# All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)



## bossi

Is there anybody else out there who thinks we have too many accidental discharges?  I know it‘s been discussed, before, but I think these two articles "press home the point".  The first is from "The Age" (Australia), the second from "The Jerusalem Post" (Israel).

Dileas Gu Brath,
M.A. Bossi, Esquire
++++
Army inquiring into gun death		
Thursday 10 August 2000
An army inquiry will investigate why a rifle lying in the back of an armored vehicle accidentally discharged, killing an Australian peacekeeper in East Timor. 
Corporal Stuart Jones, 27, was fatally wounded yesterday when the vehicle hit a bump, apparently dislodging what was believed to have been a Steyr rifle, Australia‘s East Timor commander Colonel Greg Baker said today. 
A board of inquiry will investigate the death of the corporal, a member of the Darwin-based 2 Cavalry Regiment which has only been in East Timor since July 25. 
Wounded in the chest, Corporal Jones died in a Black Hawk helicopter taking him to hospital in Dili. 
Colonel Baker said Corporal Jones was commander of a six-member squad heading back to base in one of the army‘s eight-wheeled ASLAV light armored vehicles after a patrol near Maliana, close to the border with West Timor. 
"They placed their packs and weapons in the vehicle and they then proceeded back to base," he said. 
"The vehicle went over a particular part of the terrain and jolted to one side. 
"We think that what happened is that one of the weapons dislodged from sitting on packs at the back and discharged accidentally, wounding Corporal Jones. "We believe no one was touching it at the time." 
Colonel Baker said the Steyr had a safety mechanism which should have prevented something like that happening. 
He said it was not known if the safety catch was engaged at the time, whether it was Corporal Jones‘ own rifle or whether he was wearing body armor. 
"There will be a board of inquiry convened shortly which will look at the circumstance surrounding the incident, the procedures used and all other details and then make recommendations to ensure this doesn‘t happen again," he said. 
"The weapon will be identified as part of the investigation and obviously examined to see if there was any fault." 
The Austrian-designed Steyr rifle, introduced to Australian service in the early 1990s, has achieved notoriety for the number of accidental discharges. 
There were so many in Somalia that new handling procedures were introduced which defence sources say significantly reduced the problem. 
Defence maintains the Steyr is not at fault and that unauthorised discharges stem from failure to follow proper safety procedures. Offenders are fined or even charged. 
Defence Minister John Moore confirmed a board of inquiry had been convened to investigate the circumstances of the tragedy. 
"The government is very concerned about any injuries or loss of life in the defence force and will be fully briefed on this incident," he said in a statement. 
The inquiry is expected to be conducted in public with findings and conclusions made public. 
Corporal Jones is the second Australian soldier to die in East Timor, following the death of a soldier from pneumonia. 
It is the second time an Australian soldier has been killed by an accidental weapon discharge in recent peacekeeping activities. 
Lance Corporal Shannon McAliney died in Somalia on April 2, 1993, when a Steyr rifle held by a colleague accidentally fired as they set out on patrol. 
He was Australia‘s only casualty of the Somalia deployment. 
Australian troops have been on a heightened state of alert and are actively patrolling the border area since militiamen shot dead a New Zealand soldier late last month. 
++++
IDF rejects device which prevents rifles discharging accidentally
By Arieh O‘Sullivan
TEL AVIV (August 11) - The IDF has been offered a device which would probably prevent an accidentally discharged bullet from hitting innocent bystanders, but has rejected it because it wants its soldiers‘ firearms to be constantly at the ready. 
But the inventors of the "Shotguard" say that the IDF really is stalling because it does not like the image it transmits of soldiers who are not in control of their weapons. 
"The IDF has a mental problem about this device because it doesn‘t suit its macho image to have extra safety device," said David Ramati, of Mofet Etzion, manufacturers of the Shotguard. 
The 10 cm.-long Shotguard weighs just 300 grams and fits over any rifle‘s flash suppressor. The bullet hits a disk on a spring and disintegrates. The device only blocks the first bullet. All other shots fired will exit normally, which makes it excellent for preventing accidental discharges, said Emanuel Dryfus, marketing manager for the Shotguard. They cost about $40 each. 
The makers said the Shotguard is in service with forces in Holland, Singapore, and Australia. The US Marine Corps has just tested it. 
"This thing is fairly inexpensive. It‘s not for the commando units or those with a lot of weapons experience, but it certainly can be put on the weapons of soldiers in basic training," said Ramati. 
According to Michael Cohen, the inventor of the Shotguard, his device could have prevented tragedies like the one last weekend when a soldier cleaning his gun accidentally shot dead his aunt, a mother of four. "Whenever there is a report of a person who was shot by mistake, we think it was a pity that this device is not in use," he said. 
There are no statistics on the number of people injured by soldiers accidentally misfiring their weapons. Last year, two soldiers were killed by accidental discharges. Two were also killed in 1998. 
Dryfus said that the IDF has actually tested the Shotguard. He said it has agreed in principle to purchase a few thousand, but it says it doesn‘t have the money. 
The Israel Police and the Border Police have purchased a small number of the Shotguards. 
"We believe that the IDF is not rejecting it for budgetary reasons, but mainly because it doesn‘t want the rifle of a combatant to be blocked by something that will prevent him from shooting the first bullet," said Cohen. 
The IDF Spokesman denied the army had ever considered purchasing a device which fully blocks the barrels of its firearms. "There does not exist such a barrel block. There are a number of barrel blocks which have been developed and are suitable for use in training, which prevent the firing of live bullets during training with blanks. This device is part of the IDF‘s procurement plans for next year," an IDF statement said. 
"Even if there was a full barrel guard, the IDF would not use it due to the need of soldiers to be on full alert all of the time," the IDF Spokesman said.
++++


----------



## Michael Dorosh

There are two sides to the coin when discussing ADs - the attitudes of the soldiers carrying the weapons, and the reliablity of the weapons themselves.

As to the former:

An incident occured in the last year concerning an ex-soldier, and the story has been making the rounds.  I believe I have the essence of the story correct here; I am leaving out the details to protect the person‘s identity.  

He had been a reservist whose attitude left a lot to be desired; a smarmy, cock-sure type who you could never tell a thing to because he knew it all.  He was also lucky; married a woman in law enforcement and managed to find himself a good job in the prison system.

It turned out that he was at an institution transferring a prisoner and upon surrendering his weapon at the gate, he removed the magazine and was asked by the person on duty "aren‘t you going to do an individual safety precaution?"  

The question of how the individual acheived the next feat is still unclear to me, and quite frankly defies belief - but ultimate stupidity is often hard for the rest of us to grasp...Anyway, said individual simply replied with his trademark attitude "Don‘t worry, you can‘t fire it without the magazine" and promptly discharged the weapon.

The bullet was reported to have imbedded itself in the bulletproof glass (answering years old curiousity as to the window‘s resistance) and worse, removed part of said individual‘s hand and deposited it on the walls.

Luckily no one was killed.

Is that considered an "accidental discharge"?  Having known the individual in question, I can picture him putting his hand in front of the muzzle and pulling the trigger.  Some people are THAT sure of themselves.

I hope that individuals like that find themselves released from the service, or at least put where they can do no one physical harm.

Unfortunately, familiarity can breed more than contempt.  A bad soldier looks at his weapon as simply a tool to be treated in the same manner as his shovel or utility knife; I can‘t imagine why a loaded weapon was left to merely sit on a pile of packs in the back of a vehicle.   I‘d like to think Canadian troops take weapon safety much more seriously than that.

My father knew a man from his hometown who served with 3 PPCLI in Korea.  He was shot (and killed) five times by another Canadian.  He claimed to have been "cleaning" his Bren Gun.  I‘d like to read the official investigation of that one, and if it too was labelled "accidental."  First thing anyone does is to unload a weapon if they‘re going to clean it.

I‘ll leave the discussion of the reliability of our weapons to those who have made a living out of using them...


----------



## Andyboy

It is easy to call into question the competence of someone who has an AD but in reality the more time you spend around loaded weapons the better chance you have of having an accident with them. ADs or NDs are inevitable. Some of the best trained and competent soldiers have had them. People get tired, lazy, and cocky, have bad days, etc ...it‘s just human nature and the law of averages. The longer you go without having or experiencing an accident the cockier you get, also the less time you spend using live ammunition the less seriously you take it. The key is to hammer home the practice of safe weapons handling at the beginning. IE never point a weapon at someone unless you intend to shoot them that way if or when you do have an accident hopefully you won‘t hurt anybody. Anyone who has been on operations will tell you the incidence of NDs is higher on operations than on exercises simply because of the constant exposure to loaded weapons. While this seems to contradict what I previously said the actual number of rounds fired on a typical operation is very low, this, combined with hours and days of mind numbing boredom and a requirement to clear your weapon everytime the wind changes direction will lead inevitably to NDs. 

As to the Korean question, did he mean to kill the other guy? If not then it was accidental. Negligence is a different story.

As to the reliability of weapons, different weapons have different characteristics. I have never had any safety related problem with the C-7 or C-6. The C-9 on the other hand has a problem in that sometimes, through no fault of the firer,you can find live rounds in the body of the weapon. I was on a bus when the guy sitting two seats behind me found a live round beside the return spring on his gun while stripping it for cleaning. After repeated safety precautions and clearances had been made. Kind of unsettling but that‘s the nature of the job.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Andybody, thanks for that.  I guess that‘s what I meant to say by "familiarity breeds more than contempt" - to me, you make sense with your remarks regarding casual attitudes creeping in around troops and the handling of their weapons.  I‘d like to think Canadian soldiers do have discipline and respect for weapons drilled into them from the start.

Re: Korea.  Good question.  Circumstantially, you would almost have to believe that a soldier who can let off five rounds from a Bren Gun would be doing so deliberately.  That‘s what a lot of people apparently felt after the fact.  The Sten was notoriously unreliable, and had it been a Sten that had gone off, it would be a little less suspicious than a Bren.

At the time, who knows what happened....maybe the soldier in question walked onto an impromptu range while the Bren gunner was zeroing his weapon.  I have no idea of the circumstances surrounding the shooting; if they were two feet away from each other or 200 yards, if it was daytime or night time; but I think my dad and his friends suspected foul play.  I‘ve never seen anything substantial regarding the incident.  

Like you say, though, accidents happen - and after a few days or weeks in the line in Korea, fatigue and shock would play their part in lowering the odds against accidents of that nature.  I would be interested in learning more about this specific case - the soldier in question is listed on the roll of honour of the PPCLI - do they include accidental and non-battle deaths on the roll?


----------



## Gunner

Negligent Discharges are one of the more common charges overseas in Bosnia (and until recently Kosovo).  The fine ranges anywhere from $500 to $1500 depending on the severity (causing the death of a soldier would be a court martial).  

As a point of note, the CO of the RCD who was in Kosovo and banged his helmet off of a C6 trigger sending 3 or so rounds off was charged and was given a $5000 fine (everyone is charged now - includign padres).


----------



## Runner

Having given many, many, chemical safety training sessions I think an statistic from the North American petrochemical industry may be of interest here.  With regards to chemical accidents resulting in severe injury or death, a disproportionately high number of incidents occur with those having many years of experience.  The idea being that new people are generally too afraid to get themselves into serious trouble (for the most part).  When a serious incident occurrs, it is statistically more likely to happen to a senior worker who has become overconfident, complacent, or knew a special shortcut that had always "worked for him".  I always find that the attentiveness of those with a few gray hairs usually goes up after that...

There have been some great comments on the issues of AD‘s above.  Especially the one of the round(s) in the C-9 seeming to gravitate to where they shouldn‘t, even after individual safety precautions...Yikes!  The other point that I haven‘t seen mentioned with respect to the Aussies misfortune was the practice of throwing the weapons on a truck and walking back to base.  Didn‘t we learn in basic, as well as in Rawanda, that weapons belong with the soldiers, not with the baggage???


----------



## JRMACDONALD

I have been observing this site for a couple of weeks, and have decided to join the fray. WRT AD/NDs it has been my experience that these occur, predominately, as a result of operator error( ie complacency,inattention,lack of skill, etc) as opposed to firearms malfunction. Refresher training and vigourous supervision, at all levels, can correct this.  Adding more parts to a gun (spring bullet trap) or more restrictive safety measures( you get to see you weapon only once a year!) are window dressing and not,in my opinion, a viable/realistic solution. A gun IS ONLY a tool! (Would any one throw a running chain saw into a truck and then board the back?) It is only the individual‘s personal skill/motivation that will improve/ maintain safe use. This MUST be developed/maintained by his superiors.


----------



## Michael OLeary

We have to be very careful of the presumption that every discharge of a firearm, other than at an authorized target or enemy, is a "negligent discharge", implying an overt disregard of duty.  We might as well automatically charge and convict every driver of every vehicle involved in an accident. Major Peter Young, a hero of the Dieppe Raid (Yellow Beach/Berneval), noted in his biographical work, ‘Into the Storm‘ (if I recall the title correctly) that the only weapons fired on the first Commando raids of WWII were "NDs" BY THE OFFICERS. There is a legitimate case to realize that there may be an absolutely irreducable minimum number of accidental discharges with troops, regardless of their levels of training and experiece. I do not mean to say that "NDs" should not be investigated and prosecuted, but we do have to realize that ever-increasing punishments may only cause soldiers to overtly decrease their risk of being charged (by not chambering rounds) in order to protect themselves against what is seen to be a greater (or at least a more assured) threat, rather than chambering rounds to be better prepared to execute their mission.

Mike
regimentalrogue.tripod.com


----------



## the patriot

Essentially, what it all boils down to is common sense. If one is to have blind respect for their weapon and what it is capable of.  Then I believe that the ND‘s will decrease.  I guess some people have forgotten to do the "small" things to ensure that accidents of this nature do not occur.  Which is unfortunate.

-the patriot-


----------



## Mkbb

I think you have all touched most of the relevant points on this subject. I would like to think that ND‘s could be prevented but no matter what we do (trg/supervision/etc.) if we mix our weapons with live ammo it is inevitable that an ND will occur.Something I feel that increases the chances of ND‘s is the practice of using unloading bays at our bases in operational areas. The first problem I have with this is that the soldiers are continuosly conducting load,unload,and safety precautions on their wpns, this by itself increases the chances of an ND just by statiscally increasing the amount of times you are squeezing the trigger of your wpn. The other result of this practice is that after a couple of months of this repetition the soldier is likely to not instinctively know his wpns status (if it remains loaded at all times except when it is out of his hands he will always be inclined to treat it with respect). One thing that is sure is that the measures that are currently in place aren‘t very effective.  With regards to the C-9 problem mentioned earlier,I have witnessed this as well and have found that rounds like to hide in the MAGAZINE WELL which, as you know we are not trained to clear as part of safety precautions.


----------



## Armymedic

This is getting time on CBC as well as Global....

 http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=AE944043-D0A8-4936-B5EB-35671448C462 

Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun discharges 

Monday, September 29, 2003

KABUL -- Two Canadian privates have been convicted of negligence in the accidental discharge of their weapons, bringing to a head concerns over the readiness of guns carried by troops patrolling the Afghan capital. 

The commanding officer of the Canadian contingent here, Lt.-Col. Don Denne, conducted summary trials and fined the two 20-year-olds $850 and $1,250 respectively for the incidents, which occurred a week apart late last month. Denne said they were inexcusable errors for infantrymen. 

No one was injured in either incident but, as far as the army is concerned, that is beside the point. 

"An infantryman must be an expert with his weapon,‘‘ Denne, a native of Hantsport, N.S., declared in an interview Monday. "In a light battalion, that is our bread and butter.‘‘ 

The issue of weapons readiness is an important one for the Canadian peace-support mission in Afghanistan. There are 1,950 Canadians serving in Kabul and surrounding areas as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. 

Troops patrolling crowded city streets, back alleys, markets and mountain passes are under general orders to load their weapons _ magazines attached _ but not to put bullets in the chamber unless confronted with a tangible threat. 

Chambering bullets involves cocking the weapon, bringing a single bullet into the firing chamber. Firing it requires the safety lever to be off and the trigger to be depressed. 

Those calls are made by the on-scene commander, usually a master-corporal, a sergeant, a lieutenant or a captain. But his guidance comes from rules set down by Denne and his superiors. 

Tangible threats are deemed to be hostile action or shots fired, and hostile intent, or hostile weapons cocked or pointed, or a suicide bombing. 

In both cases involving the privates _ one fired off three rounds in an urban street, the other a single round along a rural road _ there were no tangible threats, said Denne. 

In one case, "the platoon commander gave the order to make weapons ready based upon what he considered to be a threat,‘‘ said Denne. "That was a perceived threat. That is like chasing shadows.‘‘ 

Soldiers argue that having to cock their weapons constitutes an unwarranted delay in their response to threats such as car bombers, grenade attacks or mountain ambushes. 

But Denne and his superiors say that walking around with a bullet in the chamber cancels out a series of measures their soldiers are supposed to take before they ever consider firing a round. 

"Normally, you are not walking around with a bullet in the chamber because that denies the soldier the opportunity to escalate if he has to,‘‘ said Canadian Brig.-Gen. Peter Devlin, commander of ISAF‘s operational element, the 32-nation Kabul Multi-National Brigade. 

"There are stages, from verbal warnings to physical warnings to the chambering of a round to the firing of a warning shot to the use of deadly force. And all of those steps are vital to resolving a problem.‘‘ 

Chambering rounds, Devlin said Monday, "denies the soldier the freedom to respond‘‘ as the threat dictates. 

Besides, said Denne, the first thing a soldier does when he comes under direct fire is to take cover. Chambering a round _ or cocking his weapon _ takes a fraction of a second, and the soldier still has to determine the source of the threat, he notes. 

The sound of an entire platoon cocking their weapons is a deterrence in and of itself, he added. 

In the case of a vehicle-borne attack, soldiers would not have time to fire anyway, he said. 

"So why run the risk of loosing off a round negligently and hitting somebody and making life difficult for your whole bloody organization for the six-month period you‘re here? 

"That‘s the risk that I‘ve got to bear and I‘m not prepared to accept that kind of risk.‘‘ 

Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, ISAF‘s deputy commander and the top Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, said the rules of engagement under which the Canadians operate aren‘t much different than those of other ISAF members. 

Leslie said soldiers have the latitude to do everything they have to do; the product, he said, of healthy debate among senior officers. 

"If you‘re patrolling in downtown Kabul at the height of a market day and you‘ve got a bullet up the spout, two things happen,‘‘ he said. 

"One is your response time is lowered and the second thing is there is no going back because you only have a split second to decide. A high-velocity round can go through two or three people, including children. 

"Then you‘ve got a whole other set of issues.‘‘ 

Leslie acknowledged that Canadians are taking a degree of risk by requiring foot soldiers to patrol with their weapons loaded but not cocked _ Coyote and LAV-3 armoured vehicles travel with a bullet in the chamber of their 25mm chain guns _ but the commanders suggested the trade-offs are worth it. 

Denne has evoked what he calls the "smile-and-wave campaign,‘‘ whereby his troops are encouraged to acknowledge the generally warm reception they have been given by locals. He says it‘s a key element in winning the hearts and minds of the people they have been sent to protect. 

"You can‘t very well, on the one hand, be smiling and waving at folks, trying to win them over while surreptitiously having a round up the spout of your rifle ready to mete out death and destruction,‘‘ said Denne. 

"Every time we walk out that gate, all of Canada walks with us. And I don‘t think Canadians would be particularly impressed if we were going out in any other way than we are right now.‘‘ 

Both soldiers convicted for the incidents in Afghanistan _ one from November Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, and the other from Para Company _ are on their first overseas tours. Both pleaded guilty to the charge of neglect or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. 

The soldier who fired off three rounds while exiting his Iltis vehicle in downtown Kabul also received seven days of extra work and drill on top of his fine, a hefty sum for a low-paid private. 

"He‘s lucky,‘‘ said Denne. "He‘s extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt or killed an innocent civilian.‘‘ 


Note: The Article title gives the wrong terminology for the non-puposeful discharge of a soldiers weapon. These 2 cases are clearly negligent. The term "accidental" was changed because of soldiers getting charged for firing off weapons in clearing pits....not accidental, thats what clearing pits are for, right?

The guy from Para was no doubt a leg attached for ISAF.  :sniper:  

Thank God this was NOT one of those times you must bury your mistakes.....


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Great article; I disagree with the last line where Denne says "or worse" he could have killed a civilian.  I don‘t see that as being any worse, or better, than killing a Canadian soldier.

The troops got what they deserved, based on what was presented here.  If true, then they clearly weren‘t in control of their weapons.  I bet we won‘t hear of any other mistakes like this for the remainder of the tour.


----------



## Infanteer

> "He‘s lucky,‘‘ said Denne. "He‘s extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt or killed an innocent civilian.‘‘


Ouch....bet you he regrets saying that.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

No excuse for this.
"Gentleman, we have 2 volunteers for mine clearence duties."
You should go a whole career without a single AD.


----------



## Armymedic

Not to defend what he said...    

I imagine he won‘t like the printed version either.

I believe he meant a civilian Afghan killed would enrage the locals and ruin any good rapore the Bg has gain so far, thereby making everyones jobs more difficult/dangerous.


----------



## Art Johnson

What a bunch of BULL****. When you are on Active Service in a hostile enviroment you should always have one up the spout ready to go. It is fine for the officers to say this and that but most of the Senior Officers of today have never had to face the reality of action. They are too hidebound in the political correctness of todays army.  All we have to do is look at the Congo were the Commanding General was not armed and witnessed the massacre of some of his troops and could do nothing about it. We need more Generals of the capacity of Lew McKenzie who can make descions based on the situation not a bunch of  PC bag lickers.


----------



## Infanteer

Mr Johnson has a point.  I believe Mounties always have a round in the spout.  I don‘t remember them ever clearing their weapons with us in Kananaskis.

Shouldn‘t the function test tell a troop that his rifle can be safely loaded, readied, safetied and handled without concern of an ND?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I won‘t pretend to have any operational experience, but from what some of the boys in the unit have said - and what is presented in the article itself (and I believe they mentioned this to us when we were training in Aid to the Civil Power last year with the CP Police) - the cocking of weapons is in itself one of the steps that can be taken to warn off potential aggressors.

That would obviously not be a consideration in a high intensity conflict (read "f‘in war"), but I could see where having the option to cock weapons to defuse a situation might be useful...


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

I agree with being as ready as possible but the only AD you should ever have should be on Suzie Q‘s leg in high school.


----------



## Infanteer

Agree with you on that one Warrant.

I remember a Rupert on my tour who had an ND on the 25mm.  I never did get the final story on what happened with that.


----------



## Spr.Earl

I know the R.O.E.‘s cant be made public but by the sound‘s of it they are along the same lines as in Bosnia today but Afghanistan is not Bosnia.
It‘s still the wild west and Kabul is Dodge.

To a point I don‘t blame the guy‘s for locking and loading,but one must be aware at all time‘s when patrolling with a loaded weapon and if he/she does have a A.D. then they pay the piper.

There again what was the young rifleman doing in a vehicle with a cocked rifle?

Yes there is quite an argument with this one for pro and con.


----------



## Armymedic

As per ROE‘s (Afghan or Bosnia, not much different, NATO all the same after all)cocking your weapon is done on order of on scene commander or when immenent threat is percieved. Cocking of your weapon the first step of the escalation of DEADLY force and in itself can be a deterrent to the use of force by your threat. 

In the real world, gungho-ness may just get you killed.


----------



## Jarnhamar

``the cocking of weapons is in itself one of the steps that can be taken to warn off potential aggressors.``

I`m all for having a round in the chamber. I understand what they said in the article about cocking your weapon being part of the escalation of force but the time needed to cock your weapon and bring it up to a shooting position could not only cost a soldier his life but other soldiers as well. People argue that cocking your weapon takes hardly any time at all, when your counting seconds it`s a very long time in my opinion. I`ve `heard`of patrols cocking their weapons soon as they leave the gates, if $hit is going to hit the fan then theres a good chance the soldier will be skipping the whole cock your weapon as a show of force step in the first place. If someone has an AK47 with a round in the chamber and points it at a soldier who has to cock his weapon before shooting to defend himself who do you think will likely win'. I know the argument can go both ways but in the end i`d rather be the one alive. I`m confident that i won`t shoot my weapon by accident and if i do, ****  fine me and give my money to the queen.


----------



## combat_medic

Does anyone here remember "ground dictates?" 

Yes, if you‘re in the middle of a war zone during a time of war, it makes a lot of sense to have a round up the spout.

However, if you‘re in an extremely low-risk peacekeeping operation, having the chamber empty makes a lot of sense too. 

Shouldn‘t the type of operation and perceived threat influence the ROEs and the way weapons are carried and loaded?


----------



## DJD556

It seems to me to be that this is more buracracy leading the way.  Toronto isn‘t a really bad place to be and yet the police have their weapons ready to go.  I understand the argument of cocking a rifle as an act of intimidation, but I also could see it escalating a situation and that could get people killed or worse Canadians!


----------



## Infanteer

> However, if you‘re in an extremely low-risk peacekeeping operation, having the chamber empty makes a lot of sense too.


And are you considering Afghanistan one of these.


----------



## Marauder

"Every time we walk out that gate, all of Canada walks with us. And I don‘t think Canadians would be particularly impressed if we were going out in any other way than we are right now."

That‘s a real easy rationale for Joe Liberal Canadian to make when his ***  is sitting in a climate controlled Timmy Ho‘s in Mississauga reading the Toronto Star (commie ****ing ****rag that it is), but that ignores the realities and dangers of the situation. What Jill ****head here at home doesn‘t know CAN mess up Bloggins over in Indian Country.

Sounds to me like some officers are feeling pretty comfy and secure locked in thier CP in the middle of camp. But that‘s just my interpretation.


----------



## combat_medic

Infanteer: No, certainly not. I would consider Afghanistan high-risk peacekeeping and therefore more in a grey area. The people actually deployed there would be in the best position to make a determination as to whether or not weapons should readied; a far better position than the politicians making such decisions.

I believe in an either/or; neither answer is right all the time, but the situation should dictate the decision.


----------



## Armymedic

Exactly as the other medic says..
ground and situation dictate,

Thats why the descision to put a round in the chamber of small arms is left to the patrol commander, or on scene commander.

As a leader, it leaves me ALOT of independance to assess the situation, and deal with it with all the tools the ROEs give me.


----------



## Jungle

> Thats why the descision to put a round in the chamber of small arms is left to the patrol commander, or on scene commander.
> 
> As a leader, it leaves me ALOT of independance to assess the situation, and deal with it with all the tools the ROEs give me.


The important question is: is the patrol/ on-scene commander ready to accept the consequences if something goes wrong ? Not only in the case of a ND, but what about having one of ours killed because we took too long to respond ?
Personally, as I have written before, "I‘d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six".


----------



## logistik

> Besides, said Denne, the first thing a soldier does when he comes under direct fire is to take cover.


What about the double tap in double tap dash down crawl observe fire?


----------



## Doug VT

The first thing that you always do when coming under fire is take cover.  That other stuff‘s a load of crap!  You‘re going to do what you can do, depending on the situation, not necessarily in that order.
No matter what tour you‘re on, no matter what country you‘re in, no matter what type of ROE that is in effect, some idiot will have an ND.  It‘s a simple fact.  It‘s like a law of nature, someone will always get caught fraternizing.  Yeah, it‘s not good, but unfortunately it‘s bound to happen.  Hopefully no-one get‘s hurt or killed in the process, soldier or civilian, it makes no difference, sucks either way.
A good commander should have a grip on the actions of his/her subordinates, enough so that he/she will know what they‘re specific reactions to certain situations will be.  Knowing this, control should be absolute, always assuming responsibility for all the group‘s actions.


----------



## Jungle

The double tap is used when coming under fire during advance to contact, meaning you are in a war. Peace support ops are different, ROEs do not allow firing blindly in a general direction. You have to ID the target before engaging.


----------



## Infanteer

> Personally, as I have written before, "I‘d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six".


That, my good Warrant, is what seperates the men on the ground and the pencil pushers in Ottawa.


----------



## justa guy

This is a very interesting discussion and one that has been going on for years. I just wanted to add a pet peeve of my own.

Long ago when we carried the FN C1A1 rifle we didn‘t seem to have as many negligent discharges. I know they did occur but they were much rarer than they are today. I believe that an important contributing factor was that the C1 rifle could be put on safe at any time. It may seem a small thing but we developed the habit of always putting the rifle on safe wether it was loaded or not. For a soldier the natural state of his rifle was "on safe".

The C7 rifle will not go on safe unless it has been cocked. So for much of the time the rifle is left on repetition. Soldiers today are not in the habit of checking their safety lever because most of the time you can‘t move it. When ordered to load the C7 you have to remember to change the lever. For most of our soldiers this is not a problem. But for a very few it can be forgotten and contribute to an ND.

I think this technological change has increased the number of NDs and resulted in a more dangerous work environment for our soldiers.

I am not a wpns tech so I don‘t know if it is even possible but if the C7 could be modified to go on safe when the hammer is not cocked I think it would help to cut down on the number of NDs we are experiencing. It would make things safer for our soldiers and also for the precious Afgan civilians.


----------



## Armymedic

I really don‘t think the type of weapon matters if peopls can not keep thier fingers away from the trigger.......

  :mg:


----------



## towhey

True, Canadian police officers do carry their weapons with a round in the chamber.  However, their "rules of engagement" require sidearms to remain in the holster until there is a clear and present danger.

Carrying a rifle with a loaded magazine on it, then charging it when a clear and present danger exists is, in essence the same thing.

Police issue sidearms also have positive safety mechanisms that permit safe carry with a round chambered.  Standard issue Canadian service weapons do not (Non standard issue weapons such as Sig-Sauer Pistols do, as may special ops weapons, etc.)

If there was a credible risk of an aggressor popping up with an AK-47 and effectively engaging Canadian troops, I suspect that may be grounds for charging weapons on entering the situation.

Having served on numerous "peacekeeping" tours, including one in southern Africa -- I can personally attest to the value of effectively escalating one‘s response to a threat.  Something as simple as an obvious change in posture or behaviour can have an incredibly sobering effect on a hostile crowd.  Charging weapons, like fixing bayonets, is an immensely powerful form of communication.

Personally, I believe Canadian soldiers are highly-trained professionals -- some of the best soldiers in the world -- and I trust them to make appropriate judgement calls on the ground.


----------



## GrahamD

> I really don‘t think the type of weapon matters if peopls can not keep thier fingers away from the trigger.......


Fingers are only one of many mechanisms that can depress a trigger.

For example I would never sling a loaded and cocked hunting rifle over my sholder while using a range finder, binoculars, GPS, taking a piss, or whatever.  Its unlikely, but still a remote possibility that as you are doing whatever you are doing your prey springs into view, you hastily snatch at your rifle from your shoulder, a branch you hadn‘t noticed sticks in your trigger guard creating leverage, depresses the trigger and you shoot your buddy in the face.  It seems unlikely that it would ever happen to anyone with experience, yet there are multiple hunting accidents in North America every year resulting in fatalities. Many from accidental discharge. (Like the guy who dressed his dog up as a hunter, rifle and all, and somehow the rifle fired and killed him. I‘m pretty sure I saw that clip in Bowling for Columbine).  Considering all that, imagine how many near misses go unreported.



> "He‘s lucky,‘‘ said Denne. "He‘s extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt or killed an innocent civilian.‘‘


This is just my personal viewpoint, but I would rather take a round from a buddy than see him be responsible for the potentialy devastating repercussions of killing a civilian in a foreign conflict zone.  Such an incident can (and has) cause intense scrutiny on the entire Canadian Forces,  damage our positive reputation globaly, and wound national pride based upon that reputation.
   In the worst case scenario, such an incident could bring the wrath of the locals upon the rest of the peacekeepers in the region, and cause a significant loss of life on both sides.


----------



## Sig

Every member of the CF is soldier first.  That means you have to be able to competently handle your personal weapon.  Any ND is just that.  AD was a very poor term, that is why it no longer exists.  Besides, yes, bringing the weapon up is an excellent deterrent, not to mention cocking it.  If you feel the time spent cocking the weapon might mean the difference between being "judged by twelve or carried by six" perhaps you were not sufficiently aware of the situation.  One final point.  Anyone who has ever had a weapon in a SMP veh knows how many things it can get tangled in.  Having one in the spout is foolishness.


----------



## Gunner

A friend of mine was injured by a Signaller‘s ND in Africa.  I don‘t think you can have too cavalier an attitude when dealing with NDs.  It can take a life.  In my buddies case, he will have the scar for the remainder of his life.  What is the price on that?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I still think in a hostile enviroment they should have one ready.

"Any ND is just that. AD was a very poor term, that is why it no longer exists" I was told by a friend int rentont hat they are no longer calling it an ND when the airforce do it because some of them are insulted by it or something like that. IT makes them sound bad, they call it an accidental discharge now.


----------



## kellywmj

Its relevant to point out that in the British army, the term "negligent" discharge has always been used, the implication being that any unwanted discharge of a weapon is due to the negligence of the soldier. There can be no other way to characterise it. You have have control of your weapon, or you don't. An accident, by definition, is an occurance without cause, and that was not foreseen. A round up the spout, change lever on Fire, finger on trigger, Thats negligence.


----------



## axeman

kellywmj said:
			
		

> Its relevant to point out that in the British army, the term "negligent" discharge has always been used, the implication being that any unwanted discharge of a weapon is due to the negligence of the soldier. There can be no other way to characterise it. You have have control of your weapon, or you don't. An accident, by definition, is an occurance without cause, and that was not foreseen. A round up the spout, change lever on Fire, finger on trigger, Thats negligence.


i agree as i knew a person who was killed by a negligent discharge civy side . i personally know after killing a friend of mine and making his wife a widow all the person got was 3 lousy years in jail .  when its broken down to what youve stated and ive always believed in is that its never an acident...


----------



## 48Highlander

I don't see why people are attempting to justify ND's.  Sure, it'll always happen, and so will all sorts of other injuries due to negligence.  However, they shouldn't happen to anyone who knows their weapon and is aware of what they're doing.  I've never even come close to having an ND on any weapons system, nor have the majority of the people I work with.  Saying that they're "inevitable" for every person (I beleive the phrase was "the longer you go without one, the more likely it is to happen") is foolish.  I carry my weapon with me wherever I go.  If there's no requirement for it to be readied, I make sure it's not.  If it IS readied, I make sure it's on safe.  Whenever I change my grip on it, the first thing I do is line up my thumb with the safety.  The only way I could concievably have an ND is if I was on heavy drugs and totaly unaware of what I was doing.  Those who do have ND's usualy don't need heavy drugs in order to have no clue what they're doing


----------



## Fusaki

While it is something we should all be concerned about, we shouldn't be afraid of readied weapons. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard of guys overseas leaving the bolts out of their weapons, taping rounds inside the mags so they don't feed properly, and cocking their weapons with no mags so they can put it on safe and make it look ready, and only fix a mag after. I've been under the impression that this is more of a problem in the support trades, but I've heard of guys doing this in my own Regiment as well. Shit like that makes my blood boil. In the infantry, everything we do is based on the fact that we can use or threaten to use deadly force. But if your fear of an ND stops makes you combat ineffective, then there is a major fucking problem.

NDs do happen, and they should always be punished severly. But intentionally sabotaging your personal weapon should be dealt with 20 times worse. Instant repatriation at the very least.


----------



## Bartok5

I have seen more than a few NDs during the past 25 years, working with soldiers of many different nations with varying levels of training and experience.   I think it is safe to say that any expectation of zero incidence of unintended firing is delusional.   Mix soldiers (especially tired or excited soldiers) with firearms and ammunition, and there are inevitably going to be unintentional discharges.   They are simply a fact of military life, just as automobile accidents are a fact of civilian life no matter how carefully everyone drives.   

The key is incidence MINIMIZATION through repetitive training to the point that safe weapons handling (including muzzle awareness) becomes instinctive, and the handling drills become ingrained in muscle memory.   In other words, the ideal level of training sees all soldiers so repetitively drilled in safe weapons handling that they perform the correct drills and observe safety without having to consciously think about it or be told to do so.   Are we in the Canadian Army there?   No, but overall we are pretty good - at least within the combat arms.   Remember this the next time you hear anyone pissing and moaning about having to run through supervised TsOETs for the "umpteenth time".   Theoretical knowledge is inadequate.   Intense repetition of correct handling drills, coupled with immediate correction of faults, is the ONLY effective method for minimizing the incidence of NDs.

As a final point, I fully concur with KellyWMJ.   There is only one type of "Accidental" discharge.   And that occurs where a loaded weapon can be demonstrated to have fired without human manipulation due to verifiable mechanical malfunction.    Every other incidence of unintended firing is the result of individual Negligence of one form or another.   It may be willful, or it may be unintentional.   But at the end of the day it is Negligence on the part of the soldier, his/her chain of command, or a combination of both.

Just my $.02


----------



## KevinB

I agree fully with MarkC on this issue - and with Ghostwalk (we had a Cpl walk around with out his bolt in Afghan...)

 For those who don't know: I was repatriated from Op Athena RotoII (after 87days) for failure to report a Sr NCO who had a ND with his sections Remington 870 shotgun.  Worse yet I got a replacement round from the CQ to make up the sections missing round (I had signed for all the Pl's 12ga ammo).  When the Sgt fired the round he had placed the weapon in a safe direction and made a terrible misatke assuming that it was not loaded (he had pumped the slide...)  However IF you had seen his face after the discharge you woudl have known that he learned more from that - than he would or did from any administrative action or charge he woudl (and did) face.  These days I place a large degree of blame on the system for the individuals do not get the weapon handlign they NEED.  However I beleive ND's in theatre and ND's in Canada need to be aproached the same way - we have had Theatre ND's by a Capt with a LAV cannon be swept under the rug (Bosnia Roto 11) we have had DLOC ND's go merriliy away the Cpl shot the OC with a simuntion round (small fine and was later promoted to M/Cpl  : ) furthermore in 1VP we had a Cpl have two C7 ND's on one ex (one durign a safety breif  ) and then he was promoted to M/Cpl...

 Sadly the CF needs to get its act together on the issue of ND's - either they are a big deal - or they are not - but they must be enforced across the board - less we get into another gray area where rules are selectively enforced depanding upon if the chain of command like the individuals involved.

IMHO we should have 1 (ONE) standard for ND's be it live, blank or sim - in Canada or abroad.


----------



## 1feral1

A few years back a guy in my PL had an UD with an AUG. He had the rifle slung across his back while carrying stores to make a strong point.

He had gone thru some bush repeatly, doing a slow jog, as the rifle slapped against his back the safety went to fire, and coming thru the bush again a branch got caught in the large trigger guard of the rifle, discharging a single shot, while slung across his back, and with his hands full.

The member was indeed charged. No injuries.

The safety catch is a poor design and after repeated UDs in theatre (and on Ex etc), DMO came up with a test (and a gauge to measure). The safety catch needed a mininum of 3kg pressure to go to fire. This made about 80-90% of rifles   'NS', and caused a shortage force wide of safety catch srprings which took almost a year to procure. A new spring was designed, and the pressure was dropped from 3kg to 2.2kg, and thats where it stands right now.

The unload drill after the 1993 Somalia death simply means the barrel has to be removed in EVERY unload drill and for 'inspect weapons'. A steel barrel wearing on an alloy housing, and this is not good. The barrels have indeed over a short period damaged the front of the housing, causing unnecessary damage to the rifle. Mainly cosmetic in nature (causing burrs which have been known to cut soldiers), but all the same, the rifle has never been designed to have the barrel removed each time you do an unload. It was ment to be removed for cleaning and changing the barrel length (ie from carbine to rifle, etc). 

To combat weapons competancy all soldiers, all trades were required to carry a weapon loaded with blanks during their normal work day (even in the office). NCO's barked out T'sOET daily, and over time even the clerks became much more competent than they were before. Any UDs were met with a charge bearing the same as if it was a live rd.

Another feather in my cap in my dislike for the AUG. Although I have confidence in the weapon, I am prepared to carry one anywhere anytime, I would prefer a M4 any day.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## pbi

I agree that we will probably never eradicate NDs: I have narrowly avoided a couple myself, one quite recently. But, if I asked myself why these near-NDs happened, and I am honest, I have to say it was because I was not paying attention to the drills I was taught, not because I do these drills every time I re-enter a base camp after a road trip. Practice of military skills should improve them, not degrade them. Both times it was cocking without taking off the mag. If I had had an ND, there would be nothing in my defence. And, I am in complete agreement that it is "N", not "A".

I do not think we should treat NDs as a capital offence, but they must be punished, and punished for all to see, regardless of rank. Like Kevin B, I am aware of at least one case (years ago...) in which an officer was treated more leniently than an NCM might have been. This is completely unacceptable: if anything as officers we have a duty to set a standard. I would like to think that today it would not be so easy to hide things.

As for buying little bits of kit to stick on weapons to "prevent" NDs-no, thanks. The answer is training and supervision. If recruits cannot avoid NDs it is because they are not being trained properly. Cheers.


----------



## MJP

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> To combat weapons competancy all soldiers, all trades were required to carry a weapon loaded with blanks during their normal work day (even in the office). NCO's barked out T'sOET daily, and over time even the clerks became much more competent than they were before. Any UDs were met with a charge bearing the same as if it was a live rd.



Wow I can't ever imagine them trying to do that here, although it would be interesting.  Was that across the board in the ADF Wes? or just a specific unit/brigade thing?

I too have seen the ugly side of letting NDs go by the wayside for officers and even a few NCOs, and it destroys the trust the troops have for the COC and the leders themselves, especially down the road when a troop gets nailed hard for an ND


----------



## ArmyRick

ND ? I have no symphathy for the soldier's error. I have no yet let one ND slide past. Includes those above me in rank and below...
Proper weapons handling and correct drills. COMPLACENCY KILLS.


----------



## 1feral1

MJP said:
			
		

> Was that across the board in the ADF Wes? or just a specific unit/brigade thing?



Army wide, both ARA and ARes.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB

For a while the SSF was implementing that - I know when 1RCR moved to Pet and was prepping for FYR - they were doing it.  The CO of the RCR BSL has all his empire doing it circa 94...
IT SHOULD BE A FORCE WIDE POLICY


----------



## Infanteer

KevinB said:
			
		

> we have had Theatre ND's by a Capt with a LAV cannon be swept under the rug (Bosnia Roto 11)



I remember that - the troops in my company were bitter because we had a very good SNCO witched-hunted by goof-balls over a "cover-up" and an errant 25mm round was ignored.

I agree with a firm but fair policy - applied to everyone equally.


----------



## KevinB

And HE had TWO ND's...

 They witch hunted the CSM out of the CF - yet the OC and CO had no problems coverign up for an officer...


----------



## 1feral1

KevinB said:
			
		

> And HE had TWO ND's...
> 
> They witch hunted the CSM out of the CF - yet the OC and CO had no problems coverign up for an officer...



Aint that the truth!. We have seen this all to often, while the 'smaller fish' get a seruous kick in the arse (or worse), its the 'bigger fish' who always seem to sneak by and end up getting a promotion.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I don't want to say too much in open forum, but what I can say from a non-privileged point of view is that a senior warrant officer in our armouries was disciplined for an ND a couple years ago.  He was a thoroughly professional soldier whom I respected greatly.  A rumour went round the mill that the "ND" was actually the result of a muffled command on the firing range, after which said WO fired, and he was taken to task for it.

I won't go any further than that, except to say that the WO, at least in front of his company clerk, accepted the reasoning behind the disciplinary action (which I won't describe) and made no effort to duck responsibility even if the charge may have been (again, according to rumour) questionable.

The point being that NDs are certainly on people's minds; I would never have thought to apply the term to someone at the firing point after having been ordered to Load, but of course, there it is.  I was also rather proud that the WO took responsibility for their action; I can't imagine this individual ever expecting something to just get swept under the rug.


----------



## pbi

> Wow I can't ever imagine them trying to do that here, although it would be interesting



This was actually in our "Training for War" manual for years; I just don't think we applied it all that often. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

pbi said:
			
		

> This was actually in our "Training for War" manual for years.



We have one of those?


----------



## bossi

Well, I guess it's worth getting it right the first time ... as pointed out initially:



			
				bossi said:
			
		

> ... Corporal Stuart Jones, 27, was fatally wounded yesterday when the vehicle hit a bump, apparently dislodging what was believed to have been a Steyr rifle ...
> and
> ... a soldier cleaning his gun accidentally shot dead his aunt, a mother of four.



I'm very glad my instructors made me do my C9 drills over again when I screwed up - it paid off on exercise in the US when I was handed an M249 that was supposed to have been unloaded ...

Confidence counts.  Complacency kills.  Practice makes "perfect" (but we're only human)
Thus, it's essential that our equipment and drills intelligently take into account the human factor.
Back in the days of the FN, it was "yes/no" - there was no in between - it was either loaded or not.
Now we've got three choices, which I'll politely insist increases the possibility of errors.
Sometimes "less is more".  After all, isn't the first rule "treat every weapon as if it's ... ?"
(i.e. the choices have further been narrowed to one, vice ... three ...)  $0.02


----------



## pro patria

Croatia, 94 one company commander was dismissed from his duties and sent back too Canada. That one was not put under the floor mat.


----------



## Blakey

Gunner said:
			
		

> (causing the death of a soldier would be a court martial).


Are you stating "Fact" or "Opinion" ?.....


----------



## X Royal

Cyprus 89/90 ND by Sgt. with 9mm pistol. Off floor and wall, minor wounds to his platoon comanders posterior. Definitely not swept under the rug or chair as the case may have been.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I agree that training can prevent many NDs.   I served at a Training Centre (an anonymous base near Balaclava On) where NDs with blanks were handled the same as live ones.   It is a good policy.

That being said, even highly trained soldiers can have NDs.   I've seen some NDs come up (from clearing bays) and said to myself "There but for the grace of God go I."   I would categorize ND causes as follows (not counting mechanical failures):

   (1)   lack of training (pistols are a good example, we have cut our 9 mm training back but then give them out on deployments)

   (2)   lack of attention (fatigue etc) 

   (3)   confusion over orders 
   
   (4)   playing with the weapon

I would say that most NDs are due to either category 1 and 2.   Training can remedy the former, while supervision and repetition can remedy the latter.   Fatigue and inattention can make even the best soldier have a very bad day.   There should be disciplinary and corrective action taken but the consequences should not be career ending.   Learn from mistakes, correct and move on.   By bringing all cases to light but handing out punishments in a non-career ending way we can encourage mistakes to be reported and give everyone the opportunity to learn.

NDs resulting from confusion over orders (and/or weapons states) are tricky.   It is a tough call but that is why we have a chain of command and a military justice system.

The last category is the most serious and should dealt with accordingly.   There is no excuse or mitigating circumstance that I can think of.   I think that they are rare in our Army but others may have war stories (I know of one and it was dealt with).   My opinion is that the first three are accidental (but still punishable) while the last is true negligence.

As an aside I have never been comfortable with the C6 and C9 clearing procedure.   It is the only one I know of that actually increases the readiness state of the weapon system as part of the unload.   There is probably no way around it but I'd be interested in the thoughts of the weapons SMEs here (as I am certainly not one!).

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Infanteer

2Bravo said:
			
		

> As an aside I have never been comfortable with the C6 and C9 clearing procedure.  It is the only one I know of that actually increases the readiness state of the weapon system as part of the unload.  There is probably no way around it but I'd be interested in the thoughts of the weapons SMEs here (as I am certainly not one!).



How about sticking the mag back in the pistol to release the hammer (as per drill).  I never get tired of the entertainment provided by watching a rear-ech type get a fidgety, nervous, and basically do everything to avoid sticking a loaded mag into the pistol.


----------



## KevinB

I trip the pistol with my finger - the mag disconect should have been  removed long ago.  IMHO this is a safety issue that the LCMM shoudl have addressed (I was told to STFU on this issue BTW  :)

 The problem with changing the MG drills is if you dont ensure it is cocked it (the bolt) could be caught and release when the feed cover is opened.  I had that happen and a small breech explosion occured with a C6 (my fault) luckily myself, the operator and the weapon were Okay.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Infanteer,

The end of the 9mm HP clearing drill does seem a little counter-intuitive!  I have seen clearing bays with empty 9mm magazines on chains.  I do not have stats, but I figure that the 9mm has to be a contender for most NDs "per capita".  It is not the fault of the weapon but rather that we do not train on it enough and then give it to people with bullets.  That plus the Hollywood image makes the pistol a candidate for all sorts of misfires.  

Kevin,

Seen and thanks for the info.  Most of my MG use has been in the vehicle mount (including the good old C5  ).  One thing that we did to ourselves was to have different MG drills for ground and vehicle mounts.  This one has gone back and forth several times in my recollection.

Cheers and Happy New Year to all.


----------



## KevinB

It makes no sense for me to have the Armoured the SME for the AFV C6 and the Inf the SME's for the ground mounts...


----------



## 48Highlander

KevinB said:
			
		

> I trip the pistol with my finger - the mag disconect should have been   removed long ago.   IMHO this is a safety issue that the LCMM shoudl have addressed (I was told to STFU on this issue BTW   :)
> The problem with changing the MG drills is if you dont ensure it is cocked it (the bolt) could be caught and release when the feed cover is opened.   I had that happen and a small breech explosion occured with a C6 (my fault) luckily myself, the operator and the weapon were Okay.



    Ok, I'm a little confused over this.  I keep hearing the term "breech explosion" and as near as I can tell, it's a holdover from the .50cal and other blowback operated weapons.  The C6 and C9 firing pin cannot strike a round unless the bolt is fully locked, at which point the round is in the chamber.  Once the bolt is locked and the pin strikes the round, the explosion occurs within the chamber, and since the bolt is LOCKED it cannot shoot back and release any gasses.  Gas is directed forward, through the barrel, and some is redirected back through the gas mechanism.  When that gas pushes on the piston, ONLY THEN is the bolt unlocked and the chamber exposed.  So at no point in the entire cycle is there a chance for hot gasses and/or bits of carbon/metal to come out of the chamber.

    So the point of that long winded explanation is this:  where exactly is the danger?  With a blowback operated weapon (eg. .50 cal) you'd get carbon and gas shooting up in your face, but theoreticaly with the C6 and C9 you should be able to fire the weapon quite safely with the feed cover open.

    And sorry for going off topic, I know this doesn't really fall into the realm of ND's but it's something that's been bugging me for a long time.  I'd appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me.

    Also, as far as the C6 and the C9 being the only weapons where you have to increase the readiness state of the weapon during the unload....as long as your finger isn't on the thrigger, you don't have a problem   You should be treating your weapon as if it's ready to fire at all times anyway, so it should make no difference if you increase the readiness state.  It all comes down to good drills, and that depends on proper training and lots of repetition/experience.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

JRMACDONALD said:
			
		

> WRT AD/NDs it has been my experience that these occur, predominately, as a result of operator error( ie complacency,inattention,lack of skill, etc) as opposed to firearms malfunction.




Well im glad to see someone acknowledging the possibility of firearms malfunction. Infact over the past summer I went with a bunch of fellow gun plumbers to respond to AD/ND's 2 out of the 3 times we went it was actually firearms malfunction. Not always the operator at fault. But I deffinatley agree there needs to be better training in regards to safteying the weapon that you are using and keeping the trigger clear when there is no need to use it.


----------



## Love793

KevinB said:
			
		

> It makes no sense for me to have the Armoured the SME for the AFV C6 and the Inf the SME's for the ground mounts...



The Coax C-6 is a different barrel, and there are different drills.  We can't just reach fwd and change the gas regulator.  Or as in the new barrel, unload, change barrels, allow to cool, strip and change regulator repeat as necesarry.  What I never agreed with on the Coax was the Half Load, Load, and Make Safe.  These drills I found confusing and unsafe.


----------



## Recce41

AD/NDs came up only in the 90s. I mean hard. Before, no one really cared. My father told me of more ADs happening in the Army wayback when. It was the different train of though. IT's a AD or ND. A AD is just that Accidental . A ND is negligent. We are all human, things happen. Remember the old SMG. Dam* all you had to do is look at it and it went off. The old Cougar foot firing pedal, some times you just sneezed and it fired, if the cable was too tight. 
 Inf, your close on the rd going off. It is because it is a hold over from the 50/30 Cal. The were rearward feed. The bolt would pickup a new rd going to the rear. The C6/C9 is a forward feed. It picks up ard when it goes forward.

 Kevin B, Armour drills are different, than Inf drills. That is why, you have an Armour SME and INF SME. Remember the Armour way is to keep the veh fighting. You can use the main gun without the Co ax. Also it has a firing circuit and the Inf has a 2 and 3 man C6 team. 

Love All C6s have the same gas reg. There is nothing confusing. Half load is just to put the damn rds on the feed tray. Load you cock the thing. Make safe.  put it on safe. In vehs the (LEO) Loader would put the weapon on safe, and switch the loader's box to safe. The gunner would switch the laser off and finish his  gunners drill. In a Cougar, the CC would just put it on safe, the Coyote the CC would put it on safe and the gunner would put his CDA to safe. TOOOO EASY.

 I knew Cpl Able of the CAR. Killed as a accident in the back of a bison.


----------



## Love793

Recce 41,

All C-6s NOW have the same gas regulators.  As far as the drills go, the point I was making was the 2 different drills cause some confusion.   I still see people whom where taught C-6 on the QL3 Armd preform the Coax drills when on a conventional range.  The dismounted drill to load is; Open the Feed cover, place the belt on and close the feed cover.  Where as the Coax load involves readying the weapon.  The Make Safe for Dismounted role is; unload followed by a load, again where as the coax way is simply placing the wpn on safe.  The confusion does occur, and I feel it's unsafe.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Turret drills do need to be a bit different due to the issue of hydralics and stabilization.  You don't want to mess with the feed cover on the coax (especially in the Leopard) when in stab on the move as all sorts of bad things can happen.  My apologies to all for taking this thread down a sidetrack about MG drills.  

Cheers,

2B


----------



## KevinB

Yes but the problem is the 031's also have the LAV...
  Our MG drills are now two different drills - on the same gun.


 On firearm malfunction:
I shoot a lot (in excess of 20K rounds / year - not counting beltfed fun)  I have seen two AD's (I consider the mechanical breakdown not a ND) form this - one with a C9 where a solider was shot in Afghanistan (the saftey button retainign spring thingy had snapped and got caught between the breechblock and the sear... then released when the weapon was moved), and once on a range in Canada where a C7 that was recently ATI'd had so little hammer/disconnect contact it went off.  Two area that need to be addressed with this issue - both troops and Weapon techs need to be trained (or retrained in some respects) on what to look for while doing weapons maintenance or inspections.  Weapons over the end of their service life have to be retired - not just sent back with a serviceable tag until they fail and cause death or injury.


Perfect Practice makes perfect - we need the weapons we use overseas in all of out training (pistols, shotguns, carbines etc.) and we need to use them a lot more than we do.


----------



## Recce41

Kevin/Love
 We also have the two drills. If it has a bipod,you do Inf drills. If it doesn't you do Armour drills. The Armour had the C6 before the Inf . They still had the C5 when we had it. When we first had the LEOs, we were the SMEs for the C6. Then when the Inf received theirs. Due to it was a 7.62 (small arm). They became the SMEs. 
 The Armour has had to change all their gun drills for the LEO, and the Coyote. Because the Inf did like to drills for the 25MM. ie Battle Sabot. Is now Sabot Battle. There is many more. This has also caused problems for us. I still do the old orginial 25mm drills. But I could have a new gunner. 
 We have had ADs not NDs due to this.


----------



## KevinB

I remember the C5...

 My point is that someone should cross the road in Gagetown and come to a meeting of the minds on a set standard drill.

Who is ever the 25mm SME that okay'd the gunnery precise needs a large kick upside the head with a frozen ski boot.


----------



## Recce41

KevinB
 A what do you mean by that? As stated we  (Armour) had the C6 yrs before the Inf. You cannot do Inf drills in a veh! Lance, can you add to this. We in the Armour Corp have change for the Inf. We did ALL Armour drills, even on the ground.


----------



## KevinB

Recce41 - I do Inf drills in a vehicle  
 I think one weapon one standard must be enforced regardless of role - there must be a compromise solution that puts us all on the same page all the time.  Or take the LAVIII and all its weapons away from the Inf - 011 will do it and run their drills while we concentrate on the ground.\\


----------



## Recce41

Or take the LAVIII and all its weapons away from the Inf - 011 will do it and run their drills while we concentrate on the ground.\\That is what most of us hope. By the way, one of the 25 MM SMEs is Inf. On Monday I'll have a talk with him or Lance and get some more info.
 Remember though, if do the wrong drill. You are at fault if anything happens. That is why, we most teach both ways. Because the Coyote's spare/AA C6 has a bipod.


----------



## axeman

so its an infantry weapon then ? ;D


----------



## 1feral1

Blakey said:
			
		

> Are you stating "Fact" or "Opinion" ?.....



Being new to this site, you would like you would sit back and learn before making such a hollow comment. Gunner has been around for more than 8 posts. What do you know about the subject? Your profile is empty. So, unless you have a more in depth 'rebuttle' and back up what you say with as you say 'facts' shut your 'cake hole'.

Wes


----------



## Recce41

Axeman
 No, it is a common weapon. The Armour Corp is the overall SME for the 25MM. But the Inf have it on the LAV, so we have a Inf Sgt as a rep. The Arty is a minor user also.


----------



## chrisf

Ok, brief off topic, silly question I have to ask, what does SME stand for?


----------



## bossi

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Ok, brief off topic, silly question I have to ask, what does SME stand for?



Subject Matter Expert ... or, if you like comedy ... "It's Me!"


----------



## 1feral1

Didn't I cop a blast of shyte from Blakey   . He sent me a 'nastygram' via a PM for critisizing him on his attitude of his posting at reply No. 30   :

He must have copped it a bit, as he refers many of us as 'you people on here' and as 'judge, jury and executioner' claiming he has got 15yrs TI of regluar Army time, etc. if so, you would think he would have known better.

My crime? Standing up for a fellow serving member, with a few more posts than just 8,  who copped it sweet by an anonymous 'SME' person with 8 posts, and no profile.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Blakey

Ok Wes, looks like im the only one mature enough to keep our grievances  between us through IM, sad very sad.


----------



## 1feral1

Whatever :. I wasnt the one who made a fool of himself via PM was I. If ya wanna play the troll, pick another board.

In the first place, if you cant take a bit of constructive criticism, maybe you should re-evaluate your time spent here. With the pisss-poor attitude you are presenting, if you left, there would be no sympathy.

Time to squeeze the ole ball bag, and muster up some testosterone, and soldier on, or go home. 

If I want any more abuse, I'll ring up ex-wife No.1.

 :warstory: Wes


----------



## George Wallace

KevinB said:
			
		

> On firearm malfunction:
> I shoot a lot (in excess of 20K rounds / year - not counting beltfed fun) I have seen two AD's (I consider the mechanical breakdown not a ND) form this - one with a C9 where a solider was shot in Afghanistan (the saftey button retainign spring thingy had snapped and got caught between the breechblock and the sear... then released when the weapon was moved), and once on a range in Canada where a C7 that was recently ATI'd had so little hammer/disconnect contact it went off. Two area that need to be addressed with this issue - both troops and Weapon techs need to be trained (or retrained in some respects) on what to look for while doing weapons maintenance or inspections. Weapons over the end of their service life have to be retired - not just sent back with a serviceable tag until they fail and cause death or injury.



I, too, would not call a malfunction an AD or ND.  I had a 'Runaway gun' with my Coax in Area 6 while on a Battle Run and wondered WTF.  Of course the OC was in the C/S thirty meters behind me.  Again, the result of a retaining pin vibrating loose in the trigger mech.  Hard thing to diagnose in a turret bouncing on the move cross country.  Discovered the problem when cleaning the C6 after the Run.   Knowing your drills is important.

Love...I don't know why you find the old Turret drills so confusing, other than you have never BTDT.  I personally find the Infantry drill confusing and dangerous.  Load and Ready seem ass backwards to me.  I know that "Half Load" I have a belt loaded in the tray, but nothing on the face of the bolt; "Load" means I have a round on the face of the bolt and am ready to "Fire".  How much simpler can it get.  "Make Safe" in a turret is simply putting *ALL* Selector switches to  *SAFE* .  My mitts are to large to be friggin around with a cover latch in the turret of a tank, Coyote, or LAV, especially on the move, the "UNLOAD" is a pain enough as is.  "Make Safe" is to make a wpn safe; the "UNLOAD" is where you unload the darn thing.  "STOP" is another drill that you find in the turret, and is quite different from "Target STOP".  

Misfire Drills are very important in the turret of the LAV and Coyote and have very serious consequences should one reach the point of "Hot Cannon".  The requirement for crews to be expert at their drill is beyond any doubt the most important factor in deterring NDs.  Your life is on the line.

GW


----------



## George Wallace

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm a little confused over this. I keep hearing the term "breech explosion" and as near as I can tell, it's a holdover from the .50cal and other blowback operated weapons. The C6 and C9 firing pin cannot strike a round unless the bolt is fully locked, at which point the round is in the chamber. Once the bolt is locked and the pin strikes the round, the explosion occurs within the chamber, and since the bolt is LOCKED it cannot shoot back and release any gasses. Gas is directed forward, through the barrel, and some is redirected back through the gas mechanism. When that gas pushes on the piston, ONLY THEN is the bolt unlocked and the chamber exposed. So at no point in the entire cycle is there a chance for hot gasses and/or bits of carbon/metal to come out of the chamber.
> 
> So the point of that long winded explanation is this: where exactly is the danger? With a blowback operated weapon (eg. .50 cal) you'd get carbon and gas shooting up in your face, but theoreticaly with the C6 and C9 you should be able to fire the weapon quite safely with the feed cover open.
> 
> And sorry for going off topic, I know this doesn't really fall into the realm of ND's but it's something that's been bugging me for a long time. I'd appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me.
> 
> Also, as far as the C6 and the C9 being the only weapons where you have to increase the readiness state of the weapon during the unload....as long as your finger isn't on the thrigger, you don't have a problem  You should be treating your weapon as if it's ready to fire at all times anyway, so it should make no difference if you increase the readiness state. It all comes down to good drills, and that depends on proper training and lots of repetition/experience.



I had the 'grand' experience after years of working with MGs to experience this first hand.   It does happen.   I was on the range in one of the pits as we ran all the Medics, Doctors and Nurses through the C6 and C9 for their live fire indoc prior to ROTO to Bosnia.   I was on a C9 running a female medic through her drills.   She had a misfire.   I talked her through the drill and had her step back from the gun.   There was a double feed.   I had a 12 inch screwdriver in my hand and went to push down on the rounds.   As I placed the screwdrive over the opening there was a 'cookoff'.   The 12" blade disappeared leaving me holding only the handle in my gloved hand.   I thought to myself; "Now wasn't that stupid" and looked at what I had left of the screwdriver, casually flinging it over my shoulder in disgust.   When I turned around people were freaking out.   "Are you OK, are you OK!"   from several medics and nurses......(NOTE: don't go to the range with that many medical staff....they freak out too easy).   I had shrapnel and cordite to the face and some blood, but no pain of feeling that anything was wrong.   Good thing I wear glasses.   They all figured I was in shock.   I was pissed I had lost a perfectly good screwdriver, that I had borrowed from a guy who had brought it from home.   But, I'm alright now.

Anyway, things like that happen if you fire too many rounds, don't properly follow drills, don't properly lubricate or maintain your wpn, get careless, or a myriad of other reasons.   Murphy's Law is waiting for you.   

GW


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry George, I still remember that, and in hindsight (not at the time though) it was hilarious. Your right, it was panic central for the medics while we checked you out and escorted you to the amb. The look on your face that day as you stood there, stunned, with your face all blackened and that handle in your hand was priceless. I still piss myself when I think about it.


----------



## George Wallace

That's alright....so do I.....

GW


----------



## 48Highlander

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I had the 'grand' experience after years of working with MGs to experience this first hand.  It does happen.  I was on the range in one of the pits as we ran all the Medics, Doctors and Nurses through the C6 and C9 for their live fire indoc prior to ROTO to Bosnia.  I was on a C9 running a female medic through her drills.  She had a misfire.  I talked her through the drill and had her step back from the gun.  There was a double feed.  I had a 12 inch screwdriver in my hand and went to push down on the rounds.  As I placed the screwdrive over the opening there was a 'cookoff'.  The 12" blade disappeared leaving me holding only the handle in my gloved hand.  I thought to myself; "Now wasn't that stupid" and looked at what I had left of the screwdriver, casually flinging it over my shoulder in disgust.  When I turned around people were freaking out.  "Are you OK, are you OK!"  from several medics and nurses......(NOTE: don't go to the range with that many medical staff....they freak out too easy).  I had shrapnel and cordite to the face and some blood, but no pain of feeling that anything was wrong.  Good thing I wear glasses.  They all figured I was in shock.  I was pissed I had lost a perfectly good screwdriver, that I had borrowed from a guy who had brought it from home.  But, I'm alright now.
> 
> Anyway, things like that happen if you fire too many rounds, don't properly follow drills, don't properly lubricate or maintain your wpn, get careless, or a myriad of other reasons.  Murphy's Law is waiting for you.
> 
> GW



    Wow.  I've only ever seen one cookoff and that was with a .50cal.  I know cookoffs on the .50 care an accepted fact, but I've never even heard that cookoffs are possible on the c9, let alone heard from anyone who's seen it.  You must have put a hell of a lot of rounds though that thing.  Thanks, I'll make sure never to go sticking a screwdriver in a hot MG


----------



## Blakey

Ive never liked the IA for the MG's (C9/C6)   Ill explain.

Here is the manual version of the IA for the C9:

*113. Immediate Action. Explain that the immediate action (IA) is the instinctive corrective
action the machine-gunner will take whenever the machine-gun fails to fire. If the machine-gun
fails to fire:
a. **** the LMG.
b. Lower the butt.
c. Open the feed cover, clear the feed tray, and close the feed cover again as quickly
as possible.
d. Raise the butt into the shoulder and align the sights with the target; squeeze the
trigger. A round may be fired.
e. Lower the butt, reload, raise the butt into the shoulder and **** the LMG; realign
with the target and continue firing.*
I agree with sub para's a. through d. although I would insert another sub para after d to read like so:
_**** the wpn again open the feed tray and feed tray cover and inspect the breach area, to ensure the cause of the stoppage has been rectified._
So in in essence the revised IA would look like this
_a. **** the LMG.
b. Lower the butt.
c. Open the feed cover, clear the feed tray, and close the feed cover again as quickly
as possible.
d. Raise the butt into the shoulder and align the sights with the target; squeeze the
trigger. A round may be fired.
e.c ock the wpn again open the feed tray and feed tray cover and inspect the breach area, to ensure the cause of the stoppage has been rectified, fire the action.
f. Lower the butt, reload, raise the butt into the shoulder, realign
with the target and continue firing._

I would propose this change for the simple fact that nowhere in the current IA do you inspect the breach area or barrel, quite a few stoppages on the C9 are as George described, a missfired round that has been logged in the barrel and does not eject when the wpn is cocked.
Any input?


[edit]Heh, it censored the "fire" word in the post [/edit]


----------



## 48Highlander

Blakey said:
			
		

> I would propose this change for the simple fact that nowhere in the current IA do you inspect the breach area or barrel, quite a few stoppages on the C9 are as George described, a missfired round that has been logged in the barrel and does not eject when the wpn is cocked.
> Any input?



A missfired round lodged in the breech is what he was talking about I beleive.  If there IS a round or spent casing in the breech, when you squeeze the trigger durring the IA, the working parts will fail to go fully forward.  If this occurs, I would hope you'd have the sense to locate and remedy the cause before reloading.  An extra step in the IA isn't required, just a bit of common sense.  As for a round lodged in the barrel, that round should be ejected next time you cock the weapon, unless it's a split casing.  The C6 has a tool and a drill for dealing with that possibility, the C9 doesn't.


----------



## Blakey

48Highlander said:
			
		

> when you squeeze the trigger durring the IA, the working parts will fail to go fully forward.



Negative, if that round is fully home in the barrel, the bolt and bolt carrier will be fully forward, try this with a "dummy round", put it into the breach,close the feed tray cover and feed tray, then fire the action.

[edit] I should add that this is probably due to a problem with the extractor and or carbine build-up in the barrel.[/edit]


----------



## 48Highlander

Blakey said:
			
		

> Negative, if that round is fully home in the barrel, the bolt and bolt carrier will be fully forward, try this with a "dummy round", put it into the breach,close the feed tray cover and feed tray, then fire the action.
> 
> [edit] I should add that this is probably due to a problem with the extractor and or carbine build-up in the barrel.[/edit]



    This is why the pam says "a round may be fired".  It's possible that a round may have failed to extract and is still in the barrel.  If it's just a csing it won't fire, however, your next action is to reload, cock, and fire.  When you cock the weapon, that casing should be extracted.  Otherwise as you pointed out there's a problem with the extractor, and an extra step in the drill is not going to fix it.


----------



## George Wallace

OK guys.   

In my case we had put a lot of people through the guns.   All the guns, C6 and C9, were really getting a workout.   Stoppages were beginning to happen on all the guns.   Oil was being put to them quite liberally.   

On my C9 the weapon was firing; the weapons stopped.   I instructed the female medic to cock and attempt to fire.   It didn't.   The working parts were partially forward.   She opened the cover and removed the belt and reclosed the cover.   I took over, attempted to recock and fire.   Working parts remained partially to the rear.   Opened the cover, lifted the tray and saw one round partially extracted and another on the face of the bolt jammed into it.   When I stepped back and went to insert the screwdriver down to clear the face of the bolt, one of the rounds cooked off.   (At no time did the bolt have any opportunity to lock fully forward.)   At that time the only thing over the opening was my gloved hand and screwdriver.   That stoppage closed the range.

GW


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

....and Georges heart.


----------



## KevinB

I have seen a few other incidents.

 I was gun controlling for a C6 MG refresher - we wehre putting a LOT of rounds down range swinging from registered tgts to engaging close tgts - we had a round detonate on the bolt but not in the chamber (partial feed)   The troop opened the cover with ensure the bolt was fully to the rear and boom - the cover flip up really quick...   No one was hurt and we went back to firing after a quick visual inspection and workign the action a few times to check for physical imparment.  Like George mentioned the problem was lack of attention to drills - c*ck then open

I dont want to even talk about .50's   on my MG course we launch a CQB down range from a Grizzly turret - the barrel went further than the round.


Blakey - BFD with the round firing.   The KEY is to get the gun back into action -- I know many MG'ers that use an abreviate IA drill - cock and look - if a casing comes out keep rocking and rolling.   While you proposal might be a kinder gentler safer method for peacetime - muscle memory is required for actions under stress - thus the shooter would continue to do it while actively engaging the enemy.

Re - half load etc -- we do the load and ready with the C7 series, pistol, shotgun etc. why should the C6 be different?


----------



## Blakey

48Highlander said:
			
		

> This is why the pam says "a round may be fired".   It's possible that a round may have failed to extract and is still in the barrel.   If it's just a csing it won't fire, however, your next action is to reload, ****, and fire.   When you **** the weapon, that casing should be extracted.   Otherwise as you pointed out there's a problem with the extractor, and an extra step in the drill is not going to fix it.



I might be missing your point here, correct me if im wrong but, your saying: After you carry out paras a,b,c, and d, carry on with the rest of the drill because the next part of the IA is to reload, ****, and fire.   When you **** the weapon, that casing should be extracted. 

I think I understand but, what I think you fail to understand is that when you carry out the last part of the IA is that you are indeed trying to load another another round into the breach with an excisting one still jammed in there.

I dunno, does it make sense?


----------



## Blakey

KevinB said:
			
		

> I know many MG'ers that use an abreviate IA drill - **** and look - if a casing comes out keep rocking and rolling...



And if a round is not ejected the normal IA is carried out?


----------



## George Wallace

You guys have to amend your profiles so that cock doesn't get sensored in your posts.   I am beginning to think that you are cursing when you aren't.

In my case the IA was carried out and now we were into Secondary Actions.   The working parts were partially to the rear, with two rounds jammed and the face of the bolt had to be cleared.

GW


----------



## Blakey

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You guys have to amend your profiles so that **** doesn't get sensored in your posts.   I am beginning to think that you are cursing when you aren't.
> 
> In my case the IA was carried out and now we were into Secondary Actions.   The working parts were jammed and the face of the bolt had to be cleared.
> 
> GW



Sorry ill get on it,
I understand your stoppage George, the extrctor held onto the round but their was a problem with the ejector and it did not eject the round, thus loading another. Correct?


----------



## George Wallace

Right......causing a "Double Feed".   This is an occurance that can happen on any MG and I'll include Chain Guns and cannons.   If the barrel (and therefore the breach) is hot from prolonged firing and a round remains up the spout for too long there is the possibility of a 'cook off'.   

In the case of the 25 mm, a "Hot Cannon" will call for a 30 min wait for it to cool down and safely continue on with Secondary Actions.

GW


----------



## KevinB

Yes.   Worse case the bolt is already back.

 George - ah seen - I did not gather that as I had not seen " and we held the bolt to the rear while we opened the cover"   


I cant read c0ck when you type it either...


----------



## George Wallace

KevinB said:
			
		

> I cant read c0ck when you type it either...



Interesting.....it is good on my end.  Couldn't read Blakey's, but read your misspelling of c0ck.  Interesting....guess the checking or unchecking of the censor box has unusual effects on things.

GW


----------



## Blakey

Kev, So then when they cock the wpn and no casing is ejected they would lower the weapon open the feed tray cover and feed tray and examine the breach? or just carry out the IA? as in cocking the weapon (already done) carrying out a complete unload followed by a load, the reaming and firing?

Sorry if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse here but i think my point is being missed.


----------



## KevinB

George - I never knew there was a censor box - live and learn.

Blakey - do the Abreviate IA - round ejected - keep firing
                                      - round not ejected - open cover, sweep, close fire etc. (continue the book IA)


----------



## Blakey

KevinB said:
			
		

> Blakey - do the Abreviate IA - round ejected - keep firing
> - round not ejected - open cover, sweep, close fire etc. (continue the book IA)



Seen, ok ill try to explain this with your example, damn i wish i could just speak without typing this all out but here goes.

Ill explain this as if you were the firer, if i may.

1)You are firing away, the weapon fails to fire, at this time the position of the bolt and carrier are fully forward, you cock the weapon and at the same time look to see if a round is ejected; no round was ejected.

2)Since the weapons action is to the rear you carry out the IA from that point- lower the wpn, open the feed tray cover sweep, close the feed tray cover, wpn to shoulder fire action, wpn lowered, reload aim cont firing.

All I am saying is that no time in that drill did you look into the breach and observe the breach, or maybe im not clear in what your saying.
Because that drill would not clear a live round fully home in the breach, albeit with a dirty or broken extractor.


----------



## George Wallace

> Ill explain this as if you were the firer, if i may.
> 
> 1)You are firing away, the weapon fails to fire, at this time the position of the bolt and carrier are fully forward, you cock the weapon and at the same time look to see if a round is ejected; no round was ejected.
> 
> 2)Since the weapons action is to the rear you carry out the IA from that point- lower the wpn, open the feed tray cover sweep, close the feed tray cover, wpn to shoulder fire action, wpn lowered, reload aim cont firing.



At this time you are checking for feed.   Did the belt move?   If yes, then you continue to fire.   If it didn't move, you now have a "Prolonged Stoppage" as the Wpn failed to fire when you pulled the trigger.   You have a problem with your feed mech.   Now you are no longer in an IMMEDIATE ACTION, but into *"SECONDARY ACTIONS'*



> All I am saying is that no time in that drill did you look into the breach and observe the breach, or maybe im not clear in what your saying.
> Because that drill would not clear a live round fully home in the breach, albeit with a dirty or broken extractor.



This is a Secondary Action.   

GW


----------



## Blakey

George, lil confused here sorry, where in the drill are you looking for the belt to move?


----------



## George Wallace

Every time you cock the wpn, you watch for the belt to move.  (It is the first indicator that you may have a problem.)  Attempt to fire.  If it doesn't fire, and the belt didn't move when you had cocked, then you know that the first round was not picked up and you have a feed problem.

GW


----------



## KevinB

Those silly Armoured guys  ;D

 Blakey - he is doing it from the Armoured side of the house...  
   You are correct however - there is no requirement to look the first time round - which is why a round may or may not be fired.  If the weapon is not rectified by the IA - you have to go into secondary actions - Pull your pistol and kiss your ass goodbye...


----------



## Radop

Gunner said:
			
		

> As a point of note, the CO of the RCD who was in Kosovo and banged his helmet off of a C6 trigger sending 3 or so rounds off was charged and was given a $5000 fine (everyone is charged now - includign padres).



Padres aren't suppose to carry wpns or fire them!!!!  I hope they aren't having NDs unless it is with their crosses, lol.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Radop said:
			
		

> Padres aren't suppose to carry wpns or fire them!!!!  I hope they aren't having NDs unless it is with their crosses, lol.



Chaplains are permitted to carry weapons for self defence in a war zone, are they not?  

Perhaps I'm confusing things with the Germans in Russia - I've seen photos of their chaplains very definitely armed, however, the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention so perhaps that situation was different.

The Convention does allow medical troops to carry firearms for personal protection as well as the security of patients in their care.  Wouldn't be surprised to hear the same applied to chaplains.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Michael,

You're right as far as the medics, but to my knowledge Padres are not allowed to carry weapons.


----------



## Radop

recceguy said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> You're right as far as the medics, but to my knowledge Padres are not allowed to carry weapons.



I have taught wpns classes to padres and the only thing they could do was learn how to make them safe ie/ a bunch of billigerants surrender to a padre, he must be able to disable the wpns by taking out the bolts.  Other than that, they are not to even conduct range practice as far as I know.


----------



## bossi

Can't remember his name, but there was a padre in WWII who, along with a solitary Cpl, accepted the surrender of a large number of Germans ... while holding an unloaded wpn (he turned up the collar of his battledress in order to hide his crosses ... and when a German officer spied them and started to protest ... the Cpl butt-stroked him ...) - not sure what medal he received ...

And ... there's no rule against a padre using a noisemaker ... (as long as he doesn't hurt anybody ...)

"Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Army reports more weapons fired by accident
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/609527
Stephen Thorne 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – Cases involving the accidental firing of weapons have risen up to 40 per cent in two years and now comprise a quarter of all military trials in Canada, says the Canadian Forces' top judge.

In the judge advocate general's annual report to Parliament, Brig.-Gen. Kenneth Watkin says the total number of courts martial rose 16 per cent to 78 in 2007-08, while summary trials were up 17.6 per cent to 2,035.
Watkin reports that 510 summary trials – proceedings held before a senior officer as opposed to courts martial before a JAG – were held for negligent discharge of weapons offences in 2007-08. That's an increase of 115, or 29 per cent, over the previous year.

He notes the increases accompany a shift in training emphasis and a broader focus on weapons handling in the Canadian Forces – as well as expanded recruiting. Just 69 cases were heard in theatres of operation, most commonly Afghanistan.
"Negligent discharge offences occurred in greatest numbers at training units or in training circumstances," Watkin reports, adding that 96 per cent of offences occurred at five training facilities and 64 per cent of defendants were entry-level privates or officer cadets.
"The majority of negligent discharge offences are committed by CF members who are at early stages in their careers," the report says.

The rising number of young recruits is not the only reason behind the increase. After consulting with the chain of command, Watkin notes that military training has changed markedly in concert with Canada's fighting role in southern Afghanistan.
"Training in support of current operations is robust and increasingly tailored to the nature of the missions," he reported.

"Pre-deployment training for CF members being sent abroad may last the better part of a year and it is designed to emulate conditions and circumstances in Afghanistan.
"CF members undergo weapons training more frequently and have more ammunition available for training purposes than in the past."

The vast majority of summary trials – 53 per cent – were for ``conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline," a broad range of charges that includes some weapons-related offences and those related to drugs, drunkenness and sex offences.
Another 30 per cent of summary trials were for absence without leave.

In the most high-profile case involving an accidental discharge, Cpl. Matthew Wilcox of Glace Bay, N.S., faces court martial for manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty. The charges were laid last fall after Cpl. Ronald Kevin Megeney was shot in his tent at Kandahar on March 6, 2007. Both soldiers were reservists.

Senior military commanders expressed confidence in their troops' weapons handling abilities, despite the rising number of misfires, Watkin said.
"It is suggested that one interpretation of the statistics may be that the opportunity for the negligent discharge of a weapon is significantly higher when a member spends more time training with weapons."

While the military justice system provides "an important means by which to address the serious matter of the inappropriate handling of weapons," the JAG maintains the key to reversing the tide lies in leadership and training.


----------



## MJP

I wonder how many of the NDs are due to lack of familiarity with the weapons?  We are training and sending a good portion of personnel that don't handle weapons on a regular basis.  No regular usage means no confidence and increases the likelyhood that some sort of safety violation will occur.


----------



## Love793

Simple solution to that. Handle them more often, teach them propperly and don't coddle troops when they do handle them.


----------



## chris_log

MJP said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of the NDs are due to lack of familiarity with the weapons?  We are training and sending a good portion of personnel that don't handle weapons on a regular basis.  No regular usage means no confidence and increases the likelyhood that some sort of safety violation will occur.



Indeed. It would be interesting to see the MOCs/Units of the people convicted of having NDs outside of the recruits. I would imagine that many of these may come from CS/CSS units who don't get enough time to do weapons trg, especially on weapons like the C9/C6/9mm.

Also, could the increase in stats be a result of an increase in the reporting of NDs? I've heard tales of NDs at the unit level being dealt with informally as opposed to with charges. 

For MJP, was it hard giving up your old unit avatar for your new loggie one?


----------



## MikeL

NDs happen in Infantry units too; on my tour I know of two NDs with rifles that were done by Reg Force Infantrymen in the BG. An another one ND by a Reserve Infantryman who fired off the smoke grenades on a vehicle.. in KAF...; people who aren't qualified on the vehicle shouldn't assume they know what they're doing an start hitting buttons.. especially red ones.


----------



## chris_log

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> NDs happen in Infantry units too; on my tour I know of two NDs with rifles that were done by Reg Force Infantrymen in the BG. An another one ND by a Reserve Infantryman who fired off the smoke grenades on a vehicle.. in KAF...; people who aren't qualified on the vehicle shouldn't assume they know what they're doing an start hitting buttons.. especially red ones.



I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing CS/CSS types of being the CF's ND culprits (I'm a loggie myself). I was just musing as to whether we (in the support world) get enough weapons trg and if this lack of trg corresponds into higher ND rates vis a vis cbt arms units.


----------



## dapaterson

Best court-martial quote of all time:

"Oh no, not again" - Inf major after a second ND into an Iltis on a single tour...


----------



## 1feral1

Two UD's on my tour, one using a Para-Minimi by a TPR (not long into the trip), the other a MAG 58, used by a SGT (two days before we flew out of Baghdad). Both were RAAC (Armoured)

This cost that SGT $1600 fine and he lost a citation for action against the enemy. The bullet whizzed between two heads at that, and if looks could kill.

The cause for both UDs were failure to complete the proper drills in sequence as directed by the current MLW (Manual of Land Warfare) for each weapon type.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

OWDU


----------



## vonGarvin

The article already has the information you seek.  It said that the majority were entry-level privates and officer cadets.  Though in my day, we rarely handled ammunition with our firearms, I believe that the case now is perhaps a bit different.  Also remember that an "ND" with blank ammo is also charged (er..chargeable).


----------



## chris_log

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> The article already has the information you seek.  It said that the majority were entry-level privates and officer cadets.  Though in my day, we rarely handled ammunition with our firearms, I believe that the case now is perhaps a bit different.  Also remember that an "ND" with blank ammo is also charged (er..chargeable).



I was referring to the 36% that aren't done by recruits. 

You brought up another point, are trg centers handing out charges for NDs with blanks more often? (I don't know, so I'm asking)


----------



## 1feral1

Last week the Infantry Battalion I am contracted to had two UDs within a week, one with a F88SA1 (AUGA2) rifle, the other with F89A1-P (Minimi), both with blanks.

In the Australian Army a UD with blanks carries the same severity as using ball. Charges are mandatory.

After a UD, the weapon is cleared, quarantined and sent to an armourer 'as is' for an inspection IAW current EMEI instructions on UDs, and then followed by a complete tech inspection IAW the weapons own EMEI. Investigation follows on the evidence provided by an armourer, adn if the weapon is at fault, the outcome for the soldier is different. I have seen only a few of mechanical faults, as the result is usually that of the operator.

Any UD using blanks MUST be treated as if it was live ammo. Perhaps if soldiers are told this, followed by discipline by example, they will take their weapons handling on Ex more serious, as it can cost them money, and embarassment.  

EMEIs are our CFTOs.

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## Dissident

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> An another one ND by a Reserve Infantryman who fired off the smoke grenades on a vehicle.. in KAF...



Some rather unfortunate consequences came out of that one.

There was a rumor of someone trying to clear a pistol this way on tour:
1) Remove loaded mag
2) Cycle the action x2
3) Lock slide to the rear
4) Insert loaded mag
5) Release the slide
6) Fire the action
7) *Puzzled look
8) Repeat steps 1 through 7 eleven more times.

[me=Dissident]sigh[/me]


----------



## MJP

Piper said:
			
		

> Indeed. It would be interesting to see the MOCs/Units of the people convicted of having NDs outside of the recruits. I would imagine that many of these may come from CS/CSS units who don't get enough time to do weapons trg, especially on weapons like the C9/C6/9mm.
> 
> Also, could the increase in stats be a result of an increase in the reporting of NDs? I've heard tales of NDs at the unit level being dealt with informally as opposed to with charges.



I wasn't thinking so much the actual CSS units themselves but the people from other parts of the CF drawn in to those units to augment them.  Those for the most part are the people that never get to handle weapons that I was thinking of.  I know that most CSS people at an actual Svc Bn get trained on the weapons, not enough but more than some.



> For MJP, was it hard giving up your old unit avatar for your new loggie one?



Nah it took me nearly a year to do it....so I was ready for it.


----------



## chris_log

MJP said:
			
		

> I wasn't thinking so much the actual CSS units themselves but the people from other parts of the CF drawn in to those units to augment them.  Those for the most part are the people that never get to handle weapons that I was thinking of.  I know that most CSS people at an actual Svc Bn get trained on the weapons, not enough but more than some.



So people posted in from more 'garrison-ish' positions who have not handled a weapon for months/years?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Dissident said:
			
		

> Some rather unfortunate consequences came out of that one.
> 
> There was a rumor of someone trying to clear a pistol this way on tour:
> 1) Remove loaded mag
> 2) Cycle the action x2
> 3) Lock slide to the rear
> 4) Insert loaded mag
> 5) Release the slide
> 6) Fire the action
> 7) *Puzzled look
> 8) Repeat steps 1 through 7 eleven more times.
> 
> [me=Dissident]sigh[/me]



EDITED

Just checked the PAM and the fol is the way to unload the pistol:

remove the magazine from the pistol and place it in
the pistol compartment of the holster;
disengage the safety catch if applied;
cant the pistol slightly to the left and grasp the slide, pulling it back slowly (a round may or may not be ejected);
examine the body and chamber to ensure that they
are clear and allow the slide to go forward;
place an empty magazine on the weapon; 
pointing the pistol in a safe direction, operate the trigger;


----------



## George Wallace

Piper said:
			
		

> So people posted in from more 'garrison-ish' positions who have not handled a weapon for months/years?



No.  Not really.  As has been pointed out in several posts, there are several reasons that all lead down to one, no matter the Trade, no matter the rank, no matter the location, and that is simply familiarity with the weapon that the person is handling.   If a person is not familiar and competent in their weapons handling, they will likely have a ND, be it a sidearm or a crew served weapon, with live or blank rounds.

Proper TOETs are important to know and practice.


----------



## Armymedic

Your above drill needs to include "visually and physically ensure chamber is clear" after locking the slide to the rear.

I don't have the PAM, but how could it be any other way with our issued pistol?


----------



## chris_log

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.  Not really.  As has been pointed out in several posts, there are several reasons that all lead down to one, no matter the Trade, no matter the rank, no matter the location, and that is simply familiarity with the weapon that the person is handling.   If a person is not familiar and competent in their weapons handling, they will likely have a ND, be it a sidearm or a crew served weapon, with live or blank rounds.
> 
> Proper TOETs are important to know and practice.



Remedied by more training, IMHO. I know personally that right now I wouldn't be comfortable handling a Browning, C9 or grenade if I had one handed to me. I think I'd be fine with a C7, considering that I've done the drills for it countless times, but anything else...


----------



## deh

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Cause the info in the pam is wrong IIRC.
> 
> It's supposed to be:
> 
> 1) Remove loaded mag
> 2) Cycle the action x2
> 3) Lock slide to the rear
> 4) Release the slide
> 5) Insert loaded mag
> 6) Fire the action



I have been guilty of the 

remove mag
rack round out of chamber (catch in mid air for style points)
jam finger in mag well
pull trigger
pray

Not recently mind you, I play by the book now.  Sometimes you can be too familiar with a weapon and forget to treat it as such.  From an 00010-010 which i am sure is binary for something rude.


----------



## George Wallace

How many times have you seen someone cock twice, then remove the mag?  It happens quite often.  Thankfully, most catch their mistake and conduct a proper unload before they 'fire' the action.  This is why I agree with all who want more wpns handling done (correctly).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MJP said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of the NDs are due to lack of familiarity with the weapons?  We are training and sending a good portion of personnel that don't handle weapons on a regular basis.  No regular usage means no confidence and increases the likelyhood that some sort of safety violation will occur.



Quite often the 'offender' is just dog tired and not focused on what they are doing. Just glad to be back inside and thinking about a shower, meal and bed.


----------



## MJP

Piper said:
			
		

> So people posted in from more 'garrison-ish' positions who have not handled a weapon for months/years?



Yea plus those that aren't army but have been earmarked for deployment.  Not their fault they are not exposed to weapons enough.


----------



## MJP

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quite often the 'offender' is just dog tired and not focused on what they are doing. Just glad to be back inside and thinking about a shower, meal and bed.



Oh I agree although for the most part I am talking about personnel that usually don't leave the wire but may have occasion to load their weapons.  Work-up, security tasking and the like.  I do know what you are talking about and totally agree, I remember the two NDs we had for our entire Coy for tour.  Both were at KAF while coming in after 20-30 days outside and both were at 2-3am.


----------



## GAP

What's the emphasis like during the workup.....we lived with our rifles, went through clearing actions every time we went into any building, carried it with us at all times, and if you screwed up....slept with it, but we never, ever forgot to clear the weapon upon entering a building.....the pile-on was too horrendous to ever want repeated....


----------



## MJP

GAP said:
			
		

> What's the emphasis like during the workup.....we lived with our rifles, went through clearing actions every time we went into any building, carried it with us at all times, and if you screwed up....slept with it, but we never, ever forgot to clear the weapon upon entering a building.....the pile-on was too horrendous to ever want repeated....



Oh very much so.  I remember teaching a BIQ right after we came back from overseas and one of the recommendations that we made off the hop was to issue the troops with a mag of blanks and they carried their weapons loaded and readied outside the classroom.  Doing their proper clearance drill while entering.  It never got instituted for various reason but since then I know of a few courses that have done it.  It only makes sense and increases ones confidence with the weapon.


----------



## GAP

MJP said:
			
		

> Oh very much so.  I remember teaching a BIQ right after we came back from overseas and one of the recommendations that we made off the hop was to issue the troops with a mag of blanks and they carried their weapons loaded and readied outside the classroom.  Doing their proper clearance drill while entering.  It never got instituted for various reason but since then I know of a few courses that have done it.  It only makes sense and increases ones confidence with the weapon.



They didn't trust us enough to even give us blanks, but the process was so indoctrinated that by the time we were in a situation where care was required, it was second nature.


----------



## Prariedawg

The BIQ I was an instructor on in Wx Feb-june 07 carried blanks (With BFA of course) loaded thier wpn outside at all times and carried out the proper unload upon entering any building (sandbag bays built for just that reason). I dont know if they still do it or not ill have to check with someone who recently taught there. Despite all that we still had a couple of ND's though. Damn that 10%!!!


----------



## danchapps

On my BMQ we had about 3 ND's in the span of 35 minutes. As well, there was one that wasn't noticed by the staff, so it didn't happen. Total just in my platoon =4. On My SQ we had 1. She cocked it twice with the mag on then removed the mag and fired. She tried to blame the weapon, and lost. When teased by a course mate about having to leave the field to go back to camp she stated "It's not my fault I have go back." Ummm, yeah, it kind of was. She was an interesting character.

I like the idea of being made to carry the mag of blanks, as it would keep those on a course honest with the clearing bays. The amount of times I've seen guys just pass it is mind boggling. I try to remind them, but they're too stupid to get the point, and it was always the same couple of guys.


----------



## ballz

I like the idea of a mag full of blanks and always being loaded outside as well. I can definitely see how much more diligent it would make anybody.

I'm doing my BMOQ in May, but since I'm at Civie U and doing nothing other then school, I've been going to the Reserve BMQ on the weekends that is being run here, to try and prepare for my course. When getting our rifles from the rack, I doubt half of us were clearing our chambers, same goes for anytime we left it with somebody else or whatever, I doubt the proper precautions were being taken half the time. 

One day when we grabbed them from the rack the MCpl said "Make sure you check your rifles because I *WILL* put a dummy round in one of them." After that comment alone I was much more diligent, and I can only imagine how diligent I would be there was a dummy round put in one rifle every time.

Moral of the story... That magazine of blanks is a pure gold idea.


----------



## George Wallace

GAP said:
			
		

> What's the emphasis like during the workup.....we lived with our rifles, went through clearing actions every time we went into any building, carried it with us at all times, and if you screwed up....slept with it, but we never, ever forgot to clear the weapon upon entering a building.....the pile-on was too horrendous to ever want repeated....



This is how it should be.  I have deployed on a Sovereignty EX to Norman Wells and had all my guys conduct their Clearance drills on their BHPs on entry to all buildings.  The BG, however, walked around fully loaded at all times, indoors and out.  I hoped that by our example, others in the BG would catch on.  I actually got shit upon by Platoon WOs for shitting on their guys after they failed to Clear their wpns before entering the CP.    :

This was a case of the Leadership failing to enforce proper drills.  Poor leadership leads to poor examples being passed on and accepted by the troops.


----------



## Rifleman62

Human error causes 80% of accidents. That 80% is broken down as sources of human error. Individual error represents 48% of the source:

 -  the usual suspects suffering from *Cynical Optimism*:  Nothing bad will ever happen to them, and I’m alright Jack; 
 - *Familiarity Breeds Contempt*;
 - fatigue; and
 - haste.

Soldiers have accidents because:

 - No formal decision making training in Civilian Education system or Army Training system
 - Poor judgment at the decision making “moment”
 - Lack of Leader presence at that “moment”
 - No cognitive analysis of long term effects of each critical “personal choice” (decision)


----------



## GAP

The basic problem in a lot of cases is it is not "personal".

The actions/training/indoctrination has to be on a personal level to the point that it's like B.O. on that dream date you always envisioned. 

Try 3 screaming/spittle flying D.I.'s standing around you with noise coming 360 degrees in 3D and suddenly it becomes very personal. You wilt under that barrage like the guy who finds out his Saturday night date is a transvestite.....but boy do you remember....(both)


----------



## c_canuk

imho, if you are going to try to make clearing a weapon second nature by making people clear weapon on entering a building, you damn well better make them load a mag on exiting, if it has dummy rounds or blanks so much the better. 

I watched students get a magless safety precaution down to a science and later forget about the mag while tired in the field when they let their muscle memory take over.


----------



## Love793

c_canuk said:
			
		

> imho, if you are going to try to make clearing a weapon second nature by making people clear weapon on entering a building, you damn well better make them load a mag on exiting, if it has dummy rounds or blanks so much the better.
> 
> I watched students get a magless safety precaution down to a science and later forget about the mag while tired in the field when they let their muscle memory take over.



Bingo! Teach it right and stop coddling the troops. I hate being in the field and hearing "We're not going to issue any ammo until ________, to cut down on the chance of a ND."


----------



## geo

Let's face it, during the bad old days of our Peacekeeper persona, weapon handling skills were left out to dry.  We were mainly training with blank ammunition (if that).  The Code of service discipline was being messed with.  People were afraid to press charges and do the double quick march in front of the OC/CO - settling for admin measures.... if that.

Well, the Canadian Army is an army once again.  Weapon handling skills must become second nature.  I would prefer to see charges laid & the lessons learnt NOW, before the troops are deployed - than over there, where lives might be on the line.

IMHO


----------



## medicineman

geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it, during the bad old days of our Peacekeeper persona, weapon handling skills were left out to dry.  We were mainly training with blank ammunition (if that).  The Code of service discipline was being messed with.  People were afraid to press charges and do the double quick march in front of the OC/CO - settling for admin measures.... if that.
> 
> Well, the Canadian Army is an army once again.  Weapon handling skills must become second nature.  I would prefer to see charges laid & the lessons learnt NOW, before the troops are deployed - than over there, where lives might be on the line.
> 
> IMHO



Well, I seem to remember in the 90's in those bad old days where, strangely enough, at least with the Battalion I deployed with, ND's, while a few happened, were dealt with swiftly, with a charge and a hefty fine.  We trained with live and blank ammo.  We went to work every day, drew our weapons, three blanks and had one up the spout every time we left a building and cleared it upon entry.  If a round was missing upon returning to the CQ, well, you got charged.  Simple.  Fast forward a year and I'm back with the Fd Amb and I had a Sgt that got upset that I had a (blank) round up the pipe while in an area with known enemy.  He was worried that if I had an ND in front of him, he'd have to charge me...

Back to the point - weapon hadling drills are no different now than back then - some people just don't take them seriously and/or they're just too cavalier with their weapons.

MM


----------



## ajp

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/06/25/soldier-trial025.html

It has been a while but this was in todays news.


----------



## OldSolduer

In 93 in Croatia we had several NDs from Pte all the way up to Infantry Sgt. All were charged. All were awarded a substantial fine, within a few days of the occurence.

In 97, while in Bosnia, a certain camp (VK) would not put their bolts in their weapons while on gate guard, because they were afraid of NDs. This was the same camp that had brand new fleece undergarments they used as lounging pajamas while the BG had none.

This kind of thinking MUST STOP and I hope it has.


----------



## 2 Cdo

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> In 97, while in Bosnia, a certain camp (VK) would not put their bolts in their weapons while on gate guard, because they were afraid of NDs. This was the same camp that had brand new fleece undergarments they used as lounging pajamas while the BG had none.
> 
> This kind of thinking MUST STOP and I hope it has.



I remember more than one gate guard person had a bolt in but the magazine was covered with gun tape   to prevent a round from accidentally being chambered. The no bolt seemed to be predominantly in C6 and C9's while on gate guard!


----------



## George Wallace

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I remember more than one gate guard person had a bolt in but the magazine was covered with gun tape   to prevent a round from accidentally being chambered. The no bolt seemed to be predominantly in C6 and C9's while on gate guard!



Weak leadership is found everywhere.  In '94 we had a WO order his crew not to but bolts in C6, or BBC in the 76mm, of his Cougar.  Fear of a ND could have cost lives.  He was sent off ERE and never to return to the Reg't.  Yeah!  New CO, new RSM, and guess who landed up in the same Sqn as me?


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Weak leadership is found everywhere.  In '94 we had a WO order his crew not to but bolts in C6, or BBC in the 76mm, of his Cougar.  Fear of a ND could have cost lives.  He was sent off ERE and never to return to the Reg't.  Yeah!  New CO, new RSM, and guess who landed up in the same Sqn as me?


THAT does not surprise me. I've seen examples of people who were to never command troops again....be posted to greater leadership roles....and they were still right out of it.
As far as I'm concerned, whoever gave the order to remove bolts or tape mags to prevent NDs needs a good swift kick to the.....get what I mean? :rage:


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I, knock on wood repeatedly, have never YET had an ND. I put this down to a number of factors:

A) Keeping a healthy respect for weapons (and being brought up amongst them helped too);
B) Professional pride - having an ND would be a huge slight on my basic soldiering skills, and I would die of embarrassment;

and finally, and perhaps most importantly:

C) Being thrashed within an inch of my life, repeatedly, for fellow coursemates ND'ing, in both basic training and in the field army. Bearing in mind this was in the British Army, so the calibre of beasting would probably be illegal here in Canada. And yet was nothing cruel, just HARD HARD HARD PT, the kind where you bleed from your eyeballs. I can honestly say I had never seen anyone charged for an ND in the brits, they just sweated profusely, burned a TON of calories, and most likely threw up once or twice.

Is there a place for this style of punishment in lieu of charging/administrative discipline?  Would it work? More importantly, would it be allowed?


----------



## 2 Cdo

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I, knock on wood repeatedly, have never YET had an ND. I put this down to a number of factors:
> 
> A) Keeping a healthy respect for weapons (and being brought up amongst them helped too);
> B) Professional pride - having an ND would be a huge slight on my basic soldiering skills, and I would die of embarrassment;



Unfortunately a good number of troops who have ND's either have no respect for the weapons or are afraid of the weapons!
The other thing I find lacking in some troops is professional pride. It seems a number of folks are in the Forces for a paycheck only and couldn't give a rats ass about professionalism!


----------



## TCBF

- The issuing, on tour, of pistols to ranks who, ten years ago, would never have been issued a pistol is a factor as well.  Few of those pers have the expertise or experience one would hope they should have, as the 'gravy train' of pistols often only occurs on tour.

- The issuing of pistols for convenience has it's risks.


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The issuing, on tour, of pistols to ranks who, ten years ago, would never have been issued a pistol is a factor as well.  Few of those pers have the expertise or experience one would hope they should have, as the 'gravy train' of pistols often only occurs on tour.



To a certain extent that may have some truth.  On the other hand, issuing pistols to ranks who ten years ago may have been entitled to one, but have no proficiency in their use is just as damning.  

When a Troop Officer is issued a pistol and can't assemble it; that usually is a bad sign indicating that he shouldn't have one.

Let statistics show us who the guilty parties are, and what proficiency they held in their pers wpn before we damn anyone.


----------



## chris_log

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When a Troop Officer is issued a pistol and can't assemble it; that usually is a bad sign indicating that he shouldn't have one.



I'd argue that it indicates instead that said member needs more training on it. Do you know much training officers generally get on pistols before they hit a unit?

One day learning how to assemble it do the IA's and one day on the range.

If someone can't use a pistol properly before they get one for a tour then the unit has failed to ensure the member has been properly trained on it. Due to limited training time/range time for some units pistol training falls by the wayside in favour of the other 'more used' personal weapons.


----------



## dapaterson

So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?

Whole big can of worms...


----------



## Towards_the_gap

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> The other thing I find lacking in some troops is professional pride. It seems a number of folks are in the Forces for a paycheck only and couldn't give a rats ass about professionalism!


**EDITED** for pre-posting

Indeed, the way I was 'brought up' in the army was that the higher you went in rank, the following applied:

1.The fitter you had to be
2.The better your weapon handling drills had to be
3.The sharper your all-round tactical drills and skills had to be
4.And god help you if you ND'd, for then how much of a prize c**k would you look to your troops?

#4 has been a personal nightmare for me ever since I gained any rank.

But how do we instill that ethos into troops?

And for the question above, if someone has an ND with a wpn their CofC did not ensure they were familiar with..

Why on earth would they not A) make it known they are not proficient and B) refuse to carry said weapon until they were proficient. Professional pride should also go hand in hand with professional humility - know what you don't know, admit it, and correct it!


----------



## Gunner98

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I can honestly say I had never seen anyone charged for an ND in the brits, they just sweated profusely, burned a TON of calories, and most likely threw up once or twice.
> 
> Is there a place for this style of punishment in lieu of charging/administrative discipline?  Would it work? More importantly, would it be allowed?



There was at least one MedEvac during my tour where a Brit Commando Sgt had an "ND" into the guts of one of his section members.  Well, perhaps it was not an ND after all.  More PT might not be the answer, more training and familiarization is.  Deterent and punitive punishment will seldom overcome a lack of training and comfort with a weapon, it is more likely to lead to incidents being buried or being reported inaccurately.

If a clearing barrel or pit is in place isn't that for the safety of everyone and not to make poor weapons drills into a spectator sport?  I've witnessed C7 and 25mm weapons being cleared into a barrel/pit that went bang. 

Even after 25 years of weapons handling I am not afraid to admit I have failed to properly clear my weapon at least once during convoy drill training with blanks.  Isn't that why it is called training?  Mistakes addressed in Canada saves lives in the sandbox.


----------



## chris_log

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?
> 
> Whole big can of worms...



IMHO (and its just IMHO) all are at faut.

The member: for not speaking up about his/her lack of familiarity before using the weapon (if someone handed me something I wasn't familiar with and told me to 'just use it' I'd say no). 

The supervisor: for not ensuring the member was properly trained before being issued the weapon.


The system: I'm sure we're all familiar with the issues with our training system post-basic training.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

To frostnipped elf:

Agreed about punitive measures increasing the likelihood of instances being swept under a carpet or hid. And as for not seeing someone charged with an ND, by this I mean an ND with blanks or on a range with the weapon pointed in a safe direction. I daresay should an incident have occured which you described, than no doubt the negligent discharger would have been charged.

Quite simply as you say the answer, whether achievable or not, is more training, but WITHOUT letting people become too comfortable with their weapons. The point I was trying to make about more PT is that it imbued me with a slight trepidation ever since whenever I had a weapon, to check chamber is clear, and when loaded, hands firmly away from cocking handle, and if made ready, safety on, finger off the trigger, pointed in safe direction (or at the enemy, which is in itself a safe direction!). I attribute this to the training and corrective discipline I received as a sprog.

That being said, I will come on here and freely admit the first time I ND, for I will be lucky if I never have one. Fingers crossed.....


----------



## 1feral1

A few paragraphs.....

After the death of 3RAR's PTE Jake Kovko, with his Browning 9mm Vigilante pistol in Baghdad in Apr 06 (a very public inquiry -google this for literally thousands of entries), our tour had actually to justify its use for our pistols - or return them. 

This was a typical knee jerk reaction from JTF 633 at Victory, which we were told came from useless civilian politicans back in Canberra. It caused our command unnecessary work, when they were already overtaxed with operational stuff, something I believe any politician cannot comprehend.

IMHO, Kovko was skylarking with his 'empty' pistol when it discharged in his room, fatally wounding him in the head. He was to die later that day at the US Army's 10 CSH, wrapped up in our nations's flag, with his mates surrounding him. 

His loss, although tragic, was only his fault, and I realise no matter who anyone is, rules/regs must be adhered to. If you don't you or an innocent mate pays.

We had already adopted the buddy system, and within the FOB (US policy at the tme at all unload bays), all weapons were generally unloaded. Sure we all had our mags/frags all the time, and all rules/regs are only as good as we allow them to be, in that being its up to every person to maintain them, and anyone in a leadership role to police/inforce them. 

As for T'sOET on our pistols, fortnightly we did load/unload, strip and assy, degrees of weapons readiness, IA's & stoppages, and safety precs. This was recorded on forms, and placed in files held at the PL level. Weekly trips to the ranges near the 14 July Bridge or FOB Prosperity were also conducted. This routine alos included carbine and Para Minimi. Drills were also conducted on MAG 58 and M242, along with daily maintenance. Again IMHO, all ranks, all trades were always up to speed on their pers wpns. Always.

To sum up, as primarily as LAV crew, the need for our pistols was justifed by our OC, and for my entire tour (3 days shy of 7 months), the only time I did not wear my pistol was when I was in the shower, or when I was asleep. It was loaded only outside the FOB, as was my carbine.

Weapons were not allowed to be cleaned in rooms, and only in designated areas. We did the best to maintain our level of readiness, with two UD/NDs on the entire tour. One Minimi and one MAG 58. One TPR and one SGT, both RAAC (black hats), not cooks or clerks. One UD is too many.

I never observed anyone on our tour 'doing a quickdraw' or acting foolish with any weapon.

I also never observed any shortfalls in personal weapons drills from any men in my platoon. As their PL SGT, it was my job to ensure all forms were completed by the CPLs on their pers and filed, and these 'rtns' were forwarded by email to the CSM for his action/info.

To sum up, we are only as good as our weakest link, IMHO anyways. Our 3RAR OC and CSM expected nothing but the best from their men, and got it overall. Our standard was set very high, and this is how it has to be.

Regards,

OWDU

EDITed for spelling


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?


----------



## PMedMoe

Colin P said:
			
		

> When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?



We went to the ranges quite often when I was on tour.  At the very least, if a soldier need to practice, perhaps they could approach their CoC and have it done (time permitting) in a safe manner.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?



And one which a addressed in my Regiment last Fall.  An RMS Clerk had an ND on the range during an "unload - prepare for inspection" on the firing point.  Investigation revealed said clerk had not handled the weapon since last PWT in 2007, had never done a refresher session in 2008 and the "handling test" was done as a group.  Ergo, the following points came to light:

- NCO conducting the handling test could not honestly say that said clerk had passed;
- OIC practise had not confirmed with the OIC handling test that said clerk was "good to go";
- Said clerk had voiced the opinion that she needed more practise;
- This opinion was ignored ("you'll be alright, it's only PWT1")

The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.



Here's where you and I differ:  Charges should have resulted.  Those who did not do their job to ensure the soldier was ready failed in military duties.  Or is that not quite the outcome the Pl was lookign for?


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:
			
		

> And one which a addressed in my Regiment last Fall.  An RMS Clerk had an ND on the range during an "unload - prepare for inspection" on the firing point.  Investigation revealed said clerk had not handled the weapon since last PWT in 2007, had never done a refresher session in 2008 and the "handling test" was done as a group.  Ergo, the following points came to light:
> 
> - NCO conducting the handling test could not honestly say that said clerk had passed;
> - OIC practise had not confirmed with the OIC handling test that said clerk was "good to go";
> - Said clerk had voiced the opinion that she needed more practise;
> - This opinion was ignored ("you'll be alright, it's only PWT1")
> 
> The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.



I would agree with this course of action. I don't know which regiment you are in, but if we see a troop that has difficulties, we sort them out quickly. We will either pull them off the range and give them more training, or have one of the safety staff supervise them a bit more diligently.
As for charging someone, the NCO that conducted the handling test should be charged as well as OIC of the practice.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's where you and I differ:  Charges should have resulted.  Those who did not do their job to ensure the soldier was ready failed in military duties.





			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> As for charging someone, the NCO that conducted the handling test should be charged as well as OIC of the practice.




My comments were regarding the firer only.  Other actions sorted out the C of C.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or is that not quite the outcome the Pl was looking for?


Things did not go at all as the Pl/Coy expected.  Being held accountable for someone else's ND was not their desired outcome.



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> I don't know which regiment you are in, but if we see a troop that has difficulties, we sort them out quickly. We will either pull them off the range and give them more training, or have one of the safety staff supervise them a bit more diligently.



Luckily, the only difficulty this soldier experiended was during the "unload".  There was no apparent need for sorting her out until that point.


----------



## Gunner98

Colin P said:
			
		

> When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?



During the latter part of my tour during Nov 08, the KAF 25m range was closed due to "high lead levels in the butts".  So pers employed inside the wire but departing for tasks and new arrivals could not zero their weapons.  Many pers were walking around on KAF had not fired their weapons since pre-deployment training.  Many who came in before Oct 08 were allowed to fire 5 rounds from C7 and 9mm.

A summary investigation into a range practice that results in a ND will normally disclose several levels of poor drills by participants and conducting staff. Charging someone may be the answer, however, corrective action at all levels will minimize NDs on future range practices.


----------



## OldSolduer

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> During the latter part of my tour during Nov 08, the KAF 25m range was closed due to "high lead levels in the butts".  So pers employed inside the wire but departing for tasks and new arrivals could not zero their weapons.  Many pers were walking around on KAF had not fired their weapons since pre-deployment training.  Many who came in before Oct 08 were allowed to fire 5 rounds from C7 and 9mm.


One question: Who (which country) owns the 25 m range? I've never been to KAF.

IF it is a Canadian owned range, then sort it out. What's the problem? We are in theatre of operations....


----------



## meni0n

At KAF range 06, zeroing weapons. It went something like this " Target to your front, 25m, on your own time *BANG*..... " It was considered an ND and I believe the individual had to pay for it. Now, does anyone remember how much did the 105mm ND at MSG cost?


----------



## Gunner98

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> One question: Who (which country) owns the 25 m range? I've never been to KAF.



Like most things in KAF, it is a multinational and multi-organizational responsibility.


----------



## TCBF

- COMKAF owns the range.  The one in question (above) no longer exists.  The new one will be COMKAF as well.  Sign for all of the range kit at the TLS.


----------



## Gunner98

Is there a range now for new arrivals to zero or how are weapons zeroed prior to departing the wire?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Almost one year to the day I posted pretty much the "same" [see first post] article........I guess recycling news is good for the environment, saves all that pesky looking for new stuff.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/100219/canada/canada_novascotia_ns_gun_discharge_military_drapeau
Military targets weapons discharges
Fri Feb 19, 4:11 AM

Canada's military is having a problem with the negligent discharge of weapons, with more than 600 reported incidents over the past two years.
Documents from 2008-09 list more than 400 incidences of negligent weapon discharges. So far in this recording year, there have been 229 such incidents.

CBC News obtained the documents using an access to information request.
The vast majority of negligent discharges happened during training in Canada, according to the documents.

The problem was first brought to light by the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of Canadian Forces and the military claims to be taking it very seriously, fining some soldiers and putting others in detention.
Some of the charges involve little more than shooting a weapon on a firing range before receiving the final OK to do so.

The few serious charges involving injuries or worse have resulted in court marshals.
Despite this, retired colonel Michel Drapeau said these numbers are disturbing.
"This is very, very, very, serious. Having the potential to create casualties among soldiers, and it's something that is preventable, when you have 400 in a given year, there is something out of kilter here and this must be the highest ratio that I know of," Drapeau said.

Bob Bergen, a fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and a former journalist who covered the Canadian Armed Forces, said the military does what it can to prevent accidental firing of weapons.

"They try to do everything they can to mitigate these and reduce the risk, but let's face it, they have the machines of war," Bergen said.
"The purpose of these machines is to kill people. Yes, they want killers, but what they don't want is people dying accidentally."

There have been several extreme cases of negligent discharge of weapons. Cpl. Kevin Megeney, of Truro, N.S., was shot to death by his comrade Matthew Wilcox, of Glace Bay, N.S., while the two served in Afghanistan on March 6, 2007.

They were involved in a game of quick draw. Wilcox was court marshalled and sent to prison for four years.
During the Wilcox trial, videos surfaced showing a soldier pointing a pistol at another soldier's head and pulling the trigger. There were no bullets in the gun.

Only a small number of soldiers have been hurt by the accidental firing of guns. But the military says it is taking the problem seriously.
The last published report from the Judge Advocate General blames the problem on members who are new to the forces.

Several retired military officers also blame the increase of negligent discharge of weapons on inexperienced soldiers. But others said that due to Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, there is more use of guns, which leads to the possibility of more accidents.

But regardless of the reasons, the Judge Advocate General says ultimately, the proper handling of weapons remains a leadership and training responsibility.
One retired officer who led Canadian troops in Bosnia said in his six-month command of 1,700 soldiers, there were only a couple of negligent discharges.


----------



## vonGarvin

I wonder what the Centre of Excellence for small arms has to say about this?

Just guessing, but I would offer that most of those "NDs" are with blank ammunition.  What do I induce from this?
1.  The CF understands the importance of safe weapons handling.  So much so, that it treats the negligent discharge of a blank round as seriously as those of a live round.  So, as people adapt to the rules of handling ammunition (eg: in the training system), they will make mistakes.  If that mistake is in drill, they get jacked up.  If they fire when they aren't supposed to, we use negative reinforcement, and pain (financial) to lessen the odds of them doing that again.
I suppose to lessen the numbers (eg: the statistics), the only other option to reduce the number of Summary Trials is to stop charging people for NDs.  :


----------



## 40below

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?



 There was a court martial in 2004 (I think that was the year, I'd have to look for it) but it involved an ND at Camp Julian and a Browning 9mm. The captain charged argued that it had been 10 years since he had handled or received training in his sidearm, had no confidence in his ability to use the weapon and had actually tried to turn it in to his COC in theatre but was refused. He was a left-hand shot also, and that figured in somehow. I'm sure one of you folks can dig up the judgement because it's posted, but he was found entirely guilty of the ND.


----------



## dapaterson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> One retired officer who led Canadian troops in Bosnia said in his six-month command of 1,700 soldiers, there were only a couple of negligent discharges.



Gee, a peacekeeping mission, with much less ammunition and less training in advance with blank and live ammo.  You think there would be fewer incidents, perhaps?

40below:  An individual is responsible for their actions.  But their CoC is responsible to ensure their subordinates are properly trained.  If, as is alleged, this individual had not handled a pistol for 10 years, and was not provided with refresher training or validation prior to deployment then those above him should also face administrative or disciplinary action - they failed in their duty to prepare their subordinates.  As I recall, there were two instances (one witness to the second ND (through the door of a vehicle) even quoted him as saying "Oh no, not again!").


----------



## 40below

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gee, a peacekeeping mission, with much less ammunition and less training in advance with blank and live ammo.  You think there would be fewer incidents, perhaps?
> 
> 40below:  An individual is responsible for their actions.  But their CoC is responsible to ensure their subordinates are properly trained.  If, as is alleged, this individual had not handled a pistol for 10 years, and was not provided with refresher training or validation prior to deployment then those above him should also face administrative or disciplinary action - they failed in their duty to prepare their subordinates.  As I recall, there were two instances (one witness to the second ND (through the door of a vehicle) even quoted him as saying "Oh no, not again!").



Found a link to the judgement. Turns out not that many majors get court-martialled in any given year:

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2004/rompre-mg-eng.asp


----------



## Kat Stevens

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gee, a peacekeeping mission, with much less ammunition and less training in advance with blank and live ammo.  You think there would be fewer incidents, perhaps?



I'm not sure I get your point.  The amount of ammo carried is irrelevant.  In Sarajevo, everyone was well and truly bombed up, as we were in Vukovar.  One weapon with one magazine with one round in it will create an ND no less than one weapon, 10 mags, 300 rounds.  The commonality is 1 soldier behind the controls.


----------



## medicineman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gee, a peacekeeping mission, with much less ammunition and less training in advance with blank and live ammo.  You think there would be fewer incidents, perhaps?



No - got nothing to do with load outs, but everything to do with training, reinforcement of that training and attitude.  When I deployed in 94, we did a whole pile of live and blank training and still people had ND's here, in the States and in theatre.  Hell, our first day going to work on base with blanks, someone had an ND - and we didn't even have to have a round in the chamber at that point.  It comes down to attitude - the fact you have to remain switched on until the weapon system is "turned off" and made safe no matter what your physical or mental state is at that point in time.  Almost was guilty myself once for the same reason - body was switched on but brain wasn't - luckily for those around me I woke the (add your own expletive) up before I shot someone.  

MM


----------



## Fusaki

meni0n said:
			
		

> Now, does anyone remember how much did the 105mm ND at MSG cost?



I know it cost me a few grey hairs!

Over in C/S 3 we thought we were being mortared.


----------



## noneck

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> THAT does not surprise me. I've seen examples of people who were to never command troops again....be posted to greater leadership roles....and they were still right out of it.
> :rage:



Don't I know it...I worked for a certain Gork "The Dork" in C Coy in 93.  I am sure you know him Middle Aged Silverback.


----------



## OldSolduer

noneck said:
			
		

> Don't I know it...I worked for a certain Gork "The Dork" in C Coy in 93.  I am sure you know him Middle Aged Silverback.



I sure do know him. Good soldier skills, quite a dysfunctional individual. He was released a few years later....


----------



## c4th

40below said:
			
		

> There was a court martial in 2004 (I think that was the year, I'd have to look for it) but it involved an ND at Camp Julian and a Browning 9mm. The captain charged argued that it had been 10 years since he had handled or received training in his sidearm, had no confidence in his ability to use the weapon and had actually tried to turn it in to his COC in theatre but was refused. He was a left-hand shot also, and that figured in somehow. I'm sure one of you folks can dig up the judgement because it's posted, but he was found entirely guilty of the ND.



Worst excuse ever!  It pains me that there are educated people in the military who must have demonstrated some level of responsibility go to such great lengths to show themselves to be total idiots.  Surprise! you're going to war and you might get a weapon.  Assuming he is literate, every unit has a PAM library and the 9MM Service Pistol is not a rare publication.  At anytime at Julian the Captain could have walked up to pretty much any infantry NCO and asked to be refreshed on handling drills.  I'm sure there would have been one camp security duty.  Personally, it takes me at least 30 minutes to write a witness statement.  I would much rather take that time and run anyone through their weapons drills.

It happens sometimes for left handed firers to experience their loaded magazines to magically leap out of their mag pouches into the mag housing, then mysteriously ready and fire.  To prevent this, remove hand from the pistol grip and put the weapon on safe.


----------



## SeanNewman

Sorry I am late to this thread, but I did Cntl+F what I was looking for and did not find that it has been discussed.

There is one simple factor that more candidates trg = more NDs (all other things being equal), that's obvious.

However, has anyone connected a* potential* link between an increase in NDs and the use of civilians weapons instructors on training bases?  

Has anyone one here been on the receiving end of small arms instruction in St Jean recently?  Care to comment?


----------



## Armymedic

There is no increase in the amount of NDs...the increase is in the number of charges being laid for NDs.

From the CBC website: 





> Between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, there were 400 convictions for negligent weapon discharges. So far in this recording year, there have been 229 such incidents.



If you listen closely to the reporting, THAT is the issue. Discipline is much stricter than it was before.

There are no statistics IRT the actual numbers of NDs, and it would be irresponsible for anyone to surmise there is any sort of trend in those numbers.


----------



## SeanNewman

I'm not so sure I agree with that statement.  I have first-hand knowledge of a certain institution being less strict with NDs than ever, to the point where they are not even charged in certain circumstances.


----------



## Armymedic

I do not care if you agree or not. There are facts and then there is specualtion. There is enough back-lash launched ill will floating around about the CF in the Cdn public that the thought that we are gun totin', civilian killing renegade cowboys for the NDP to start calling for more civilian oversight upon us. Stupid comments like those you just posted in your last 2 posting do nothing but help that ill will.

If you go back to the early 90's, when we CF soliders were considered a national embarrasment, then by all means, continue with your unsubstatiated innuendo.


----------



## c4th

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Has anyone one here been on the receiving end of small arms instruction in St Jean recently?  Care to comment?



I see the end product.  It is adequate enough to eliminate ND's.  If there are instuctors from St Jean here, I would like to PM with them.


----------



## ballz

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, has anyone connected a* potential* link between an increase in NDs and the use of civilians weapons instructors on training bases?
> 
> Has anyone one here been on the receiving end of small arms instruction in St Jean recently?  Care to comment?



I didn't notice any differences between the Commissionaires and the military instructors knowledge of the handling drills.

With the practice of just trying to force the handling drills into the skulls of the students and not making much any emphasis on the mechanics of how the rifle actually works, I actually thought the Commissionaires sometimes made better weapons instructors.

They weren't prone to screaming at a stressed out student who was trying to remember a sequence of motions for reasons unknown to said student.

So those are my comments as a recent (August) grad from St. Jean. Here's where the disclaimer in my signature comes into play:

I think the rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean was *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works. People couldn't remember the drills the day after the handling test because they just didn't understand why it was important to remove the magazine before cycling the action on an unload, etc. We had 3 NDs on my course of I think 45 that went into the field for the last 2 weeks.


----------



## SeanNewman

SFB,


I'm not talking about speculation, I'm talking about you saying NDs are taken far more seriously than ever, and me saying that at one particular training institution they are taken less seriously.


Not in the sense that people don't see them as a mistake, but they are not going the path of charges.


PM me if you want to discuss further.


----------



## Nuggs

> I didn't notice any differences between the Commissionaires and the military instructors knowledge of the handling drills.





> I actually thought the Commissionaires sometimes made better weapons instructors.




I have to completely agree with balls on this one.

I found during our weapons training we would randomly be assigned one of 6-7 different instructors and allthough the level of 
knowledge was very consistent across the lot, their ability to actually instruct varied greatly.

In general we (the platoon) did find the instruction provided by the civilians contracted by the commissionaires (they were careful not to be called commissionaires, they said they only worked for them), to be far superior to the instruction provided by their military counterparts.

In my opinion this was partly due to an experience gap. Allthough they all had more than adequate knowledge of the weapon and its drills, the Military personnel were all reserve MCpl / Sgt, vs the "commissionaires" being all 15-20 years plus reg force retires. No this isn't a reservist flame, just pointing out that there was likely a huge gap in teaching experience within those two groups.

Note about speaking for the platoon above. Normally I wouldn't, but we all added our dissatisfaction about it specifically on our end course report.


----------



## ballz

Crockett said:
			
		

> In general we (the platoon) did find the instruction provided by the civilians contracted by the commissionaires (they were careful not to be called commissionaires, they said they only worked for them), to be far superior to the instruction provided by their military counterparts.
> 
> In my opinion this was partly due to an experience gap. Allthough they all had more than adequate knowledge of the weapon and its drills, the Military personnel were all reserve MCpl / Sgt, vs the "commissionaires" being all 15-20 years plus reg force retires. No this isn't a reservist flame, just pointing out that there was likely a huge gap in teaching experience within those two groups.
> 
> Note about speaking for the platoon above. Normally I wouldn't, but we all added our dissatisfaction about it specifically on our end course report.




I never knew of any of our military instructors being reserve or reg force. I assumed they were all reg force. I know our course staff who used to be part of the weapons staff for years is reg force.

Our platoon didn't comment on the commissionaires vs. military thing but we commented on the rifle theory vs rifle handling aspect.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:
			
		

> I think the rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean was *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works. People couldn't remember the drills the day after the handling test because they just didn't understand why it was important to remove the magazine before cycling the action on an unload, etc. We had 3 NDs on my course of I think 45 that went into the field for the last 2 weeks.



Wow. You mean to say that they skate over the 'magazine fed, gas operated, closed bolt etc etc etc' stuff? 3 NDs out of 45 troops in a final exercise on a recruit training course is borderline ridiculous, no? Time was, people like me were the 'lowest common denominator', not the young keeners just out of training.  :nod:


----------



## Kalatzi

Back in the days before fire was discovered
We had an an eval MWO who would command usw to grab our C1 from the racks in the company room

Safety precations  - First thing on picking up a weapon Assumed

Stop screwing around - form up form up etc

Attention - Present arms - fire!

Usual result was 2-3 booms out of platoon - since blanks had been slipped into a sample 

IMHO has to be instinctive - 

We were PRES

The other problem was folding the safety matches and disabling the safety allowing full auto on a C! but  thats another post


----------



## ballz

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Wow. You mean to say that they skate over the 'magazine fed, gas operated, closed bolt etc etc etc' stuff?



Errr... kinda... I wasn't really talking about the hard "info" about the weapon. They went over all that and that's the kind of thing that if you want to know, you can read it. I'm talking more like explaining what happens inside the rifle when you pull the trigger. How the rifle actually works. The best comparison I can make is explaining to someone how an engine works in a car.... and to a lot of the people who have never touched a rifle in their life, they think the rifle is just as complicated as an engine.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 3 NDs out of 45 troops in a final exercise on a recruit training course is borderline ridiculous, no?



Yes, that's exactly my point. I mean, if they know the drills and do the drills properly, this would never happen (2 NDs happened during an unload, 1 ND happened during a load), and so I guess that's why the emphasis is on the drills and memorizing them. But, after we did our tests at the range, we never handled the firearms for another 6 or 7 weeks. By that time, those who had only remembered the drills and not actually understood them, had forgotten them. And IMO that's why we had 3 NDs... 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Time was, people like me were the 'lowest common denominator', not the young keeners just out of training.  :nod:



I don't know what you mean, or whether you are calling me an idiot or just commenting on the 3 NDs thinger. Could you clarify please?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, that's exactly my point. I mean, if they know the drills and do the drills properly, this would never happen (2 NDs happened during an unload, 1 ND happened during a load), and so I guess that's why the emphasis is on the drills and memorizing them. But, after we did our tests at the range, we never handled the firearms for another 6 or 7 weeks. By that time, those who had only remembered the drills and not actually understood them, had forgotten them. And IMO that's why we had 3 NDs...



Help me out for a second. How could someone "who had only remembered the drills" have "forgotten them" as they had their ND. Either they remembered or they forgot.  Did all of your platoon go through the same training?  If so, how can you make comparisons on training methodologies?

Please note that I may agree with you that the inner workings of the weapon should be taught, but I am not convinced that someone not removing the magazine during an unload is due to not being taught forward/backward action et al. 

I will ask you this.  During your weapon handling classes did you have magazines on your weapons for IAs and stoppages:

   a.  all the time

  b.  most of the time

  c.  some of the time

  d. rarely

Cheers
T2B


----------



## Haggis

Crockett said:
			
		

> In my opinion this was partly due to an experience gap. Allthough they all had more than adequate knowledge of the weapon and its drills, the Military personnel were all reserve MCpl / Sgt, vs the "commissionaires" being all 15-20 years plus reg force retires. No this isn't a reservist flame, just pointing out that there was likely a huge gap in teaching experience within those two groups.



And just how do you know how much expereince the Res F instructor does/doesn't have.  S/he could be ex Reg F or have multiple tours, maybe even an ex "ninja".  

All instructors at St. Jean (Reg F or Res F) are required to pass the same GMTI - IT course to certify them as being capable to instruct recruits in accordance with the standard.  No pass- no teaching.

FYI almost a quarter of the instructors at CFLRS are Res F.


----------



## ballz

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Help me out for a second. How could someone "who had only remembered the drills" have "forgotten them" as they had their ND. Either they remembered or they forgot.  Did all of your platoon go through the same training?  If so, how can you make comparisons on training methodologies?



They remembered the drills during weapons classes, did the tests (handling and range), passed the tests, never had to do anything with a rifle other then carry it around for the next 6 or 7 weeks, and then went out in the field with them for 2 weeks... It was very noticeable that a lot of the platoon had forgotten what to do with a rifle in that 6 week span...

Yes, all the platoon went through the same training, and no, I'm not qualified to be discussing this. But, I actually learned about firearms from my old man and had good knowledge of how they worked beforehand. I didn't forget my handling drills and I attribute that to the fact that the sequences made complete sense to me.

It's not really different than anything else though. I think many people would agree that "understanding" something is a lot more efficient way of learning than just "remembering." It's easier to forget something that you remembered than to misunderstand something you once understood..



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that someone not removing the magazine during an unload is due to not being taught forward/backward action et al.



Why not? I asked one of the guys that screwed up his unload about it. I explained some (simple) stuff to him and he looked at me and said "I don't know any of that..."



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I will ask you this.  During your weapon handling classes did you have magazines on your weapons for IAs and stoppages:
> 
> a.  all the time
> 
> b.  most of the time
> 
> c.  some of the time
> 
> d. rarely



Pretty much all the time. The mags were required for most of the drills so we'd put in a set number of dummy rounds and start doing the drills as the instructor called out the commands / stoppages / etc.


----------



## OldSolduer

Does anyone remember the old adage when an instructor finished a weapons class? It goes something like this:

"You've been a pretty good class and picked up on this lesson well, BUT you REQUIRE MORE PRACTICE."

SO, I ask you this: What is preventing a candidate from asking his section NCO to run him through the drills, coaching them so to speak?

Repetition is the key to retention when it comes to handling DRILLS on weapons.


----------



## Journeyman

ballz said:
			
		

> ....never had to do anything with a rifle other then carry it around for the next 6 or 7 weeks...


Did you not perform safety drills each time the weapon was picked-up or put down?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Well, err, yeah, of course, y'know, obviously. But other than that not so much.


----------



## PMedMoe

I haven't the slightest idea how a car engine works (well, okay, not totally true) but I still know how to do _simple_ maneuvers.  Start, stop, turn....


----------



## the 48th regulator

Just a quick question, for the benefit of the us that were in the army with Moses, but are candidates not allowed to keep their rifles in the shacks at St. Jean anymore?  What I mean overnight, when they are on their own time.


dileas

tess


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ballz said:
			
		

> They remembered the drills during weapons classes, did the tests (handling and range), passed the tests, never had to do anything with a rifle other then carry it around for the next 6 or 7 weeks, and then went out in the field with them for 2 weeks... It was very noticeable that a lot of the platoon had forgotten what to do with a rifle in that 6 week span...
> 
> Yes, all the platoon went through the same training, and no, I'm not qualified to be discussing this. But, I actually learned about firearms from my old man and had good knowledge of how they worked beforehand. I didn't forget my handling drills and I attribute that to the fact that the sequences made complete sense to me.
> 
> It's not really different than anything else though. I think many people would agree that "understanding" something is a lot more efficient way of learning than just "remembering." It's easier to forget something that you remembered than to misunderstand something you once understood..
> 
> Why not? I asked one of the guys that screwed up his unload about it. I explained some (simple) stuff to him and he looked at me and said "I don't know any of that..."
> 
> Pretty much all the time. The mags were required for most of the drills so we'd put in a set number of dummy rounds and start doing the drills as the instructor called out the commands / stoppages / etc.



Your original statement contained a logical inconsistency. I think that I now see what you were trying to say (they had been able to demonstrate/repeat the skill at their test but had no deeper understanding of what was going on which tripped them up later - am I tracking?)  I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment - just trying to make sure I understand your theory.

So the individual who had the ND did not know that the bullets go in the magazine and thence into the chamber upon cocking?  Even after training with magazines with drill rounds? You were the first person to make that connection for him?

Did the other members of the course who did not have negligent discharges have prior firearms training from their parents or public schools?


----------



## Haggis

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Just a quick question, for the benefit of the us that were in the army with Moses, but are candidates not allowed to keep their rifles in the shacks at St. Jean anymore?  What I mean overnight, when they are on their own time.



Oh, God NO!!!!


----------



## the 48th regulator

Haggis said:
			
		

> Oh, God NO!!!!



Oh man....

I guess gone are the days of "Practicing drills" on one's own free time are gone.

Frig, what do the instructors have to yell at the troops then??

Stupid new Military...

dileas

tess


----------



## Journeyman

Come on Tess, how do you think Maj Hasan managed to kill 13 people and wound another 30 at  Fort Hood? 

In Texas, there's too many people off-base that are armed that would have stopped that shooting-fest much sooner....but like here, soldiers' weapons are locked-up -- can't be trusted, you know.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't know what you mean, or whether you are calling me an idiot or just commenting on the 3 NDs thinger. Could you clarify please?



Just saying that - back when the earth was cooling - the safest people to be around re: weapons handling were new troops just out of training (vs. the dinosaurs like me) because they were freshly brainwashed with the right drills, and had the benefit of recent, insane amounts of practise with all the weapons in an Inf Pl.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> .....freshly brainwashed with the right drills, and had the benefit of recent, insane amounts of practise with all the weapons in an Inf Pl.


But this suggests, pretty strongly, that they're getting neither brainwashwing with the proper drills or insane amounts of practice.   

Perhaps the MCpl or 'senior subbie' (both with a similar training background), and apparently nothing better to do, will carry these new troops once they get to the battalion


----------



## ballz

I'm sorry this post is going to be ridiculously long... but I think I'll have it beaten to death finally.



			
				Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> SO, I ask you this: What is preventing a candidate from asking his section NCO to run him through the drills, coaching them so to speak?


Well, they take the bolt carriers, and we have no dummy rounds, so it does make it pretty s**tty for trying to practice. As you know, without those things, you might as well just put the rifle away and start mimicking the drills without the rifle. As for asking the section NCO, people did that lots too. Quite frankly there was just too many steps and too many sequences for people to grasp as easily as they could be grasping it. Eventually everybody ended up passing the handling test but I mean that's just not good enough...


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Did you not perform safety drills each time the weapon was picked-up or put down?


Yes I did but that's pretty miniscule compared to what we're talking about here.... Pulling back a cocking handle, checking the chamber, and pointing at a safe point and shooting is ONE *small* sequence of many, and doesn't even involve ammunition so it's not like practicing that one is going to prevent an ND during drills (obviously it would prevent an ND in other instances of course)...


			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Just a quick question, for the benefit of the us that were in the army with Moses, but are candidates not allowed to keep their rifles in the shacks at St. Jean anymore?  What I mean overnight, when they are on their own time.


Yes but without bolt carriers or dummy rounds.... I think they should take out the firing pins and give us dummy rounds personally and that idea is from the Weapons Tech that was teaching one of our classes, not my own.


			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I think that I now see what you were trying to say *[1] * (they had been able to demonstrate/repeat the skill at their test but had no deeper understanding of what was going on which tripped them up later - am I tracking?)  I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment - just trying to make sure I understand your theory.
> *[2]*So the individual who had the ND did not know that the bullets go in the magazine and thence into the chamber upon cocking? *[3] * Even after training with magazines with drill rounds? *[4]*You were the first person to make that connection for him?
> *[5]*Did the other members of the course who did not have negligent discharges have prior firearms training from their parents or public schools?



1. Yes, you are tracking. IMO, not having a deeper understanding of what was going on caused them to forget how to do the drill properly Yes, repetition would obviously help retain something, but it isn’t practical to think that the 100,000 or so members of the CF are all going to get to practice their drills 2 or 3 times a week when they aren’t deployed either. If they understood the weapon however, and they went a loooong time (years I would bet) without even seeing a rifle, I’d bet they’d still be able to pick one up and use it safely.

2. Apparently not. I guess if he sat there and thought about it on his own he’d probably start to see why what he did was stupid. However, my whole beer here with the teaching method is exactly that: “drills” don’t provoke thought. The drills were emphasized and presented in such a way that a good chunk of people just didn’t think. While he was doing his drills he wasn’t thinking “I am taking the magazine out so that when I cycle the action another round doesn’t get chambered, I am now cycling the action to empty the chamber (which I know will not be replaced by another round), *I am now making sure there is nothing in the chamber.*” and so forth…. He was thinking “step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4, step… BANG” 

3. Even after that. Because every time he screwed up while doing the drills, he just got the proper sequence yelled at him again. For some reason no one ever thought to say “do you realize there’s a round getting chambered when you do that? Here, watch what’s going on inside my rifle while I do it slowly”

4. Yes, and he specifically told me, after I was expressing my own frustration with the lack of theory being taught while I explained it to him, that “See I didn’t know any of that…”

5. I have no idea about each specific member... However... I would bet that the people who have a prior understanding of firearms had a less failure rate, and ND rate, than those who have no knowledge of how a firearm worked. It's all speculation without cold hard stats, but I don't think many people would bet otherwise... 

I *KNOW* for a fact (because I always noticed the weapons instructor never explained it every time it happened) that a weapons instructor from my classes that I attended never once explained to a person who had just screwed up an unload in this manner WHY you're going to end up killing somebody if you don't release the mag before you start cycling the action. They would yell at them and tell them how stupid they were for not releasing the mag first but they would *never* explain why. This is just one example, and it’s the simplest.

Another good one is that people often forget the function test. Why? Well it’s 15 steps of random stuff to them… For me, its 3 steps (Check to see that the safety is working… Check to see that Repetition functions… Check to see if Auto functions). The most common thing that seemed to be forgotten was whether you were going to hear a “clicking” sound after you cycled the action while holding the trigger on Rep or Auto... People mixed this stuff all the time… because they had no clue why you should hear a clicking sound after Rep and why you shouldn’t after Auto.

For the *I am now making sure there is nothing in the chamber.* thing… The reason I put asterisks around this part is because I have a separate point… People got complacent with checking the chambers because there was never any dummy rounds put in them to keep everybody on their toes… I can’t promise he did or didn’t check his chamber, and if he didn’t whether it was out of pure idiocy or forgetfulness , but I know there were people that were doing the motions and not actually checking the chamber out of pure idiocy / complacency.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just saying that - back when the earth was cooling - the safest people to be around re: weapons handling were new troops just out of training (vs. the dinosaurs like me) because they were freshly brainwashed with the right drills, and had the benefit of recent, insane amounts of practise with all the weapons in an Inf Pl.



Hmmm... well that makes sense but just to be clear I'm only talking about after BMOQ... So a new combat arms troop who just finished MOC training has done significantly more than the stuff I'm talking about. They would also probably be more prone to *wanting* to learn how the rifle works, and probably sit there and pick at their rifle and see how it works a lot more than your average OCdt on BMOQ who just wants to survive the summer so they never have to do this kind of stuff again.

However, WHY would the T-Rex's be considered more dangerous. Because the brainwashing is wearing off after all those years? If the T-Rex's were taught all the theory during their MOC training, instead of being brainwashed with drills, one would suspect and want after 20-25-30 years of rifle-handling they would have an understanding of the rifle so deep they could carry a good conversation with a gunsmith no? Not screwing up safety drills because he's forgotten stuff...


----------



## the 48th regulator

So to sum up your observations, and disagreements with four members of the forces who probably have callouses and boot laces with more T.I than you;


ND's are occurring at a much more frequent rate, due to the fact that the theory and the mechanics of the rifle are not taught.  Safety drills practiced every time a rifle is touched are minuscule, as it is the theoretical knowledge, that outweighs, the importance of practical use of the weapon.

Just wanted to clarify what you are bleating posting about.

I shall now retire to Bedlham...

dileas

tess


----------



## ballz

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ND's are occurring at a much more frequent rate, due to the fact that the theory and the mechanics of the rifle are not taught.  Safety drills practiced every time a rifle is touched are minuscule, as it is the theoretical knowledge, that outweighs the importance of practical use of the weapon.
> 
> Just wanted to *clarify* what you are bleating posting about.



Clarify? You put more words in my mouth than anything else.

My "minuscule" comment was "in comparison to" and it wasn't even about importance of doing it. I was advocating random dummy rounds being put into student's chambers, that alone shows I think there should be more emphasis on clearing your rifle. Never did I say anything about safety drills being used every time a rifle is touched being unimportant.

I also never said anything about theory being more important than practice. The whole point is that theory is a very important factor for proper application. You wouldn't try to teach somebody physics by giving them a formula sheet and not explaining what it meant would you?



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So to sum up your observations, and disagreements with four members of the forces who probably have callouses and boot laces with more T.I than you;



I didn't even realize there was a debate going on to agree/disagree about yet. I was answering what I was asked and explaining myself for the most part. What have I said that shows me saying I know anything more than any member on here? Petamocto specifically asked for someone who had recently done the training at St. Jean for god's sake.

Besides that, the CFLRS certainly was interested in hearing our critique. You're just being arrogant if you think there's no point in listening to a trainees opinion of the training system. Thankfully CFLRS doesn't share that opinion or my entire platoon "bleating" about this would have fallen on deaf ears.

Anyway, I'll just concede to your experience since apparently that's all a mere mortal is allowed to do around here anyway. Definitely can't have any of those damn dissonant voices in the discussion.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ballz said:
			
		

> Clarify? You put more words in my mouth than anything else.
> 
> My "minuscule" comment was "in comparison to" and it wasn't even about importance of doing it. I was advocating random dummy rounds being put into student's chambers, that alone shows I think there should be more emphasis on clearing your rifle. Never did I say anything about safety drills being used every time a rifle is touched being unimportant.




Dummy rounds randomly put in the chamber.  Do you think the instructors have nothing better to do, than inserting rounds into rifle chambers, so that they really really _really_ make sure you people do your drills???

Little advice, when you are taught the drills, practice them.  Do them.  Repeat doing them.  Pretend there is always a dummy round in the rifle, because I would love to hear your answer, to the loved ones, of the guy who died after you drilled a round into them.

"Oh Ma'am, I am sorry for your loss.  However, had the instructors put dummy rounds rounds in our rifle, back in training, little Johnny would be alive.  I accept no responsiblity for this, but will stand by your side as you hunt down those evil meany instructors.  Did yiou know, that they would not even hear about my opinion about that course??  The nerve of them."





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I also never said anything about theory being more important than practice. The whole point is that theory is a very important factor for proper application. You wouldn't try to teach somebody physics by giving them a formula sheet and not explaining what it meant would you?



Oh sorry, I was confused when you said;



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I think the rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean was *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works. People couldn't remember the drills the day after the handling test because they just didn't understand why it was important to remove the magazine before cycling the action on an unload, etc. We had 3 NDs on my course of I think 45 that went into the field for the last 2 weeks.





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I didn't even realize there was a debate going on to agree/disagree about yet. I was answering what I was asked and explaining myself for the most part. What have I said that shows me saying I know anything more than any member on here? Petamocto specifically asked for someone who had recently done the training at St. Jean for god's sake.



The debate started when you began theorizing.  Although I will give you kudos for thinking, you started turning this into a debate when seasoned Soldiers disagreed with _you_.  And, you just kept coming back, standing your ground.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Besides that, the CFLRS certainly was interested in hearing our critique. You're just being arrogant if you think there's no point in listening to a trainees opinion of the training system. Thankfully CFLRS doesn't share that opinion or my entire platoon "bleating" about this would have fallen on deaf ears.



Pumpkin, if you, and the rest of your platoon acted the way you do on these forums, I would not waste anymore time hearing your mewling.  I would friggen sum up the course, and send you guys trundling on your way.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'll just concede to your experience since apparently that's all a mere mortal is allowed to do around here anyway. Definitely can't have any of those damn dissonant voices in the discussion.



Something you should have realized on course, this forum, and the rest of your military career.  God gave you two ears and one mouth.  That is so you listen twice as much as you speak.

3 NDs, on a course....pfft, I have been around exactly 3 NDs in my entire 18 year time in.  Must havebeen all the theory we were given... :

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Dummy rounds randomly put in the chamber.  Do you think the instructors have nothing better to do, than inserting rounds into rifle chambers, so that they really really _really_ make sure you people do your drills???



Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.

Troops will, in general, act in accordance with their training.

That there is a problem would indicate that there is a deficiency in that training.

"There are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders".

It's not the recruit's job to solve this problem. but it is his/her responsibility to speak up and suggest solutions when asked.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Little advice, when you are taught the drills, practice them.  Do them.  Repeat doing them.  Pretend there is always a dummy round in the rifle, because I would love to hear your answer, to the loved ones, of the guy who died after you drilled a round into them.



It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it.

He is much closer to this issue than you or I, having just gone through it, and I think that he is well within his lane to speak about his experience and thoughts on the matter.

When I went through all of this, we kept our rifles, breech blocks, and magazines with us in the shack and almost everywhere we went. Somebody higher, some where, at some time decided that this was not a good idea. The results should not be particularly surprising.

I remember being taught, in detail, how various weapons worked, too, and, yes, it does improve understanding of what to do and why.


----------



## chrisf

The mechanism of the weapon is taught, there are however two problems, the first being that at the time, most of the students aren't interested in paying attention, and the second is that (And again, this has been in my experience) that many of the instructors teaching it don't understand the action overly well themselves.

We hauled out brownings out of the vault a few weeks ago, and taught and refreshed a few of my troops on them... even the troops who'd fired it multiple times were blown away when I explained the full mechanism of the pistol, including the how and why of the half cock safety.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.
> 
> Troops will, in general, act in accordance with their training.
> 
> That there is a problem would indicate that there is a deficiency in that training.
> 
> "There are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders".



Right, I forgot.  It is never the troops fault, but the Person who leads them.  Give generation Y another reason to blame others, as opposed to seek and accept responsibility...




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> It's not the recruit's job to solve this problem. but it is his/her responsibility to speak up and suggest solutions when asked.



 :-X On a basic level course.  Where we are taking civilians and making them into soldiers.  Maybe it is this attitude that actually is allowing such lax handling drills.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it.



Uhuh, because as you stated before, and why I am so shocked, it had to be someone else's fault.  Could never have been the troop that committed the ND.  I seem to recall there is a reason why it is called an Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> He is much closer to this issue than you or I, having just gone through it, and I think that he is well within his lane to speak about his experience and thoughts on the matter.



Yep, because my years of teaching recruits, really has no validity.  Never an ND in that whole time.  But, hey, what the hell do I know.  Let us ask the the brand spanking new fella...



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> When I went through all of this, we kept our rifles, breech blocks, and magazines with us in the shack and almost everywhere we went. Somebody higher, some where, at some time decided that this was not a good idea. The results should not be particularly surprising.
> 
> I remember being taught, in detail, how various weapons worked, too, and, yes, it does improve understanding of what to do and why.



Really eh, I never did.  Never taught every intricate detail of the rifle.  We taught the drills that made a soldier perform his duty.  Handling, loading, unloading, firing, Safety precautions.  Only theory I really got in was the concept of breathing, and holding the rifle.  I am shocked you would agree that rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean being  *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works, is what causing the ND's.  I believe it is this type of attitude that allows the newer troops that consider Safe handling drills to be minuscule, over what _they_ believe is important.

Never had a challenge, may have been lucky, but hey that was even before the day of Gen X, so what do I know.  I will allow you, and your band of merry _men_, play court to one another as you talk about inner actions of the service rifle.


dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer

One possible problem is that maybe we have some "knob" NCOs. Way back when we converted from FNC1 to the C7, we were told that start drills slowly and speed will come on its own. 
Maybe some of our currrent instructors slept through that part. Also, yelling, screaming and acting like a general jerk does not make you a god, it makes you look like a dumba$$.
Patience when teaching people how to properly handle weapons is PARAMOUNT.
Once the troop is taught and has been tested and found competent, and if the weapon is discharged negligently, the troop is responsible.
Before each live range, a soldier must be tested on his/her handling drills. If they pass the test and fire a round negligently, it is their responsibility.


----------



## Niteshade

Haggis said:
			
		

> Oh, God NO!!!!



Perhaps not in St. Jean, but at NRTD Borden, we were permitted our weapons, albeit without the bolts. We "ghost trained", and we had no major problems clearing our weapons. 

The biggest thing I have seen is people need to understand HOW the weapon works, and to slow down and THINK about what is occuring during the unload process. I believe reinforcing the PROVE system of unloading a weapon would do wonders.

Nites

<edited for grammar>


----------



## Loachman

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Right, I forgot.  It is never the troops fault, but the Person who leads them.  Give generation Y another reason to blame others, as opposed to seek and accept responsibility...



Are you saying that leaders are not or should not be accountable for the stndard and conduct of their troops?

If one person has an ND, yet has been trained and tested to an acceptable standard, that is most likely that person's fault and that person's fault alone.

If three in one platoon have NDs in one short period of time, that indicates to me that the training method or standard is faulty, or instruction and testing was faulty. The troops are still accountable, but ignoring the possibility of inadequate training is foolish at best.

Trends like this indicate problems, somewhere, and not just with the individual soldier.

What you are stating is that it is alright for leaders, who are responsible for the quality of training that they are charged with delivering, to blame others for ther shortcomings rather than accepting responsibility.

Sorry, but they are the experienced ones, the "experts", and they should be doing their utmost to ensure that those under them understand what they are supposed to be doing and do it properly.

We began charging troops for NDs many years ago, and the rate of NDs dropped. Charge section commanders, and I'll bet that they drop further, because those NCOs will put a bit more effort into the weapons-handling skills of their troops. Charge platoon commanders if there is more than one in their platoon per year.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> On a basic level course.  Where we are taking civilians and making them into soldiers.  Maybe it is this attitude that actually is allowing such lax handling drills.



What's your point? That they should shut up and ignore perceived problems? Course critiques are done on every course that I know of, in order to improve training. Recruits may not have years of experience, but they are not necessarily stupid, and they know when something could be done better as well as anybody else.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. I am not there to see how training is being delivered, and how well, and neither are you, but if "*allowing* lax handling drills" is a problem, just who is doing the "allowing"? It's not the recruits' responsibility to allow or not, but their leaders.

That is where the trend comes in. If three in a platoon actually have NDs, then several more almost had them, and could at any time in the future because they, too, were improperly trained.

And if it happened to that many on one course, it will likely happen to a similar number on the next, unless the problem is identified _*correctly*_ and fixed.

Whacking kids with a few weeks in may be satisfying for some, but it's likely not a completely effective solution to a serious problem.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Uhuh, because as you stated before, and why I am so shocked, it had to be someone else's fault.  Could never have been the troop that committed the ND.  I seem to recall there is a reason why it is called an Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge.



Yes, and it should be termed such. It wasn't when I first started out, nor were charges laid. I was astounded by the number of NDs with blanks on patrol on Regular Force exercises in the early seventies, and everyone was a Regular Force guy.

The negligence is not necessarily embodied automatically and solely within the person squeezing the trigger with a round in the chamber, however.

If recruits do not know why the various drills are conducted the way that they are, they are less likely to carry them out properly simpley because they don't understand. It doesn't take a lot of time to explain that in the lesson: "The magazine is always removed before cocking the action on an unload so that another round is not chambered when the bolt move forward". Duh. To you and I, that's obvious. To the average young victim of decades of Lieberal "gun control" who has never touched one before and has been raised to fear them, it's not so much.

My point with the line "It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it", though, was that he was not the one who had an ND, yet you were castigating him s if he had. He was simply relating his conversation with the person who had, after the fact. The person who had that particular ND clearly did not understand why he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing.

Yes, he could have been particularly dopey, but when three have NDs in a small group I tend to look elsewhere for the real problem.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yep, because my years of teaching recruits, really has no validity.  Never an ND in that whole time.  But, hey, what the hell do I know.  Let us ask the the brand spanking new fella...



I did not say anywhere that your experience had no validity. It is, however, somewhat dated. Training systems and courses change, and instructors frequently have less time in rank, or previous rank, our increased combat experience notwithstanding, and such changes may not necessarily be for the better.

That you managed to teach this and not see NDs may indicate that you were a better instructor than some now, or that the training was better laid out, or some other similar reason.

I was taught and in turn taught this stuff several decades ago, too. I can speak for the quality of training then, and the standards expected, and I can say that, other than the occasion previously noted, I saw no NDs. We spent a lot of time with our rifles, shot much more than people seem to do today, and had top-notch instruction for the most part. Reasons for doing certain things were also explained, and many of us shot recreationally at local gravel pits as well, something sadly denied to current generations.

The "brand spanking new fella" just went through the _*current*_ system, which neither you nor I have, and observed some weaknesses (and there may be others) that, if corrected, may reduce the number of NDs that occur. Blowing him off may not be the best response to his observations.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Really eh, I never did.  Never taught every intricate detail of the rifle.



See? You're adding stuff again. I did not use the word "intricate". I was taught, and in turn taught, enough detail to ensure that trainees understood what was happening, when, and why, and carried out their drills properly and instinctively.

If they didn't, I kept at it until they did. That was my responsibility as an instructor.

Somebody, today, does not seem to be doing that.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I am shocked you would agree that rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean being  *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works, is what causing the ND's.  I believe it is this type of attitude that allows the newer troops that consider Safe handling drills to be minuscule, over what _they_ believe is important.



You are doing, again, precisely what Ballz said that you were doing - putting words in my mouth. Nowhere -_*nowhere*_ - did I say that handling drills were over-emphasized. You should read a little more carefully sometimes, and keep a more open mind. All that I advocated was a little more theory to provide a basis for understanding the drills a little better. It takes less time to do that than it did for you to argue against it and me to explain the concept further.

As far as the drills themselves are concerned, perhaps there should be more formal practice of those or a refresher before an ex. On all of my live-in courses, we had our complete weapons and EIS available in the shack at all times. As you've seen reported here, that is no longer the case. We practised on our own time. That is now somewhat hard to do, properly.

I believe that we all suffer from minimizing weapons familiarity. I'd like to see, for example, every single person in my unit issued a weapon and blank ammunition at the start of at least several days per month, and carry out their normal duties while looking out for their weapon. We do not have enough, however, and most of what we see are the rubber C7s used for BFT. As it's rather difficult to carry out safety precautions with a solid lump, people tend, over time, to forget that they should be doing that with the real thing that they so seldom see.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Never had a challenge, may have been lucky, but hey that was even before the day of Gen X, so what do I know.  I will allow you, and your band of merry _men_, play court to one another as you talk about inner actions of the service rifle.



Fine. Be that way. Don't bother seeking to identify the problem correctly, analyze it, and come up with reasonable solutions. Let the NDs continue, as they surely will.


----------



## ballz

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.



I commented earlier in this thread, before I went to BMOQ, that a Reserve instructor on the BMQ I tagged along for (to get ready for BMOQ) put a dummy round in the chamber of someone's rifle, and I commented on the affect it had.

It only takes like 3 seconds to put one in. If each instructor was given 1 dummy round and said "you can use it whenever you want, but you've got to use it ONCE before the course is over" that would mean it would be applied 5-10 times in a course and would take barely any of each individual instructors time. Getting PTed through the ground 1,2,3 times for it would get recruits in the habit of it IMO.

It's just an idea... What are your thoughts on it?



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The mechanism of the weapon is taught, there are however two problems, the first being that at the time, most of the students aren't interested in paying attention, and the second is that (And again, this has been in my experience) that many of the instructors teaching it don't understand the action overly well themselves.



All we got for the mechanism was a 20 minute video from 20 years ago... While the info isn't outdated the video was pretty boring. But, perhaps if there was a test on theory as well, not just handling-drills and a range test, the recruits would be more inclined to pay attention, and more curious and therefore asking more questions related to specifically how the rifle works (and these questions could be encouraged instead of some certain attitudes that think asking "why" should be forbidden and punished).

Even if there's no way time could be made for it (and I think there could be), if they took a small bit out of handling-drills and turned it into theory, I think it would cut the amount of time needed to teach handling. Right now I would guess from my go at BMOW the curriculum is balanced 1% theory and 99% handling... I think 15-20 percent theory and 80-85% handling would probably be a huge improvement overall. Rifles aren't that complicated, where just 4-5 hrs working on theory would bring someone who had NOTHING to start with would work wonders IMO.

As for the instructors understanding of the theory, I can't comment. Like I said, I never really heard them discuss the mechanisms, and I never heard them have to answer any questions about it. I guessed they probably did have good knowledge of it, but were just never encouraged, or even discouraged, from teaching it, or that some of them were just bad teachers and couldn't comprehend their pupils needs. But, I was just guessing. All I knew for sure was that the mechanisms were barely ever mentioned.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> The biggest thing I have seen is people need to understand HOW the weapon works, and to slow down and THINK about what is occuring during the unload process.



That is exactly what I am advocating... When did you do your basic out of curiosity? Recently by any chance?


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> All we got for the mechanism was a 20 minute video from 20 years ago...



Ballz,

I know the video you are talking about. It is the same video i saw on my basic 17 years ago. That is also all we got as far as theory of how the weapon works.

You folks got the same training i did and you are all, so i am told, the smarter and better educated generation.

Same training and 17 years without an ND. I still remember all the drill for the C7, C5, C6, C9, 9mm , .50cal, M72and the Carl G.

What is the problem again ?


----------



## Niteshade

ballz said:
			
		

> When did you do your basic out of curiosity? Recently by any chance?



Graduated April 2009.

Nites


----------



## kratz

Students remember 90% of what they say and do (ie: drill). People only remember 10% of what they read (theory).

The system is open to be improved and tweaked. Research has shown some methods produce better results than others in the long run, for the majority of students.


----------



## ballz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What is the problem again ?



The problem is 48th Regular has been around 3 NDs in the 18 years previous to this, and I was around 3 NDs in a 2 weeks period. Apparently only myself and Loachmen are alarmed by that, and the article...

EDIT: From the article
"He notes *the increases accompany a shift in training emphasis and a broader focus on weapons handling* in the Canadian Forces – as well as expanded recruiting. Just 69 cases were heard in theatres of operation, most commonly Afghanistan.
"Negligent discharge offences occurred in greatest numbers at training units or in training circumstances," Watkin reports, adding that 96 per cent of offences occurred at five training facilities and *64 per cent of defendants were entry-level privates or officer cadets.*
"The majority of negligent discharge offences are committed by CF members who are at early stages in their careers," the report says."

So something has changed since you did your weapons handling... Both the emphasis/focus, and well, daftandbarmy was saying how the younger troops were normally considered safer, and now as you can see, they certainly aren't...


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> Apparently only myself and Loachmen are alarmed by that, and the article...



Like i said, i have 17 years in and have handled a shitload more weapons than you have yet have never had an ND on any of them. I received the same training as you. I am concerned about the increase in occurences so you can stop the self-rightiousness. That being said, i do not place the blame on the lack of theory or emphasis on drills. Hell back then we had to learn the C9 too but basic wasnt any longer than it is today.

My brain must be wired wrong, i should have had at least 2 NDs...........


----------



## ballz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That being said, i do not place the blame on the lack of theory or emphasis on drills. Hell back then we had to learn the C9 too but basic wasnt any longer than it is today.



So then what do you think it is? All I am saying is what I, as somebody who recently went through it, attribute it to. I may be, and probably am as usual, wrong. But we're not getting anywhere if your just going to sit here and tell me I'm wrong. Join in on the discussion man don't just tell me I'm an inexperienced knob, I already know that.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Like i said, i have 17 years in and have handled a shitload more weapons than you have yet have never had an ND on any of them. I received the same training as you.



I'm not telling you or anybody else here that they are garbage with a weapon. I've never had an ND either for the record (and you're right, I haven't used a C7 much, nor a C7, C5, C6, C9, the issued 9mm Browning , .50cal, M72 or the Carl G at all, but I have used a shitload of firearms, slung a lot of led, and managed not to accidentally send anything out the end of the barrel), *but I don't see why that is relevant or how that proves anything.* 

I had them go off beside me so personally I'm not going to say "well I've never had one so I'm just gonna ignore it." My *personal* observations were that it was from a lack of knowledge, not a lack of practice.

If you think it was attributed to something else (which you obviously do), then PLEASE tell me. I am very interested in hearing what you and other seasoned soldiers think it is. I do not want to argue with anybody here.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My brain must be wired wrong, i should have had at least 2 NDs...........



I don't even know what you're trying to get at here.

Anywho, I'm not going to talk on this anymore, unless I see some other people's theories on it and want to ask them questions. But I'm not going to discuss mine anymore. It is not well-received, that's cool.


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> *but I don't see why that is relevant or how that proves anything.*



It is relevant because i was instructed on every one of those weapons with the same methodology. A sliver of theory ( none in some cases) and a shitload of repeating drills over and over until i had it right every time.

I would be more prepared to question the quality of the instruction but i have not been there in quite some time and thus cannot comment. i would be even more prepared to blame lack of pratice by students after classes What i do know is that i have been taught weapons in the same fashion you were and never had an ND and even though i received the same amount of theory as you, i did not forget my drills in short order.


----------



## the 48th regulator

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is relevant because i was instructed on every one of those weapons with the same methodology. A sliver of theory ( none in some cases) and a shitload of repeating drills over and over until i had it right every time.
> 
> I would be more prepared to question the quality of the instruction but i have not been there in quite some time and thus cannot comment. i would be even more prepared to blame lack of pratice by students after classes What i do know is that i have been taught weapons in the same fashion you were and never had an ND and even though i received the same amount of theory as you, i did not forget my drills in short order.




Patricio,

No use.

We just don't understand the new, much more informed students of the Military training system.

I have been shown that.  WE were spending too much time shutting up, as opposed to questioning.  Had we done otherwise, the instructors today would ahve been able to lower the ND count, all with dummy rounds and theory.

Loachman will translate shortly so you can understand...

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens

What a load.  I don't need to know the function of the internal combustion engine or the hot and cold flow path of all the fluids in my car in order to operate it safely.  I operate it safely by following well established procedures (drills).  23 years in a combat arms trade and I never had an ND, or saw one, and I was trained in the exact same way; endlessly repetitive drills, with pushups till you puke for getting it wrong.  It's worked for donkeys years, so what is the variable here all of a sudden?


----------



## danchapps

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> What a load.  I don't need to know the function of the internal combustion engine or the hot and cold flow path of all the fluids in my car in order to operate it safely.  I operate it safely by following well established procedures (drills).  23 years in a combat arms trade and I never had an ND, or saw one, and I was trained in the exact same way; endlessly repetitive drills, with pushups till you puke for getting it wrong.  It's worked for donkeys years, so what is the variable here all of a sudden?



While I have not been in nearly as long as you were Kat, nor been in a combat arms trade, I have seen 4 ND's, all while in the training system. 3 of these were during the BMQ confirmation ex. (they claimed sleep dep, I claimed B/S). All 3 did not perform a proper unload (mag still in, cock, cock, boom) The 4th was during my SQ, and the poor girl didn't have her sh** squared away, and I'm thinking she just kept firing after the cease fire was called, maybe didn't hear it, I don't know. The good thing is all were with blanks, and the 3 during my BMQ were all into the clearing chamber.


I just wish people paid a little more attention to their weapons is all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I did my weapons training about 50 years ago.

We had the complete weapon in our possession 24/7.

We learned, by rote, the ‘theory’ of weapon – from trigger pull through some of the gasses passing through the gas plug and the piston driving the breech block … well, you get the picture.

And we drilled on weapon handling and drilled and drilled and then drilled some more. When our NCOs weren’t drilling us in weapons handling, IAs and stoppage and so on we were doing it to ourselves, after we had scrubbed the showers and polished the brass in the urinals and all those other neat things.

There were no NDs during my recruit training, none during my Group 1 LI and none on my Junior NCO’s course, either.

I don’t know how good, or bad, our weapon handling was relative to that conducted 25, 35, 45 or 50 years later. I do know that any mishandling of any weapon was a serious disciplinary infraction that was punished quickly and in an exemplary manner: I saw NCOs reduced to private and sent to DB for weapon handling errors.

If young, junior soldiers do not understand something they can and should ask questions. They could and did 50 years ago and they can now – I’m here to guarantee that soldiers are no more in awe or fear of their (combat veteran) NCOs than we were of ours. If junior soldiers are making weapon handling errors then the first place to look is inadequate instruction by the junior leaders and the second place to look is an inadequate training methodology. Recruits are not responsible for their own training. If they mishandle their weapons it is because they were not instructed and/or supervised in an adequate manner.


----------



## Loachman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I did my weapons training about 50 years ago.
> 
> We learned, by rote, the ‘theory’ of weapon – from trigger pull through some of the gasses passing through the gas plug and the piston driving the breech block … well, you get the picture.
> 
> And we drilled on weapon handling and drilled and drilled and then drilled some more. When our NCOs weren’t drilling us in weapons handling, IAs and stoppage and so on we were doing it to ourselves, after we had scrubbed the showers and polished the brass in the urinals and all those other neat things.
> 
> There were no NDs during my recruit training, none during my Group 1 LI and none on my Junior NCO’s course, either.
> 
> I don’t know how good, or bad, our weapon handling was relative to that conducted 25, 35, 45 or 50 years later. I do know that any mishandling of any weapon was a serious disciplinary infraction that was punished quickly and in an exemplary manner: I saw NCOs reduced to private and sent to DB for weapon handling errors.
> 
> *If young, junior soldiers do not understand something they can and should ask questions. They could and did 50 years ago and they can now – I’m here to guarantee that soldiers are no more in awe or fear of their (combat veteran) NCOs than we were of ours. If junior soldiers are making weapon handling errors then the first place to look is inadequate instruction by the junior leaders and the second place to look is an inadequate training methodology. Recruits are not responsible for their own training. If they mishandle their weapons it is because they were not instructed and/or supervised in an adequate manner.*



Thank-you.

This reflects my experiences, although they do not date back anywhere nearly as far.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> We just don't understand the new, much more informed students of the Military training system.



I do not understand your lack of interest in determining a true cause of and solution to an apparently serious trend that you profess to be concerned about.

All that you want to do is blame the soldiers involved - and barely-trained ones at that - while ignoring and/or poo-pooing any other possible cause.

This, to me, is rather irrational.

It does not matter that you, Kat Stevens, or I never had NDs or that they were rare. It matters that they are no longer as rare. Fortunately, the vast majority have been with blanks and harmed nobody, but we have lost at least two people in theatre due to NDs.

For me, the Gold Standard is our Flight Safety system. Its prime purpose is to analyze all flight safety incidents and accidents, determine what the causes were, and seek appropriate corrective measures. This includes situations where there was potential for something to go horribly wrong but didn't. Trend analysis is a big part of it. If something happens more than once people very high up want to know why.

It came about because somebody noticed that we lost more aircraft from accidents than enemy action in World War II, and it has cut those losses dramatically.

It is not complex or cumbersome, but it does work best when people keep an open mind.

Possible causes that I see contributing to this ND trend are:

Soldier incompetence/negligence/motivation.
Insufficient training time.
Inadequate/improper training.
Inadequate training materials.
Supervision.
Instructor competence/quality/motivation.
Opportunity to practise outside of formal instructional periods.

With thought, I could probably come up with a few more.

I pointed out that, whatever your, Kat's, E.R. Campbell's, or my experiences were, _*none of us are involved*_ in this situation today so _*we cannot address it*_.

Several posters who have _*direct and recent experience*_ with it have commented on it. Their stories are quite consistent, yet you dismiss them.

They are far more within their lanes than those of us who did it ten to fifty years ago, yet you dismiss them.

We have heard that more than one individual who had an ND did not realize that the magazine had to be removed before cocking the action on an unload. Threats of being charged for an ND may well make people more careful, but if they do not know why they do basic things, as we are being told by those with current experience, that's not going to have the desired effect - not on these recruits anyway.

This tells me that either there are more thick people going through basic training now than when we did, or that some aspect of the training that we received has fallen off over the past few years.

Without comparing course training standards and lesson plans and schedules etcetera from back then and now it is not possible to say for sure, but I will bet nonetheless that today's recruits, goofy questions that some of them may ask here aside, are no stupider than those that we went through with.

I did have some real slugs on my courses, but none of them had NDs.

I have taught this, as have you. None of the people that we have taught had NDs, and our trainees couldn't have been any smarter on average than today's crop.

Something has changed, and it is not good.

If the real causes are not found and corrected, then we are letting these people down, and the next poor sod who gets shot by a buddy.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> WE were spending too much time shutting up, as opposed to questioning.



If you did not understand something taught during a period, did you not put up your hand and ask?

Did you not do course critiques as is standard on every course (that I did, anyway)?

If somebody pointed out a hazard, unsafe situation, or problem did you bash on anyway, or listen to their suggestion?




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Loachman will translate shortly so you can understand...



I'll reserve my comment regarding who I think may require a translation, the simple concept and basic English aside.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> What a load.  I don't need to know the function of the internal combustion engine or the hot and cold flow path of all the fluids in my car in order to operate it safely.  I operate it safely by following well established procedures (drills).  23 years in a combat arms trade and I never had an ND, or saw one, and I was trained in the exact same way; endlessly repetitive drills, with pushups till you puke for getting it wrong.  It's worked for donkeys years, so what is the variable here all of a sudden?



I'll wager that you realized that you had to squirt gasoline into that little hole in the side of your car in order to make it go, though. And whether or not it was essential to the skill part of driving, you probably were given some knowledge of how the vehicle worked. Most kids know that before their first turn behind the wheel, though, so that's not a fair comparison to learning about weapons.

Our Lieberal-contaminated, socially-engineered youth have been taught that weapons are evil, scary things. They lack any real knowledge and are not comfortable with them. If there is any significant difference between you and I and the current crop, that is most likely it.

So how difficult is it to ensure that they know enough about something that is neither evil nor scary but can still kill, hurt, or embarass somebody if mishandled? What does it take? One more period, maybe less? Less time than a summary trial, surgery, or funeral either way. Maybe it's just a little more emphasis as the drill is being taught: "REMOVE THE MAGAZINE BEFORE YOU COCK THE WEAPON OR YOU _*WILL*_ FIRE A ROUND DOWNRANGE AND YOU _*WILL*_ BE CHARGED AND FOUND GUILTY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" Maybe more practice doing the drills - perhaps tied in with inspections. Maybe more TOET before rangework and before issuing blanks for an ex. If the recruits aren't allowed to practise with their complete weapons on their own time anymore, they need to be given some opportunity.

I'm just tossing out some suggestions. I don't have the answers, and neither does anybody here not directly involved.

There are better-placed people who, hopefully, are investigating this trend thoroughly and honestly with _*open*_ minds.

Right now, something/somebody is failing these kids, and it could bite any one of us currently serving as well.


----------



## MARS

Well said Loachman.

An ounce of prevention....


----------



## ballz

One thing with the car...

With a car, you can do things wrong, and nothing happens because of it. You could accidentally put it in reverse, realize you're going backwards for about 3 feet, hit the brakes, put it in drive, and drive away as if nothing happened. People make minor mistakes in cars all the time. ALL the time. Please nobody pipe up and say you haven't made a minor mistake in a car, we'll know you're full of it.

But you've got a safety net called the brakes. You can't put the brakes on a bullet on it's way out the barrel.

Loachman I agree with you. My generation is definitely very out of place with firearms.


----------



## Loachman

MARS said:
			
		

> Well said Loachman.
> 
> An ounce of prevention....



Thank-you.

I have been to far too many funerals, most of which were unnecessary.

I really do not like those at all.


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> That is essentially what people foreign to firearms are getting...



I had never handled a firearm until they handed me a C7 at basic training.


----------



## ballz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I had never handled a firearm until they handed me a C7 at basic training.



Shat, you got me before I finished my edit 

I realized I was probably getting into points already covered so I tried to take that part out. However, in one sense it still stands. You were probably surrounded by more people that knew firearms than my course, so you could have benefited from that where as my struggling course mates couldn't. Sometimes I felt like the only person that actually ever handled a firearm before.

Sigh, I dunno. It's probably a combination of a lot of things.


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> It's probably a combination of a lot of things.



It usualy is.


----------



## Loachman

I was the same.

We had some who had, though, and that probably helped a little - as Ballz said while I was typing this.

We had not been taught to fear them either.

I am not saying that this is a major part of the problem. It may not even be a minor part. All aspects should be investigated, however.

And it was not Ballz who originated the car/firearm analogy (unless I have to delve back further in this thread).

I really hate comparing firearms with cars anyway, as that is a favourite misguided tactic of the idiotic anti-gun lobby.

One is a complex, hard to control death machine, and the other is simply a gun.


----------



## Kat Stevens

It was me, and I hoped it wouldn't be taken as a literal comparison.   Ah well, the longer I live the less I know.


----------



## kratz

In order to address the increase of training NDs there is a review on issuing the bolts sooner, allowing BMQ students to be able to practice with their drills. The safety reasons for removing the bolts continue to come up during the discussions. To err on the side of caution in a training environment is standard, but is the lesser of the two concerns assisting or harming recruits and their teammates in the long run?

I think Loachman has summed up the potential issues that are currently increasing NDs. I think there is a certain level of personal responsibility that needs to be stressed more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm not going to get into a long winded pyscho babble explanation. Just my observations from 40 years service (still serving and still involved), as an NCM and 50 years of shooting.

Knowledge is good. The more the better.

However,

Drills are just that. Drills. Meaning they are the way it's done because it is the most logical, mechanical and SAFEST way to get the task done. I don't care whether it's open order march, blind corner left, or IA & Stoppages on a Sopwith Camel.

Drills are taught by rote. It is the only way they can be taught and proficiency in them gained. They are practiced until the muscle memory and unconscious thought for that drill becomes natural and mechanical. That is why when a drill is taught and practiced properly, and the muscle memory instilled, the drill can be carried out unconsciously and SAFELY at O dark thirty, by someone totally sleep deprived and zombied by the weather and tactical conditions that turn normal men into heaps of quivering, sobbing slop.

Now if people can't quit going around in circles and discuss things logically, wiithout poking each other in the eye with a stick, I'm going to lock this.

Milnet.ca Staff

_Edit - Sorry Edward, got tired of reading all the crap and missed your post_


----------



## Loachman

kratz said:
			
		

> The safety reasons for removing the bolts continue to come up during the discussions.



What "safety reasons"?


----------



## ballz

My guess is somebody who could make that decision saw Full Metal Jacket for the first time :-\

Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ballz said:
			
		

> My guess is somebody who could make that decision saw Full Metal Jacket for the first time :-\
> 
> Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...



Quit guessing. That's one reason this thread has devolved to the crapfest it has. If you don't know the answer, or can't susbtantiate your claim just STFU.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...



You heard that from a gun plumber? Was he qualified or one of the guys on your course that was going to that trade?

The firing pin is an integral part or the bolt carrier group. It locks the bolt cam pin in place. Without it the bolt cam pin won't align properly, and when the bolt carrier is removed from the weapon the bolt cam pin will fall out. When it falls out, the bolt falls out of the carrier. Then we have a bunch of ham fisted recruits losing bolts and cam pins all over the place. 

A weapon is meant to be carried fully functional. 

That or you should all be carrying rubber rifles.

Edit - for the mechanical part I should have mentioned in my original response.


----------



## the 48th regulator

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quit guessing. That's one reason this thread has devolved to the crapfest it has. If you don't know the answer, or can't susbtantiate your claim just STFU.



After all of my wind bag posting on this, RG, you summed up what my intent was to a tee, in just one sentence.

dileas

tess


----------



## ballz

recceguy said:
			
		

> You heard that from a gun plumber? Was he qualified or one of the guys on your course that was going to that trade?



He is a qualified Weapons Tech. He was a Cpl and he is one of the instructors from the Wpns Cell that was teaching us how to not accidentally shoot somebody...


----------



## c4th

ballz said:
			
		

> All we got for the mechanism was a 20 minute video from 20 years ago... While the info isn't outdated the video was pretty boring. But, perhaps if there was a test on theory as well, not just handling-drills and a range test, the recruits would be more inclined to pay attention, and more curious and therefore asking more questions related to specifically how the rifle works (and these questions could be encouraged instead of some certain attitudes that think asking "why" should be forbidden and punished).



Boring!?  Why be inclined to pay attention?  It’s only a f@@@ing weapon that we’re going to put live ammunition in and fire out of the muzzle at 920 m/s.  Here is the nub of the issue.  Instructors teach students learn.  Not understanding that pulling a trigger may fire a round means there is something lacking in either aptitude or attention. 


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Even if there's no way time could be made for it (and I think there could be), if they took a small bit out of handling-drills and turned it into theory, I think it would cut the amount of time needed to teach handling. Right now I would guess from my go at BMOW the curriculum is balanced 1% theory and 99% handling... I think 15-20 percent theory and 80-85% handling would probably be a huge improvement overall. Rifles aren't that complicated, where just 4-5 hrs working on theory would bring someone who had NOTHING to start with would work wonders IMO.



Time is always finite.  Honestly, if students are not inclined to pay attention to weapons lectures I would spend my time fast tracking the PRB process.  Currently ND’s are a result 100% of the time of handling.  4-5 hours on theory.  Good god.  I could cover everything you and everyone else needs to know in forty minutes or a handout you could read in twenty.  
Knowing the state of a weapon requires situational awareness.  I can teach the drills, but ultimately if there is no light behind the eyes and the soldier does not apply the drills correctly when required then he very well find himself in one of many pots of hot water.


----------



## Nuggs

Haggis said:
			
		

> And just how do you know how much expereince the Res F instructor does/doesn't have.  S/he could be ex Reg F or have multiple tours, maybe even an ex "ninja".
> 
> All instructors at St. Jean (Reg F or Res F) are required to pass the same GMTI - IT course to certify them as being capable to instruct recruits in accordance with the standard.  No pass- no teaching.
> 
> FYI almost a quarter of the instructors at CFLRS are Res F.



Once again, I was commenting on the collective experiance of my entire platoon, who all felt that the instruction provided by the "Commisionaries" was superior and more consistant than the instruction provided by the "Uniform" servicemen. All of which I beleive were reservists.

Again I am not belittleing reservists, or thier experiance.

Its also not a personal opinion, it was the collective experiance of 60+ people.

For clarification I just posed the same question to my roommate (who was in my Platoon, different section).
His reponse was that the civilian staff all had very similiar instruction methods, almost word for word. Where the Uniformed instruction had alot of variance in it.


----------



## Nuggs

Haggis said:
			
		

> Oh, God NO!!!!



Sorry this is incorrect, at least as of 1 year ago. We always had our weapon with us at night. For safety reasons we never had bolts.


----------



## Nuggs

In reference to problems conducting weapons drills, on your own in the shacks, without bolts.

Allthough not an ideal solution, for some of the people having trouble practicing the drills, we ended up using a boot band to pull the cocking handle back into place. Allthough not a perfect solution it did help a few people get the feel of the drills.


----------



## c4th

Crockett said:
			
		

> ...we ended up using a boot band to pull the cocking handle back into place.



Clever solution.  Bolt turn in is for security not safety.


----------



## Barts

Crockett said:
			
		

> In reference to problems conducting weapons drills, on your own in the shacks, without bolts.
> 
> Allthough not an ideal solution, for some of the people having trouble practicing the drills, we ended up using a boot band to pull the cocking handle back into place. Allthough not a perfect solution it did help a few people get the feel of the drills.



We did the same trick on course (Summer 2009) with boot bands while we were in the shacks. The only time we were within 10 feet of our bolts was during weapons classes/handling test and while out in Farnham.  The only time we could practice with the complete system on our own time for reinforcement was during coffee breaks during weapons week.

The problem I saw with the boot band solution could be analogised as learning to drive stick-shift in a car with no transmission.  Sure, you can press the clutch, and put a rubber band on the gearshift, but you still have to pretend you're feeling/hearing the actions of the drivetrain. If you already grasp what's going on, it works fine as a refresher, but if you aren't clear on how the system is operated, you'll learn nothing.

I think what I'm trying to say is that more time spent with a bolt carrier (or inert replacement) could assist development of the muscle memory required at 0stupid30 with minimal sleep, as what is being done now doesn't seem to develop much.  Maybe this might reduce the occurrence rate of NDs at the basic training level   :2c:

I was told afterwards (due to being recoursed) that my platoon managed 4 NDs in a 5 day period in the field...  THAT should have been preventable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For safety would not a plastic barrel plug suffice? The IDF uses something like that, although it does not have to be as long as theirs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

It's a rifle, not a phaser (or, even worse, an automatic pistol or an SMG). No pully trigger, no boom boom. 

Once upon a time I had the pleasure of watching an (over excitable and generally disliked) OC get nailed for $2000 for an ND on the ground during a scene... and he deserved it, but I could understand it. But an ND in the loading bay? C'mon.. place your head in the noose over here, sir.

One drill (i.e., those procedures we put in place to make sure we do things right even if we're tired or under stress) I recall that prevented this from happening is for the patrol commander, whether they were a Cpl or a Col, to supervise the load/unload for his/her stick, then perform the same him/herself supervised by one of the patrol members. 

It's all about teamwork, eh?  :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6

I remember two ends of the safety issue when mounting guard. In AIT at Ft Polk I was guarding the finance office the night before payday with my M16 and bayonet - no ammo. At the other end of the spectrum I was assigned guard duty with an M16 with several rounds of blanks loaded on top of the live ammo. They were intended as warning shots. :nod:


----------



## c4th

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... with an M16 with several rounds of blanks loaded on top of the live ammo. They were intended as warning shots. :nod:



Madness!


----------



## charlesm

It can happen to anyone in the Miltary no matter your rank!

Link
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/20/13655611.html

Canada's commander in Afghanistan charged
By QMI Agency

Canada's top solider in Afghanistan, under investigation after his rifle went off unexpectedly at Kandahar Airfield in March, was officially charged Monday. 

Last week, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard took the unusual step of letting media know he was under investigation. 

On Monday, he was charged with one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act. 

There were no injuries or damages as a result of the shot. 

The matter is now before a military prosecutions director who will decide if the charge will go to court, where, because of Menard's rank, he would face a court martial. 

If convicted, he faces a fine. 

The charge he faces is a common one, said military spokeswoman Maj. Paule Poulin. 

“Normally, unintentional discharges like this are not investigated (by Canadian Forces National Investigation Service – the investigative wing of the Military Police), but because of his rank they wanted to see it through,” Poulin said. 

The rifle fired on March 25 at Kandahar Airfield, where Menard oversees both Canadian and other Western forces in Afghanistan. 

Investigators probed whether the assault rifle he was carrying fired a round due to equipment failure before laying charges.


----------



## PMedMoe

charlesm said:
			
		

> It can happen to anyone in the Miltary no matter your rank!



Um, yeah, there's already four pages of that here.


----------



## Greymatters

Such a simple matter taken to the front pages of a newspaper.  Making mountains out of molehills...


----------



## Sythen

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111203/canadian-colonels-military-justice-system-111203/



> OTTAWA — Two Canadian colonels face charges under the military justice system over allegations of mishandling weapons while serving in Afghanistan.
> 
> The military says Col. Scagnetti, a former reservist with 31 Canadian Brigade Group, is charged under the National Defence Act with "neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111203/canadian-colonels-military-justice-system-111203/#ixzz1fb4OQdES



More at link. Apparently ND's are national news now.


----------



## OldSolduer

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Such a simple matter taken to the front pages of a newspaper.  Making mountains out of molehills...



Beg to differ here, but  that bit of news demonstrates to the corporals and privates that their senior leadership (CLS, CDS etc) take weapon handling seriously and that all who have an ND will be held accontable, including colonels. 
It also demonstrates to the public that we hold all accountable for thier actions.

It wasn't that way a few years ago.


----------



## Scott

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111203/canadian-colonels-military-justice-system-111203/
> 
> More at link. Apparently ND's are national news now.



They're likely hoping to dig up a clerk they banged or something in the background.

And I agree with Jim, it's good to see the accountability.


----------



## tomahawk6

Must be a slow news day when ND's make the national news.


----------



## GAP

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Must be a slow news day when ND's make the national news.



in Canada....it's always a slow news day....we leave the racy stuff to you guys & gals.... ;D


----------



## Harris

[sarcasm on] Nice story. [sarcasm off]  They say, "Scagnetti has been released from the military and has a court martial set for Dec. 13", implying that he was released because of the ND.  Actually, he retired in Sept as had been his plan all along.  It was NOT a result of the ND or court martial.


----------



## Haggis

From today's London Free Press shared with the usual disclaimer



> *Respected colonel fined $2,000, career ends with 'slight blemish' COURT MARTIAL:*
> 
> Col. Paul Scagnetti's weapon accidentally discharged in Afghanistan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It was a few seconds of controlled chaos that blemished an otherwise-stellar military career.
> 
> And it was an incident that illustrates how seriously the Canadian Forces treats an act most civilians would regard as a minor blip. Col. Paul Scagnetti pleaded guilty Tuesday to negligently discharging his rifle -- specifically, of "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" -- during a security exercise in Afghanistan last May.
> 
> Scagnetti most recently served with 31 Canadian Brigade, based in London. A 30-year reservist who also commanded 33 Brigade Group, Scagnetti was fined $2,000 during Tuesday's court martial, a rare proceeding that was the second court martial in London in two days.
> 
> In a spartan white room with spotless tile floors and adorned only by a Canadian flag and the Canadian Forces ensign, Lt.-Col. J.G. Perron, the presiding military judge, heard of Scagnetti's record of service and the sole misstep of his career.
> 
> "Negligent discharge of a weapon is a serious offence," Perron said during sentencing. "We all understand the importance of keeping complete control over our weapons."
> 
> Scagnetti, a reservist since 1981, rose through the ranks to become colonel in 2006. He held a leadership position while deployed in Sierra Leone and was eligible to retire when he accepted a post to serve in Kabul, Afghanistan, in that country's restructuring.
> 
> One task there was to oversee the construction of a $10-million facility to help the area recover from decades of conflict. Another was to be team leader for Canadian troops and a mentor to Afghan nationals so they could rebuild their country's security.
> 
> In May this year, he was in his office with two Afghan interpreters when a security drill unexpectedly sounded.
> 
> As Scagnetti readied himself, he squeezed the trigger of his C8 assault rifle and a live round lodged itself in a concrete wall.
> 
> "No one was injured but that was only a fortunate consequence. It could have been otherwise," Perron said during sentencing.
> 
> Prosecutor Capt. J.C. Maguire commended Scagnetti for launching an investigation immediately, having statements gathered from witnesses and taking full responsibility.
> 
> Maguire said the early guilty plea also showed Scagnetti's accountability, integrity and honour at all times before and after the incident.
> 
> Scagnetti also wrote a memo to the senior legal adviser in which he said he planned to plead guilty and would like the matter resolved as soon as possible, for the good of the Forces.
> 
> "Discipline must be seen to be swift, regardless of rank," Scagnetti said in the letter.
> 
> Tuesday, he appeared in a charcoal-black suit instead of in military dress. His release from the military because of retirement took effect in November and he appeared as a civilian in the military court.
> 
> It was a far distance from a similar hearing convened in the same room a day earlier, when former medic James Wilks was sentenced in disgrace to nine months in jail for betraying the trust of potential recruits he was supposed to examine.
> 
> By contrast, Scagnetti's lawyer, Col. D.K. Fullerton, presented letters of reference from brigadiers-general attesting to Scagnetti's character and skill.
> 
> One performance review in June 2010 called the colonel a "loyal and dedicated reserve officer with impeccable judgment and a refined sense of ethical and moral standards . . . (and) a quintessential team player.
> 
> "His response to the demands placed upon him has been nothing short of brilliant."
> 
> Perron said Scagnetti had served Canada well.
> 
> "Unfortunately, this career must end with a slight blemish. I say 'slight' because this is an act of negligence" and not a wilful offence, Perron said.
> 
> The repercussion for someone with a lesser rank would have been summary discipline by a senior officer, not a court martial.
> 
> Instead, Scagnetti pleaded guilty, knowing he could face a maximum penalty of dismissal with disgrace.
> 
> Both the prosecutor and defence jointly agreed there was precedent for a $2,000 fine.
> 
> - - -
> 
> THE MAN AND HIS SERVICE
> 
> * Col. Paul Scagnetti, 56, married with three adult children.
> 
> * Taught English and history at a Timmins secondary school.
> 
> * In March 1981, joined the Algonquin Regiment reserve unit as a second lieutenant. Recognized for integrity, intellect and leadership and rapidly promoted to lieutenant, then captain, major, lieutenant-colonel. In 2006, promoted to colonel and became commander of 33 Canadian Brigade. Served out his career with 31 Brigade, based in London.
> 
> * Served as task force commander in Sierra Leone, West Africa, from December 2004 to June 2005.
> 
> * A member of the Land Force Area Reserve Restructuring Working Group in Afghanistan and participated as area representative on the National Working Group in 2010-11.
> 
> - - -
> 
> THE INCIDENT
> 
> * Working in shared office at Kabul National Army Command when security drill is announced.
> 
> * Immediately puts on flak jacket while another officer unlocks weapons cabinet in adjacent hallway. He loads Scagnetti's C8 assault rifle and hands it, uncocked, to him.
> 
> * Scagnetti places rifle on his desk, zips up tactical vest, dons his helmet. He picks up rifle again as he takes his post at a window.
> 
> * One of two Afghan interpreters in the office asks a question about a document on Scagnetti's desk.
> 
> * Distracted, Scagnetti squeezes trigger and one live round fires through bulletin board and lodges in concrete wall. It's unclear how a round of live ammo is in the weapon or why the weapon is cocked.
> 
> * No one is hurt and no one was in the arc of fire.
> 
> * Scagnetti immediately asks if interpreters are OK, then points rifle to corner floor while he clears weapon and double-checks his work.
> 
> * He opens window to clear smoke from the room and retrieves spent casing.
> 
> * He immediately asks officer now in the room and the interpreters to make a statement about incident. He makes a statement himself and reports incident to his commanding officer.
> 
> * Pleads guilty Dec. 13 and is fined $2,000
> 
> - - -
> 
> THE COURT MARTIAL
> 
> * Deals with offences by members of Canadian Forces against civilian and military law.
> 
> * Judge is a military officer. Prosecutor, defence may be military or civilian.
> 
> * Rigid rules of procedure that exceed protocols even in a civilian court.
> 
> * Emphasis on solemnity, decorum, order, respect for the law and security of society.



In my opinion, Col (ret'd) Scagnetti did everything right after this incident and acted in a completely professional manner.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Taking this one step further....


> A military investigation following the shooting death of a Canadian soldier has found that four comrades who served in Afghanistan in 2007 mishandled weapons, but three were only ordered to correct their behaviour.
> 
> The Canadian Forces said Wednesday that the "remedial measures" were given to the three soldiers in the last couple of years. No remedial measures were pursued for the fourth soldier.
> 
> Remedial measures can include training and maybe counselling. If a problem persists, members could lose their rank or be kicked out of the military.
> 
> "Although their conduct at the time was inappropriate, their performance since then indicates that the incidents which occurred during the training prior to deploying to Afghanistan were isolated and not indicative of their usual behaviour," Col. James Camsell, commander of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, said in a statement.
> 
> The allegations of improper handling of weapons by members of 36 CBG came up during the first court martial of Matthew Wilcox ....


The Canadian Press, 14 Dec 11


----------



## Scott

And now this...



> Lawyer slams penalties for weapons infractions
> 
> December 15, 2011 - 5:48am BY THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> Three Canadian soldiers who broke weapons rules in Afghan­istan have received the civilian equivalent of disciplinary letters, a penalty two lawyers say won’t address a wider problem with the handling of firearms.
> 
> The Canadian Forces said in a news release Wednesday that four soldiers in Afghanistan violated standards for weapons handling before and after they were deployed to Afghanistan in 2007.
> 
> One of the soldiers received no penalty, while three had records of what the military calls a “reme­dial measure" placed on their personnel files. All of the soldiers are members of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, the main army reserve unit based in Halifax.
> 
> The news release says allega­tions of inappropriate use of weapons arose in 2009 during the first of two military trials for Matthew Wilcox, then a corporal with the unit.
> 
> At the initial court martial, the military says photos and videos submitted as evidence suggested there may have been instances of inappropriate use of weapons by members of the unit. That prompted the military to start an investigation in October 2009 that was led by Col. Tom Stinson, a former unit commander.
> 
> Wilcox was convicted of crimi­nal negligence causing death in the shooting of fellow reservist Cpl. Kevin Megeney while the two were in their tent in Afghan­istan in March 2007.
> 
> David Bright, Wilcox’s lawyer, said he saw the report on the weapons mishandling cases and he argues they should have been treated more seriously.
> 
> “In my view, the breaches of firearm safety by these folks appeared to be very significant and certainly called for more than a letter being there," he said.
> 
> He said a more thorough pro­cess would have seen the matter referred to the military police.
> 
> The names of the soldiers weren’t released by the military, which cited their privacy rights.
> 
> Capt. Colette Brake, a spokes­woman for the unit, said in an email the soldiers received a warning, probation or counsel­ling, but she couldn’t elaborate.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Alex MacDonald, the unit’s deputy commander, said he believes the response has been adequate.
> 
> “Clearly as an institution we’re focused on safe weapons hand­ling practices. It’s our business, it’s what we do," he said.
> 
> “We take these incidents very seriously and we believe as an institution we’ve treated the situation with the . . . seriousness required and we’ve treated these Canadian Forces members fairly." He declined to give details on what happened in each of the incidents where weapons stan­dards weren’t met.
> 
> Asked if a remedial record is similar to a disciplinary letter a civilian might receive on their employment file, MacDonald replied: “I would liken it, yes, to the scale of things that one would do in the civilian world as well, as far as employment relation­ships are concerned, yeah."
> 
> Wilcox was sentenced to four years in jail after he was convict­ed for a second time last month.
> 
> The new trial was ordered after the Court Martial Appeal Court ruled the military jury at the first court martial was formed impro­perly.
> 
> At both trials, prosecutors argued that Wilcox had been playing a game known as quick­draw and had neglected to unload his gun before entering his tent.
> 
> Defence lawyers argued there was a wider culture of firearms mishandling in the unit.
> 
> At the first trial, a video was introduced as evidence showing one of Wilcox’s superiors holding an unloaded 9-mm pistol to the head of another soldier and say­ing “click." Another video showed the soldier assembling a pistol and pointing it at the video­grapher.
> 
> Brake declined t
> 
> Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and retired military officer, said he believes the administrative penal­ties for the three soldiers are sufficient but the military’s se­nior leadership was let off too lightly.
> 
> “We’ve punished Wilcox and we’re punishing three . . . others, but the problem may still be existing," he said.
> 
> In sentencing Wilcox, the military judge at his second trial said the leadership of the Cana­dian military had to accept part of the blame for lax firearms safety at the Kandahar Airfield in Af­ghanistan.
> 
> Drapeau said the judge’s ad­monishment of the military’s leadership shouldn’t be forgotten.



Link: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/42900-lawyer-slams-penalties-weapons-infractions


----------



## armyvern

I agree with them. ICs?? Where the hell were the charges?? There are some things that are servere/serious enoguh to warrant both actions: Weapons mishandling should result in BOTH immediately.


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I agree with them. ICs?? Where the hell were the charges?? There are some things that are servere/serious enoguh to warrant both actions: Weapons mishandling should result in BOTH immediately.



I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.



The ones in the article below were screwing around with them ... like they were toys. That is serious enough for the admin action ... but where were the well-justified charges to go with that admin action.

As for lack of admin action ... read the recruits electronics thread where someone has actually suggested that the fines are being kept to <200 so that the Conduct Sheet clears off ... 

Becomes pretty hard to prove a pattern of negligence if we: Don't charge, and when we do charge, hold the fine to <200 and don't IC/RW/CP.

A pattern discerned needs to be a pattern that is visible and will STAY visibile. I'd be OK if we forego the admin action, but only IF those damn Conduct Sheets don't have infractions removed ...


----------



## CountDC

"All of the soldiers are members of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, the main army reserve unit based in Halifax."


Bet none of them are actual members of 36.  PL Fus and 1 Fd must love this part, guess they need to practice the freedom of the city more often.  Reporters at their best.  How about LFAAHQ or did they finally move to Gagetown like was threatened so many years.


Nice to see Collette and Alex are still kicking around there.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CountDC said:
			
		

> "All of the soldiers are members of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, the main army reserve unit based in Halifax."
> 
> 
> Bet none of them are actual members of 36.  PL Fus and 1 Fd must love this part, guess they need to practice the freedom of the city more often.  Reporters at their best.  How about LFAAHQ or did they finally move to Gagetown like was threatened so many years.
> 
> 
> Nice to see Collette and Alex are still kicking around there.




LFAA HQ still in Halifax.....


----------



## Sythen

MJP said:
			
		

> I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.



ND's are an extremely serious thing. They need the come down hard and fast on anyone who has one. If you handle your weapon properly, you will never have an ND. Everyone talks about professionalism, so why would we expect anything but proper handling of weapons?

I have never seen an ND that could not have been prevented. I saw one weapon which went off due to mechanical failure which was proven in the investigation and there were no charges filed. And one burst of C-6 due to hot barrel, but the Cpl maning the gun was able to break the belt before more than a couple rounds went off. Any time it is an actual ND, there should be no second chances or "do overs". If you have 2-3 in a short period of time, maybe soldiering isn't the right job for you.


----------



## MJP

Sythen said:
			
		

> ND's are an extremely serious thing. They need the come down hard and fast on anyone who has one. If you handle your weapon properly, you will never have an ND. Everyone talks about professionalism, so why would we expect anything but proper handling of weapons?
> 
> I have never seen an ND that could not have been prevented. I saw one weapon which went off due to mechanical failure which was proven in the investigation and there were no charges filed. And one burst of C-6 due to hot barrel, but the Cpl maning the gun was able to break the belt before more than a couple rounds went off. Any time it is an actual ND, there should be no second chances or "do overs". If you have 2-3 in a short period of time, maybe soldiering isn't the right job for you.



Dude believe me when I say I know they are serious. I am certainly not trying to insinuate they are not serious business.   I have seen quite a few in my career while training, in battalion and while instructing.  Funny enough while relatively untrained soldiers had NDs, so did many highly trained soldiers.  They happen and unless there are more extenuating circumstances they don't merit administrative action IMHO.  FWIW the system seems to agree with me as well, as while I am sure they are out there, I haven't seen a soldier place on admin action for a routine (albeit still serious) ND.  What has happened in almost every case was the carrying out of swift punishment via the military justice system.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> ... I haven't seen a soldier place on admin action for a routine (albeit still serious) ND.  What has happened in almost every case was the carrying out of swift punishment via the military justice system.



I know where you're coming from, but you need to peek at the recruits Electronics threads wrt NDs occuring in Clearance Bays. No more charges, just a 'counselling' and I still haven't got an answer as to whether or not that's an "official IC". For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...

Funny thing is last time I checked, we didn't have clearance bays to prevent someone getting charged and held accountable for having an ND; we have clearance bays precisely so no one gets killed when someone has a Negligent Discharge. It's still an ND. 

I have seen soldiers placed on admin actions for weapons mishandling (not NDs), just behaving like f'n idiots.


----------



## PMedMoe

Just two points here (because I am by no means an expert):

1.  Yes, proper weapon handling will prevent an ND.  So will *knowing the state of your weapon* at all times.

2.  It disturbs me to see the words "*routine* ND" together.


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know where you're coming from, but you need to peek at the recruits Electronics threads wrt NDs occuring in Clearance Bays. No more charges, just a 'counselling' and I still haven't got an answer as to whether or not that's an "official IC". For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...



I have seen the thread and commented on that aspect.  The more I think 'bout it the less it makes sense to me for two reasons.  The first is a recruits biggest fear is failing and therefore most are afraid of things that can fail them.  One only needs to look at the recruiting thread and its numerous threads on the PT test to see that in action.  It would follow that if they receive a PO failure for weapons handling it only increases the fear of not only the weapon, but the act of weapons handling.  This brings us to the second point in that they are also for the most part unfamiliar with firearms, how they operate and as a general rule are wary of them.  If you want to increase their ability you encourage them to handle their weapon as much as possible via as many means as possible.  The behaviours we desire when we give recruits weapons are increased confidence, ability, familiarity & competence.  However if you are afraid of your weapon and afraid of having a PO failure then you are getting the exact opposite.  The CFLRS policy of a ND as a PO failure reinforces behaviours we don't want in our soldiers.  I said it in the other thread but the two should be de-linked.  An ND in BMQ (or anywhere in the training system) should be treated exactly how we do it in the rest of the CF.  Charge 'em and march the guilty bastard in.  




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...



FWIW from what I can recall within the training system most ND trials that I have witnessed are generally below $200 so it would eventually come off of a soldiers conduct sheet.  I don't really have a heartache with it as it is DP1 training and mistakes will be made.   It still stays on ones file for a period of time so there is some limited ability to track if Pte Shootfromthehip makes the same mistake after their BMQ during their SQ or trades training.  Eventually yes it will come off their file which can allow some pumps to slip through but NCOs are pretty good at knuckling down on those individuals.  



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> 2.  It disturbs me to see the words "*routine* ND" together.



Poor choice of words on my part.  I was just trying to point out that they happen on a regular basis to folks at all levels whether we like it or not.


----------



## Haggis

*IF* you are going to have a ND, the time and place to do so is in training, with blanks.  *THEN*, the root cause of that failure can be addressed through remedial training and disciplinary action (if warranted).

During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.

I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"  So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was! 

My point here is that these soldiers feared the consequences of mishandling their weapons more than they feared the threat in theatre.  That's just wrong.  And, I beleive, the product of a risk adverse Army that punishes rather than corrects shortcomings during training (yes, even pre-deployment training).

We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay).  

There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.


----------



## Snaketnk

I read all of the thread, and I hope I didn't miss this being posted.

I wonder what those numbers actually mean; I think it's very possible that a good portion of that 40% is in new "Accidental Discharges" being reported, rather than all new incidents. 40% seems like too sudden a change in weapon profiency to make sense in my mind... I do know that every single ND I've seen in the past couple of years has been reported and investigate to the extent of the "law", and sometimes to extremes (when it was obviously an equipment failure...). It seems everything is done by the books and every t is crossed and i is dotted.

I can remember during training where NDs wouldn't result in a charge, but rather in other "corrective" training. 

So in case that jumble of thoughts is as jumbled as I think, I'm just saying that I think that the 40% jump might be as a result of increased reporting of incidents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haggis said:
			
		

> *IF* you are going to have a ND, the time and place to do so is in training, with blanks.  *THEN*, the root cause of that failure can be addressed through remedial training and disciplinary action (if warranted).
> 
> During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.
> 
> I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"   So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was!
> 
> My point here is that these soldiers feared the consequences of mishandling their weapons more than they feared the threat in theatre.  That's just wrong.  And, I beleive, the product of a risk adverse Army that punishes rather than corrects shortcomings during training (yes, even pre-deployment training).
> 
> We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay).
> 
> There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.



That problem goes, at least, back to the B-H deployments. We caught guys doing gate duty with the firing pins out of their rifles.


----------



## MJP

recceguy said:
			
		

> That problem goes, at least, back to the B-H deployments. We caught guys doing gate duty with the firing pins out of their rifles.



Aye I saw the same thing in 2000 SFOR from pretty much every trade.




			
				Snaketnk said:
			
		

> .
> 
> So in case that jumble of thoughts is as jumbled as I think, I'm just saying that I think that the 40% jump might be as a result of increased reporting of incidents.



Or the fact that the CF had a shooting war going on which meant a marked increase in the number of people doing weapons training.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MJP said:
			
		

> Aye I saw the same thing in 2000 SFOR from pretty much every trade.
> 
> 
> Or the fact that the CF had a shooting war going on which meant a marked increase in the number of people doing weapons training. deploying with weapons and live ammo that they actually have to carry.



TFTFY


----------



## MJP

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY



FTW  ;D


----------



## armyvern

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.
> 
> I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"  So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was!
> ...



So, did you charge them for having an non-operational weapon?


----------



## armyvern

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay).
> 
> There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.



Agreed with the mainstream's thoughts as to 'competence'. We had an ND our last week in KAF. An experienced (and obviously used to carrying weapon) officer. Clearing Bay. Charge. I also had to escort a fellow-CSM in for same (on range/C7) week one in KAF.

One of my best friends, Cpl Mike Abel was killed by an ND in Somalia and ,T., who had the ND was a small arms instructor; it happens. It should NEVER be taken lightly regardless of where one is in the training process or in their career.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agreed with the mainstream's thoughts as to 'competence'. We had an ND our last week in KAF. An experienced (and obviously used to carrying weapon) officer. Clearing Bay. Charge. I also had to escort a fellow-CSM in for same (on range/C7) week one in KAF.
> 
> One of my best friends, Cpl Mike Abel was killed by an ND in Somalia and ,T., who had the ND was a small arms instructor; it happens. It should NEVER be taken lightly regardless of where one is in the training process or in their career.



I agree fully. Good post Vern.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree fully. Good post Vern.



Jeez Jim. She just got back! Stop hitting on her from across the country!! :-*


----------



## armyvern

recceguy said:
			
		

> Jeez Jim. She just got back! Stop hitting on her from across the country!! :-*



Stop it!! I've been in a no-frat state for 8.5 months; I might be enjoying this!  8)


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Jeez Jim. She just got back! Stop hitting on her from across the country!! :-*



I guess I walked into that one!!  :facepalm:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Stop it!! I've been in a no-frat state for 8.5 months; I might be enjoying this!  8)



I'm going to stifle myself before I get in real trouble!


----------



## medicineman

recceguy said:
			
		

> That problem goes, at least, back to the B-H deployments. We caught guys doing gate duty with the firing pins out of their rifles.



I was riding shotgun with my acting- CSM on an ex in Wainwright one dreary fall day when he announced to me that there were bad guys in the areas and to look out for them.  I jacked a balnk up int the chamber of my rifle, safed it and pointed it out the window.  Sgt Gluebag looks at me and says "Please unload your weapon - if you had an ND in front of me I'd have no choice but to charge you".  My chin dropped, I looked at him and replied " Look Sarge, I've been in the service for quite awhile, have been around firearms alot of my life, I haven't had one yet and don't intend to start today.  You said there are bad guys out there, we have to play the game."  He then looked at me and said "That wasn't a request - unload your weapon".  This dweeb wouldn't even put the mag in his pistol , despite us not having any 9mm blanks, just to ensure the hammer wouldn't be able to drop on the thing, since he was worried he'd get fried over that.   That is the level of paranoia that comes from having ZERO comfort with your weapon.  My guess he was likely on of those fruit loops - and he was in Bosnia when the folks were still routinely being shot at or over.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> I was riding shotgun with my acting- CSM on an ex in Wainwright one dreary fall day when he announced to me that there were bad guys in the areas and to look out for them.  I jacked a balnk up int the chamber of my rifle, safed it and pointed it out the window.  Sgt Gluebag looks at me and says "Please unload your weapon - if you had an ND in front of me I'd have no choice but to charge you".  My chin dropped, I looked at him and replied " Look Sarge, I've been in the service for quite awhile, have been around firearms alot of my life, I haven't had one yet and don't intend to start today.  You said there are bad guys out there, we have to play the game."  He then looked at me and said "That wasn't a request - unload your weapon".  This dweeb wouldn't even put the mag in his pistol , despite us not having any 9mm blanks, just to ensure the hammer wouldn't be able to drop on the thing, since he was worried he'd get fried over that.   That is the level of paranoia that comes from having ZERO comfort with your weapon.  My guess he was likely on of those fruit loops - and he was in Bosnia when the folks were still routinely being shot at or over.
> 
> MM




We did hear that troops in Velika Kladusa weren't given bolts to the C9 or they took the firing pin out.


----------



## brihard

Un. Effing. Believable. I mean, I can 'get' what I'm reading here in an abstract sense, but every part of my that takes any amount of pride in being a soldier and an NCO is just seething that crap like that has been gotten away with.

I'd like to see recruits carrying around loaded, readied weapons full of blanks constantly from as early on as can be safely done, and be damned to the ND statistics. I guess I take intimate familiarity an comfort with a weapon so for granted that I'm genuinely having trouble understanding this.


----------



## medicineman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We did hear that troops in Velika Kladusa weren't given bolts to the C9 or they took the firing pin out.



The following letters come to mind: R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.  Arrange them how you like.

Fact is alot of people are not comfortable with how the weapons work and how to keep them safe.  I saw an NBP sailor on a nameless ship, while on their equivalent of QRF for leaving harbour, sitting with a C-8, mag in, playing with the safety catch.  With a pile of people in the hangar, including kids (was a family day cruise).  I had a polite chat, since I wasn't in uniform, and suggested he stop doing that.  If you're playing with the safety or any other gadgets on it, you're obviously not too comfy with the weapon.  Maybe they should be having weapons training earlier in BMQ to make the candidates more comfortable with having, holding, carrying the weapon...maybe they should be carrying them around with blanks in the chamber for the same reason...who knows.

Yes ND's happen...the idea is to cut them down, so I'm all for making people paranoid about them, but paranoid in the good way that makes people think about what and why they're doing something, since it's a vital part of the job.  I liken it to giving medications - you don't get paranoid, you just get into your comfort zone and do your double/triple checks to make sure the right person gets the right amount of the right stuff, given the right way at the right time.  It's just habit forming...kinda like what basic training is supposed to be about  .

MM


----------



## GAP

> Maybe they should be having weapons training earlier in BMQ to make the candidates more comfortable with having, holding, carrying the weapon.



On day 3 of boot camp they gave us dummy rifles. They taught us how to hold, carry, & store them, and until we went to Pendleton and were issued real rifles, we ate, slept, and generally all round lived with those bi&^%ches! The one thing we never were, was....apprehensive  about them. They were part of us.

 :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer

GAP said:
			
		

> On day 3 of boot camp they gave us dummy rifles. They taught us how to hold, carry, & store them, and until we went to Pendleton and were issued real rifles, we ate, slept, and generally all round lived with those bi&^%ches! The one thing we never were, was....apprehensive  about them. They were part of us.
> 
> :2c:



Back when we used the FNC1 - remember that bad boy - we in TQ3 kept them in out locker, with breech block. We knew those weapons inside and out.
We never went anywhere without them. We were what you call "intimately familiar" with them.

Now I'm not sure how they do it in TQ3 BIQ now. Are they allowed to keep weapons in the shacks or are we too risk averse for that to happen?


----------



## dangerboy

We keep weapons in the shacks, but collect their bolts at night.


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:
			
		

> We keep weapons in the shacks, but collect their bolts at night.



Question - how does WATC treat NDs?


----------



## dangerboy

In WATC,  they are investigated and if it is worthy a charge is laid and the pers is put on consoling for safety.


----------



## armyvern

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In WATC,  they are investigated and if it is worthy a charge is laid and the pers is put on consoling for safety.



How Freudian of you.   >

Where's ArmyRick's video when we need 'er??


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In WATC,  they are investigated and if it is worthy a charge is laid and the pers is put on consoling for safety.



I'd console em too......and that video is hilarious.


----------



## mariomike

Aug 25, 2016 

Special forces commander charged after accidentially firing weapon
http://www.680news.com/2016/08/25/special-forces-commander-charged-after-accidentially-firing-weapon/
OTTAWA – Canada’s top special forces soldier is facing a court martial after accidentally firing his rifle while loading it during a visit to Iraq last December.


----------



## Lightguns

mariomike said:
			
		

> Aug 25, 2016
> 
> Special forces commander charged after accidentially firing weapon
> http://www.680news.com/2016/08/25/special-forces-commander-charged-after-accidentially-firing-weapon/
> OTTAWA – Canada’s top special forces soldier is facing a court martial after accidentally firing his rifle while loading it during a visit to Iraq last December.



Good on him, he took ownership publically and immediately.  This is how it is done!


----------



## Bass ackwards

In cases like these it would be useful to know exactly what happened.
Not to further embarrass the man but for the rest of us to learn from.

I've been out for a very long time but I still handle firearms. I figure if it can happen to a guy with that much experience, then what should I be watching for when I handle one? What can I do safer?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Good on him, he took ownership publically and immediately.  This is how it is done!


 :nod:


----------



## Lightguns

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> In cases like these it would be useful to know exactly what happened.
> Not to further embarrass the man but for the rest of us to learn from.
> 
> I've been out for a very long time but I still handle firearms. I figure if it can happen to a guy with that much experience, then what should I be watching for when I handle one? What can I do safer?



That's easy he has, "has also held senior staff appointments in Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy) Group, the CDS’ Transformation Team, Force Development, and the Canadian Army."  Those jobs will reduce your skills with weapons quickly but really stuff happens.  Fine and carry on.  The important thing now is that the fine be of or near the same amount given a Pte and not some token $25 good old boy fine.


----------



## Weinie

I believe that the fine for then BGen Menard was $3500 for his ND in 2010. I expect something in this range will be forthcoming


----------



## Haggis

Weinie said:
			
		

> I believe that the fine for then BGen Menard was $3500 for his ND in 2010. I expect something in this range will be forthcoming



That was the one with his C8 carbine, right?  Not the other "ND".


----------



## Old Sweat

I think that one was deliberately aimed.  :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> In cases like these it would be useful to know exactly what happened.
> Not to further embarrass the man but for the rest of us to learn from.
> 
> I've been out for a very long time but I still handle firearms. I figure if it can happen to a guy with that much experience, then what should I be watching for when I handle one? What can I do safer?


I'm pretty sure that he explained exactly what happened in the article.


----------



## PuckChaser

If you get complacent in your drills, and don't actually look in the chamber, very easy to have a ND clearing a C7/C8. He likely either racked the action with the mag on, and then removed it (drills out of order), or had a stuck extractor so the round stayed in the chamber/attached to bolt face. Both fixed by properly checking the chamber and bolt face when the action is to the rear to ensure the weapon is in fact clear.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from the General himself, via the Info-machine:


> Major-General Michael Rouleau, Commander, Canadian Special Operations Forces issues the following statement after being charged with one count, Section 129, National Defence Act:
> 
> “In December, 2015 on one of my frequent visits to Canadian Special Forces members deployed abroad, I had an accident and I was at fault.
> 
> “While preparing to go to a forward trench position as I was arranging my equipment, I negligently discharged one bullet into a safe area while loading my assault rifle. As a soldier and as a special operations assaulter, the only acceptable standard of care with a weapon is error-free. I reported the mistake right away to my supervisor, the Chief of the Defence Staff.
> 
> “Following investigation, I have been charged by the Canadian Armed Forces Director of Military Prosecution with one count, Section 129 of the National Defence Act. I will accept full responsibility for my mistake at some point in the future before a Court Martial, the only disciplinary vehicle to sanction General Officers.  Accountability underpins our actions as soldiers and especially as leaders.
> 
> “I am proud to belong to the Profession of Arms – a profession that self regulates to uphold high standards of proficiency under one system of accountability regardless of rank or position.”


----------



## jollyjacktar

I applaud his integrity with stepping up and owning his mistake unlike some others in the past.


----------



## Bass ackwards

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that he explained exactly what happened in the article.



All it said was that he was in the process of loading it.


----------



## RedCardOP

(Apologies in advance if it was posted somewhere else, I did search but I am a bit of a moron when it comes to this stuff)
Link to article

*Summary:*
Major-General Micheal Rouleau, commander of CANSOF, was in Iraq during a visit to the front lines (Presumably related to Op Impact) and while loading his C8, accidentally discharged a round which hit less than a meter from another solider. He quickly took responsibility for the incident and informed his superiors. Due to his rank, what normally would be summary trial turned into a full court martial. The court martial determined, after reviewing Rouleau's swift actions to deal with the incident, to only fine him $2000. 

Full article:


> The commander of the country's elite special forces has pleaded guilty to accidentally firing his weapon during a visit to the front lines of northern Iraq late last year.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Mike Rouleau was tried by court martial on Tuesday over an incident that took place last December as he visited troops involved in training Kurdish fighters, west of Erbil.
> 
> He faced a single charge of prejudice to good order and discipline related to the "negligent discharge" of a firearm last year following a lengthy investigation by military police.
> 
> The incident took place on Dec. 20, 2015.
> 
> The maximum penalty for the offence is dismissal from service, but the military judge fined Rouleau $2,000, citing his clear service record, his history with JTF-2 — the country's highly trained counterterrorism force — and the fact he pleaded guilty.
> 
> "Clearly you accept full responsibility," said Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, who presided over the court martial.
> 
> It was, the judge said, "an isolated incident" and out of character for Rouleau, who is a combat veteran of special forces missions.
> 
> The court martial was told Rouleau was at a combat outpost, preparing to go forward to the front line, after presenting medals to a handful of his troops. He accidentally fired once while loading his C-8 assault rifle and the bullet struck less than a metre from the soldier who accompanied him. No one was injured.
> 
> After the shot was fired, Rouleau said: "I can't believe that happened."
> 
> He returned to base and told his soldiers what happened, promising to report the incident to the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> 'I accept fully the decision'
> 
> Following the court martial, Rouleau said Tuesday he was happy to put the incident behind him.
> 
> "I accept fully the decision of the judge today at the court martial," he said. "I accepted responsibility for this from the day it happened and so I'm very pleased with the result."
> 
> The accountability rules for generals are the same as those for the privates and the corporals, said Rouleau.
> 
> Most negligent discharge accusations are dealt with through a summary trial process, but Rouleau's senior rank means his options become limited, said Maj. Chabi Walsh, the prosecutor who tried the case.
> 
> "Due to the rank of the offender, we have regulations that [require] flag officers to have a full court martial," he said. "It has to do with the limited amount of people who can try them."
> 
> Weapons-handling mistakes are a matter of grave importance in the army and in some cases have helped end careers. But Vance, the country's top military commander, put out a statement late Tuesday giving Rouleau his full backing.
> 
> "The ruling today not only reaffirms the value in having a strong justice system, but also the requirement to hold everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces accountable for their actions," Vance said.
> 
> "I am impressed with the professionalism Maj.-Gen Rouleau demonstrated throughout the process and continue to have complete confidence in his ability to serve as commander of our special forces."
> 
> Rouleau is not the only senior officer to face trial for weapons mishandling.
> 
> Just over six years ago, former brigadier-general Dan Menard, who commanded Canadian troops in Kandahar, faced a similar charge in May 2010. He was fined $3,500.
> 
> Menard was later accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate female non-commissioned officer. He was relieved of his command and later resigned from the army.
> 
> Another officer, Lt.-Col. Gilles Fortin, was charged with a "negligent discharge" in relation to an incident in Kabul in 2012.
> 
> Listing a number of other incidents during Tuesday's sentencing, Walsh said he felt the fine levied on Rouleau was appropriate given the circumstances.


----------



## Armymedic

Leadership.


----------

