RCN switching from C7 and C8A2 to C8A3s

Brutus said:
Buckshot can be bounced into dark places and through open hatches getting at the BG you cannot physically see (and he can't see you!) via ricochets. Every experienced boatswain knows this.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember instructors going on and on about something to do with shot accountability in ref to not killing random people and not effing up things that should not be effed up.
 
When a boarding goes south, it's really nice to have a 12 for bouncing a little buck around corners and odd spots. If you have ever walked around a civilian cargo vessel there are endless places to hide and ambush a boarding party, there often is cargo aboard that provides with even more options to hide. And yes nothing says smarten the #### up like racking a shotgun
 
Brutus said:
Shotguns also have non-lethal and less lethal options versus 5.56 NATO.
Click to expand...

Yup and that is why some refer them to as riot guns, because of the less lethal options. Not because of some mystical factor.

With all you Navy guys talking about your tactics, it makes sense why the Navy created a more trained boarding team.
 
Whatever some of you think about the classification of the message, only a part of the message is in the thread and it has no other identifying info. Also, the info in the message: changing versions of small arms, is not illegal or unethical to post. There is no security breach that feeds to ISIL. Try pulling your heads out.
Nothing in this thread hasn't already been divulged in the news, W5, Truth-Duty-Valor and other venues.
 
I noted the change a while ago, and was involved in implementing some of it.

Chose not to comment, as there was no need to in this forum.

If someone were to look at the UDS on a ship, or at photos from Combat Camera, they'd be able to garner the same information, but it would be through mining that information rather than a declaration.

NS
 
Sinasta said:
Yup and that is why some refer them to as riot guns, because of the less lethal options. Not because of some mystical factor.

With all you Navy guys talking about your tactics, it makes sense why the Navy created a more trained boarding team.
Click to expand...

OOoooo I'm really scared! The expensive HK guy is talking tactics from 1969. Gonna charge up my credit card but good!! ($$$$$$$) :rolleyes:

---------
 
Phat Eagle said:
But but but... Aimpoints can run for 1000 years on one battery... Why would our military choose EoTech?!
Click to expand...

One thing no one can fault EoTech about is that they have run an extraordinary publicity campaign. After owning serveral generations of both sights, for my money EoTech's aren't half the sight that an Aimpoint is.
 
Sinasta said:
Yup and that is why some refer them to as riot guns, because of the less lethal options. Not because of some mystical factor.

With all you Navy guys talking about your tactics, it makes sense why the Navy created a more trained boarding team.
Click to expand...


This, "bouncing" shots around corners is just asking for an accident to happen.
 
Seriously, who the f00k cares about the RCN's use of pew pew rifles vs carbines, it's really only affecting minor tactical tasks such as bording parties and etc.

Talking about the big guns on a ship is much more worth while.

And on that note, RCN, pls return all your C8A3s so that they can re-issue them to ground forces. :D
 
Corntonio said:
Whatever some of you think about the classification of the message, only a part of the message is in the thread and it has no other identifying info. Also, the info in the message: changing versions of small arms, is not illegal or unethical to post. There is no security breach that feeds to ISIL. Try pulling your heads out.
Nothing in this thread hasn't already been divulged in the news, W5, Truth-Duty-Valor and other venues.
Click to expand...

It still does not mean it's ok to go quoting CF UNCLAS messages on a public forum. I'm sure your chain of command or PAFO would think so too.

NavyShooter said:
I noted the change a while ago, and was involved in implementing some of it.

Chose not to comment, as there was no need to in this forum.

If someone were to look at the UDS on a ship, or at photos from Combat Camera, they'd be able to garner the same information, but it would be through mining that information rather than a declaration.

NS
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you NS.

Moe
 
It will be important when the new ships come fitted for but without guns and missile launchers. The line throwing gun will be the main armament, along with the cook's Chicken al king.
 
Right off DND website

et2015-0092-02.jpg
 
F
Moe said:
When did UNCLAS become disclose on social media for all to see? I thought UNCLAS meant it is not classified so use discretion when deciding to who you disclose it to. I am probably wrong. Not trying to stir $h1t, I know that ISIS learning that the RCN is using the newest DND carbine won't jeopardize anyone, but where do we draw the line? I know there are a lot of documents where I work that would disclose how we conduct ourselves against the enemy that are UNCLAS. I surely would fry if I started posting it here.

Moe
Click to expand...


Concur.
 
An innocuous paragraph from a message that provides nothing more than changing a version of weapon is not a problem. Neither my CoC or the exhalted PAFOs have concerns. However, when the CF posts pictures of their pers with these weapons, I fail to see how this could be concerning. The above picture is a recent one which was posted to a few online and paper-print newspapers.
The link below shows it in the hands of a soldier. If your comments are mainly about "quoting" a line out of a message, you have nothing to worry about.

http://w ww.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/weapons/c8a3-carbine-rifle.page



Moe said:
It still does not mean it's ok to go quoting CF UNCLAS messages on a public forum. I'm sure your chain of command or PAFO would think so too.

Exactly. Thank you NS.

Moe
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom