Weapons modification RANT.
- Thread starter KevinB
- Start date
![[RICE]](/forums/data/avatars/m/24/24610.jpg?1608716123){kind=avatar}
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I dunno... I see that chainsaw slashing away at the ground while the user is in "sneakers"... and I just cringe :tsktsk:
Problem with an electric chainsaw bayonnet is that it is electric and requires a battery - AND batteries are HEAVY.
Somehow, I figure that MoD and is gonna pass on this little gem
Problem with an electric chainsaw bayonnet is that it is electric and requires a battery - AND batteries are HEAVY.
Somehow, I figure that MoD and is gonna pass on this little gem
R
rostha
Guest
To I-6
I was trying to send you a PM but the site won't allow me to access your profile. I had some questions and concerns that I wanted to pick your brain about if you have the time and the inclination. I don't really want to tie up the thread with personal or individual problems but had hopped to get some advice from you. If you could send me an PM that would be great thanks!
I was trying to send you a PM but the site won't allow me to access your profile. I had some questions and concerns that I wanted to pick your brain about if you have the time and the inclination. I don't really want to tie up the thread with personal or individual problems but had hopped to get some advice from you. If you could send me an PM that would be great thanks!
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 710
rostha said:
You do know that there is a "PM" button under his name and avatar ?
stupid question time:
why is this such a big deal? isn't what works the most important thing? as long as you have a weapon or gear which functions at least as well as issue?
ya know? drive-on, charlie-mike and defecation will occur?
never understood myself my appearances matter more more than results in the CF
like i said, stupid question, but there it is
why is this such a big deal? isn't what works the most important thing? as long as you have a weapon or gear which functions at least as well as issue?
ya know? drive-on, charlie-mike and defecation will occur?
never understood myself my appearances matter more more than results in the CF
like i said, stupid question, but there it is
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
dangerboy said:
It's not just you. It got past me too.
Shrek1985 said:
Beyond me. "C"-"M".... and defecate? Maybe its a 4 RCR thing? :-\ (2nd edit!: I think he may mean something about "defection"... hmm)
Shrek1985 said:
You had one thing right.
Christ... I'm tired of these retarded, uninformed comments. "The army sucks, they should totally let us all do our own thing". By your rationale, a cross-bow would work too. Shit, mount a tac-light and a PAQ-4 on it and you're cooking. Never leave home without it!
If you read the entire thread, as well as several other weapon/kit modification threads ("search"), you'd understand a little more why the existing regulations exist pertaining to the modification of your issued weapon. Personally, I would love to go out on the range and pop off some rounds with a gucci-fied, customized C7 or C8, maybe with a better optic and charging handle latch that doesent break off. (In my trade, deployed or domestically, it aint gonna happen, and I've resigned to that fact)
Domestically and in training, the majority of troops are not given any leeway on customizing their personal weapon. (Yes, I'm sure there are some who do/can, but that is the exception, not the rule) Operationally, at the discretion of your CoC, you may be allowed to add a couple bells and whistles, maybe paint your rifle, change the furniture, slap on a rail assy. Maybe a tac-latch. Perhaps even your own choice of optic. Irreversible mods, however, are a no go.
So there you have it. Uniformity is the name of the game in the big Army. Always has, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Reasons, in a nutshell: Standardization of equipment, training, and repair. Ease of replacement. Commonality (buddy beside you knows how to use it in a SHTF situ). Interoperability. Compatibility. Also, note that an individual troops' opinion of a "superior" part/widget/mod/optic is often very subjective. There are troops that know their stuff, but there are many more that dont.
For example: I've seen a guy try to mount a Chinese clone EO-Tech on his C7. He bought it on HLTA in Thailand, and thought it was a marvel idea. Think carefully: Do you really want the dude beside you to be using that kind of optic on a two way range? (And yes, I informed him that he was a utter retard and slapped him around for a while)
I suspect you were probably just airing your frusterations, but you are in the military, and as such, you must have been familiarized at some point in your training about how the game is played.
Well, thats enough for one night.
[/rant]
(Edit: wait a second... this IS a rant thread... let the rant continue!)
Cheers,
Eric
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Weapons modifications are a big NO, and that's right from the LCMM's in Ottawa. They dont want to see it done, and they dont want it done to any weapon. Those are the orders that we Weapons Techs have to follow.
But, I can only speak for myself when I say this, I dont not see any problem with doing non-prement modifications that will make the weapon more effective for the user. Mods like RIS and Magpul stocks and anything that will not effect the safe operation of the weapon I dont see a problem with.
Its things like cutting down the barrels and stock of Remgiton 870 shotguns or changing around components that will effect the safe operation of the weapon by the user, that I will not do.
Most Weapons Techs wont do mods that have not been approved by the LCMM's. They dont want to piss off there CoC or the LCMM's or they dont want to think "outside of the box". Its wrong for them to think this way.
If we can do something that can make the weapons more effective for the users that are going into combat by just adding a modification, then I think we should.
That's my 2 cents.
But, I can only speak for myself when I say this, I dont not see any problem with doing non-prement modifications that will make the weapon more effective for the user. Mods like RIS and Magpul stocks and anything that will not effect the safe operation of the weapon I dont see a problem with.
Its things like cutting down the barrels and stock of Remgiton 870 shotguns or changing around components that will effect the safe operation of the weapon by the user, that I will not do.
Most Weapons Techs wont do mods that have not been approved by the LCMM's. They dont want to piss off there CoC or the LCMM's or they dont want to think "outside of the box". Its wrong for them to think this way.
If we can do something that can make the weapons more effective for the users that are going into combat by just adding a modification, then I think we should.
That's my 2 cents.
421 EME said:
I'll agree, that seems a little extreme. Soldiers have seriously asked for that mod to be performed locally?
But a sawed off shotty would be fun!
DND should buy a batch of Dlask barrels!Cutting 18" barrels down to 12.5" and using a normal mag-tube cap wouldnt be "that" dangerous. (unless an overzealous users' hand slides off the pump while shooting "a-la-rapid-fire").
The proper answer though: If the SG bbl length is unsatisfactory for the tasks the SG is required to perform, the users should document this. The UCR system isint perfect, thats for sure. But look at the C9A2. It is possible to get some relevant mods done through the system when they actually make sense. (adjustable stock and shorter bbl)
M
MG34
Guest
421 EME said:
Cutting down the stock or barrel of the Rem 870 doesn't affect either safety or function of the weapon,if the users are asking for this to be done there is a reason ie, the current configuration is not suitable as a breaching weapon, it is up to you to either get the job done or seek approval, no single weapons tech is in any position to yay or nay an operational requirement, that is a chain of command responsibility.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
dangerboy said:
Carry on - continue mission - $h!t happens... do try to keep up withthe rest of the class...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
MG34 said:
Yes, cutting down the barrel or stock of the 870 will not effect either safety or function of the weapon. But if all you want to do is make it shorter for the breaching, it can be done without having to cut anything. I can order pistol grips or folding stocks to replace the stock to make it shorter, but getting a shorter barrel is not possible, there just is no way for me to get them thru the system and to get the LCMM to sign off on, its not going to happen.
The company I support in my unit is who I work for, but I answer to my CoC in maintenance. I will do everything in my power to give the company what they want for there weapons, but if what they want is to do something that will be a permanent MOD to the weapon, I have to say no. Those are the rules that I have to work by and I hate it. I believe in give the guys the right tools to do there jobs and if that means doing non permanent MODS to weapons, then so be it. If they want above that, My hands are tied.
- Reaction score
- 27,172
- Points
- 1,090
You've illustrated well a typical situation: people tell you what they think they want, vice the effect they want.
"Cut off the stock" isn't what they want, but it's what they ask for. What they want is a shorter weapon - which, as you stated, you can do.
It's something taught but usually forgot: Say what you want, not how you want it done - and elt your subordinates surprise you.
"Cut off the stock" isn't what they want, but it's what they ask for. What they want is a shorter weapon - which, as you stated, you can do.
It's something taught but usually forgot: Say what you want, not how you want it done - and elt your subordinates surprise you.
- Reaction score
- 21,684
- Points
- 1,260
Unfrotunately this is the situation that the laymen (the NON END USER) are missing the boat (and the boat)
A Breaching shotgun needs a pistol grip stock AND a SHORT 9" or so bbl
The Breacher is not a Primary Weapon - its a tertiary one - slung in addtion to primary and pistol.
a 18-20" bbl on a breacher is a wasted effort -- a 14" breacher is still to long in most cases, 12" better and 9" much nicer.
A Breaching shotgun needs a pistol grip stock AND a SHORT 9" or so bbl
The Breacher is not a Primary Weapon - its a tertiary one - slung in addtion to primary and pistol.
a 18-20" bbl on a breacher is a wasted effort -- a 14" breacher is still to long in most cases, 12" better and 9" much nicer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Some things always were against regulations but were/are done nonetheless.
How much space does a 9" barrel take in a duffel bag, along with a rem 870 pistol grip? How hard are they to install?
Indeed. But how long does the "system" take to make these changes? The operator in the field will adapt as the situation changes, some changes could already have changed further by the time the system caught up. Leaving some freedom to the end user is the best solution, I believe.
Now, we are in the army. If you think you have a good solution for a perceived need, you should write a memo detailing why a piece of gear will fill that need. (If you can not articulate it, what are the chance that you really need it?) This should be the litmus test. So while big army catches up with the UCR, a quick concise memo should be good enough.
Are we going around in circles again here?
How much space does a 9" barrel take in a duffel bag, along with a rem 870 pistol grip? How hard are they to install?
Eric_911 said:
Indeed. But how long does the "system" take to make these changes? The operator in the field will adapt as the situation changes, some changes could already have changed further by the time the system caught up. Leaving some freedom to the end user is the best solution, I believe.
Now, we are in the army. If you think you have a good solution for a perceived need, you should write a memo detailing why a piece of gear will fill that need. (If you can not articulate it, what are the chance that you really need it?) This should be the litmus test. So while big army catches up with the UCR, a quick concise memo should be good enough.
Are we going around in circles again here?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Dissident said:
It’s not very hard to install them. 2 screwdrivers and 1 Allen key and its done.
Dissident said:
It does take time to get the system to change. But trying to get the system to change when you’re in theater is too late. The time to try getting the changes you want is when your ORBAT stands up and you know what your mission is ( PRT, BG, OMLET ), then you can sit down and figure out what weapons or MODS to weapons you are going to need to accomplish your mission. Talk to your Weapon Techs and see what they can do for you. They will know if you can get what you need thru the supply system or if you may need LPO it. Get what you need back in Canada because it is easier to get it here than in some place like Spin or MSG.
Dissident said:
Memos can be great tools, but one that details a short coming to a weapon and a solution, should wind up in front of your unit Tech Adj the Maint O and ETQMS. They will look at it and see if it has any merit. If it does than it will be forward to DLR 5 or DSSPM 5 for them to look at. This route can take some time and may not get the results you are hoping for.
UCR’s……… I know that writing one may give you the feeling that you’re pissing into the wind but there are people who are reading them at NDHQ. They want to hear what’s wrong with the weapon in detail and not that it sucks or is a piece of crap. Also, the more UCR’s they receive about this problem from other people the better chance that they act on it. This route can also take some time.
Similar threads
