Canadian Forces Load Bearing Harnesses & Surplus Helmets.

[cfnl]

CADPAT is not illegal to own.

Possessing some items may be illegal though.

Much Canadian Forces property is sold as "surplus" through various channels when it exceeds it's useful life for whatever reason (like the webbing for sale above, which is no longer issued)

Some items have to be "demillitaries" for various reasons, of controlled technologies.

The Canadian government holds the copy right on cadpat.

They have lisenced several companies to produce and sell items that do not directly resemble military issue items (www.cpgear.com is one)

Actual military items are produced with cadpat fabric that has been treated with a chemical to reduce the IR signature.

The treatment is controlled under ITAR, and it's a policy of the canadian forces that any actual military issue items are destroyed first, rather than sold directly as surplus.

Any actual military items that you find for sale are likely "stolen" (Either actually "stolen", or the owner is selling items that were issued to them, but not their property to sell). If you buy them, you're receiving stolen goods.

A small number do fall through the cracks and end up being sold surplus, I''m a lawyer , I have no idea if it's actually illegal to posses them, as they were legitimately sold, they just weren't supposed to be sold.

There are a variety of unlisenced knock-offs found for sale as well, without the IR treatment. The producers violate the copyright, but I wouldn't guess you'd suffer any repercussions for buying them.

[rikkards]

Cadpat products aren't illegal, cadpat treated for IR is a controlled good and yeah that can get the MPs showing up at your door.

[CZ85Combat]

Basic battle load overseas is 10 mags. New vest only has pouches for 4.

Funny you mentioned that, when we did trials on the tac vest at the infantry school, summer 98, this came out. The CLS at the time (forgot his name) stated that we would never go anywhere that we would require more than 5 mags... 3 star General!

Let's just say that as a C6 gunner at the time, I found it pretty useless!

[L42A1]

Funny you mentioned that, when we did trials on the tac vest at the infantry school, summer 98, this came out. The CLS at the time (forgot his name) stated that we would never go anywhere that we would require more than 5 mags... 3 star General!

Let's just say that as a C6 gunner at the time, I found it pretty useless!

3 star general? Huh?

[surplusshooter]

what do we get pouch-wise with these?

[JasonGTA]

I think I saw some reservists wearing these

[Frontier Firearms]

There is a minimum 3 pouches/bags that come with these, size may vary.

[koesdibyo]

3 star general? Huh?

Likely Lieutenant General as per the shoulder epaulettes while in dress uniform

Back to the topic on hand... the "new" tack vests are *almost* the worst thing created. It's like the testers for these items are completely brain dead and have never spent a day in the life of an actual soldier.
I #### you not, when getting fitted for the new style ruck and pondering why it is being bent to form to my body without body armour, despite the fact I will clearly be wearing plates - we were informed that the size and accessibility of the ruck will allow for quick deployment of your armour. Yes, that is correct... we were instructed we would not be wearing our armour while on patrols, but it would be with us in our ruck and in the event of a bump, we would then stop, remove the pack, open it up, and deploy our armour.

alas... that is the military in a nutshell.

I would take this old style load bearing vest in a heartbeat over the new POS that is designed to hold snickers bars and warhead jawbreakers instead of magazines and grenades.

[fiddler]

I still have cdn webbing from the late eighties just like that. Add a butt-pac and another pouch such as mask pouch above that and youre good to go for days in the bush.

[steamy teabag]

Belt size?