# Weapons modification RANT.



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

I noticed a few locked threads about weapon modifications -- quite frankly I disagree wholeheartedly with the mods on this one.

Your weapon is your life and I personal have found the CF to be very disinterested in providing me the best system for my uses while I was in uniform.  As such I have decided to post a rant and discussion combination with my thoughts and experience on different pieces of gear.
I've never had good luck with the C79 


Combined with some humour  ;D






 I ran a LMT BIS on the C8FTHB for a week or so -- I decided irons only was a handicap (more on that to follow)

I became intimately involved with the US SOPMOD project and its follow ons and decided that a railed system for the C7 was a much better choice (plus I could then use a laser, light and vert grip)






Velocity testing gave me the insight that the 16" barrel was a better choice and the 14.5 or 20" for GP usage 






- and I hate the ELCAN so a 16" and ACOG TA31 - this setup did not last long (maybe a week) until the COC decided that a personal upper was pushing the envelope a tad bit much









Gee not like I had not pulled that one before  




















C7CT

























recent SOCOM version of the Elcan 1-4X variable and a Dr Optic mounting bracket






after all the pic porn -- my conclusion is as follows

C8SFW is better than a C8 or C7 (just as accurate yet more maneuverable than the C7 - barrel is a wee bit heavy for real use - but better than nothing... ) 

TRIAD-1 sucks ass -- try to get a rail (freefloat it better -- but the CF does frown on you removing the front sight gas block  )

Variable power (1-4x) scopes are much better than fixed for general purpose usages 
 Elcan still sucks 
a day time (and night) illuminated reticle is a must - optics provide a HUGE gain in combat capability (but have and maintain proficiency with a BIS)


Get a redi-mag MarkC was 100% right on that one.


Minus the ATIPAL I just snagged this is my 99% system


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

and most importantly 





NEVER EVER go any anywhere without your hair care products


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

that's all well and good, but telling troops to modify their weapons is just going to get them in shit. They can't do it. 

We can create all manner of theads about what makes a weapons system better. We can recommend kit. We can provide proof. We can scream and yell about the failure of NDHQ to adapt with the times, and provide better equipment, or looser regulations.

We can do anything we want EXCEPT tell soldiers to ignore the rules. We do that, and we're not just negligent, we're irresponsible.

And what happens when Troopie McSnuffie, who doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does, starts putting garbage on his rifle? We have people on this site who don't even know how to shoot properly, let alone understand ballistics, or why some items actually work, and others don't.


----------



## Big Red (20 Aug 2006)

If nobody pushes the envelope by using unauthorized but effective kit/weapons, nothing will change.  New developments in kit aren't pushed from the top down, they start from the individual soldier coming up with a better way of doing things.  Look at how well the C7A2 and TV turned out....

There's no reason the CF or invdividual units can't come up with a list of authorized optics or accessories.  US soldiers in some units have alot of lattitude on kit selection and they don't seem to end up buying junk.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

PCB -- roger that.

However systems in use with the CF (EOTECH, RAS, etc) have been approved for use - and are issue yet in way to few quantities.

  When part of the SecAud in Kabul I saw a MSG with a $20 .22 red dot scope on his C8 on a el cheapo Fobus rail system -- I agree with your premise on some kit is garbage and a lot of troops do not understand what is GTG and what is not -- however a NSN'd system in use with the CF is a hard issue to argue against.


Second point - I would agree that while a Pte with a few years in may not really understand the what and why's a recce pl or sniper det guy can make a pretty informed choice as to what and why he feels he need to mod his weapon to better do the job and score more point with the ladies...

IF everyone just accepts the status quo then nothing will change for the better -- the conventional side of the CF owes Maj Louis DeSousa a huge debt of gratitude for procurment of the C8SFW and EOTECH - without his "resourcefulness" a lot of the Lessons Learned would not have been incorporated by DLR 5-5.  

However I disagree with the CF that due to funding some trades and some pieces of units will not have access to equitpment -- if troops are willing I believe that they and their paycheque should be able to decide if they want to augment their issue kit.  I for one would simply allow "issue kit" that is not issued to his/her own unit to be personally funded.

 Certain pieces of units have ignored the "directives" about weapon mods anyway already -- and when it is your ass on the line -- as you know -- you have a vested interest in keeping it out of harms way.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Aug 2006)

OK, not to sound too much like a rock painter, but someone else here said it well already, and I will amplify those setiments.  We are part of an army, funded by the state.  I-6 makes some very good points, but remember, he is funding his own mods on his own (not as a member of the CF) and he is very knowledgeable.  If you want a mod, go ask a weapon's tech.  Chances are they may be able to help, and they are the professionals in terms of weapons and such.  The last thing a weapon's tech needs to hear is "it seemed like a good idea at the time".  Or, put in your release, apply to do some "freelance" work, and if you have the requisite knowledge, you'll be a master at your craft.  And there are ways in the system to implement change



			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> If nobody pushes the envelope by using unauthorized but effective kit/weapons, nothing will change.


Sure it will.  If you use unauthorized kit/weapons, effective or not, you will be charged.  Full stop.  Not only is it dangerous, it is full of contempt.  Having said that, if person "A" sees a better way to do things or a better piece of kit, make some noise and see if it could be used with blessing of your chain of command with some professional opinion (say by a weapons' tech on a jammy piece of kit that could be added to your rifle as an example).


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

we have to push the envelope. There is no question. And we can make any manner of suggestions on here. BUT we *CANNOT* tell troops to disobey legal orders, no matter how stupid they are.

If Trooper Bloggins starts tacking stuff on his weapon, and get his ass charged, WE did it to him. We have to push the envelope, but we have to ensure that the troops don't pay the price for it. There are methods to use inside the system, and there are ways to go outside it (like this, for instance) to make positive changes.

BUT we *CANNOT* tell troops to disobey legal orders, no matter how stupid they are. 

And, vG - do NOT mock the hair! Infidel has his priorities straight here. Let there be no doubt in that regard.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Aug 2006)

Hmm.

Using unauthorized/un-issued weapons is a definate bad idea.  Modifying your weapons can also get you in big trouble if it has to do with modifying the effects of said weapon.  None of this seems to be along those lines.

Slings and aiming devices don't seem like a big deal to me.  The chain of command at a rather low level should be able to approve certain pieces of ancillary gear (I'm thinking section commanders here).  If the Sgt says its cool its cool by me.  It'll be his battle anyway.

Look at any group photo of a victorious bunch of soldiers.  They will often have an amazing variety of gear and weapons.  The PWs, however, usually look rather uniform as they trudge off to the cages.

As an aside, the C8 "heavy barrel" is definately a good piece of kit.  

Cheers,

2B

p.s. My head, unfortunately, needs sunscreen as opposed to pomade... :crybaby:


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

On the hair,
  A good friend (you might know - former Royal turned professional "skier") Rocky B said -- its much more important to look good doing it - that do it well -> since if you look good it will look professional and attract less attention   


Secondly I would caution anyone from taking advice from weapon tech's - as a Colt M16 armorer I can tell you from dealing with some weapons techs they are parts changers and that is all -- I know some exceptionally gifted and skilled ones -- but I know others that are dimwitted tools.  I much prefer the older ones that where true armorers - rather than the "technician" skill set of today -- no to say that the younger ones are bad (I've seen both bad and good for both ages).  Get to know your weapons techs -- the good ones are exceptional helpful and knowledgeable about weapon operations -- However even the most gifted weapons tech does not have a background in combat and while they can alter the weapon to your requirments (there are those who will add freefloat tubes etc.) they will not typically understand your needs or want from the end user perpective.

In truth only you the end user can tell what your needs are -- hopefully you have the skills to determine those needs in advance.


As 2B stated and has been reflected on all the 1CMBG rotations to Afghan I can recall

 -- in many units there is a determination that anything that does not alter the weapons charactertics permamenty is not a mod but a user enhancement.
 Lights, Vert grips, Drop on (KAC) rails, optics etc are usually okay (at least PPCLI side it was)

Maj Campbell's Redi-mag recommendation (and use) was an examply of the C-o-C realising that in combat you do what you need.


I would never push a troop into a weapon mod (although - you may have noticed I have lent a countless thousand of dollars in kit to guys deployed) I certainly would not stop them (unless its garbage)


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> Modifying your weapons can also get you in big trouble if it has to do with modifying the effects of said weapon.


sadly, this is where you run into dinosaurs who don't properly understand either their weapons, or the Geneva Conventions, and try to charge troops for attaching a C9 butt grip to their forestock (true story) or attaching a civvie-purchase light to their crappy tri-mount as there aren't enough Surefires in the system. 

Or for sewing their M203 bandoliers onto their crappy TV in order not to strangle themselves. (Destruction of DND property. I couldn't make that up.)


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> we have to push the envelope. There is no question. And we can make any manner of suggestions on here. BUT we *CANNOT* tell troops to disobey legal orders, no matter how stupid they are.



Nor should we, as was asked in another thread, allow stuff like this privately purchased and shipped into theater right int the war zone. (A FOO should be calling in support , not shooting back)

My biggest beef is that we have the gear like the FTHB and EOTechs, PAQs etc over there, and over there is the first time we ever get to use them. Train as you fight, and fight with what you've trained on. The day of the fight is not the day to be trying something new. Lets get the gear before, get used to it and see what its advantages and limitations are. 

Further, its not the gear on the weapon that makes the weapon deadly, it is the mind controling the weapon that makes it deadly....all that gear just makes it heavier.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> On the hair,
> A good friend (you might know - former Royal turned professional "skier") Rocky B said -- its much more important to look good doing it - that do it well -> since if you look good it will look professional and attract less attention


If you happen to see RB, please tell him I said hello!  I remember the days when he was a mini-RB and trapsing around the back of my track!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

I think some are skirting the this question.  If an EOTech xyz is authorized for use but there are too few is it the end of the world if someone purchases his own EOTech xyz.  
Troops were using fleece and bivvy bags long before the army got a clue and I think its because so many went on their own to get the stuff the army eventually woke up.
Wpn mods, whether cosmetic such as a rail hand guard or sights I think will always be touchy because the army is afraid of losing control.  Whether that be quality control or a deluge of different sights that may not fit the bill.

Me personally I will take my chances but in no way will encourge others to follow my foot steps.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel could you be so kind to initially spell out all your acronyms and everytime you add one.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

:

  While I agree that the time to learn to use it is not in threatre - its better than nothing.

While I would not tell a medic how to do his job - I would suggest that if the FOO feels its time to use his C8 - you give him credence that he knows his job.

BTW - I had 6 EOTECH's, a NightForce 2.5-10X, 4 M4 RAS, and a shitload of SureFire lights (the good i.e. non CF version) shipped via the CF mail system and while it takes for ever vice the US APO system -- it does indeed get their since it is entirely legal to ship or possess.

My god - you'd think some of you beleive that guy wanted to ship a suitcase nuke or something to his brother  


VG -- he's doing well - got an email last week from him - he's still at our old Stalag, but he has an excellent job there and his hookedup all over town





I finally found someone who likes to fuck around more than me...


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I much prefer the older ones that where true armorers - rather than the "technician" skill set of today -- no to say that the younger ones are bad (I've seen both bad and good for both ages).  Get to know your weapons techs -- the good ones are exceptional helpful and knowledgeable about weapon operations -- However even the most gifted weapons tech does not have a background in combat and while they can alter the weapon to your requirments (there are those who will add freefloat tubes etc.) they will not typically understand your needs or want from the end user perpective.


Exactly: first see the true armourer, rather than just a "tech".  From my experience with dealing with them (about weapons a wee bit too heavy to carry, anyway), if you tell them what you want, they can provide the 'how'.  They may not understand the 'why', but who cares?  Get their advice/help, get the job done, trial it for effectiveness, modify as necessary, and then when satisfied, go on in your merry way!


----------



## Big Red (20 Aug 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Nor should we, as was asked in another thread, allow stuff like this privately purchased and shipped into theater right int the war zone. (A FOO should be calling in support , not shooting back)



A warzone is the soldiers workplace...where else should he use his kit? Obviously you should try the item out on the range before using it on missions, but that can be done in theatre if needed.  Often it's only when you get overseas that you realize you need a particular piece of kit or capability.

US soldiers in many units can use a variety of rails, optics, VFGs, lights, stocks, even complete personal uppers.  Guys get weapons parts, uppers, and aftermarket kit shipped over here all the time.  SF soldiers and contractors are constantly modifying their weapons to find out what works best for THEM.

If a giant machine like the US mil can handle the *anarchy* of allowing personal weapons mods why can't a small army like ours?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

Cause ours are anal pricks were a lot of them have no cmbt experience but think they know it all.  Another thread entirely.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Aug 2006)

In spite of the opinion that our chain of command is anally retentive and the like, the army is a place where you follow orders and do what you are told.  You are expected to show initiative, but you are not allowed to show license.  There are ways to implement changes, as have been outlined.  I-6 makes some excellent points, but remember that he saw greener pastures and chose to follow them.  I, like others on here, saw no greener pastures and chose to remain, to abide by the rules and to work within them.  Change?  Yes, sometimes it's hard, but that's life, and it's no different outside the army than within it.  
So, I-6 has made some useful posts re: weapons modifications.  Now remember that he has made some other very useful posts re: training.  Regardless if we have are armed with a Mark One fist, a Cross bow or a Phased Plasma Rifle, if we aren't trained in their effective use, we may as well stay home and play Nintendo!


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> My god - you'd think some of you beleive that guy wanted to ship a suitcase nuke or something to his brother


no. I just didn't want the dude to get charged by one of the afore-mentioned dinosaurs. I think we all know how much I love the EOTech. Even more than the Aimpoint. (As an example)

While I would like the Army to smarten up and allow troops to kit their stuff out better, I know that it's going to end up badly the first time some Chairborne Garatrooper sees a troop with his boots unbloused, and an "illegal modification" to his weapon.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Aug 2006)

See, and here I was thinking that the special forces guys could do whatever they wanted to.  
I am no weapons SME, but this strikes me as a "walk before you run" issue.  Of course you don't want to see guys putting crap on their weapons during BMQ.  IMO they should be on the range with iron sights and once they can get a good grouping at 400 m, then start with optics and such.  Good shooting is what it is.  All the gizmo's and crap won't make a bad shooter better.  
I also imagine that when they are playing "make a new friend" in the Sandbox or wherever, the SOF types do whatever they want anyway.  Kind of like your daughter on the way to school.  Once she is out the door in the outfit you laid out for her, she whips out the one she will actually wear once she gets to school.  As long as mom and dad don't see it, she's okay.  
What I infer from I-6's post is that it would be nice if guys that are putting their lives out there in stickier-than-normal situations didn't have to go out of pocket for top shelf equipment to do their jobs better.  You don't buy your 16 year old a Le Mans race car.  But once they show that they can handle it, you let up the hammer.  
Would it be possible to create a course at one of the Battle schools, whereby high end snipers and SOF types could take a course in upgrades?  Call it something like "Advanced Weapon Modifications for Special Operatives".  Have some weapons techs, JTF leaders, senior snipers etc all get together, go over a bunch of stuff and put together a seminar/course.  Then, have guys come and be familiarized with a variety of kit and how it best suits them and how it affects their performance.  Once qualified, if you are going into an actual theatre of operations, you could submit a request to be compensated for an approved kit list of special upgrades as long as you could justify it.  I would think word would get around about what the best combinations of barrels/optics/munitions/mag systems etc. to everyone, and pretty quick it would look pretty much like a standard kit list.  Then, when new things came out on the market, you would have your best and brightest testing it in an actual combat situation, and thereby making all of us a bit more effective and safe.  
Just a thought.  

Zipperhead_novice


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> no. I just didn't want the dude to get charged by one of the afore-mentioned dinosaurs. I think we all know how much I love the EOTech. Even more than the Aimpoint. (As an example)
> 
> While I would like the Army to smarten up and allow troops to kit their stuff out better, I know that it's going to end up badly the first time some Chairborne Garatrooper sees a troop with his boots unbloused, and an "illegal modification" to his weapon.


Agreed.  Make the mods HERE and not THERE.  Make the crown foot the bill.  Make sure the mods work, and make it tailored for the role intended.  As an example, not too many postal clerks in the Sand Box may need EOTech sights!  Just a guess here is all


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> While I would not tell a medic how to do his job - I would suggest that if the FOO feels its time to use his C8 - you give him credence that he knows his job.


True enough. His self defence.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> My god - you'd think some of you believe that guy wanted to ship a suitcase nuke or something to his brother





			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> If a giant machine like the US mil can handle the *anarchy* of allowing personal weapons mods why can't a small army like ours?



Well, it starts with a simple foregrip handle, and where does it stop?   
Seriously though, this isn't personal kit and comfort. We are talking weapons systems. Changing an upper receiver to one not issued...now that is pushing your luck. If Soldier A puts on a fancy sight on his rifle, what happens to him when in the next subsequent fight accidental ends up shooting his buddy because he did not use his sight properly?

....Or shall we allow soldiers to buy special radios (like a SINGARS or MBTER or whatever) cause TCCCS sucks? 

Perhaps its the "rock painter" mentality in me, but when it comes to certain things we should only be allowed to use what the CF gives us. And I know we will not change each others opinion on this one.



			
				von Garvin said:
			
		

> Make the mods HERE and not THERE.  Make the crown foot the bill.  Make sure the mods work, and make it tailored for the role intended.  As an example, not too many postal clerks in the Sand Box may need EOTech sights!


+1 on that.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to create a course at one of the Battle schools, whereby high end snipers and SOF types could take a course in upgrades?  Call it something like "Advanced Weapon Modifications for Special Operatives".  Have some weapons techs, JTF leaders, senior snipers etc all get together, go over a bunch of stuff and put together a seminar/course.  Then, have guys come and be familiarized with a variety of kit and how it best suits them and how it affects their performance.  Once qualified, if you are going into an actual theatre of operations, you could submit a request to be compensated for an approved kit list of special upgrades as long as you could justify it.  I would think word would get around about what the best combinations of barrels/optics/munitions/mag systems etc. to everyone, and pretty quick it would look pretty much like a standard kit list.  Then, when new things came out on the market, you would have your best and brightest testing it in an actual combat situation, and thereby making all of us a bit more effective and safe.


dude, I can't even get my snipers issued the fucking .338! Or replace our busted-ass .50! I can't even get them issued Ghillies! You think the army is going to run something like this? You have any idea how many mini-empires would crumble? The bureaucracy would crush it. Before it even began.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

I've been doing my own weapons mods for awhile -- I have never had any heat - other than a CQ who got pissed he could not shut the rack and made me remove a vertical grip while it was in the vault...  that said -- I just did them and never asked.

The final fiasco was the JAG who claimed that my 16" 1:7 twist Douglas Stainless Steel match barrel - was modifiying my weapon to created greater wounding than the 16" 1:7 twist Diemaco barrel  :



VG and PCB have great points - and I agree with them 100%

  Training is job 1 all the cool guy toys will not help you without training.
  Some may say mindset is #1 since without the proper mindset you dont get the perspective on trainign that you need to get value from it.  However these days I see more and more in the CF with the proper mindset - its becoming (a refreshing) overwehlming majority.

  Once you have all that kit is great - for good kit properly employed is a force multiplier. 

FWIW -- JTF assaulter have up to 6 different uppers and a few different Sig pistols. Add in M14SE "Crazy Horse" (flop) AR10C (flop) FNC1A1 build (flop it appears) and the guys are not wanting for toys - S&B, NigthForce, Tijicon, EoTECH and Aimpiont -- no worries the Nations Elite is covered for gear.  The issue here is not SOF units - as I have a buddy at the Hill that has pointed out that that CSOR will have a fair bit of latitude one weapon "decoration".


Shandy Vida covered my back on a few issues when he was the CO of 1 VP -- he knew I was right, and the guys trying to get me (who watch this forum BTW) where wrong.  I still have faith that the leadership (by and large) of the CF will do the right thing.

Secondly it is next to impossible to charge a troop for adding a personal EOTECH to his/her issue weapon when a troop across the tent has an issue one and the only reason is availability that he/she did not get one.  I am sure a few of the reporters in theatre would get a kick out of covering that trial.  
  "Soldier charged for adding sighting system to weapon"


I will also add -- I ran a portion A Coy 1VP thru a CQB weapon package with the assitance of two board members here -- soldiers with the EOTECH scored a shit load better (like a 4x increase in kills and a hue decrease in time) than soldiers with Irons or the C79.
  The kicker is it was my personal EoTech and none had previous experience other than the 3 instructors...



Para -- cut these out and hand them to the guys   



















Last I spoke to Steve he was on track for delivery - the late change from USO to S&B scope set tham back (that was months ago) - I understood the units should have gotten some by now unless Gagetown is playing the hoarding game...


DLR 5-5 gets fuck on weapon budgeting -- the troops pay the bills.  :'(


----------



## Canadian Sig (20 Aug 2006)

I have to admit to being a kit-whore and having my fair share ( ok probably more than my fair share ) of personaly funded kit. I am all for anything that makes me a more effective soldier whether that be comm's kit, pers kit or weapons add-ons. Unfortunatly funding is an issue in my unit. We are lucky to put 100 rounds per year down range, and we have troops who have never fired the C6 or thrown a grenade. Add to that weapons techs who don't know shite ( ours told me he would see me charged if I added a vertical grip to my A2 ) and the reality is that Gucci is'nt gonna happen for me. In the long run I would rather see the money that could be used for "lights and sights" be used for ammo to properly train troops to proficiency. Just my $.02


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

Canadian Sig  -- unfortunately they come from different budgets.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Secondly it is next to impossible to charge a troop for adding a personal EOTECH to his/her issue weapon when a troop across the tent has an issue one and the only reason is availability that he/she did not get one.


you want to wager someone's tour pay on that? I don't. Like I said, I've seen charges attempted for a lot sillier reasons. Some stuck.

There are enough lurking assholes (who don't have the parts to come out and say who they are, and why they're here) that will use these means to attempt to bully subordinates. We've seen it before. Barbarian's brother, for example, was quite clearly ID'd, and if his CoC have the dinosaur mentality, (I'm not saying his CoC are assholes. I don't know. He's my easiest example) they'd pay attention to his weapons sight. Should it change from an issued C79 to an EOTech, he'd be hooped. Regardless of whether it made sense.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

PCB -- yeah they could try...  Thats his decision to make.
 Personally if someone tried to charge me for that (back when I was in) I'd relish the chance to fry some of the assholes.

FWIW did they swap out all the C8's to C8A1's -- most of the other trades just got iron C8's anyway (which makes the FOO issue a sidebar and not relevant unless he wanted to send his brother a flattop upper too  ;D)


----------



## Yeoman (20 Aug 2006)

some have seen the light. over in the first herd, they're allowing them to get away with quite a few things now.
half of my room mates rifle was purchased on his own. the buttstock, the scope, the ris system, the vert grip, the sling, I think he's got his on sure fire now.
really all I want to do is get a new scope, a ris barrel, is that too much to ask? okay well I want to get rid of half my issued kit as well, but still.
Greg


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

positive signs, to be sure. But, I will continue to err on the side of caution on this site, to keep troops and the owner, out of shit whenever possible.

I'm crazy like that.


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW did they swap out all the C8's to C8A1's -- most of the other trades just got iron C8's anyway (which makes the FOO issue a sidebar and not relevant unless he wanted to send his brother a flattop upper too  ;D)



Only very pointy end troops get them....FOO party, probably not.

Most AFV crew only get the C8 and not the A1s at all. Those are reserved for troops doing the really dirty work of getting up close and personal.

Getting back to the thread in question....

As for the idea of someone in theater changing to another sight without first training with it on a live range (re: no time to train but get on with the job) is at best absolutely retarded wouldn't you say? 

We aren't talking about some vert handle or Surefire light here but an integral part of the weapon. 

I'm not trying to insult you I-6, but trying to educate some of the other members here that know squat about this stuff. You know the ones I'm talking about. They can't hit a shooting in screen at 100m never mind someone shooting at them at 200m with an AK.

Now if this person had trained with it and had permission to use it prior to leaving for the poo dust box then I'm sure that there would be absolutely no problems here.

I highly doubt that he will have the time and the spare ammo to go and dial in his sight so he can have his Gucci sight. I know the drill for doing a range shoot in K-Town, as do many others here as well. It's not as easy as it was in Julian at all. 

Here's another thought....what if he has to use it and it craps out? I know that is very unlikely, but playing devils advocate....

But I digress....

My point is....if he had trained with it and demonstrated confidence with it prior to going over this would not be a problem to anyone here, nor his CoC.

But he didn't, period. With this in mind, this site can't condon it in any way shape or form.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## Canadian Sig (20 Aug 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Only very pointy end troops get them....FOO party, probably not.
> 
> Most AFV crew only get the C8 and not the A1s at all. Those are reserved for troops doing the really dirty work of getting up close and personal.



Sigs doing the dirty work? Up close and personal? Somehow (in most cases) I think not  



Although a few Sigs will get to be Rovers or SDS and be in direct "harms way" most will sit in the FOB or at KAF.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

If he had a C8A1 with a properly installed BIS it could drop on and be dry zero'd sicne it will co-witness between the rear and front sights 
Secondly most troops get the kit they are using once in theatre (EOTECH's etc.)

Not saying what he wanted to do was right - just that some of the rationale against is similar to reasons to leave the PAS-13 etc. in the CQ...

I'll stop stirring the pot now though


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

Did the guys that got the EOTech's in previous tours have trigger time on them?


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Did the guys that got the EOTech's in previous tours have trigger time on them?


we did. Eventually. Kandahar, I dunno.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

If that's the case does it not counter RBD's point?


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Did the guys that got the EOTech's in previous tours have trigger time on them?



Yes.....we did. Then had to go back to an iron sight in theater     :

I-6,

You are making very valid points here, thus making a very informative thread. I am an avide shooter and would love to be able to modify my weapon as I see fit....

But again, I can't nor can any troop just because he wants to have every bell and whistle on his weapon in theater. I know what works and have used it in theater. I trained with them prior to going over and had confidence in my weapon. 

You are in a unique position, knowledgable and without the constraints of DND....which I and most people who have been in the poobox envy.



Canadian Sig,

We are not talking about someone who is not going to be "In the thick of it"    

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> If that's the case does it not counter RBD's point?


that point, yes. But, it remains that we cannot, in good conscience advocate ANY soldier add/remove ANYTHING from their weapon unless in accordance with the direction from their CoC. To do so would be irresponsible. It opens that soldier up to legal actions and, should he suffer an accident, even more trouble with his CoC. 

This site will not allow that. For the sake of the troops, and for the sake of the site owner. Stop trying to bring more heat down on Mike!


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> If that's the case does it not counter RBD's point?



How so?

He's going to get the sight in theater without any training on it at all....read no live rounds down range.

Think that the CoC will set up a range in KAF just for him, _one person_, to sight in his weapon? Methink's not.

So will he be able to use a sight that he's not trained with or sighted in? Again...I don't think so.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> we did. Eventually. Kandahar, I dunno.



Of course you guys had the 25m range availiable to use near the Queens Palace to set your sights.

KAF doesn't have the nicety of a range with such useage.

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Of course you guys had the 25m range availiable to use near the Queens Palace to set your sights.
> 
> KAF doesn't have the nicety of a range with such useage.


 We didn't have that on my tour. We had to cross the city, and use the ranges out past the airport.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

My point being that those issued said sight in the sandbox are in the same boat as those who bring the same sight that they own.  Neither of them will have the trigger time.  That is all.


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> My point being that those issued said sight in the sandbox are in the same boat as those who bring the same sight that they own.  Neither of them will have the trigger time.  That is all.



And by the time that sight makes it into theater, the sight confirmation shoots will be completed and he's left with a sight that will be gathering dust in his barrack box.     

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

True.



But I'd hypothetically pack it myself (different situation I know).


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

Each Platoon (031) is issued a laser bore sit kit -- in it the laser bore sight also has a screen to dry sight the CCO (Aimpoint or EOTECH).

  Concern for the troop - fine, however I dont think anyone here is saying YOU MUST GO OUT AND BUY XXXX for its cool and you need it to live.  Same goes for Mike -- I'm sure he knows I have no intention on getting him in trouble.


However confidence can sometime be instilled (remember the arguments about the bayonet I had with VG and Art M?) be issuing an item that acts as a placebo -- IF the FOO (or whomever) sees Mr Superbeard JTF Assaulter with his 10" C8CQB OPSINC suppressor and EOTECH -- maybe he takes comfort in knowing that he has an optic that is issued by the Hill.  Who cares -- the damn thing is issue yeah maybe his is not -- but I can guarantee you that when I went to Afghan with the CF the VAST majority issued the EOTECH's had not seen them before -- a lot came to me to ask how to zero it and where to put it -- more did not -- many have not ever received proper training in it - nor understand the why and how's of its employment.  

The only problem we found with guys using their own EOTECH's was the CF tried to keep them end tour... >


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd pack it myself (different situation I know).



Quote from I-6:


> Concern for the troop - fine, however I dont think anyone here is saying YOU MUST GO OUT AND BUY XXXX for its cool and you need it to live.  Same goes for Mike -- I'm sure he knows I have no intention on getting him in trouble.



I'm glad we all can at least agree on those points    

Regards


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

I prefer to think we are on the same sheet of music - I just read faster


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

Quag,

what part of the below are you not grasping, dude?





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> But, it remains that we cannot, in good conscience advocate ANY soldier add/remove ANYTHING from their weapon unless in accordance with the direction from their CoC. To do so would be irresponsible. It opens that soldier up to legal actions and, should he suffer an accident, even more trouble with his CoC.
> 
> This site will not allow that. For the sake of the troops, and for the sake of the site owner. Stop trying to bring more heat down on Mike!


Quit playing devil's advocate. Anyone who wants to buy their own shit and use it overseas had better damn well have the approval of their CoC, and that is the last word from this site.

If yu want to discuss the merits of various sights, supressors, vests, chest rigs, rucksacks, or fuckin' tanks, hey! Feel free. But don't recommend troops modify their weapons systems. 

Fer Chris'sake, dude. Are you TRYING to bring NDHQasaurus trouble on Mike?


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I prefer to think we are on the same sheet of music - I just read faster



Oh believe me, if I could have what I wanted for my own C8 in Afghanistan....

*drool drool*

I brought up many points prior to going over, along with the fact that a good friend of mine was willing to do some pro bono work (gunsmith...ex ERT) and got shot down left right and center.

It's the nature of the beast....but it is slowly *sigh* changing.


That being said....

We still *must* obey the directives given.

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2006)

now, if folks want to discuss hypotheticals, and make up wish-lists, that's fair game.

Or if they want to debates the merits of assorted kit items, that's all good.

Even if they just want to rant about dinosaurs in the system screwing things up for the guys at the sharp end, give 'er!

But, remember, there are dumbasses who will do stupid shit because "some guy" on the internet said something, and there are dumbasses who will charge people for stupid shit like sewing M203 bandoliers on their TV.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Me personally I will take my chances but in no way will encourge others to follow my foot steps.



Now if I did then I'm sorry.


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> .....and there are dumbasses who will charge people for stupid crap like sewing M203 bandoliers on their TV.



 :

Or not having their pants bloused when _outside_ the wire.

Regards


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2006)

I had two Cpl's from 1VP approach me to buy S&B Short Dot scopes after a few firefights -- cause they disappointed with the EOTECH and ELCAN - in the fact that the EO was good for CQB and yet not so good for tgt detection and discrimination at 250M+  (they are nice kind Canadian boys that try not to wack the wrong hadji)   Yet they mistrust the ELCAN (for good reason) and where disappointed with the CQB ability of it.

  Tells you something when a soldier who is married (and one has two kids) is willing to buy a $2300 sight.

Also tells me he's thinking its a good investment.


* Gotta love the pant bloused NAZI's -- It can be helpful to scan and laminate a copy of the dress regs where it points that in hot weather sleeves and pants can be unbuttoned and unbloused...


----------



## Red 6 (21 Aug 2006)

This is a great thread. As a former infantry NCO and current SWAT armorer, I have a lot of interest in this topic. Operators have all different levels of proficiency with their weapons. Also, there are so many things you can hang off your weapon, it could look like a science experiment if that's the way you want to go. Most everything you can buy has some application, but there is a definite point where you can go overboard with accessories.  If you have your own weapon and you know what you're doing, then you can put anything on it you want— no problem. But a 19 or 20 year old infantryman with a government issued rifle is a different story. Armorers make modifications to weapons and there are very good reasons for that.


----------



## Garry (21 Aug 2006)

This is a good thread!

I don't suppose there's a troop out there that hasn't supplement his kit somehow (remember the c-5 knife?) but in my days we never modified weapons- heck, there wasn't much that I knew to modify!

One thing we did modify (heavily!) was kit lists. I found that my older troops knew what they needed to be comfortable in the field and accomplish the mission. This was based on experience and individual skills. I also found that my new troops had no idea what they needed (though they sure thought they did!). Lastly, as the guy responsible for both the mission and my  troops, I knew what I needed (both personal kit and troop kit) to get the job done. May be unfair, but when I did kit checks I cut the older guys some slack on their personal kit-and made sure the new kids had everything I thought they needed, until they could prove to me otherwise. Troop kit was my call.

There's two bad things about non- issued kit:
- the "old" guys who know are often emulated by the "young guys" who don't know. This will put a lot of stress on the Snr NCO's who will have to judge each situation on it's own merit. (I think they can handle it...but will the troops accept the "inequality" ??..I think so too) However, the buck stops at the CO- and he will carry a LOT of the blame if someone dies because of un-authorised kit. Arguments on both sides, but it all boils down to the CO- and again, I think they can carry the weight, especially if given a good argument for the change.
- the supply system- if a privately owned but much needed piece of kit dies in the field, how do we replace it in a timely manner? Short answer, we don't. The support system is geared up for issued gear- it'd fall apart trying to support non-issued stuff as well- and that may be a show stopper.

Good discussion!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2006)

I had an old Korean vet CSM, a long time ago on my Jr NCO course tell us something. He said "Never deny a man to carry whatever weapon he wants and is comfortable with, be it knife, pistol, shotgun, whatever. Just ensure they know they are completely responsible for the ammo and upkeep, and it is secondary to the issue weapon and full ammo load that they will also carry, use and maintain".

Now I'm not coming out on either side, both have good points. I just passed on the above to show this is an age old problem that surfaces everytime we end up in combat. It wasn't solved then, and it won't be solved now. 

BTW, that CSM was RCR.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2006)




----------



## vonGarvin (21 Aug 2006)

Did he mention the carriage of the issue paint?


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2006)

There where a number of Pat NCO's that frowned on some stuff early in the tour -- according to some others by a few months in they where doing it too...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2006)

I would think that cmbt changes perceptions.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I would think that cmbt changes perceptions.


indeed. And, as the veterans of this most recent conflict rise through the ranks (which they will. Quickly, considering the retention issues) and others are posted to schools, the mentality that scares me in regards to advocating kit modification will no doubt disappear. 

And Infidel-6 will reign supreme!


----------



## Jay4th (21 Aug 2006)

Many of us that have just returned from the latest roto had the benefit of a CofC that realy listened.  During pretraining straight from the CO and RSM we were given permission to try any gear combo, sight combo whatever to see if it would work better than the issue.  The caveat was that the issue piece had to be in your kit bag in case the one you bought broke.  I had an Aimpoint M68 and ras II as well as a sweet rig hellcat mk2. Many UCR's went in as a result.  It all proved out in the field so I was allowed to use it.  As guys got opportunity to swap/buy kit from the yanks everyone got what worked for them.  The "you havent zeroed with that scope"  crap disappeared when we realized as soon as you are outside you can do a "Show of force"  or Zero Confirm" against any rock or impromptu range as long as you radio it in.  We did however swallow some pride and put away some of the non issue stuff while visiting KAF as not to offend the "other trades".


----------



## Jay4th (25 Aug 2006)

Here is my rifle as used in afghanistan.  It started as a C7a2, the C8 flat top heavy barrel (FTHB) upper was issued as a seperate item in theatre. The 20'' upper then went into storage.
 When you are authorized to do so, care must be taken when mounting optics to a Canadian upper reciever. While they look similar, Canadian standard rail and US 1913 picatinny are NOT the same. 
The gaps where the crossbolts or tightening screws go through are narrower on Can manufactured weapons. If the crossbolts on your particular scope mount are round, you will be fine. If your crossbolts are square edged they are for US rail and will not fit through the gaps in Diemaco uppers. Just take your triad, hold it beside your Canadian upper to see the difference.  The triad is to US spec.  This is a little known but well documented fact. See "The Black Rifle",  by Collector Grade Publications.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Aug 2006)

sweet.


----------



## Devlin (26 Aug 2006)

Jay4th 

That's a nice piece of kit, please excuse me I need to go get a towel to wipe the drool of my keyboard


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Aug 2006)

Nice set up.  But you know somewhere there is someone here that is just burning to jack you up for leaning your weapon on a truck (the ultimate TQ-2 sin, back in the day...)   ;D


----------



## Jay4th (28 Aug 2006)

No doubt, but I figured better there than laying on the ground.   Though it couldn't  have made it much dirtier.  Thank God for the air hose on the LAV.


----------



## KevinB (28 Aug 2006)

Whatcha do lose to that cool rear BIS I sold you  ???  Black -- I see why you dont paint your home rifle but really the go to war gun look much better in tan  ^-^
  I'll give you a call tomorrow - I'm back from cottage -- I kinda stood up your bro and John (more to follow)


----------



## Gayson (29 Aug 2006)

Somewhat related to the topic. . . 

Has anyone tried the detachable 3x sight for the aimpoint?


----------



## Jay4th (29 Aug 2006)

Yea, if you want magnification, go for the Acog TA31 4x mag.  Price is about the same @ $1000CDN


----------



## KevinB (29 Aug 2006)

I played with the Aimpoint magnifier briefly -(albiet on a EOTECH - which it works for as well)- making fully beleive if you want a Aimpoint that magnifies get a S&B Short Dot  ;D

Seriously it is a lot easier to move a power ring on a variable scope from 1.1 to 4x than it is to open a pouch, remove the magnifier and afix it to the weapon.

The USSOC SOPMOD has affixed Dr Optic min-red dots to all the TA 4X sights in its inventory (both TA01NSN and TA31 -- and  it is a standard fixture on the TA31DOC) to augment the CQB ability of that series


----------



## boondocksaint (29 Aug 2006)

we could 'enhance' our weapons as longs as the tech's signed off on it, which they did

eotech's are fine, i had one on this last tour, but scopes still need to be used, c-8 heavy barrel is great, and although our m203 is heavy compared to some it's still fine, but the ammo for it needs to be improved or just by american HEDP for it

a weapon is kinda like a hockey stick, ive played my whole life and damn near everyone tapes or cuts his stick his own way, or has that little tweak that makes it work for him, weapons that save your life should at least be as personal as your puck wacker


----------



## paracowboy (29 Aug 2006)

bringing things back to my fears about troops modifying things without the full knowledge and support of their CoC:

C Coy has been given a complete kit list for their upcoming deployment with 2 RCR. It's detailed right down to where they will carry what items in their Tac Vest. Yeah - *Tac Vest*. Now, if Pte Skippy were to go trotting in with a modded-out C7 and chest rig, how long do you think his tour pay would have lasted?

We ain't out of the woods yet. Now, perhaps things will loosen up in theatre. But I doubt it.


----------



## KevinB (29 Aug 2006)

1 Chicken seems to be relaxing -- talking to a Sgt with 2VP with them they are using chest rigs and weapon mods -- AND the Chickens are follwing suit (THE HORROR  ;D)

  2Chick will no doubt be too angry about the hair and sideburns of the 3VP contingent they will not notice the unbloused boots and hiking boots (and tan rifles etc.)


----------



## JVJA (29 Aug 2006)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> Here is my rifle as used in afghanistan.



Nice......Things have come a long way.  Regarding the rear aperture sight, I was issued one as a "backup" while in Bosnia in 1997.  It was plastic and generally of crappy quality.  Is that the same type, or have they made improvments to the constuction (namely making it out of metal)  Or is it something you picked up?

Take it easy


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Aug 2006)

Most guys I know buy quality back up iron sights... the plastic issue one is junk and breaks easily.


----------



## Jay4th (29 Aug 2006)

The diemaco plastic crappy back up sight is still issued.   I-6 my good back up wouldn't stay torqued on the Canadian upper due to the different specs.   As stated above several times and in other weapons threads  Get the blessing of the chain of command before attaching anything usefull to your rifle.  Surprisingly, about half my guys liked the C79 Elcan for locating and identifying, HOWEVER, many had never been exposed to a decent combat optic.


----------



## boondocksaint (29 Aug 2006)

we could wear our own rigs thankfully, since 10 mags is a must and our issue rigs aren't really suited for access to more then 4 quickly, my c-9 gunners used their old style web gear to carry their ammo, cuz again the new vest is not ideal for a c-9 gunner

very early on our tour we were told if we had done anything to our weapons to have a tech sign off on it, so we all went and had them inspected even if it was just a forward grip etc. everyones bum was then covered, C o C was happy, we were happy, guns were happy and painted and tricked out

the elcan worked fine, some scopes are needed even in close TIC's cuz timmy taliban likes to mousehole and this often hid his weapon signature, but dude with a scope could find him now and then, a sprinkling of eotech's and other same type sights is great too cuz some TIC's at 25-50m require fast target acquisition


----------



## KevinB (29 Aug 2006)

Jay and BDS (great movie BTW) -- hence the need for a Cbt variable scope.
Keep chanting Schmitt and Bender and maybe the UCR fairy will come up with something (like a cliff) to drop the C79 series off of.

Same issues in urban cbt with assholes hiding in building and crowds - they have learned (the hard way) we are much better marksman and they cant engage us in an open field (that and of course we use CAS  ;D -- the only fair fight is the fight you won...)


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 1 Chicken seems to be relaxing -- talking to a Sgt with 2VP with them they are using chest rigs and weapon mods -- AND the Chickens are follwing suit (THE HORROR  ;D)


SAY IT AIN'T SO! 



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 2Chick will no doubt be too angry about the hair and sideburns of the 3VP contingent they will not notice the unbloused boots and hiking boots (and tan rifles etc.)


 :rofl:
Now THAT'S funny!  (But, probably true).
Having said that, the current RSM used to be on the ski team, so, maybe not ?


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Same issues in urban cbt with assholes hiding in building and crowds - they have learned (the hard way) we are much better marksman and they cant engage us in an open field (that and of course we use CAS  ;D -- *the only fair fight is the fight you won*...)


And...if you find yourself in a fair fight, something has gone horribly wrong!


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2006)

Well it all depends on your version of fair.

  Especially important since the winner writes history -   

Fight to win -- then some creative writing...
I know it sounds better that YOU beat up the bully, rather than you and your 29 friends, a bit of CAS and some Arty...

The first real weapon mods I was ever exposed to was by a RCR WO when I was teaching at the Royal BSL...
 the second was by a former RCR turned Patricia.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Fight to win -- then some creative writing...


"Fight to win, then WRITE to win?"  LOL


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Sep 2006)

I-6 who was the Sgt in 2VP you were talking too?  Speaking with the RCR Sgt (who was wearing Oakley Boots) who accompanied Cpl Braun back to Regina the boys (I assume his boys) will/are wearing what they want outside the wire.


----------



## boondocksaint (1 Sep 2006)

as we were leaving they ( the rcr ) were still up in the air about kit, we told them we used what we wanted outstide the wire, i believe one of their WO's got in poop just after we left for letting his lads wear their own gear

we also told the lessons learned guy who visited in the field about some gear issues, arm pockets, tac vests etc, hopefully he will take some of it to heart


----------



## big bad john (1 Sep 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> as we were leaving they ( the rcr ) were still up in the air about kit, we told them we used what we wanted outstide the wire, i believe one of their WO's got in poop just after we left for letting his lads wear their own gear
> 
> we also told the lessons learned guy who visited in the field about some gear issues, arm pockets, tac vests etc, hopefully he will take some of it to heart



I've just sent a pair of boots over.  They (RCR) are allowed to wear their own choice of boots and gloves I am told.  I don't know about anything else, but I do hope that their is some latitude as I sent over some more kit today.


----------



## BARBARIAN.X (12 Sep 2006)

Wow looks like I stirred up some crap! Totally not my intention. I appreciate you guys not wanting others to get in sh!t and it is a valid point. I didnt have any idea this kind of stuff was even frowned upon at the time. Im somewhat disappointed by this because IMHO if something gives our soldiers an advantage it should be an option while keeping in mind the point that was made regarding experience and skill level. Personally I feel you guys should be afforded whatever the hell you want when going on a combat mission. When you consider the small amount of combat troops we have money should not be an issue but I must be delusional. I guess it would be expecting too much for Canada to support our troops when the CF doesnt appear to. Thanks for the insight because it looks like it doesnt matter what part of the govt you work for cause its the same BS all over.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (21 Sep 2006)

The Soldiers in 1 RCR have been allowed to wear their own boots for a while now, not just while over seas, the only restrictions, were they had to look like a cbt boots of some sort.

Also, i am being deployed to A-stan Very soon, Is their someplace in KAF where you can buy chest rigs and extra kit that may be better then issued?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Sep 2006)

There is a store on the boardwalk that sells chest rigs and other items ($50 for mine).  Can't speak to the issue of whether they are currently allowed.


----------



## PhilB (21 Sep 2006)

The kit that they sell on KAF is subpar at best. The blackops (Note-Not blackhawk) kit on the boardwalk is locally produced afghan crap. They basically only sell Spec Ops in the PX, again not that great. Buy what you need before you deploy. If you are un-willing to do that just buy online and either pay an outrageous amount for fedex to have the kit there right away or else ship it through normal chanels. If you are shipping to KAF I suggest using the APO (American post office). It is somewhat faster than the Canadian system and if you are ordering from the states most kit companys will ship to an APO for free. I would highly suggest buying it before you deploy, train with it, set it up for your own personal preference. If push comes to shove and you arent allowed to use it, you can always sell it to someone in theater or on some of the better online forums like Lightfighter.


----------



## boondocksaint (21 Sep 2006)

the Brits had also just opened their own store as we were leaving- they'd said they'd be getting some of their gear in as well, dunno if that's the case or not though

Americans on the base are pretty easy to trade or buy gear off of as well, if you can make a few contacts


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Now THAT'S funny!  (But, probably true).
> Having said that, the current RSM used to be on the ski team, so, maybe not ?


Just another one of the boys married to a Supply Tech    >


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 2Chick will no doubt be too angry about the hair and sideburns of the 3VP contingent they will not notice the unbloused boots and hiking boots (and tan rifles etc.)


nope. It's gottten worse. Taking a look at the kit list for Chuckles Coy, I left, just shaking my head. Then I went and punched a wall.  :


----------



## darmil (22 Sep 2006)

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/Marinesbuying.htm
I thought this would be a good place for this.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

ACOG's for all! Not sure a 4x optic is the best choice if you're doing a lot of CQB.

I like my unmagnified EOTech despite the limited range, but you can't have it both ways, now if it were S&B short dots for all...  ;D


----------



## KevinB (22 Sep 2006)

The TA31RCO the USMC buys is a BAC ACOG --( the reticle is fully illuminated day fibre optic night tritium) so it can be used in CQB (better than a C79 at least)
  Its not ideal but...


The Army has to understand that the needs of the Army require troops to be kitted differently even in the same section.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

but then everyone won't look the same  :crybaby:


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The Army has to understand that the needs of the Army require troops to be kitted differently even in the same section.


but then they wouldn't all look the same. EVERYONE knows that short hair and identical clothes makes a professional fighting force. Geez, don't you know nuthin'? 





			
				COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> but then everyone won't look the same  :crybaby:


damnitall! Scooped!


----------



## KevinB (22 Sep 2006)

Careful Para - while I know you and Cobra-6 are kidding -- someone in the PP is nodding right now in agreeance with what you said not knowing it was sarcastic.

  1) Troops need to be trained with the EOTECH - I was talking to a buddy at supper about this issue - cause he had mentioned a former peer of his that commented about EO at 250+m and how hard it was to shoot people at that range -- they (troops) need to know (and this was a Sgt btw) that it is a NON MAGNIFIED CLOSE COMBAT OPTIC - now you can still hit at range with it (one of the lurkers that says I say to much  ;D has hit at some decent ranges with his) but you need to know your trajectory -- and honestly the BN guys dont get a lot of training time to be able to shoot from 0-400m at 25-50m increments to knwo where the bullets are going in relationship to his POA.

 2) Troops and Leadership need to understand the effective bubles and the overlaps of their weapon platfroms -- ie. C9A2 w/ EOTECH versus C9A1 w/ C79 - C8FTHB with EOTECH versus with C79A2 etc.  Plan for a mix of optics since DLR aint going to hand everone a SOPMOD kit for their weapons (short of CSOR and JTF).


3) Use those worthless training rubber rifles for drill -- or better yet - don't do rifle drill except for ceremonial occasions with an honour guard and make up shiny rifles for them (in C7 config)  -- spemt the rest of the time running Shoot to Live and Gunfighter programs


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> cause he had mentioned a former peer of his that commented about EO at 250+m and how hard it was to shoot people at that range -- they (troops) need to know (and this was a Sgt btw) that it is a NON MAGNIFIED CLOSE COMBAT OPTIC -


see, when we first tested that bad boy in Geoww-ja, I had no problem scoring at 300+, and couldn't figure out why guys coming back were saying they couldn't hit beyond 200. I fell in love with that sucker!

Guys have become dependent on magnified optics to shoot.


----------



## KevinB (22 Sep 2006)

hadji is a dirty little fucker so he blends into the ground.

KD ranges show weapon capability -- operation usage shows user capability.  Heck I've shot at more people than I've hit


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> see, when we first tested that bad boy in Geoww-ja, I had no problem scoring at 300+, and couldn't figure out why guys coming back were saying they couldn't hit beyond 200. I fell in love with that sucker!
> 
> Guys have become dependent on magnified optics to shoot.



Para, what distanced were they zeroed at? 50m or 100m? With a 50m zero you shoot about 5.5inches low at 300m, with a 100m zero you shoot over 10 inches low at 300m. Since there's no adjustment for range on an EOTech like there is on the C79, they could have been shooting low if they didn't remember to adjust their POA...  ???


----------



## KevinB (22 Sep 2006)

The other issue is no-one in the CF has explained a 50m IBSZ to them...


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Para, what distanced were they zeroed at? 50m or 100m? With a 50m zero you shoot about 5.5inches low at 300m, with a 100m zero you shoot over 10 inches low at 300m. Since there's no adjustment for range on an EOTech like there is on the C79, they could have been shooting low if they didn't remember to adjust their POA...


dunno, dude. In fact, I don't know if they were zee-roed at all. I just sat and listened while troops spilled their guts on what they experienced. Some absolutely hated the EOTech, which I found surprising. But, since I wasn't there, I certainly wasn't about to start arguing with them about their experiences.


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Sep 2006)

I had one on my C-8/M203, it worked great in close contact, quick target acquisition and no worries about proper eye relief, just a nice big window

like I-6 mentioned though, overlap was huge in the section, Timmie favors mouseholes and firing from receded areas ( he learns fast ) so scopes played a huge role, especially in the mountains

Eotech's may not be the end all be all, but they are a great tool for the section


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Eotech's may not be the end all be all, but they are a great tool for the section


and, there we have it. I don't know that there is a be-all, end-all. The ranges vary to such extremes that a section really does need the capability to reach out to 500, and still be able to engage effectively at 100 or less.

Anybody got something that'll do that?


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2006)

Short Dot  ;D

Mine






BigRed's Iraqi Zapper


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Sep 2006)

that schmidt-bender thingy? our fav gun nut ( who cant have guns) swears by them, but they are a bit pricey arent they?


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Short Dot


seriously? Out to 500?


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> and, there we have it. I don't know that there is a be-all, end-all. The ranges vary to such extremes that a section really does need the capability to reach out to 500, and still be able to engage effectively at 100 or less.
> 
> Anybody got something that'll do that?



M-14


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2006)

7.62 won't fly. So let's focus on making do with what we got.

S&B Shot Dot, with an improved 5.56?


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Sep 2006)

S&B SD would be great, too bad it cost twice as much as the rifle   ;D

Short dots and Mk 262... giggidy giggidy giggidy!


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2006)

I spoke to RobAk today (not sure he is still a member here)  I think improved 5.56mm is not going to happen.
  He had a cost quote on how much it would be...  ugly lets just say

I'd honestly prefer to get troops shooting more than improve the ammo -- get the JTF out teaching shooting to the Infanteers -- a lot of bad drills get taught in the units.  Perfect practise make perfect -- poor practice just gives shitty skill muscle memory.

The CF IS NOT going to rush out and buy Short Dots for each Infanteer -- heck I heard somewhere else wants to wait till NightForce fixes their 1-4x before they adopt it...
  
I don't like the C79 due to the mount -- but if the troop takes care of it - and it is routinely inspected by FCS and fixed -- it still has a place.
  I'd prefer to give every troops a C8SFW with a real BIS and both EOTECH and C79A2 (well I'd prefer more -- but realitically the previous is possible).
Get a RAS - a good SF light - a PEQ-2B and some trigger time with an excellent trainer.

I dont see a need for the 20" barrel (we've been over and over than one).


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2006)

yeah, I think a LOT more trigger time would solve most of our problems, to be honest. At various ranges. Not just PWT and Gunfighter. (Which is an improvement. A big one. Don't get me wrong.) But we need to get troopies putting holes in things at everything from 25 to 500, in all kinds of ridiculous positions, and with varying degrees of stress applied.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Sep 2006)

You mean like sniper competitions?
+1 to all points made.

Looks like over $2000 for I-6 sight.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2006)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> You mean like sniper competitions?


I didn't say that, but now you mention it... 

Hey, if it works for them, why wouldn't the same principles work for yer average line-doggie? Snipers ain't nuthin' but highly trained infantrymen, capable of remaining in postion for extended periods of time, under demanding circumstances, in order to eliminate targets with precision fire at extreme ranges. So, reduce the ranges, speed up the time allowed for shots, and voila!

Plus, I want AR-10s with Designated Marksmen. At a minimum, 2 per Wpns Det. (I will NOT stop with that. Just so's ya know.)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Sep 2006)

I'd like a AR 10.  Snipers have some serious skills.  Watching on TV some of the sniper competitions, firing on their sides etc reminded me of what you said.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Plus, I want AR-10s with Designated Marksmen. At a minimum, 2 per Wpns Det. (I will NOT stop with that. Just so's ya know.)



Something like this?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2006)

All these posts talk about individual preferences, but isn't there an argument to be made for tailoring the kit for the position? For example, a section commander might be more effective if he is issued/buys a magnifying optic so he can zero in on where the mouseholes are and then direct his section's fire, while the riflemen are more effective with the non magnifying "point and shoot" types of sights. I would presume there is some sort of ideal sight for the C-9 gunners as well.

This is just some speculation on my part, but is this a valid argument or am I fighting the wrong war here?


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2006)

Art - counter argument -- the section commander needs the reddot since he is scanning with binos and commanding not shooting - the only time he needs to shoot than lead is when confronted with immediate threat tgts     (I dont think there is a DS answer BTW)

Ideally one optic would do both... :threat:


I'd much prefer the KAC M110/Mk11 Mod0 in Cobra's pick to a basement built AR10T with el-cheapo rail and alluminum suppressor -- since they work


----------



## PhilB (23 Sep 2006)

I think that ideally the CF needs to go with a combination optic ala the S&B Short Dot. Although the S&B is ridiculously expensive there are other options. The new elcan specter DR sight, the ACOG TA31DOC to name a couple. I agree a designated marksman is perfect, at least 1 or 2 per pl. We need to be more flexible. I think that DND needs to open its eyes to the wealth of experience that is out there. Although tactics and trg are not the same look south, they since beginning the TWAT (The War Against Terrorism   best acronym ever!@) have been in combat. I look at the marine corp because in my opinion they are the most similiar to our army. They are adopting the ACOG as their standard optic and providing squad designated marksman.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Sep 2006)

I am going to weigh in here as a VERY average shooter.  I think I-6 and others have it right when the words "Perfect Practice" and "Trigger Time" come into the mix.  (As an aside, trigger time and perfect practice are what I am er  "shooting" for with regards to stabilised weapons of 25mm and bigger, but that is another thread, another time).  As someone said, they were surprised when troops said that they didn't like the EO-Tech.  Now, I couldn't pick one out of a line up of one sight, but from what I read on here, it is an effective tool.  Very effective, I assume.  BUT, and here's the kicker, you could have the best, VERY BEST do all, see all sight in the universe, but if the squaddie doesn't know how to use it properly, you may as well give him a board with a nail in it (until he has a board with a nail in it so large that they destroy themselves, even!)

Training is in the process of being modified.  That is step one.  Structure of the team (TF level and higher) is also being modified.  Looks like it's the right direction, and here's hoping it keeps going that way.

As for rubber rifles, their best application is for DS on course to lug around (/sarcasm, naturally/).  Here's a "did you know?" for you: they were designed for teaching bayonet fighting.


----------



## BARBARIAN.X (23 Sep 2006)

I was considering not sending my bro an EOTech based on what some of you were saying but I sent one anyway. I figured he has more time in than most of you spouting off and is currently in Astan so if he thinks he needs one I’ll send it. Some of you made very valid points and I’m not trying to discredit them. I got a message yesterday thanking me for the EOTech and though he couldn’t give any details he said it saved his life the other day. Take it for what it’s worth but that’s the best f’n money I ever spent. I’m sitting here pondering what might have happened had I listened to some of you and at the same time glad I didn’t!


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Sep 2006)

we used 'Fighting Age Guy' as an acronym also

makes me giggle


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2006)

BARBARIAN.X said:
			
		

> I was considering not sending my bro an EOTech based on what some of you were saying but I sent one anyway. I figured he has more time in than most of you spouting off and is currently in Astan so if he thinks he needs one I’ll send it.


Many of the people that participated have lots of time on ops. Many probably have more time than your brother. Be proud of him, but don't be juvenile about it.



> Some of you made very valid points and I’m not trying to discredit them. I got a message yesterday thanking me for the EOTech and though he couldn’t give any details he said it saved his life the other day.



I'm glad for you, and, more importantly, your brother. Hope he makes it home ok.



> Take it for what it’s worth but that’s the best f’n money I ever spent. *I’m sitting here pondering what might have happened had I listened to some of you and at the same time glad I didn’t! *



You came here for advice, we didn't seek you out and foist our opinion on you. Many knowledgeable posters offered their professional opinion, based on their experience, and the information presented to them at the time. Based on what they, and your brother, do for a living, and because of them, you're free to do and say whatever you wish in our democratic society. However, these guys spent 7 pages trying to give, and debate, advice to give you the best solution, and you return with an ungrateful, backhanded slap. Normally, we don't tolerate asshats well, but if you need anymore advice to help ensure the safety of your brother, we'll help as best we can. Anything else, I believe you'll be wasting your time.


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2006)

Von Garvin -  actually the initial rubber rifles (the M16A1 ones) where at CABC    

Honestly I'd love to deck the CF out with S&B short dots -- but its a 2k optic less a Larue or ARMS mount.


I think the direction going in now is the right one. -- not perfect -- but then it never is and while we can strive for better its not worth waiting for perfect to implement.


With the next SARP program for 2010-2015 maybe we can dream


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> With the next SARP program for 2010-2015 maybe we can dream



Which means they are doing or have  done the specs for the next generation. If there is still time, maybe some judicious submissions on what has been learned would be in order.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Sep 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Von Garvin -  actually the initial rubber rifles (the M16A1 ones) where at CABC


Wow.  I didn't know that.  All I remember saying way back on my Small Arms Instructor course was "WTF are these things for???"

Too bad it took close to 20 years to get an effective bayonet back into CF service, though.  Well, I don't know if it's effective or not, but certainly better than the one we had that was made of prime bone china!


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Sep 2006)

Here is a very interesting article by Zak Smith about the 6.8mm SPC for those who enjoy these kinds of things...

http://coloradomultigun.com/misc/sgn_68spc.pdf

Interesting to note that all you need to swap out is the barrel, bolt and mags from a C7/C8, and you could have the DMR paracowboy wants for the weapon dets. Would modifying existing weapon stocks be easier (I'm thinking procurement process) than getting the approval to buy a complete new 7.62mm weapon (like the Mk11 I referenced earlier)? The big issue of course is the 6.8mm round not being a NATO standard one.


----------



## HItorMiss (23 Sep 2006)

I had an EOTECH on route to me when I went on operation, are there better sights on the market sure is. Can everyone afford a $2000 for some of them....not likely EOTECH's are good sights you just have to know how to use a reflex holo sight to get it's max effect. I used the Elcan and I missed with my first round because it was not a reflex sight however the fact that it is a 3X power sight it did help with my follow on rounds where as the EOTECH would not have, I think sights are a preference thing and situation dependent on the mission.

Personally I like the EOTECH, I also like aim points like the ACOG but as I said not everyone has 2K to pay for sights.


----------



## BARBARIAN.X (24 Sep 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Many of the people that participated have lots of time on ops. Many probably have more time than your brother. Be proud of him, but don't be juvenile about it.


No matter how you shape it, my comments IMHO were a statement of fact. That is how I made my final decision juvenile or otherwise. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You came here for advice, we didn't seek you out and foist our opinion on you.


I agree, I did come here for advice and did formulate my own opinion, no one forced me. I'll readily admit that I don't know squat about this stuff which is why I came here and because of my admitted lack of knowledge I found it more difficult to sort out the mixed responses. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Many knowledgeable posters offered their professional opinion, based on their experience, and the information presented to them at the time. Based on what they, and your brother, do for a living, and because of them, you're free to do and say whatever you wish in our democratic society.


I agree with this. I also received good info from some members via email and PMs in addition to the forum postings for which I'm grateful. 



> I’m sitting here pondering what might have happened had I listened to some of you and at the same time glad I didn’t!





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> However, these guys spent 7 pages trying to give, and debate, advice to give you the best solution, and you return with an ungrateful, backhanded slap.


I'm sorry you and possibly others see it that way but I was given some not necessarially incorrect info, but incorrect for the situation, I'm sure unknowingly, which caused me to rethink my purchase. I don't regret sending it and I don't regret saying that I'm glad I did. To anyone that was offended I apologize but that does not change how it went down for me.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Normally, we don't tolerate asshats well, but if you need anymore advice to help ensure the safety of your brother, we'll help as best we can. Anything else, I believe you'll be wasting your time.


I get called worse everyday in my line of work so fill yer boots and exercise that freedom you spoke of. I won't even dispute it because I know I can be a dick at times as a result of dealing with some of the mosted F'ed criminals Canada has to offer. Looks like I rubbed you the wrong way but I commend you for still being willing to help even though you think I took a piss at ya. That's cool, thanks. 
I'm sure someone will dissect this response to the negative and no matter how anyone may view it I have the utmost respect for our troops but when it come to my bro and his safety or any of my family it's a whole different level. 
Sorry for going OT, I humbly place myself at your mercey, thy will be done.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2006)

Thanks for confirming my post(s). Especially the last one.


----------



## KevinB (24 Sep 2006)

to unhijack...


6.8 -- jury is still out due to broken bolt issue (about half the life of a 5.56mm bolt according to the US AMU)
  5th SFG is still playing with them, MSG Stephen Holland is the driving force behind the thing and he is their S7 (force modernization) NCOIC
 They dropped the ammo pressure (and velocity) in a drive to lenghten bolt life -- I have two 6.8's on order -- ut have no intention on wearing them out in order to find the bolt life.  I think for a Tier1 unit 6.8 may be the ticket -- since they typically have a huge budget so replacing bolts is nothign for them -- and also they dont play well with others so ammo cominality is not the biggest issue.

BigRed goes back to Iraq next week - and maybe he can take a drive over to some friends and see if the 6.8 is working


----------



## boondocksaint (24 Sep 2006)

Eotech - uggh hopefully they can be opened large enough, my bad


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Sep 2006)

Infidel, is it the bolt or the BCG that is wearing out faster? If it is only the bolt do you think the extra cost of shorter bolt-life is worth the increased balistics?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Sep 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Eotech - uggh hopefully they can be opened large enough, my bad



Hey, here is fun with an Eotech simulator!  Paper targets, though.   

http://www.eotech-inc.com/index2.php


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Sep 2006)

at the EOTech booth at the CANSEC show they have sights with the glass broken, the sight still works as long as some glass is left in it, neat technology!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Sep 2006)

So this one has been all over, but have we decided that the Eotech is the best bet for a reliable upgrade for the weapons optics, but realize that there is other more expensive (better?) Gucci sights as well?  And how much would you expect to pay for one?  Would it be a bad idea to buy one second hand, or are they pretty rugged?  (Yes, I know, second hand kit for combat=dumb idea.  I'm just thinking for training pre-deployment to get used to the system)


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Sep 2006)

I think it's another good tool in the box, and one that's currently being issued! As several posters have stated from first hand experience, it does its intended job very well, but it is not the right tool for every job.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Sep 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I think it's another good tool in the box, and one that's currently being issued! As several posters have stated from first hand experience, it does its intended job very well, but it is not the right tool for every job.



Rog.  Seems like good close quarters kit.  Do they have a variable magnification sight with the holograms?  Sorry if it was already covered, I'm a novice compared to you guys.


----------



## KevinB (26 Sep 2006)

You can use the aimpoints x3 muliplier in conjunction.


Snakey - its the bolt - either shearing at the cam pin hole or losing locking lugs


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

The Horror...


 Pers wpn of a Sgt in 2VP


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Oct 2006)

What?  No ELCAN  (j/k)
I can't tell from the scale of the photo, but is that a heavy barrel or a thin one?


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Its the C8SFW (heavy barrel)

The M203A1 will not fit on the C8 due to the DLR'ified mount

Don't blame the dirt below on Shawn -- the one below was mine  ;D


----------



## MG34 (19 Oct 2006)

If I could post a pic from here ,my C7A2 would be giving (and most likely is) the dinosaurs a heart attack, C7A2 is fitteed with a KAC M5 RAS,ACOG TA11,Vltor Clubfoot,Tango Down Battle grip, Surfire M95 (for white light) ,Insight Tech Long Rifle light (for IR Light),Haris bipod and a PEQ 2. All painted a lovely 2 tone tan with Krylon paint. Most of my guys have at least painted their weapons,some have modded them to suit their needs with of course my endorssment and permission..
I've already been threatened by one gun plumber who thought he knew better...too bad for him as in most cases Cpls do not do well against WOs  ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2006)

What was the reason the cpl tried to jack you up? Simply painting the weapon? Good he got sorted out.


----------



## MG34 (19 Oct 2006)

Yes ,he tried to tell me that the Krylon paint would harm the anodizing and parkerizing on the weapon,I told him that was odd considering I have several of my own rifles (AR15s,AR10) painted with no adverse effects...what a clown. Yeah he is sorted.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

Dude -- glad you sorted that guy out -- the Gunplummer trade is sadly lacking these days 

IM on the way too...


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Oct 2006)

Thank god common sense seems to be prevailing. Is it the same across the battalion MG34?


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

MG34's blaster


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Oct 2006)

did they shitcan your armour carrier?


----------



## Journeyman (19 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> *MG34's blaster*



I call BS!  A.....a......~gulp~........ROYAL?!!  


(I can't help but notice that, besides the weapon's mods, it's looking clean and low-drag - - gee, professionalism DESPITE no hospital corners in the bedspace. Yep, I'm sure some rock-painting dinos are in for cardiac! )  ;D

Wishing you all the best, MG34


ps - I like the bedspace armour/lbv/brain-bucket rack too.


----------



## Jay4th (19 Oct 2006)

We call those kit racks  "Battle Buddies"  They are a bit creepy in the middle of the night on mefloquine.  Like a psycho munchkin army.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Oct 2006)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> *"Battle Buddies"  They are a bit creepy in the middle of the night on mefloquine.  Like a psycho munchkin army.*



I have never laughed so hard at a post here - - perhaps it's still close to the bone.  ;D I can _so_ see that. Thanks J


----------



## MG34 (20 Oct 2006)

Yeah it's poor pic but what can you do..you get the jist of it, also included are some Wiley X gloves,a couple of toruniquets (CAT and a SOF from the looks of it),a set of Wiley X goggles and ome unidentified but obviously very important kit.
  The vest is a HSGI Warlord, I was originally going with a TAG Releasable vest (carries soft armor and plates) but it was squashed from on high as I was not wearing issued armor..I figured I'd let them win one battle on kit as I'd already gained so much ground,it wasn't wise to push the envelope. Now I may pull it out again, as perceptions have changed alot here.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2006)

Infantry...let us prey.  :rofl:

Now THAT'S funny!

PS: I am averting my rock-paintinng eyes from the painted kit (Oh,  the horror!)

;D


----------



## MG34 (20 Oct 2006)

Yes a few of the rock painters who never leave KAF did try and give me some flak over it,I told them fine come back to Panjawai with me and we'll talk about it there...oddly enough no takers.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Yes a few of the rock painters who never leave KAF did try and give me some flak over it,I told them fine come back to Panjawai with me and we'll talk about it there...oddly enough no takers.


:rofl:

That's a good one.  
Fricken' Garatroopers.

(PS: We're not all like that, though we do love our parades, in DEUs, in CANADA, not on the front lines, thank you very much!)


----------



## MG34 (20 Oct 2006)

Yes indeed there is a time and place for the crack of parade boots on the cement,spit and polish and all that,but not here, disclipline yes but not pomp and circumstance. I swear to God some of these folks around here would like us in scarlets so we all looked the same.  Luckily common sense and steady badgering worked in the end.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2006)

You mean you're not in scarlets?  (j/k)

It's actually good to hear that common sense is coming back in vogue.


----------



## Teflon (20 Oct 2006)

> "Battle Buddies"  They are a bit creepy in the middle of the night on mefloquine.  Like a psycho munchkin army



Hey no laughing!!,... You don't know!,... You weren't there!!!

They just kept comming,... a never ending tide of the little Bas****s,...   We couldn't shoot fast enough!,.... You didn't even have to aim,... just shoot low!,.... the ones in the back would just clamer over their fallen like an unstopable tide body armoured rats!,.... CQC with an enemy that always goes for the groin!!!!,.....  :'( Damn,... I just can't talk about anymore!,...... :crybaby:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2006)

I wonder whose wpn that is??
On a side note it was nice to see the tankers all get brand new holographic sights.  Yes I'm jealous.


----------



## PhilB (23 Oct 2006)

Sort of a hijack, re: your armour carrier. I really dont understand the mentality of some people. While in theater I attmepted to use a ciras. I was using the issue soft inserts and plates just in the ciras carrier. Obviously nixed by CoC, why? Who knows! I can understand using your own armour and plates (Even if they are better) because of liability etc, but if you are using issue armour what is the big deal? Sorry for the rant, carry on


----------



## KevinB (23 Oct 2006)

CIRAS and othe BALCS carriers do not fit the CF Soft Armour.
  The CF soft goes over the shoulders where BACLS cut does not.

I dont agree with it -- but that the CF


----------



## PhilB (23 Oct 2006)

I had to squeeze it in, and fold over the shoulder of the rear panel slightly but it wasnt that bad a fit, and as the folded portion was right on the shoulder pad area it was barely noticable


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

Hey -- I cut a CF PSP Panel to fit a SPEAR/BALCS vest  ;D -- Its way beyond our pay grade.


----------



## PhilB (24 Oct 2006)

Cut? Defaced the queens property? As a law abiding, issue kit using troop I am shocked and appalled! :


----------



## MG34 (24 Oct 2006)

I'm going for a new BALCS cut chunk o armour, the soft armor I have in my vest now is about 10 yrs old,but I still trust it more than the PSP Frag vest. I wonder why we got the vest protective, fragmentation,not the vest protective small arms.....I'll be switching rigs when I get back to LKAF as my next joboverhere will be more dismounted than mounted.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

G -- you mean you dont like Zylon  :blotto:

Shocked I tell you Shocked


----------



## MG34 (24 Oct 2006)

Hey!!! There is nothing wrong with Zylon a slong as it is kept away from sunlight,heat,and sweat,it's perfect for armor in the desert!!!!


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

Anothers toy


----------



## MG34 (24 Oct 2006)

MMMMM some Short Dot sweetness there


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

I'd send you one too - but I'm down to one...
  Want a NF 1-4 FC-2 reticle?


----------



## MG34 (24 Oct 2006)

PM sent


----------



## westie47 (26 Oct 2006)

Personally I am very happy to see the CoC lightening up when it comes to kit and weapons. So basically for someone to add some toys to their rifle, just got to get the weapons tech to ok it? What about painting weapons? Is anyone doing that here in Canada or is that just happening on operations?

I-6, I see you are still kitting out the whole battle group eh? LOL! Good on you. Are you coming our for the CTOMS course??? Be good to hoist beers with you again! I think I am going to get a rail for my C7 and start making waves, although our current CO is quite progressive.


----------



## MG34 (26 Oct 2006)

The wpns techs had nothing to do with it,other than a few enlightened souls it's still shock and awe when it comes to what the users are doing to their equipment. Spray paint,I've used it in Canada as well,a varsol bath will remove it  no prolem.


----------



## sgtdixon (27 Oct 2006)

That Chest rig is a beaut...and id like to know where to get one of those "Infidel" Tabs...


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2006)

Dixon said:
			
		

> That Chest rig is a beaut...and id like to know where to get one of those "Infidel" Tabs...



I hear that Infidel-6 has a rigourous programme, in which you have to earn that tab.  I'm still trying, but I still can't get over my fear of non-issued kit 

I'm trying, so help me, I'm trying! ;D


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

Dixon said:
			
		

> and id like to know where to get one of those "Infidel" Tabs


same rules as an Airborne T-shirt, I'm afraid.


----------



## sgtdixon (29 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> same rules as an Airborne T-shirt, I'm afraid.




Seen


----------



## Karl87 (9 Aug 2008)

Is the Elcan SpectreDR scope issued to troops or do they have to buy them, and if they do are they considered "acceptable" and you won't get in shi* for having it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2008)

No its not (to the regular army at least).  As far as trouble well that all depends on your boss.


----------



## brihard (9 Aug 2008)

Karl87 said:
			
		

> Is the Elcan SpectreDR scope issued to troops or do they have to buy them, and if they do are they considered "acceptable" and you won't get in shi* for having it?



I know of a number of people who've picked them up for tour through an individual with family connections at ELCAN- got a great deal with them. Their particular CoC seems fine with it, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## gun plumber (10 Aug 2008)

Hey all,
I normally don't post  this in this section,mostly because the regular posters in this section are far more knowledgeable about their requirements than I am,but I thought a little insight from the peanut gallery might help with this discussion.
      Now before I get charbroiled,I am not here to defend my fellow gun plumbers or my trade.Like I-6 said,There are good and bad,then there are the guys who I wouldn't trust with a rubber rifle, ;D,just like in any trade,branch etc.The best advice I can give to anyone,as stated before by others,is to get to know your techs.It'll become apparent pretty quickly who can think outside the box and those who are chained to the book.
      Paint will not damage the parkerizing on a rifle.That being said,It's not a good idea to paint your rifle in garrison,but when it's your butt closing with and destroying the enemy,paint away! To avoid any problems,talk to your tech and explain that it is removable and won't cause any problems.Any tech that remembers working on the C-3 sniper rifle shouldn't have a problem with it.
       On the note of Mods,instead of calling them "modifications" when talking to your techs(it carries a negative tone),call them add-ons.Generally speaking,a modification to a weapon system is a permanent change,while an add-on is reversable.Sometimes playing the word game helps. 
       In regards to front grips,custom handgaurds etc,either ask your tech for extra handgaurds(they're C class) or remove them before sending them to the shop until you know your techs.I've accidentally replaced handgaurds that have had custom mounts on them until I was educated by the owner of said handgaurds.Since then,I have no problem giving a few extra handgaurds to a Sect Comdr(on the down low)  for his troops to swap out as needed.
      Also,don't be afraid to get a second opinion.Hell,I do!
      By the way,I want to thank you guys for your thoughts on this subject.The better I understand the situation,the better I can help the troops that I support in these endeavors.
At the end of the day,sometimes you've just got to remind some of em' that CSS stands for *Combat Service Support*


----------



## geo (11 Aug 2008)

Good post gun plumber
No charbroiling for you today...


----------



## Franko (11 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Good post gun plumber
> No charbroiling for you today...



Ditto....we need more plumbers with that attitude.

Regards


----------



## Fusaki (11 Aug 2008)

Nice post, Gunplumber. Spread the good word!


----------



## Hotwire (13 Oct 2008)

I would have to say I agree 100% with "Mods are perm. and addons are luxury" I have no problems with bolt on kit, or replacement parts that are easily removed or adapted. I have helped alot of soldiers paint their rifles, and cary my brownells books with me, for easy ref. and to point the guys in the right direction.

Good, addons are great, but buying crap from the dollar store or gun taping on a front grip... thats looking for trouble!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2008)

Here's trying to teach an old dog a few new tricks....


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Nov 2008)

Zip

You want an honest assement of your load out?

Granted it's a personal thing and what you are comfortable with...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Nov 2008)

Left handed or right handed shooter?
are there 2 buttons to turn on the IR or is the other for a flashlight?


----------



## MikeL (2 Nov 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> are there 2 buttons to turn on the IR or is the other for a flashlight?



Maybe you're seeing something I'm not. All I see is the pressure switch for the PAQ4 and the wireless button for the PRR.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Nov 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Zip
> 
> You want an honest assement of your load out?
> 
> Granted it's a personal thing and what you are comfortable with...



Yeah, fill your boots.  Bear in mind that the only thing that I added was the crappy paint job and the PRR remote.  The rest was issued to me as is.  
The pressure switch on the mag well is for the Stinger IR light on the opposite side that you can't see.  My PAQ4 switch is on the foregrip. And I am a lefty shooter.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (17 Nov 2008)

For what it's worth, here's what i've been getting away with in theatre. The policy on the ACOGs in my coy was in question for a while but ultimately the powers that be decided to allow them.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Nov 2008)

Nice, HS

But can you tell us about what exactly you're using? What kind of rail is that and where did you get it? What model ACOG and how do you like it? What about the sling? Light? Pistol grip? What do you like about this setup? What would you change?

Gun porn is cool and all, but a good review will educate people as to _why_ the troops are pushing to do stuff like this.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Nov 2008)

ZC,
my 2 bits...you should have your laser/light pressure switches in a posn to activate with your right hand, be that on the grip or forestock. It is never a good idea to use your pistol grip hand for activating aiming devices.

The ptt switch for your radio, though, can be, as you should not be needing to do trigger pull at the same time you are talking on your radio.

HS,
I hope you are big and/or strong, cause that just looks heavy.


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2008)

My fav






The light and laser must be accessible by either hand if you need to go non-dominat hand due to cover requirements.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Nov 2008)

> The ptt switch for your radio, though, can be, as you should not be needing to do trigger pull at the same time you are talking on your radio.



As far as the PRR goes, I never felt the need for a remote PTT switch. If you're in a firefight, then IMHO you should have your hands on your weapon and you should be communicating by yelling. If you're taking the time to transmit on your PRR, then you can use your support hand to press the PTT on the radio itself - _after_ you've dealt with the imminent threat. This also helps to limit PRR traffic to the guys who are supposed to be directing the fight, _not_ the #1 Rifleman who's taking the trench. Using the remote PTT just brings a middle ground 3rd decision in there to clutter your brain and your weapon, not to mention that I'm not convinced of the reliability of the remote PTTs.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Nov 2008)

I concur...but some like to use it all the same.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Dec 2008)

All good info and duly noted.  Thanks gents!


----------



## CEEBEE501 (2 Dec 2008)

I think this fellow may be on to something.  ;D
http://gizmodo.com/5100331/a-chainsaw-bayonet-strapped-to-an-ar+15-rifle-is-the-ultimate-zombie-killing-weapon


----------



## [RICE] (2 Dec 2008)

CEEBEE501 said:
			
		

> I think this fellow may be on to something.  ;D
> http://gizmodo.com/5100331/a-chainsaw-bayonet-strapped-to-an-ar+15-rifle-is-the-ultimate-zombie-killing-weapon



That'll come in handy should our truce with the great pumpkin empire be broken


----------



## Seyek (2 Dec 2008)

So...when will those new bayonets be issued to the reserves? Before or after 2012?


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

I dunno... I see that chainsaw slashing away at the ground while the user is in "sneakers"... and I just cringe :tsktsk:

Problem with an electric chainsaw bayonnet is that it is electric and requires a battery - AND batteries are HEAVY.

Somehow, I figure that MoD and is gonna pass on this little gem


----------



## rostha (14 Dec 2008)

To  I-6

I was trying to send you a PM but the site won't allow me to access your profile. I had some questions and concerns that I wanted to pick your brain about if you have the time and the inclination.  I don't really want to tie up the thread with personal or individual problems but had hopped to get some advice from you.  If you could send me an PM that would be great thanks!


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2008)

rostha said:
			
		

> To  I-6
> 
> I was trying to send you a PM but the site won't allow me to access your profile. I had some questions and concerns that I wanted to pick your brain about if you have the time and the inclination.  I don't really want to tie up the thread with personal or individual problems but had hopped to get some advice from you.  If you could send me an PM that would be great thanks!



You do know that there is a "PM" button under his name and avatar ?


----------



## Shrek1985 (5 Mar 2009)

stupid question time:

why is this such a big deal? isn't what works the most important thing? as long as you have a weapon or gear which functions at least as well as issue?

ya know? drive-on, charlie-mike and defecation will occur?

never understood myself my appearances matter more more than results in the CF

like i said, stupid question, but there it is


----------



## dangerboy (5 Mar 2009)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> stupid question time:
> 
> ya know? drive-on, charlie-mike and defecation will occur?



I might be a bit slow tonight but what does the above quote mean?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I might be a bit slow tonight but what does the above quote mean?



It's not just you.  It got past me too.


----------



## Eric_911 (6 Mar 2009)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> drive-on, charlie-mike and defecation will occur?



Beyond me. "C"-"M".... and defecate? Maybe its a 4 RCR thing?  :-\  _ (2nd edit!: I think he may mean something about "defection"... hmm) _



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> *stupid question time:*
> 
> why is this such a big deal? isn't what works the most important thing? as long as you have a weapon or gear which functions at least as well as issue?



You had one thing right. 

Christ... I'm tired of these retarded, uninformed comments. "The army sucks, they should totally let us all do our own thing". By your rationale, a cross-bow would work too. Shit, mount a tac-light and a PAQ-4 on it and you're cooking. Never leave home without it!

If you read the entire thread, as well as several other weapon/kit modification threads ("search"), you'd understand a little more why the existing regulations exist pertaining to the modification of your issued weapon. Personally, I would love to go out on the range and pop off some rounds with a gucci-fied, customized C7 or C8, maybe with a better optic and charging handle latch that doesent break off. _(In my trade, deployed or domestically, it aint gonna happen, and I've resigned to that fact)_

Domestically and in training, the majority of troops are not given any leeway on customizing their personal weapon. (Yes, I'm sure there are some who do/can, but that is the exception, not the rule) Operationally, at the discretion of your CoC, you may be allowed to add a couple bells and whistles, maybe paint your rifle, change the furniture, slap on a rail assy. Maybe a tac-latch. Perhaps even your own choice of optic. Irreversible mods, however, are a no go.

So there you have it. Uniformity is the name of the game in the big Army. Always has, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Reasons, in a nutshell: Standardization of equipment, training, and repair. Ease of replacement. Commonality (buddy beside you knows how to use it in a SHTF situ). Interoperability. Compatibility. Also, note that an individual troops' opinion of a "superior" part/widget/mod/optic is often very subjective. There are troops that know their stuff, but there are many more that dont. 

For example: I've seen a guy try to mount a Chinese clone EO-Tech on his C7. He bought it on HLTA in Thailand, and thought it was a marvel idea. Think carefully: Do you really want the dude beside you to be using that kind of optic on a two way range? (And yes, I informed him that he was a utter retard and slapped him around for a while)

I suspect you were probably just airing your frusterations, but you are in the military, and as such, you must have been familiarized at some point in your training about how the game is played.

Well, thats enough for one night.

[/rant]

_ (Edit: wait a second... this IS a rant thread... let the rant continue!) _

Cheers,
Eric


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Mar 2009)

Fun Fact: Spray paint wipes right off with a little MPro7 weapon cleaner.


----------



## 421 EME (6 Mar 2009)

Weapons modifications are a big NO, and that's right from the LCMM's in Ottawa. They dont want to see it done, and they dont want it done to any weapon. Those are the orders that we Weapons Techs have to follow.
 But, I can only speak for myself when I say this, I dont not see any problem with doing non-prement modifications that will make the weapon more effective for the user. Mods like RIS and Magpul stocks and anything that will not effect the safe operation of the weapon I dont see a problem with.
 Its things like cutting down the barrels and stock of Remgiton 870 shotguns or changing around components that will effect the safe operation of the weapon by the user, that I will not do.
 Most Weapons Techs wont do mods that have not been approved by the LCMM's. They dont want to piss off there CoC or the LCMM's or they dont want to think "outside of the box". Its wrong for them to think this way. 
 If we can do something that can make the weapons more effective for the users that are going into combat by just adding a modification, then I think we should.

That's my 2 cents.


----------



## Eric_911 (6 Mar 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> Its things like cutting down the barrels and stock of Remgiton 870 shotguns or changing around components that will effect the safe operation of the weapon by the user, that I will not do.



I'll agree, that seems a little extreme. Soldiers have seriously asked for that mod to be performed locally?

But a sawed off shotty would be fun!  DND should buy a batch of Dlask barrels!

Cutting 18" barrels down to 12.5" and using a normal mag-tube cap wouldnt be "that" dangerous. (unless an overzealous users' hand slides off the pump while shooting "a-la-rapid-fire").

The proper answer though: If the SG bbl length is unsatisfactory for the tasks the SG is required to perform, the users should document this. The UCR system isint perfect, thats for sure. But look at the C9A2. It _is_ possible to get some relevant mods done through the system when they actually make sense. (adjustable stock and shorter bbl)


----------



## MG34 (9 Mar 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> Weapons modifications are a big NO, and that's right from the LCMM's in Ottawa. They dont want to see it done, and they dont want it done to any weapon. Those are the orders that we Weapons Techs have to follow.
> But, I can only speak for myself when I say this, I dont not see any problem with doing non-prement modifications that will make the weapon more effective for the user. Mods like RIS and Magpul stocks and anything that will not effect the safe operation of the weapon I dont see a problem with.
> Its things like cutting down the barrels and stock of Remgiton 870 shotguns or changing around components that will effect the safe operation of the weapon by the user, that I will not do.
> Most Weapons Techs wont do mods that have not been approved by the LCMM's. They dont want to piss off there CoC or the LCMM's or they dont want to think "outside of the box". Its wrong for them to think this way.
> ...



Cutting down the stock or barrel of the Rem 870 doesn't affect either safety or function of the weapon,if the users are asking for this to be done there is a reason ie, the current configuration is not suitable as a breaching weapon, it is up to you to either get the job done or seek approval, no single weapons tech is in any position to yay or nay an operational requirement, that is a chain of command responsibility.


----------



## mudgunner49 (9 Mar 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I might be a bit slow tonight but what does the above quote mean?



Carry on - continue mission - $h!t happens...  do try to keep up withthe rest of the class...


----------



## 421 EME (9 Mar 2009)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Cutting down the stock or barrel of the Rem 870 doesn't affect either safety or function of the weapon,if the users are asking for this to be done there is a reason ie, the current configuration is not suitable as a breaching weapon, it is up to you to either get the job done or seek approval, no single weapons tech is in any position to yay or nay an operational requirement, that is a chain of command responsibility.



 Yes, cutting down the barrel or stock of the 870 will not effect either safety or function of the weapon. But if all you want to do is make it shorter for the breaching, it can be done without having to cut anything. I can order pistol grips or folding stocks to replace the stock to make it shorter, but getting a shorter barrel is not possible, there just is no way for me to get them thru the system and to get the LCMM to sign off on, its not going to happen.
 The company I support in my unit is who I work for, but I answer to my CoC in maintenance. I will do everything in my power to give the company what they want for there weapons, but if what they want is to do something that will be a permanent MOD to the weapon, I have to say no. Those are the rules that I have to work by and I hate it. I believe in give the guys the right tools to do there jobs and if that means doing non permanent MODS to weapons, then so be it. If they want above that, My hands are tied.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2009)

You've illustrated well a typical situation: people tell you what they think they want, vice the effect they want.

"Cut off the stock" isn't what they want, but it's what they ask for.  What they want is a shorter weapon - which, as you stated, you can do.

It's something taught but usually forgot:  Say what you want, not how you want it done - and elt your subordinates surprise you.


----------



## KevinB (9 Mar 2009)

Unfrotunately this is the situation that the laymen (the NON END USER) are missing the boat (and the boat)

 A Breaching shotgun needs a pistol grip stock AND a SHORT 9" or so bbl
The Breacher is not a Primary Weapon - its a tertiary one - slung in addtion to primary and pistol.

 a 18-20" bbl on a breacher is a wasted effort -- a 14" breacher is still to long in most cases, 12" better and 9" much nicer.


----------



## Dissident (9 Mar 2009)

Some things always were against regulations but were/are done nonetheless.

How much space does a 9" barrel take in a duffel bag, along with a rem 870 pistol grip? How hard are they to install? 



			
				Eric_911 said:
			
		

> The proper answer though: If the SG bbl length is unsatisfactory for the tasks the SG is required to perform, the users should document this. The UCR system isint perfect, thats for sure. But look at the C9A2. It _is_ possible to get some relevant mods done through the system when they actually make sense. (adjustable stock and shorter bbl)



Indeed. But how long does the "system" take to make these changes? The operator in the field will adapt as the situation changes, some changes could already have changed further by the time the system caught up. Leaving some freedom to the end user is the best solution, I believe. 

Now, we are in the army. If you think you have a good solution for a perceived need, you should write a memo detailing why a piece of gear will fill that need. (If you can not articulate it, what are the chance that you really need it?) This should be the litmus test. So while big army catches up with the UCR, a quick concise memo should be good enough.

Are we going around in circles again here?


----------



## 421 EME (10 Mar 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> How much space does a 9" barrel take in a duffel bag, along with a rem 870 pistol grip? How hard are they to install?



It’s not very hard to install them. 2 screwdrivers and 1 Allen key and its done.



			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> Indeed. But how long does the "system" take to make these changes? The operator in the field will adapt as the situation changes, some changes could already have changed further by the time the system caught up. Leaving some freedom to the end user is the best solution, I believe.



It does take time to get the system to change. But trying to get the system to change when you’re in theater is too late. The time to try getting the changes you want is when your ORBAT stands up and you know what your mission is ( PRT, BG, OMLET ), then you can sit down and figure out what weapons or MODS to weapons you are going to need to accomplish your mission. Talk to your Weapon Techs and see what they can do for you. They will know if you can get what you need thru the supply system or if you may need LPO it. Get what you need back in Canada because it is easier to get it here than in some place like Spin or MSG.




			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> Now, we are in the army. If you think you have a good solution for a perceived need, you should write a memo detailing why a piece of gear will fill that need. (If you can not articulate it, what are the chance that you really need it?) This should be the litmus test. So while big army catches up with the UCR, a quick concise memo should be good enough.



Memos can be great tools, but one that details a short coming to a weapon and a solution, should wind up in front of your unit Tech Adj the Maint O and ETQMS. They will look at it and see if it has any merit. If it does than it will be forward to DLR 5 or DSSPM 5 for them to look at. This route can take some time and may not get the results you are hoping for.
 UCR’s……… I know that writing one may give you the feeling that you’re pissing into the wind but there are people who are reading them at NDHQ. They want to hear what’s wrong with the weapon in detail and not that it sucks or is a piece of crap. Also, the more UCR’s they receive about this problem from other people the better chance that they act on it. This route can also take some time.


----------



## Dissident (10 Mar 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> Memos can be great tools, but one that details a short coming to a weapon and a solution, should wind up in front of your unit Tech Adj the Maint O and ETQMS. They will look at it and see if it has any merit. If it does than it will be forward to DLR 5 or DSSPM 5 for them to look at. This route can take some time and may not get the results you are hoping for.



Or someone in the chain can grow some balls, but his foot down and say:"They need it, make it happen" until such time when someone from higher comes back and says yes or no.

Initiative is always an option. When I hear about how the system is supposed to work, all the while keeping people at the pointy end without tools they need, I loose my fucking mind. Especially if it required the approval of some tech guy or REMF. 

#1) Its not about who will give me permission, its about who will stop me.
#2) Unless evidence to the contrary, the guy at the sharp end is right.
#3) Non end users should not dictate end user requirements.


----------



## 421 EME (10 Mar 2009)

Dissident

 Please understand that it is not the Jr NCO Weapons Tech that can approve weapon MOD's. We have no say in it. Yes or no to MOD's are done at the Snr Weapons Tech level ( LCMM ). If he cant see or cant be made to see the value in the MOD then forget it because its not going to happen.
 Am I going to stop you from putting a RIS on you C8. *NO*. Am I going to stop you from cutting down the barrel on your 870 because you think it will be better for breaching. First I will see if I can shorten it without having to cut anything off. If I cant shorten it to your satisfaction then my answer is YES. Can I stop you from doing it, well lets just say I cant babysit you to make sure you don't.
 Whatever you do next is up to you but you will be respondsable for the MOD that you are going to do to that weapon. I am not saying this too cover my ***. I have been in more **** with my CoC about doing MOD's or trying to find ways to make some of are weapons better for the boys, it just feels natural now. I will stay a Cpl for the rest of my career if I keep on bending and braking the rules the way that I have and the way that I will.
 But the one thing I will not do or let be done is a MOD that will effect the safety of the user or will not allow the weapon to be put back into its original state. End of story.
 One other thing EME are not REMF's. When the boys go out, so do we, at the sharp end of the stick.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (10 Mar 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> Memos can be great tools, but one that details a short coming to a weapon and a solution, should wind up in front of your unit Tech Adj the Maint O and ETQMS. They will look at it and see if it has any merit. If it does than it will be forward to DLR 5 or DSSPM 5 for them to look at. This route can take some time and may not get the results you are hoping for.
> UCR’s……… I know that writing one may give you the feeling that you’re pissing into the wind but there are people who are reading them at NDHQ. They want to hear what’s wrong with the weapon in detail and not that it sucks or is a piece of crap. Also, the more UCR’s they receive about this problem from other people the better chance that they act on it. This route can also take some time.



Those with access to CSNI should check out CEFCOM's J7 page Topic Lesson Reports (TLRs). Big one on pers kit posted in Dec 08. This may be yesterday's news for some, but just in case.


----------



## Shrek1985 (10 Mar 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I might be a bit slow tonight but what does the above quote mean?



Charlie-Mike means Continue Mission. Drive-On is just like keep on truckin, not a valid psyops message, but a good attitude to have nonetheless. Defecation(sp?) will Occur is the santized version of 'shit happens' i saw it in some amry publication once and i thought it was funny that they bothered to tone it down for official pub.

bascially what i'm saying here is my own personally army philiosophy: when your going through hell keep going. don't sweat the small stuff. do nothing which is of no use. stay goal-oriented. improvise. adapt. overcome. don't wait for perfect and you can't run an organization on a zero defects policy.

so Charlie-Mike or even CM, Drive on and Defecation Will Occur, get the idea across very nicely and with less verbage in my mind.

as for modifying weapons, i'm not personally so on about that, but other guys wanna do it, i figure what the hell, let em, as long as it's a non-permanent mod. i'm all about the personalized kit myself, 64-ruck, decent sling (missing the old web gear), ect. to me the way i see it; you wann hang all that stuff off your rifle, more power too ya, but it;s more weight, more bulk, more getting caught on things. 

especially on a C8, which being a carbine is supposed to be lighter isn't it? for all the junk and i know some of it is pretty useful, if it was me, i'd personally rather have an FN. but why not be understanding about it? i've seen more than a few support recruits going through course who couldn't get the C7 into the shoulder, too big. i still find the thing aint long enough for me to a do a propper stand at ease or easy with arms unless i lean over (shopt fine though, wierd). why not canabalize a C8 butt for the munchkins and throw a few stock spacers on for me?


----------



## Dissident (10 Mar 2009)

421 EME, my anger is not directed at you, sorry for not making it clear. I understand the system we have to work with and I appreciate you knowing how it "should" be done.

When I mentioned REMF, I was thinking of people up the chain.


----------



## EMEGUY421 (24 Mar 2009)

OK, as a wpns tech, just rtn'd from the sandbox myself,( 1-08), I can say, if you are on the sharp end, use what you are authorized, as in what your boss says is ok. I am not talking about throwing a LMT 10" on a C7A2 lower, and then adding a crap sight, saying GTG as you bail out the back of your carrier. I am saying, if your CoC has done the leg work and gotten the green light on a list of approved 'accessories', then go with it. Guys had EOtechs on C7A2's and C9A1 on my watch, and there was no bones made about it. I have a word of caution, do not get feet dry in a hostile AO with unproven kit, as was stated earlier. We had the guys train on the kit as used in theatre, the CO had the blessing from the puzzle palace to do so. It wasn't the weapons mainly, it was the gear. TVs and FVs were the main case for mods. 

 I personaly 'accentuated' several pers wpns for users, based on tried and tested facts. I have had time on the kit, so I know what works and what doesn't I also know what is good and what is crap. 

 I admit, modded kit is bad in the eyes of the brass, but putting a C9 winter grip on a C7A2 or what ever isn't a mod, it is a personal thing. We are told as techs, if it doesn't alter the permanent configuration of the system, it is reversible, but there are limits. No Krylon cam, only the approved CF water based paint. Or, use the damn tape that so many hunters like to use.  Cutting the butt on a C9 and shortening it is a poor example of tuning for efficacy, and has been done, but it shouldn't have been. We cannot allow the troops to do stuff themselves, we have them bring it to us, and we do the stuff. 

 The snipers and recce boys do their own stuff, but have to follow the guidelines, as do everyone. We have seen RIS and aftermarket BUIS used, but MAGPUL stocks and pistol grips are not approved ( the people tend to damage springs and or lose them in the attempt). As well, the cutting of the upper sling loop on the butts of the C7A2 and C8A3 FTHB is considered as destruction of propoerty, when you want to put a CAA cheek piece on the weapon. We have the skills ( contrary to some beliefs) to do the work properly, and the work is done right.

  We do push for change, all the time. Hardly a week went by on work up that we didn't fab up a mod on our own weapons to try it out, and then pass it on to the LCMM's (life cycle maint managers) to see what they say. If they like it, they staff it. Hence the ambi selectors and mag catches, and I still say we should have gotten the Badger Ordnance Tac-Latch instead of that crappy fishhook affair we use now! As well, we have the Cadex front grip, and the 4 pos butt, ( a dream 5 years ago). You say there is no progress, look at the C9A2, and tell me there is no progress. All we need to do now is toss that damn C79 and get ACOGs, or something.

 Sincerely, 
 a weapons tech who 'gets it'


----------

