# Weapons Mod



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2008)

Ran across this C7 modification looks nice. Is it authorized ?


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Apr 2008)

Looks like a set of Replacement hand guards with rails, a forward grip and mag-pulls with all the other standard issued fair (Laser and light.).  Don't see why it wouldn't be allowed...  Looks like the setup most of the guys use in the BG.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2008)

Thx


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Apr 2008)

I know when I was at LFAA TC in Sept all the C7-A2's that we had all had the front grip installed.


----------



## Thorvald (18 Apr 2008)

Strange looking weapon though.... looks like someone took a C7A1 and added a buttstock from a C8.  Common practice?

If it's a C7A2, it's appears to be missing some items:

- front Triad Rail
- The evil new charging handle seems to be missing or we just can't see the other side well enough.
- No pad on the buttstock (though they have been known to fall off easily... there was a tech bulletin out to address the glue issue)
- Doesn't have the ambi-selector

Anyone know anything more about it?


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2008)

KAC M5 RAS (drop on)

Surefire X200B or X300 Flashlight.


  The CF has RAS's (yes outside CANSOF) so its impossible to argue (unless your an idiot) that its illegal to add.


However I did meet a lot of idiots in my time...


----------



## Kendrick (18 Apr 2008)

I had an A2, with black handguards, scope cover and buttstock, and pistol grip, had the ambidextrous mag release replaced with the older one, and did not have the ambidextrous fire select.  So yes it is a common practice.  I had the cocking handle from the A2, although it was common practice to have replaced with the older one as well.  And the pad just keeps falling off so high chances of losing it.  Besides, the C8's or C9's stock don't have pads.

Most people don't keep the triad rail, and especially if his entire hand guard is just that, rails; who needs the extra weight?

I guess this should cover this guy's weapon.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2008)

OK I have a question....is that an issue Tac vest? I pity the poor soldier when some weenie decides he's not wearing issue kit and complains.


----------



## brihard (18 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK I have a question....is that an issue Tac vest? I pity the poor soldier when some weenie decides he's not wearing issue kit and complains.



Looking at what he's wearing and surmising what his job might be, I'd suggest there probably aren't many weenies in his vicinity.

Besides, non-issued vests are increasingly a 'Go!' as chains of command start to figure themselves out and read over lessons learned from prior rotos. If I'm not mistaken, 2 VP actually authorized some non-issued vests during workup training.


----------



## Kendrick (18 Apr 2008)

Word on the ground there, when they replaced us almost 2 months ago, was that they were allowed, however "our" General did not allow it for us, and he was still in theatre for a little while, until "theirs" showed up.  Different policies I assume.  I just remember the 1VP guys at CNS getting pretty pissed off not being allowed to use their kit for a while.

However let's stick with the weapon, instead of the kit.  It's a topic heavily covered elsewhere.


----------



## SOLDIER702 (18 Apr 2008)

I've seen some C7A2 stocks break, due to the commonality of parts, it can just as easily be replaced with a black, or green replacement. As for the RAS he's got there, I want one and I'm jealous. I have my own old style cocking handle that I use in my A2 because I think the new one is.... well just plain gay. I would rather have an RAS or even rails mounted on the hand guards than that god awful, front heavy Piece of crap Triad. I've seen weapons done up more than that, by ordinary infanteers too, so it's not that uncommon, especially in theatre


----------



## Fusaki (21 Apr 2008)

> I've seen weapons done up more than that, by ordinary infanteers too, so it's not that uncommon, especially in theatre



Which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending...

Contrary to what some might claim, sub-unit commanders have been turning a blind eye (even authorizing?) drop-in weapon modifications overseas. These include KAC Rails, ACOGs and Aimpoints, VLTOR buttstocks, ect. Some of these are more of a hassle than others to install, but none will leave any permanent changes to the weapon. The individual soldier could easily draw his weapon, modify it, then change it back and return it to stores exactly how it was issued to him.

Overall, I think the fact that this is becoming commonplace is a step in the right direction.  But I've also seen these "unofficial sub-unit policies" manifest themselves in pretty retarded ways too.  For the couple guys in my coy who were sporting ACOGs and Aimpoints, there was one who had a civvie pattern hunting scope on his rifle.  For the handfull of guys who were wearing high quality chest rigs from reputable companies, there were also those who were wearing locally made rigs that were falling apart by the end of tour.  The same went for slings (ref: POS locally made 1-points) and boots (and no-one will convince me that a zipper up the side of your boot is a good idea).  As much as I think that letting troops take some initiative with drop-in weapons modifications is a good idea, I have to admit that it's a double edged sword.  Some would be better off sticking with the issued gear.

I think the solution is not in standardization, but instead in education.  Its great that non-issed gear is becoming more acceptable in Afghanistan, but if the guys can't train with their gear in Canada they won't have the experience to know whats good and what isn't.  Really, all a guy can do today to make an informed purchase is read second-hand info from internet forums or have friends in the more open minded branches of the CF.  Troops should be encouraged to take the initiative and experiment with gear while in Canada so they arn't wasting their money and risking their lives on POS gear in Afghanistan.


----------



## GregC (22 Apr 2008)

I am not a huge fan of the A2, however on this occasion I seem to be arriving in the rifles defense.

Although I despise the ambi-catch due to constantly dropping mags with it (I get the techs to replace it with the old style), anyone who has done a gunfighter course (or 5) can see the inherent advantage in the extended cocking handle.

Although I prefer the badger ordnance square style extended cocking handle, the issued one does fine as well. With gunfighter drills and the extended cocking handle, you have a much more rapid and effective system of IAs, period, full stop. However I have broken one or two in my time, but a trip to the techs and you are in business. As well, the collapsible stock really comes into its own with armour and plates on, definately the best improvement over the A1, and I can only hope the C9A2 program can catch up so the LMG gunners get the same benefit.

As for weapons mods overseas, depends on your command. I added a personally purchased Eotech and a Troy BUIS to my rifle and never heard a word about it. However the 2 RCR battle group command completely nixed unissued load carriage systems.... I will not bother to print the hilarious reasons for this, as it would require a new thread.

But Im not bitter......  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2008)

LET'S NOT go off on any tangents. The thread is about weapons mods. If you want to talk about helmets or load carriage, there's already threads running on that. We've lost sight of too many good threads by swinging them off.

Everyone stay on topic please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2008)

The thing with the rail system is that it isn't 100% that you will have a C7 or C8 which have different length rail/hand guards.  So to be safe you'd have to spend the money for both sizes.  That said it isn't an unoffical mod (to the best of my knowledge) and I suppose if the higher ups wanted to be technical you'd have to go with that crumy rail bolt on that is issued, along with the triad mount.


----------



## MG34 (24 Apr 2008)

Not a big deal getting both sizes of rail systems..I'd sooner spend the cash than be stuck with the CF's solution of a bolt on rail,Triad and a piece of crap folding vert grip.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2008)

Oh I agree but some pers don't have $1000 bucks kicking around, add in the fact that it takes a General to charge you.


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> LET'S NOT go off on any tangents. The thread is about weapons mods. ...
> 
> Everyone stay on topic please.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff


Non-issue kit discussions are happening here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/41201/post-704837.html#msg704837


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2008)

How does the weapon issuing system work for you pointy end types overseas? For my troop, we managed to get ordered brand-new C8A3s with EOTech sights to take out with us, but it was an uphill battle and only got them because one of the officers from the specialist unit tacked on our weapons with his order (they got to pick their own). From what we were told, every position number has a specific weapon type assigned to it, but does that account for Surefires and PAQ-4s etc?


----------



## MikeL (26 Apr 2008)

C8A3? Or do you mean a C8A2?

In my unit, most rifleman have a C7A2, not enough C8A2s to go around.  As for lights, I think everyone in my unit was issued the M3 tac light. PAQ4s an PEQ2s, a lot of people have them, not everyone... not enough to go around.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2008)

Was stamped C8A3 on the side, and I'm pretty sure I've fired the only 15 rounds through that weapon (yes, I only zeroed it and never was needed to use it).


----------

