CQR Men's Tactical Pants - Water Resistant Ripstop Cargo Pants for Hiking, Work & Outdoor Activities | Lightweight Durable EDC Pants for Camping, Hunting & Everyday Wear

I’m a 59 year old, overweight, woman 5’3” about 195 lbs. I find it difficult to get women’s pants that fit comfortably and have “real” pockets that are actually useful. I often end up getting men’s pants. Carrying a purse is not practical for me, so pockets are important. I carry lots of stuff. The stuff needs to stay in the pockets and the pants need to still be comfortable with the stuff in the pockets. I also need to be able to have quick access to my stuff.I purchased two pair of tactical pants to compare. I like both and will be keeping both.The Proper woman’s size 18 were not hemmed and I needed to do that myself. I could not find a good match for this gray color for the thread. Doing my own hem is alright as I can give a bit of extra length for blousing my pants with my boots. The CQR are men’s size 38x30. As you can see from the photos, both fit very similarly.The Proper fabric is heavier and thus also hotter in the Southcentral KY summer heat and humidity. The gray color is quite different between the two. I like the Proper color just a bit more than the CQR.The pocket on the right front thigh was significantly different. My cellphone (iPhone XR) fits better in the Proper pants. The pocket is just a bit wider. The CQR pocket is barely wide enough to get my cellphone in. This pocket on the CQR is also canted towards the side seam. This makes it uncomfortable when sitting with the cellphone in the pocket and very difficult to get the phone out. If sitting, it is nearly impossible to remove the cellphone from that pocket on with the CQR pair. I can get my phone out of the pocket while sitting with the Proper pair. And, having the phone in the pocket while sitting is much more comfortable with the Proper pair.The internal fly button on the Proper pants is more robust and stitched more securely. The CQR button is smaller. Both are about as difficult to button and unbutton.The CQR fabric is thinner. This makes them a little lighter in the summer heat. However, the material inside the front pockets is also much thinner. I’m expecting my stuff to wear through this material fairly quickly. The material inside the front pockets on the Proper pair is much heavier. These pockets feel sturdy and I expect my stuff to be carried securely, longer. The trade off for the heavier pocket material is this adds weight/bulk and that makes the Proper pants hotter for the summer.The back pockets on the Proper pants do not have cover flaps. They are closed with hook & loop part way across. I can get my hands in fairly easily, but plant debris also gets inside. The CQR pants back pockets have cover flaps.The small pocket on the left front thigh is smaller/narrower on the CQR pants. This means my minimal wallet is a very tight fit. The canted angle also makes it difficult to remove my wallet from the pocket while sitting. I don’t carry my magazines in this pocket, I prefer the belt for that. My wallet is more comfortable in the Proper pants and I can easily remove it while sitting. Makes the drive through ATM much easier.The CQR pants pockets are placed with an odd angle. I suppose this was don’t with the intention of making them more easily accessible. But, having worn BDU for many years, I’m not accustomed to the angle and it just feels weird to me. I prefer the straight placement of the proper pants pockets.Bottom line, both pairs of pants are similar in fit. The CQR pair is lighter for the heat of summer, but this may lead to mom them not lasting as long under field use. The Proper pants are hotter. Being an older lady who is carrying too much body fat, I’m also stuck wearing thigh high compression stockings. This makes the Proper pants very hot outdoors. Both CQR and Proper do not slide easily over the compression stocking. Both seem to bind my knees when I sit even when I hike them up at my he pockets before I sit.The 30” inseam with the CQR pants as well as my own hemming of the Proper pants allows me to easily blouse my pants with my boots.Both pairs have a gap at the rear when I sit, even wearing a belt. Thus, a tucked in shirt, of untucked with extra length is necessary for me. No “plumbers butt” for me.I give both pairs of pants five stars. I’ll have to post an update in a few months after I see how well each pair of pants holds up to my farming and field work.These pants are fantastic. Very comfortable, size is exactly as it should be (doesn't run small) and has lots of pockets. The large primary pockets have Velcro enclosures to ensure nothing is going to slip or fall out or worse yet be the victim of a pickpocket. I was very surprised and delighted to discover that the 2 primary front pockets are very deep, 9" (I can't stand shallow pockets). These are very well constructed and should hold up for a very long time. The material is dense (but comfortable) and that should help prevent tears and rips. These pants are well worth the money. Best cargo/BDU pants I've found. I'm going to but another pair for my son.I bought two CQR EDC pants from this same link, only difference was the color. One set (the OD Green set), comes with the left-left phone/magazine picket being sideways, at maybe a 15 degree angle up. The other set (tan/coyote/whatever) comes without those internal pockets, but instead a more vertical slot there. The photos were accurate for both - so be sure to study yours.Both appear functional, and well made quality pants.As to quality, the material appears a little thinner and feels a little stiffer than 5.11 pants. Not saying this is a bad thing, and I would assume the stiffness will break in with a few uses and washes. Maybe these will be even cooler and lighter than 5.11 in fact. they do appear to be well made and tough, and the pockets are good.Would I buy them again? Sure. Especially at the <$40 price point, compared to 5.11 premium. The tan one's are fairly analogous. Well, I think so, I'll need to run the OD Green ones a bit with the side-orientated pocket. TBH, I'm a little worried stuff might fall out of the horizontal pocket, but have no experience or data to say that yet.These units also have the inside-fly button. which I likeThese pants have plenty of pockets and feel well made but the only issue I have with them is that the bottom of the leg sleeve is too narrow. I don't have large calves or lower legs, so if they're tight for me, I can only imagine someone who has large calves.These $45 pants have better water resistance than the 511 pants that I spent over $70 on. I spilled something on them one day at work (which I do all the time) and most of the liquid just rolled right off and the spot that was left dried within seconds like nothing ever happened. Would definitely recommend for anyone who works outdoors or spends time in the woods a lot. Also the magazine pocket is very handy as well. Not quite big enough for a 30rd pmag but would definitely be perfect for shorter rifle mags or fit a couple pistol mags. I just use mine for spare radio batteries when I'm at work.These are great pants. 5.11 quality but a better price. The mag pocket fits a 30rd mag perfectly, and is even comfy if you sit down with it in. Cargo pockets in a good position and rugged but lightweight ripstop material. Would definitely buy again.I have had these 11 months. Wore them in the rain for first time today. Ended up soaked. If you want these to repel water, you might want to treat them yourself first. Otherwise, they are decent pants.The pants overall are pretty good. They arrived quick and as expected and in good shape. Color looked like the picture (rescue orange is what I ordered) and the style overall was what I expected. Speaking of 'style', some have mentioned issues with them being a bit looser than expected but in my opinion, the last thing you want in a 'Tactical' style pant is tight fitting 'skinny jeans' look - so I personally liked the looser fit.Unfortunately, I wasn't able to rate the wear and tear of the pant itself as I returned them after trying them on. My reason was mainly work related. I'm constantly on the hunt for a pair of pants I can use for search and rescue, and as well made as these pants seemed, I did have a couple of concerns.One was the color. This was strictly personal and not a slag against the company Hi-vis orange is actually the color I'm aiming for and while these are orange, they were too much on the reddish side of the spectrum for my needs and taste. That opinion aside, I would have maybe kept them if not for another concern - the lack of a crotch gusset.Being 'tactical' and being in search and rescue, stretch is a must. My opinion is that if the material doesn't stretch, I can live with it so long as a good quality crotch gusset is added - something well made, well stitched and stretchy - allowing more movement when walking over fallen trees or fences, etc. It's something I do often in the field and stretchiness in the crotch is an absolute must. I can't tell you how often I've suffered the humiliation of having my pants split open and the moment I put these pants on, I knew that if I even attempted a search, I would have ruined these pants.If a gusset or stretch in the crotch area isn't a concern, I think the pants are fine (visually). For opinion on wear and tear you'll need to seek out other reviews. But for lack of a gusset and overall stretch in the crotch, I'm giving them 4 stars. I think anything listed as 'Tactical' should offer optimum maneuverability. These pants came SO close, but alas my search (for pants) continues.