# CANFORGEN -076/14 No personal accessories.



## Shrek1985 (13 May 2014)

Just got this sent to me. Can't find it online, but basically personal or foriegn hand grips, slings, scopes and other accessories are now forbidden. Also we can't paint our weapons unless they're sniper rifles.

Okay, fine, sure, it's the law, we'll enforce it. I'm not sure any of this, besides slings is super-widespread, but whatever.

Question though; in the canforgen, it cites that these add-ons compromise the integrity and performance of the weapon, but never defines how. It also doesn't define exactly what accessories this canforgen is aimed at.

I assume personal foregrips, scope and slings, ect, but it doesn't specify. Some examples would help.

I have a hard time picturing how a sling, or foregrip could "compromise the integrity and/or performance" of a weapon, however and I doubt the people in charge of small arms actually want to hear from me.


----------



## Shrek1985 (13 May 2014)

http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2014/076-14_e.asp


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 May 2014)

Basically...the war is over. Time for real soldiering.  :


----------



## PuckChaser (13 May 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I have a hard time picturing how a sling, or foregrip could "compromise the integrity and/or performance" of a weapon, however and I doubt the people in charge of small arms actually want to hear from me.



I can see a 3 point sling which is set up for a left-handed shooter could cover the ejection port and create stoppages.

I'll have to re-read the CANFORGEN, but I didn't remember seeing anything about slings, though.


----------



## dapaterson (13 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I can see a 3 point sling which is set up for a left-handed shooter could cover the ejection port and create stoppages.
> 
> I'll have to re-read the CANFORGEN, but I didn't remember seeing anything about slings, though.



AFAIK a sling is considered an accessory.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Basically...the war is over. Time for real soldiering.  :



Well said.  I know they have to say nothing is allowed to prevent that 1% fucking around but really, paint on a hand guard?  Yeah ok.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Basically...the war is over. Time for real soldiering.  :



Yup, now that the fleece toque is somewhat settled, there are those with the Napoleon complex that need something else to chew on.

Next fiasco that comes around will see a three year gap while the corporate knowledge returns via trial and error again.

Lessons Learned Identified.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> AFAIK a sling is considered an accessory.



And if its not an issued sling it can bite you on the ass if you ND, cause as a tech I can't rule out interference from the non issue sling causing the ND. Thus leading to a charge


----------



## Old EO Tech (14 May 2014)

If you want to critique issued weapons accessories, there is this thing called a UCR that goes right to the LCMM for consideration.  If you want to trial new kit or equipment ask for a posting to QETE or LFTEU, otherwise use the issue kit the way it was designed and engineered to work.  The reason that non-issue kit is not allowed(and never was officially) is there is no way to tell if they compromise the weapons performance or function, and when they break and you try to turn them into the CQ only to find out they were never issued in the first place.  This makes national life cycling a nightmare, and could cause issued items to fail and have to be replaced sooner than they were supposed to be.  Even painting of the sniper rifles has limitations, I have told my snipers to make sure they don't paint anything area that it could degrade the function of the rifle or scope, like painting over the threads of the front of the scope....


----------



## blacktriangle (14 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> And if its not an issued sling it can bite you on the *** if you ND, cause as a tech I can't rule out interference from the non issue sling causing the ND. Thus leading to a charge



Sorry bro but slings don't cause ND's. 


...and the few idiots that could prove me wrong shouldn't be in the Army in the first place.


----------



## McG (14 May 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Sorry bro but slings don't cause ND's.


But, I have seen slings cause stoppages.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Sorry bro but slings don't cause ND's.
> 
> 
> ...and the few idiots that could prove me wrong shouldn't be in the Army in the first place.



Thats not the point im making whether it can or not if your using a non-issued sling I can't rule it out. It's my job to give the benefit of the doubt to those who ND. But after inspecting a weapon something like a non-issue sling would give reason enough for those above to charge you if i find no mechanical faults.


----------



## MikeL (14 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Thats not the point im making whether it can or not if your using a non-issued sling I can't rule it out. It's my job to give the benefit of the doubt to those who ND. But after inspecting a weapon something like a non-issue sling would give reason enough for those above to charge you if i find no mechanical faults.



And if a Weapon Tech found no mechanical fault on a weapon that ND'd, that had a issue sling(or no sling), would the outcome(charge) be any different?


If the CAF is going to do a blanket ban on add ons, I hope they plan on issuing better slings, etc than what we currently have.  I'll be submitting a UCR shortly, and will try to get others to do so as well regarding some of our current weapon accessories.




			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> The reason that non-issue kit is not allowed(and never was officially) is there is no way to tell if they compromise the weapons performance or function,



I don't buy that as a valid reason when it comes to replacing a CADEX Vert Grip with a KAC Vert Grip(that come issued CANSOF weapons). Same with using a BFG VCAS sling in place of a issue 2 point parade sling, or patrol sling, or using a KAC RAS(issued on CANSOF and CP C8s) instead of the TRIAD and issue handguards.

As long as the accessories are installed correctly and aren't knock off/cheap versions, personally I don't see the problem. Issuing a blanket ban on everything is a bit much IMO.  



Also, can someone post this CANFORGEN here as not all of us have daily DWAN access.  Thank you.


----------



## lawandorder (14 May 2014)

Another example of the death of common sense.


----------



## Remius (14 May 2014)

Hoplite- said:
			
		

> As long as the accessories are installed correctly and aren't knock off/cheap versions, personally I don't see the problem. Issuing a blanket ban on everything is a bit much IMO.



This.  How does one go and verify this then?  What sort of quality control measures do we have to ensure that said "other" kit and accessories are not knock offs and are in fact correctly installed?

Blanket bans are much easier to implement.  Not agreeing with it necessarily, just pointing that out.

You could apply the same logic to guys that eat nothing but protein bars on course and then thunders in.
How about helmets?  Or ballistic eyewear? 

Blanket bans may not be the best route to go I agree but it is better than going thunderdome and let everyone use whatever.

In my own opinion I would prefer seeing an approved items list.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 May 2014)

CANFORGEN 076/14 DLEPS 14/014 091431Z MAY 14
CANFORGEN -076/14 - NON-AUTHORIZED SMALL ARMS MODIFICATIONS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. C-04-005-014/AG-000, AUTHORIZATION, PRIORITIZATION AND REPORTING OF MODIFICATIONS, 1995-03-28 
B. CANFORGEN 075/10, UNAUTHORIZED PROCUREMENT OF OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT, 291815Z MAR 10
C. C-71-050-014/MD-000, DESCRIPTION AND PRINCIPLES OF SMALL ARMS, 1987-11-18
D. CAO 21-04, PAINT AND MARKING POLICY FOR LAND EQUIPMENT 



IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFS A THROUGH D, FOREIGN ISSUED ITEMS AND PERSONALLY PROCURED ACCESSORIES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ON ANY CAF SMALL ARMS. SUCH ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS CONSTITUTE ILLEGAL MODIFICATIONS AS DEFINED AT REF A. PAINTING OF CAF SMALL ARMS IS ALSO NOT AUTHORIZED EXCEPT FOR THE PAINTING OF SNIPER WEAPONS USING PAINT APPROVED BY THE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY DEFINED AT REF D. 


THE EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM FOR SMALL ARMS CONTINUES TO IDENTIFY CASES IN WHICH UNITS AND USERS HAVE CONDUCTED SUCH MODIFICATIONS. WEAPON SYSTEM INTEGRITY AND PERFORMANCE CAN BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY SUCH PRACTICES, CONSEQUENTLY PUTTING PERSONNEL SAFETY AND EQUIPMENT AT RISK. 


AS DIRECTED AT REF A, THE RESPONSIBLE MAINTENANCE AUTHORITY IS AUTHORIZED TO REMOVE NON-AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS FROM EQUIPMENT. ANY SUCH ITEMS FOUND SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED AND THE WEAPON RETURNED TO ITS APPROVED CONFIGURATION. THE MEMBER MAY RETAIN THESE ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES AND CANADIAN LAW AS PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUT THEY SHALL NOT BE USED OR INSTALLED ON ANY CAF SMALL ARMS. UNAUTHORIZED PAINT SHALL ALSO BE REMOVED AND THE WEAPON SHALL BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL COLOR AND CONFIGURATION. 


THE CONDUCT OF NON-AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS IS NOT TO BE TOLERATED AND MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. 


QUESTIONS REGARDING AUTHORIZED SMALL ARMS CONFIGURATIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE APPROPRIATE WEAPON TECHNICAL AUTHORITY OR THE SENIOR TECHNICAL AUTHORITY FOR SMALL ARMS (DIRECTOR SOLDIER SYSTEMS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (DSSPM) 4-5-2).


----------



## Dissident (14 May 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> In my own opinion I would prefer seeing an approved items list.



Indeed. 

If you gave me a sling that worked, I wouldn't buy another one to put on my service rifle. If the Cadex grip (that WE spec) wasn't such a turd, I wouldn't mind having an issued one on my rifle. As it stands I don't use a front grip anyways, but there is no way the POS Cadex grip is going on my rifle (and I recommend to everyone to avoid it like the plague.) If they hadn't upgraded the C7 family with the retarded Triad mount, some of us wouldn't be looking for other options.

Yes, yes, UCRs and all of that. Cue in Kevin B who has sent up some documentation TEN years ago, and yet none of those issues have been addressed. 

So channelling the spirit of Gunny Highway here: This is a clusterfuck. Troops should not have to fill in paperwork in order to get issued kit they already need.


----------



## Eowyn (14 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> It's my job to give the benefit of the doubt to those who ND.



Just a bit of a side track.  It is your job for provide facts as to the mechanical performance of the weapon to the person conducting the investigation.  The investigator provides the relevant facts to a higher authority, who determines if there are grounds to lay a charge.


----------



## MikeL (14 May 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> This.  How does one go and verify this then?  What sort of quality control measures do we have to ensure that said "other" kit and accessories are not knock offs and are in fact correctly installed?



Have power points/instructions showing the correct way to mount X item, and photos of the real item and labels on it, etc.  An approved list would obviously make this easier, as you would only need to show a handful of items. As well, as have NCOs do random inspections to check.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> How about helmets?  Or ballistic eyewear?



AFAIK, helmet pads are already banned by our Medical/Science people.  As for BEWs, fairly easy to check up online the ANZI rating of non issue eye wear, and most people tend to buy Oakley. From what I've seen, the issue BEW is more commonly worn than non issue eye wear(especially after the black frames came out).



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> In my own opinion I would prefer seeing an approved items list.


  

I agree, this would be the best route to go.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (14 May 2014)

Hoplite- said:
			
		

> Buying your own helmet is a bit of a stretch, but I see your point.



I thought he was getting at those guys who take out the internal support straps and replace them with foam or another, more comfortable system.


----------



## MikeL (14 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> I thought he was getting at those guys who take out the internal support straps and replace them with foam or another, more comfortable system.



Ack, I'm sure that(ballistic helmet pads) is what he was trying to get at also and have edited my post to reflect that.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 May 2014)

However there are also kits that retain a suspension system while also adding foam pads.. what do we do then?!?! EEKS!! We're all going to die!!!

Also, I'll add the good old boogey man chain of command reply to this thread:

"If it's not approved, you're not covered if you get injured, blah blah blah and your family will die poor"


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

Hoplite- said:
			
		

> And if a Weapon Tech found no mechanical fault on a weapon that ND'd, that had a issue sling(or no sling), would the outcome(charge) be any different?



Depends on the situation, Environmental factors can also play a role. It also makes a difference to if its a live ammo ND or say a blank ND (which usually dont lead to a charge from what I've seen)





> Just a bit of a side track.  It is your job for provide facts as to the mechanical performance of the weapon to the person conducting the investigation.  The investigator provides the relevant facts to a higher authority, who determines if there are grounds to lay a charge.



This is also true, I said provide benefit of the doubt because if there is something unknown within the situation, or another factor that could of played a role in it I would mention it.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 May 2014)

I agree with the part that talks about painting weapons. The rest is just this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeUYE1XNO5E


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Depends on the situation, Environmental factors can also play a role. It also makes a difference to if its a live ammo ND *or say a blank ND (which usually dont lead to a charge from what I've seen)
> 
> *



Where are you living? Hans Island?


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Where are you living? Hans Island?



Alberta, Don't ask me why its like that, if your dumb enough to willfully ND you should be charged IMO, in my four years I've seen atleast 7 people get away with a ND with blanks. Culture of the reserves I guess


----------



## dapaterson (14 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Culture of the reserves I guess



Culture of specific units, I suspect.  I've seen Reservists charged for NDs with blanks.

But some COs seem to believe that no charges shows they're doing a good job, and therefore things are permitted to slide.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Culture of specific units



I would not doubt this for a second, in fact I would bet my career that this is it


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 May 2014)

Having read the CANFORGEN I can see how it's a safety concern and this iisue needs to be addressed.

It's not like our small arms are weapons that have thousands if not millions of aftermarket parts and accessories created for them...also, it's not like the platform has been around since the 70s.. 

Oh, wait.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 May 2014)

Its 1950s technology with a rail instead of carry handle, green parts, and a tri-ad bolted onto it. Turns out a non-issue sling might make it jam. True story.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 May 2014)

ERMAGHERD!! NERN ISSRE SLERNGS!!  RUN!!!!


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> ERMAGHERD!! NERN ISSRE SLERNGS!!  RUN!!!!



Really when so many people are using non-issued slings, maybe instead of constantly just charging people and making a mess maybe they should think "well if all these people aren't using the issued slings, maybe there is something wrong with them?" like not working well with the C7A2


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 May 2014)

We're gonna have to resort to issuing neck stocks again to keep the troops' heads up when they hear about this. But remember, only ISSUED neck stocks are allowed!


----------



## MilEME09 (14 May 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> We're gonna have to resort to issuing neck stocks again to keep the troops' heads up when they hear about this. But remember, only ISSUED neck stocks are allowed!



You just reminded me of our RSM's quest to rid our unit of non-issued kit, if it aint issued he is coming for you


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 May 2014)

It is a well known fact that an army at peace turns against itself. Gotta have offensive action somewhere, right?


----------



## KevinB (17 Jun 2014)

:facepalm:

Not sure what else to add.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jun 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :facepalm:



Its a perfect summary.


----------



## Jammer (17 Jun 2014)

It's direction. Debate it, complain about it, but when it comes right down to it...you will follow it.


----------



## KevinB (17 Jun 2014)

Jammer said:
			
		

> It's direction. Debate it, complain about it, but when it comes right down to it...you will follow it.



Clearly you did not know me when I was in uniform...  ;D

1) Ignore
2) UCR
3) Write service paper and continue with 1).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jun 2014)

Kevin,

Your response puts the 1 in 1 CMBG....


----------



## Armymedic (18 Jun 2014)

Don't understand what all the bitching is about.

1. Painted rifles don't look good on parade
2. LCF accessories won't help your shooting when you take your gun out to the range once a year to shoot your allotted 100 bullets.
3. Painting your gun doesn't help camouflage when it's in the weapons rack because your unit has no money to go out and train.

Btw, make sure you get your new Div patches, name tags and ranks; cause that what is important to the Army now.


----------

