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

Gear Review - MOFOCR From CP Gear

Blackhorse7 said:
RCMP vests?  Junk?!?  I think you are mistaken, sir.

And if you can't get the sarcasm in that, you need to give your head a shake. 

Ahahahha I laughed as soon as I saw "Sir"
Officer jokes are the best.
 
Blackhorse7 said:
RCMP vests?  Junk?!?  I think you are mistaken, sir.

And if you can't get the sarcasm in that, you need to give your head a shake. 

Police vest usage is far different from Green Side military operations...
 
Gentlemen,

I have no idea what "RCMP" vests are being referred to, but we have been supplying the Drop Zone ModCan to RCMP special teams for over a year now.

Kind Regards
Brian Kroon
 
The vest I have seen is not the ModCan vest. However, IMHO, the modcan vest does not adequately address the needs of soldiers serving in Afghanistan either. It is designed to imitate the "look" of the tacvest, and as such I feel that it picks up some of the negative traits of the tacvest. It is not as adjustable vertically as a chest rig type platform, it relies on a zipper for closure and all of the draw backs that that entails, it does not allow you to center your pouches on your body, it has the same ride issues as a tacvest, it has the same ackward adjustment system as the the issue tac vest, large amounts of the upper PALS area is all but useless in order to still have unimpedded access to magazines, and finally at $300 for just the base rig it is extremely expensive compared to other opti0ons on the market. Just my two cents. I am not trying to start a flame war, but I see a lot of troops buying kit based on what manufacturers say (manufacturers are intrinsically biased towards their own product! ::) ) without proper research and getting stuff that they spent too much on, that does not work.
 
The RCMP vest in question is a modification of the current TAC VEST, using increased mag storage and different options for the bayonet arear, there is a pistol mag attachment and a radio attahment, if you are not interested in mounting the bayonet there.  I can go an grab one fromthe locker and see if there are any other real differences in the design.
 
PhilB said:
The vest I have seen is not the ModCan vest. However, IMHO, the modcan vest does not adequately address the needs of soldiers serving in Afghanistan either. It is designed to imitate the "look" of the tacvest, and as such I feel that it picks up some of the negative traits of the tacvest. It is not as adjustable vertically as a chest rig type platform, it relies on a zipper for closure and all of the draw backs that that entails, it does not allow you to center your pouches on your body, it has the same ride issues as a tacvest, it has the same ackward adjustment system as the the issue tac vest, large amounts of the upper PALS area is all but useless in order to still have unimpedded access to magazines, and finally at $300 for just the base rig it is extremely expensive compared to other opti0ons on the market. Just my two cents. I am not trying to start a flame war, but I see a lot of troops buying kit based on what manufacturers say (manufacturers are intrinsically biased towards their own product! ::) ) without proper research and getting stuff that they spent too much on, that does not work.

that was something I have to agree with totally. in the last three months I have gone through three chest rigs just because there was just one thing wrong with it. I just picked up another vest this week (esstac boar) and it'll probably be going out soon as well.
I have been trying to encourage guys in the 3rd Battalion to go out, and do your homework and think of what it is you want. the guys in the coy keep saying they want to get new stuff (most saying they want to buy dragonskin and groin protectors, but that's a different story), but none know where to turn. there's what? two companies in Canada that make stuff that I suppose can be classified as respectable kit? That's about it really.
I will still end up picking up one of these platforms as soon as I can afford to, in order to see if it is something I want to chase after. I just don't think it is though, but we will find out.
 
Greg,

I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.  :(

Maybe next time?
 
Yeoman, reference body armour, etc... I wonder just how many deaths/injuries could have been prevented had those systems been in use?? (devil's advocate here)  I know back in the day and still to this day, many armour crewman would complain about the need for steel toed boots.  "We work with heavy stuff, why can't we get them?"

I like to remind my troops of an old safety digest article (I think) that addressed that issue by pointing out that the amount of injuries to armour crewman with regards to unprotected feet were so minor that it didn't validate the need to issue steel toed boots to the trade.  However, at the armour school a compromise was made and most of the tankers that had to go assist the maintainers (who wore steel-toes) would get a pair issued.

Which brings me back to the point that sometimes pointing the "young fellows" in the right direction with regards to kit and keeping them from going out and making huge purchases (ie. Dragon skin)is a good idea.  That includes the cooks and other support trades that need that LCF (look cool factor). 

Matt, I'll be getting in touch during my leave to sit down and talk armour vesting with you.
 
There has been some real worrisome stuff come out about Pinnalce and Murray Neal (CEO of Pinnacle -- the makers of DragonSkin) -- basically I stopped wearing mine and went back to ESAPI's -- I would caution everyone NOT to trust the NIJ rating on the DragonSkin -- expect to see some Criminal Charges...

Best advice to people here -- tailor your gear to your mission -- a Dismounted need is totally different from a mounted crewman.  And LMG, GPMG, and others are different as well.



 
I spoke with RSM Semenko on the phone and his reasons for approving the rigs he did were:
(his words not mine so do not debate me on the reasoning)

1) They look very similar to the issue vest which is important for recognition

2) Chest rigs are too front heavy and the ones approved are more like vests

That would be it.

It didn't matter that a very large number of troops have deployed with TAG and HSGI rigs and have had rave reviews about them.  The great thing about ones like the TAG Operator is they will carry what is needed, they will survive the mission, they aren't to expensive for the rifleman who might only use it for 1 tour, oh and they are warrentied for life, which means if it breaks on your 25th tour I will replace or fix it for free.

MOLLE is the way to go if your deploying more than once or you mission changes etc. but yes, non MOLLE rigs still do have a place.
 
If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.
 
Roger that -- My guess its this dinosaur knee jerk to trying to find a rationale when there is none.

If you pop a friendly due to the vest they wore you have no business being in theatre -- or the Army either for that matter.

 
 
If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong

I was trying to explain in a nice way that 1RCR, 3PPCLI and others had no problem with IDing each other with a wide variety of rigs on.  He wasn't going to listen to me though.
 
The sauruses are here to stay.. we must meld the minds of our new, younger generation of senior NCMs (soon to be myself, I hope) and encourage some rational thought as these are things that help make life easier.

(devil's advocate hat on again) However, they might just play the game I played earlier in here with a "necessity" issue.  Do we really need them?  People have been making do with the issue tac-vest just fine, blah blah blah.. hear where I am coming from?
 
Big Red said:
If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.

I like what you are trying to say here, and I think you are correct.  If you are basing a decision as to who is good and bad by a vest, you probably S*** the bed!  However you must also look at the RSM's prospective.  Think about the liability behind his decisions to allow rigs that do not look like the traditional issued stuff.  He is just playing "worst case scenerio," because whos ass is it when Bloggins blows away buddy and says he looked like enemy?  There is some sense behind his decision, he's just playing the old cover your own ass army game.  But I must admit, I'm a fan of  using what works and I wish I could experiment and try some new stuff myself.
 
Big Red said:
If we're identifying friend or foe based on which vest they are wearing something has gone horribly wrong.

That would be second to if they have a weapon or not, and constitute a thread, no?
 
St. Micheals Medical Team said:
and constitute a thread, no?

Damn those threads  ;)

I still dont beleive its a good idea to make a shooting decision based on what weapon someone has either -- especially in a conflict where you can be supported by ANA and ANP (or opposed by the ANP too).
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Greg,

I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.   :(

Maybe next time?

Poor Greggy was probably way to hung over to come look at kit. Oh well. I made it in ( with the Mrs ) and I was fairly impressed with the rig. As soon as I can talk to the boss and see what leeway we get with kit for the roto I will be calling you up greg.

Toby
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Greg,

I was hoping you'd show up at the display in Pet so I could give you a guided tour of the MoFOCR, but you were a no show.   :(

Maybe next time?

terribly sorry Matt, I was on a tasking at the time with 1RCR through out the week. and well siggy was right about weekend. we had a few promotions that friday in 3.
next time around, can't say a yes. but I'll attempt to again.
 
Back
Top