Any thoughts on the Canadian Pattern 51 webbing anyone, please? I can't say that, I've seen or noticed it much on the UK surplus market.
Canadian pattern 51 web gear - YouTube
Printable View
Any thoughts on the Canadian Pattern 51 webbing anyone, please? I can't say that, I've seen or noticed it much on the UK surplus market.
Canadian pattern 51 web gear - YouTube
I like the Patt. 51 bren pouches, they make great supply pouches for hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
We still had lots on issue when I joined, the pouches and small pack with straps for instance and I preferred the belt as it stayed together better than the '64 pattern. I had to use a set of US "H" harness straps to suspend that rig so field use only. Glad I don't have to wear any of it any more though... We still had the pistol holsters on issue later too, anyone that had to move around like a Machine Gunner would avoid them on issue as they didn't hold the pistol worth a hoot. You had to tie the lanyard around them to keep it from falling out.
Supposedly quantities of the pistol holster were purchased by Britain for use with the Browning HP pistol and 1944 Pattern webbing.
Does anyone have knowledge/experience of the Canadian holster being used with British P44 webbing, please, by UK forces?Quote:
Originally Posted by peregrinvs
A video about '51 Pattern webbing? Must be a case of "Anoraksia Nervosa":lol:
Still, was 64 Pattern worse? And was 82 Pattern worse than that? Quite possibly.
Best would probably have been something like the experimental stuff tried before 82 Pattern if it had had threaded non-ferrous studs to hold on each attachment with a matching "Chicago Bolt" nut with low profile head inside the belt.
But the plastic pins and collars didn't hold up, nor did the overly flimsy brass liners in the belt holes, and the steel buckle was definitely inferior to the Fastex.
If they were concerned about metal "nuts' getting polished against clothing they could have put a horizontally split lining on the insides of the belts that would have covered the heads.
But on the bright side, generations of technical types spent their careers happily mulling these points over in warm offices at NDHQ.:cheers:
"We settle no question before its time" and that's usually 20-30 years.:rolleyes:
I used both and had no real problems with either. I used them for 15 years each so the user report could be added. I kept the '64 tight and clean and in good shape so it didn't fall apart. I was careful assembling and disassembling the '82 so the plastic and eyes didn't get destroyed. I was Infantry and have still the slim waist of the regular Infantry, so if you kept the webbing adjusted to you it worked fine. I was around still to be issued the tactical vest...Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
However...both types weren't soldier proof and equipment pretty much has to be. The combination I created with a '51 pattern belt and "H" harness, two M14 mag pouches and US water bottles was almost spot on for the '82 pattern but was far tougher. It couldn't possibly fall apart. That was in about 1976 so we still had the FN and carrying mags in pockets was bulky and clumsy. I personally didn't like using the '51 ammo pouches much as they hung down and were bulky. They were mostly issued for the SMG C1 EIS.