v MTP cammo test

caorach

Well-Known Member
OK, so it isn't a great test but I was out today and as I was having lunch I thought to take some photos of the older DPM cammo smock and the newer MTP one. The results are a little confounded by the fact that my camera tends to overexpose the MTP a little and so it washes out a bit which makes it stand out a little. I tried to mix and match the backgrounds and clearly all the shots were taken in commercial forestry which might tend to favour the DPM a little. Even so I don't think there is much between them but for general use my money is still on the MTP as being slightly better.

All these photos were taken from only a few yards away and so don't give a very accurate idea of how easily seen a person wearing them at stalking ranges of, say, 50 yards might be but hopefully they are useful examples.

If these are useful perhaps others might like to post similar photos and I will try to take some more of some other cammo that I have lying about.

1. Draped over a stump down in the lower levels of a commercial forestry. Sorry about the camera shake but the camera was trying to expose for what was a pretty dark area of the forestry.

MTP1.jpg


DPM1.jpg


2. Both lying on the ground in a fairly bright area against grass and forestry.

bothlyingdown.jpg


3. MTP in a track thrown over a little tree with DPM lying on the ground to sort of simulate a prone position, and then the other way round with the DPM thrown over the tree. Sorry I didn't manage to take both photos from the same position, the DPM one is a little closer and so the jacket is always going to be easier to see.

MTP2.jpg


DPM2.jpg


4. MTP hung up on a tree with DPM on the ground below, and then the other way around. I guessed this was the one where the DPM was really going to score as this side of the tree was in deep shadow and the darker DPM should be a clear winner here, which I think it is. I had to take these photos a few times to get one with acceptable camera shake as it was pretty dark in there.

MTP3.jpg


DPM3.jpg


5. MTP hung on a post on a well lit corner with a mixture of track, grass and forestry as a background and DPM on the ground at the foot of the post plus a photo of them with positions reversed.

MTP4.jpg


DPM4.jpg


6. Similar to above but a little closer thereby avoiding having my lunch in shot.

MTP5.jpg


DPM5.jpg
 
A couple of months ago we had a range day at work followed a bit later by an LNV (Limit of Night Vision) shoot once it got dark. Lads from my unit were all in DPM, but we were hosting some guys from another unit who are higher up the pecking order when it comes to getting new kit issued and they were wearing MTP.A mixed group had to go to the range warden's hut for something, and on the way back it became apparent that MTP is much more visible than DPM in the dark. As the group approached the range console, those wearing MTP became visible to the naked eye a good 10 metres before those wearing DPM.
 
Camoflage for woods and open ground need two very different properties. In close contact the couours need to be more matched to the foliage and shapes etc, at longer ranges where shadow has a far greater effect then colours need to be lighter to overcome this, also larger areas of colour are more effective, a very good example was the old Paratroopers Dennison smock, light and looked as if it had been painted with a six inch brush. Useless thirty feet away, but on the other side of a glen, then it was excellent.
There is no such thing as one for all where camoflage is concerned, that is why more snipers fail on camoflage than do on shooting.
MTP is a good open ground camoflage, but in the UK in woods then DPM probably has the edge.
 
Try taking the same photos in black and white . Deer have limited colour vision. The results may suprise you .

Doh! I hadn't thought of doing that and it is a great idea (which is probably why I didn't think of it) so will experiment with my editing software and see if I can post the same photos as above in B&W.

There was so little reaction to this thread that I thought it probably wasn't worth the effort to test other cammo patterns but maybe I should give it a bash.

I take your point pilgrimmick, however as you can see in the spot where I took the photos there was ground that suited both patterns. All of these photos were taken within 20 yards of each other.
 
Try taking the same photos in black and white . Deer have limited colour vision. The results may suprise you .

Watched some telly last week and this was mentioned- I've forgotten the name of the programme. The current thinking is that we see in "tri colour" and ruminants see in "bi colour". They showed an example of what bi colour is and it is colour but not quite as vivid. It certainly is not black and white nor anywhere near it. I always thought the B&W bit was nonsense!
 
Based on what is being said about deer vision here and on the thread running in general I thought to remove the red from the same images and post them, in keeping with the theory that deer have little or now red cones in their eyes.

I think the results are interesting as, to me, this processing gives better contrast and ability to identify shapes and patterns in the shade so maybe this works well for deer in deep forest.

BIMTP1.jpg


BIDPM1.jpg


BIbothlyingdown.jpg


BIMTP2.jpg


BIDPM2.jpg


BIMTP3.jpg


BIDPM3.jpg


BIMTP4.jpg


BIDPM4.jpg


BIDPM5.jpg


BIMTP5.jpg
 
Pick a cammo, any cammo. You just move 20 feet and you need a different cammo. Would you be better with a plain colour. I have a mixture of realtree dpm and plain. Just depends on the weather as to what i wear rather than the area. But interesting pictures I have to say.
 
What I will say is that in the case of these images no attempt was made to break up the cammo outline and, as you can see, it is often the hard edges and shadows created by the coats which actually draw the eye rather than the bulk of the coat material. Also these coats are very close to the camera and are filling a lot of the frame whereas it might be fair to say that most stalking takes place at 50+ yards - you might get closer but at that stage you probably know the deer is there and take pains to conceal yourself in other ways and also for the majority of your stalking time you are further than 50 yards from a deer.

If I get the chance I will do some more photos at different ranges and with different backgrounds etc.
 
Pick a cammo, any cammo. You just move 20 feet and you need a different cammo. Would you be better with a plain colour. I have a mixture of realtree dpm and plain. Just depends on the weather as to what i wear rather than the area. But interesting pictures I have to say.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - half DPM, half another lighter colour (olive, mtp, field grey, or similar, even desert cam) - breaks up the outline from an "upright rectangle" blob to two small bush shaped blobs!
 
I read an article years ago about how most animals vision picks up on the "UV reflective qualities" and shape of an object as much as anything else (most animals recognise a gun if they've seen one before!) - hence CAMO's great to break up your outline but no good if you've washed it recently and it's sending out a UV glow (this is what most detergents are designed to do - "bright whites" etc).

This article about UV reflectiveness in conjunction with scent is the reason I rarely wash my outerwear, and even then never with detergent - works for me! :)

Will see if I can find the article...
 
I think most people avoid washing their shooting clothing in one of the fancy powders that make it "whiter than white" for this very reason. Nicwax make a soap for washing clothes which doesn't have any brightener and it has also been suggested that plain fairy liquid will do the job just fine, though I would urge caution if using the latter in a washing machine lest you fill the house with bubbles.
 
why would you wash your shooting clothes?

Because modern science, economics and a general awareness that basic hygiene is of considerable value have moved us on beyond the days when people didn't wash and were best approached with the wind in your favour.
 
How strange that in 3rd world contries they still wash clothes on rock in the river or stream and yet their whites are the envy of a lot of house wives................................................................. so much for modern chemicals!!!

The more I think on this the more I think these fancy washing detergents are like most things. Just their to lighten our bank accounts.

we have food supplies that are contaminated with chemicals, water that is the same no wonder there are allergies and cancers.
 
Back
Top