IIRC, from the adoption of the C7 rifle in 1986 until the end of the "Bosnia days" in the late 1990's, the basic load for a C7 rifleman was published as 250 rounds. 150 rds were to be carried in 5 x 30-rd magazines, with the balance available for "top up" in the form of a 100-rd bandolier. That doctrine was fundamentally flawed from the outset and has long since been superseded by reality on deployed operations where the basic rifleman's load is 300 rounds carried
ready to use in 10 x 30-rd mags. Why would one willingly carry two-fifths of his basic load in a cumbersome, floppy bandolier where those rounds are not immediately employable when needed? Is the preferred option to start charging mags in the middle of a firefight? I suppose if you have to, but that is
NOT the preferred option.
The C7 "150 rds in mags, 100 rds in a bandolier" doctrine was obsolescent from the moment it was adopted in the late 1980s. It was nothing more than Cold War FN C1A1 doctrine unthinkingly carried over to the new service rifle. This "doctrine hold-over" was every bit as flawed as the direct application of the old FN C2A1 LAR Personal Weapons Test to the (then) new C9 LMG. The latter also proved to be an utter farce because the two weapons have completely different firing characteristics and inherent accuracy capabilities. The "renamed" FN C2 PWT was virtually impossible to achieve with the C9, yet this idiocy continued unabated for the better part of 15 years. And so it remains with the "Bosnia-era" thinking of the CTS crew responsible for a shiny new Tac Vest that only holds 5 loaded C7 mags.... :
Yes, operationally packaged 5.56mm C77 ball ammo still comes in 100-rd bandoliers - 3 pouches of 30 rounds on stripper clips, and one pouch of 10 rounds on a stripper clip mounted in a magazine charger. It makes emminent sense if one is faced with an emergency resupply situation where the basic load of 300 rounds
in magazines has been partially or fully expended in a prolonged engagement. Think a 5-hour long enemy attack against a defended outpost, as occurred earlier this week. Any packaging that will facilitate the reloading process is a "good thing". But it is no replacement for having the operationally validated 300 rd (minimum) rifleman's basic load ready to employ in pre-loaded magazines.
BTW, that basic load validation for combat operations dates back to the 1960s U.S. experience in Vietnam. Our doctrine folks and the CTS "designers" are more than a little behind the times. Hence the need for our operational field force to simply go with what they know (first-hand, real-time) to be appropriate for their current situation.