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

Chest Rig preference

What type of chest rig/carrier/vest do you prefer?

  • Current Canadian issue Tacvest

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Plate Carrier/chest rig

    Votes: 38 57.6%
  • Webbing style (ie. TT Mav/82 pattern webbing)

    Votes: 10 15.2%
  • We should be issued both types

    Votes: 7 10.6%
  • Something that attaches right to our body armor

    Votes: 6 9.1%
  • Different option (see below)

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    66

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
I would assume its the same reasoning as the "you're not covered" crowd for helmet pad systems, non-issued boots, non-issued ballistic eyewear, etc. I personally don't see an issue as long as the plates end up in the same position, covering the same areas.

As for SOFCOM, maybe they're the only command that's asked for permission/had Defense Science rubberstamp it as safe?
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
Jammer said:
If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.

Ahh, I've actually heard this before.

It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"

We actually called SISIP and they said it was untrue. Coverage is coverage regardless if you're in a firefire wearing full PP&E, hit by shrapnel while in a shitter without BEWs on or in a car accident while on leave.

Maybe it's changed in the last couple of years.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
Jammer said:
When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.

For sure, a lawful order is a lawful order.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
....but then again there are always feel they know better or just want to be different to make up for some lack of love from thier mother....:)
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
ObedientiaZelum said:
It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"

Since we're not in a gunfight anymore, the rumour has morphed into "If you don't have a med chit for SWATs, VAC won't cover you if you get a foot/knee/ankle injury because of the boots." As if the SWAT boot knows the difference between someone with a chit and someone without.

Jammer: I do remember that, but I prefer them to the stupid water-wings that come issued with the vest out of clothing stores so it wasn't a big issue for me. As you said, BG RSM says so, I do so, whether I think its dumb or not.
 

Sig_Des

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I really hate the "SISIP won't pay out" boogeyman. Guess if you got hurt by a rocket while wearing shorts and flip flops on KAF, you'd be hooped according to some.
 

Tank Troll

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Our BG RSM told us we could wear what we want as long as it didn't look to far out of place. Plus we are doing a lot of work in small groups spread all over the AOR.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You're missing the point BW-7.

Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.

TT: Pretty ballsy for a BG RSM to say that. When was this?

Over my five tours in Afg I have never heard from anyone that it was authorized to wear issue plates in a non issue chest rig.

That being said non issue chest rigs were generally GTG OTW, however you HAD to wear the plates as issued in the frag vest.

This was policy in all BG units. CANSOF units had a different authorized policy.
 

Sig_Des

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Jammer said:
You're missing the point BW-7.

Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.

No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.

My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"

I have never seen an official statement that says if you're hurt while wearing non-issue kit/no PPE, that you will lose out on a SISIP payout. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who use the threat haven't either. Now I could very well be wrong, and I'll be checking the fine print of my SISIP policy when I get home. But I have never seen anyone in any CoC back up the threat with a clear-cut official document.

At least with "Because The army/the RSM/I told you so" there's a reason that's not based off a common belief.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is a line up of folks who are fighting the system right now, and getting nowhere. Thankfully i have never had to endure the song and dance...but I know of several cases right now that have them flopping from SISIP to DVA and back again.

No one wants to own the problem.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TT....You were specifically authorized to wear issue Gen IV plates in non issue chest rigs?

TF 2-13 RiPed us out and arrived wearing the original issue desert tac vest.

R1 Op Attention was issued SORD rigs with the front/back plate carriers....we were never authorized to use them however.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
Beadwindow 7 said:
No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.

My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"

I have never seen an official statement that says if you're hurt while wearing non-issue kit/no PPE, that you will lose out on a SISIP payout. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who use the threat haven't either. Now I could very well be wrong, and I'll be checking the fine print of my SISIP policy when I get home. But I have never seen anyone in any CoC back up the threat with a clear-cut official document.

At least with "Because The army/the RSM/I told you so" there's a reason that's not based off a common belief.

Exactly.
An order is an order.  The only reasons I've heard for not allowing soldiers to wear plates in platecarriers has been:
1. it negates your SISIP coverage (untrue); and
2. soldiers might take off their chest rig and forget their plates are in.


If the CoC wants to give an order without any reason that's one thing. Leadership should never lie in order to add substance to an order.
 

SKG709

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I move pretty frequently between the C7, C9 and C6. Anyone have a recommendations and a chest rig I can buy that will do the job of riflemen and machine gunner?
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts.

I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,171
Points
910
Jarnhamar said:
The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts.

I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.

Agreed. Although a change round may be forced due to casualties, unfortunately.
 
Top