• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CANFORGEN -076/14 No personal accessories.

Shrek1985

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Just got this sent to me. Can't find it online, but basically personal or foriegn hand grips, slings, scopes and other accessories are now forbidden. Also we can't paint our weapons unless they're sniper rifles.

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

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

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

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

 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,045
Points
1,060
Shrek1985 said:
I have a hard time picturing how a sling, or foregrip could "compromise the integrity and/or performance" of a weapon, however and I doubt the people in charge of small arms actually want to hear from me.

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

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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,771
Points
1,090
PuckChaser said:
I can see a 3 point sling which is set up for a left-handed shooter could cover the ejection port and create stoppages.

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

AFAIK a sling is considered an accessory.
 

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Towards_the_gap said:
Basically...the war is over. Time for real soldiering.  ::)

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

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,455
Points
1,060
Towards_the_gap said:
Basically...the war is over. Time for real soldiering.  ::)

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

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

Lessons Learned Identified.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,187
Points
1,090
dapaterson said:
AFAIK a sling is considered an accessory.

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

Old EO Tech

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
If you want to critique issued weapons accessories, there is this thing called a UCR that goes right to the LCMM for consideration.  If you want to trial new kit or equipment ask for a posting to QETE or LFTEU, otherwise use the issue kit the way it was designed and engineered to work.  The reason that non-issue kit is not allowed(and never was officially) is there is no way to tell if they compromise the weapons performance or function, and when they break and you try to turn them into the CQ only to find out they were never issued in the first place.  This makes national life cycling a nightmare, and could cause issued items to fail and have to be replaced sooner than they were supposed to be.  Even painting of the sniper rifles has limitations, I have told my snipers to make sure they don't paint anything area that it could degrade the function of the rifle or scope, like painting over the threads of the front of the scope....
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
262
Points
880
MilEME09 said:
And if its not an issued sling it can bite you on the *** if you ND, cause as a tech I can't rule out interference from the non issue sling causing the ND. Thus leading to a charge

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


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

 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,187
Points
1,090
Spectrum said:
Sorry bro but slings don't cause ND's.


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

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

MikeL

Guest
MilEME09 said:
Thats not the point im making whether it can or not if your using a non-issued sling I can't rule it out. It's my job to give the benefit of the doubt to those who ND. But after inspecting a weapon something like a non-issue sling would give reason enough for those above to charge you if i find no mechanical faults.

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


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


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

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

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



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

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,266
Points
1,090
Hoplite- said:
As long as the accessories are installed correctly and aren't knock off/cheap versions, personally I don't see the problem. Issuing a blanket ban on everything is a bit much IMO. 

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

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

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

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

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

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
CANFORGEN 076/14 DLEPS 14/014 091431Z MAY 14
CANFORGEN -076/14 - NON-AUTHORIZED SMALL ARMS MODIFICATIONS
UNCLASSIFIED


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



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


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


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


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


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

 

Dissident

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Crantor said:
In my own opinion I would prefer seeing an approved items list.

Indeed.

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

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

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

Eowyn

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
MilEME09 said:
It's my job to give the benefit of the doubt to those who ND.

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

MikeL

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

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

Crantor said:
How about helmets?  Or ballistic eyewear?

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

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

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

Crispy Bacon

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Hoplite- said:
Buying your own helmet is a bit of a stretch, but I see your point.

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