Tackla 2440 pant sizing

[brandonthequick 13]

I searched but no one had answered question my size,

 

I am 6ft, 190 pounds, about 35 inch waist, what size should I get I am deciding between 50 and 52. I am in between medium and large have been trending toward buying more large lately. I hear some people say they run tight and some people say you should size down in tackla I never had a pair before. I am currently using a warrior dynasty girdle size L.

Also how are these pants does anyone have a pair? Review? 

Thanks in advance!

[brandonthequick 13]

Anyone? doesn't have to be 2440 anyone experience with tackla? 

[titan1234 5]

Just got the 2440 about a month ago.

Pro's:

Sufficient protection for my limited use (shinny, no contact). 

Lower thigh pad seems solid, like from a higher-level pant.  Segmented 2-piece thigh seems to conform to my leg better than single half-circle that you see on a lot of other pants.  No gap in coverage  between hip pad and thigh pad.

Leg zips available if you need them.

The 4 way stretch zones fit me better rather than the fashion in today's pants to have lacing up the front of the pants, below the belt line.  Subjective opinion, but I think this helps make for a more flexible pant.  (There is lacing above the waistline.)

Con's;

You may have found another thread that mentions a gap between the tailbone protector and the hip pad.  This shows up when sitting down as the pads spread.  While I haven't (yet) fallen on that area as others may have, my previous non-Tackla pants that I had for 20 years were similar in that respect but I don't recall hurting myself in that area.  Keep in mind that I'm playing no-contact.   By comparison, I tried a Tackla 5500(?), which had no gaps and felt super-protective.  You might want to consider the Tackla 9000 pant as a mid-point in protection between the 2440 and the 5500.

Neutral:

Spine protection is integrated with the rest of the upper pant, so it does not come up as high as a separate spine guard.  This may be an issue for you if you play a lot of contact with cross-checking, but not an issue for my non-contact play.

Fit:

I have a 32" waist in jeans, which would normally mean a Tackla size 48.  I went down to a size 46 because of my short height, as the size 48 pant would be too long.  I get the snug fit that Tackla mentions to get the pants past my hips when putting them on, but I can't quite get the 1" gap they mention when lacing up the front of the pants because of my gut.  While I could have ordered a 48 short in black, I wanted the Habs colorway (vanity, but hey I'm a fan).

NOTE: I can't really figure out the logic of Euro sizing, but from doing a bit of reading, I am thinking it may be related to measuring the natural waistline rather than where a pair of jeans' waistline is measured.  My natural waistline was 92 cm (about 36"), half of which = 46 cm, so I took the chance.  My old pants were size 46, but that was when I was 20 lbs lighter.

The problem you face is that pant length will vary as well, likely by 2 cm (or about  1 inch) between size 50 and 52.  So you would be best to try the pants on if possible.  

[freeflyer14 11]

I have 2 pairs of Tackla pants, both of them 9000 air.  I am about 6'1", 185, 32-33-34 waist (varies between jeans and dress pants).  I have sizes 52 regular and 48 tall.  The 48 tall are about perfect, if anything maybe a bit snug in the waist (more than 1 inch between the laces).  The 52s are basically the same length as the 48 talls, but they are way to big.  I had them before I lost a lot of weight, and even then they were baggy, but the length was/is fine, but definitely would not want to go any longer.

I highly recommend going with size 50 in your case.  You might be even be able to get away with a 48 long, but it'll be snug in the waist.  I promise you that you'll be swimming in the 52s.  As far as the 2440s go, I have no experience with them, but I love my 9000s.  I have worn tackla since I was very young, and don't suspect I'll ever try anything else.

[brandonthequick 13]

I heard the 2440 fit tighter than the 9000's is that true?

[brandonthequick 13]

23 hours ago, freeflyer14 said:

I have 2 pairs of Tackla pants, both of them 9000 air.  I am about 6'1", 185, 32-33-34 waist (varies between jeans and dress pants).  I have sizes 52 regular and 48 tall.  The 48 tall are about perfect, if anything maybe a bit snug in the waist (more than 1 inch between the laces).  The 52s are basically the same length as the 48 talls, but they are way to big.  I had them before I lost a lot of weight, and even then they were baggy, but the length was/is fine, but definitely would not want to go any longer.

I highly recommend going with size 50 in your case.  You might be even be able to get away with a 48 long, but it'll be snug in the waist.  I promise you that you'll be swimming in the 52s.  As far as the 2440s go, I have no experience with them, but I love my 9000s.  I have worn tackla since I was very young, and don't suspect I'll ever try anything else.

I am 6ft 35' waist you really think ill be swimming in 52?

[Davideo 99]

22 minutes ago, brandonthequick said:

I am 6ft 35' waist you really think ill be swimming in 52?

I'm 5'10", 30-32" inch waist and have size 52 9000 Airs. However, they are intentionally very baggy and I wear suspenders. So a lot is personal preference. One person's "swimming" is another's "just right". Some people like sausage casing pants, others, like myself, prefer some room to breath.

Considering you are two inches taller and 4 inches larger waist, I don't think you would be swimming in the same size pants I wear, but perhaps slightly on the large size based on a more "average" fit.

[titan1234 5]

I am unable to make a direct comparison between 2440 and 9000 fit, though they look very similar.  When comparing the 5500 and 2440, the 5500 definitely had more padding to it and felt tighter, so the 9000 (which has more padding than 2440) might feel tighter as well.  You might try contacting Montreal Hockey USA and run this question by them.