# Insufficient Weapons/Ammo?



## gate_guard (2 Jun 2007)

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003515.html

Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang

Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.

Download the entire CNA report here (2MB pdf).
http://images.military.com/pix/defensetech/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf

"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.

CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.

"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."

The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.

The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.

Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.

"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.

Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.

Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.


----------



## KevinB (2 Jun 2007)

Part of the joke is with the M249/C9 the reason from what I have seen -- is users that have attachments are in unit that high dramtically higher round count guns...
  The Minimi is for intensive purposes a disposable MG -- as unlike the Mag-58 (M240/C6) series the bolt carrier guides are part of the receiver - on the Mag-58 series when they are worn they can be replaced and new ones rivited back in.  Bolt Carrier Groups can be replaced -- but dont do jack if the receiver is trashed.  The M249 in most units are on their last legs - an inservice replacement should have been undertaken during the CLINTON years - but could not be due to funding - and now during warfighting they are showing there age.  Weapon lifespan is not infinite.

  One of the 2/75 Pl Sgt's that was involved in the Roberts Ridge saga in March of '02 pointed out to worn parts on their M249's and M4A1's  -- That is a RANGER Bn and part of ARSOC - while having a great amount of rounds for training - did not have the required spares and went into combat with worn and unserviceable weapons in some cases.
While USSOC is now not having those issues - the "big" Army is - due to the increased rounds fired and lack of an adequate replacement schedule.

I'm not an M9 fan at the best of times -- as its manual of arms is not comptable with how most advancd weapons drills are taught (i.e. sweeping on the safety while reloaidng or doing other IA's) - and it got a bad rap due to the military buying cheap aftermarket mags (kinda like the BHP in the CF...).


Troops need to hit what they are aiming at prior to bitching about ammo -- while I dont think M855 is the best ammo suited for our current combat environment -- I dont think with the deplorable state of marksmanship in the US Army that paying 4x more for Mk262 will pay off in anythign than worse marksmanship due to higher ammo costs and less rounds fired in training.


my $0.02 Iraqi Dinars


----------



## Trooper Hale (2 Jun 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."



Arent they kind of asking for it if they're whacking odds and sods onto the weapons using bits of zip corp and tape? That sounds really dodgy to me.
So you reckon the weapons need an overhaul I6? After weapons being over in Iraq for years i would have thought the US would have replaced a lot of the worn out and knackered ones. Its pretty dodgy that they didnt.


----------



## Big Red (2 Jun 2007)

The cable ties and paracord mentioned are just used as dummy cords in most cases as a backup if the mount fails you don't lose your accessory.


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2007)

Big Red is correct.  Its dones as an added measure of security.

Hale -- you some some weapons in a shitstate.  Several members of Lightfighter have been bitching about this for years.

However keep in mind a lot of the C9's in CF Inf BN's are not doing so hot.
 I had a C9 that had been launch from a vehicle in a RTA and imbedded in the road a good 6" barrel first -- the weapon was tagged - it kept coming back from weapons techs saying it was good to go -- and yet would not fire - the saga went on for 18 months 
One soldier was shot in Afghan on RotoII by a defective C9 that was on safe and due to worn parts discharged.
  I can go on.

Some USMC units had zap straps holding the buttstock and pistol grip on the M249 -- since the parts where so worn the retaining pin would not stay in...
and unfortunately the unit/formations dony have the authorty to replace receiver -- just order parts - and when the receiver life is done -- they are screwed...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2007)

I6 would rotating weapons be an answer? I know that the Navy has 2-4 C9s in the Small Arms lockup on each major warship. I cannot remember the last time I ever saw one brought out.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Jun 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> However keep in mind a lot of the C9's in CF Inf BN's are not doing so hot.



On course when we fired our LMG's (from a training centre weapons lockup), alot of them had critical malfunctions and could not be used past the first few rounds...

Was that just bad luck for me, or typical of our C9's?


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2007)

Ex-D -- The LCMM-SA (from my understanding) has made a comitment/directive, to rotate worn guns out and replace them with war/op stock guns.
  However part of the problem with Colt buying Diemaco and Colt Canada formed - we lost the support of FN - and thus any support for the C9 and C6 at a factory level.

However in my experience a lot of unit weapons techs have been loathe to tag worn guns as N/S for wear reason (one WpnTech Sgt reflected to me he beleived that some of the trade beleived it reflected badly on them)


----------



## BernDawg (3 Jun 2007)

I fail to understand how they could think that.  If they're worn out it's because they're being used and if they're being used then they are doing their jobs, no?


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2007)

Don't shoot the messenger -- I'm just relating what one guy told me.

  I think an additional problem is a lot of young soldiers not understanding why their weapon won't work -- a weapon's tech checks it and says its okay (and it may or may not be be within tolerances - and happens to, under a CQ environment, cock and click fine).  Or simply does not have enough experience on the system to know that firing a few rounds and stopping is not a trademark of a MG in good order.  People get used to faulty weapons - and the accept them as the norm...

I'm not omniescent (beleive it or not  ) just tossing out somethings I saw over the years.


----------



## BernDawg (3 Jun 2007)

Seen. Concur.


----------



## Nug (8 Jun 2007)

I6 is correct, some weapons techs wrongly feel that if they can't fix it that it makes them look like they don't know their job. Sometimes the only thing you can due is tag it bag and send it up to the next line, because if you don't all that will happen is the user will keep getting a defective weapon back. Before the system will get the using unit a replacement (I won't say new) the documentation has to be done to show the weapon has been taken out of service. As a reserve weapons tech I did this twice both times were C9s due to cocking handle over ride, it should also be noted that I had a very good working relationship with the ASU and they allowed me to do this. My one piece of advice for the user is when you tag something wether its a C9 or a lantern give as much detail as you can it makes it easier for the tech to find and fix the problem and get your kit back to you.

my 2 cents


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2007)

If soldiers are looking for more stopping power, a .45acp with 200-230gr JHP's will do the trick.


----------



## mudgunner49 (29 Jun 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> If soldiers are looking for more stopping power, a .45acp with 200-230gr JHP's will do the trick.



... no it won't - it's a handgun.  It does not have the same potential or ability to transmit shock to the target.  The energy transferred by a 230 gr JHP .45 ACP bullet is about 400 foot/pounds at the muzzle, while a .223 (5.56x45 - though acking about 150-300 fps in velocity) with a 60 gr Nosler transmits about 1330 foot/pounds.  Both of these are from the interactive ballistics program on the Federal Cartridge site.

Although I'm certain that it would make you feel better to have a .45, there is no advantage especially over almost any rifle.  And this from one of JMB's biggest acolytes!!

You're out of your lane...


blake


----------



## Fry (29 Jun 2007)

> "When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.
> 
> A full 20 percent of *M9* users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.



I'm out of my lane? Do you even know what I'm discussing here? I commented on the handgun portion, and you're arguing for a rifle cartridge? Obviously, one wouldn't argue that a .45 would be best used as a primary weapon. The main problem with the 9mm is overpenetration. Even with FMJ, the .45auto has a much lower 'overpenetration' rate than 9mm.

With a handgun, you're looking for something that's much compact than a carbine or rifle. I've seen a few .223 'handguns' but to have something as big as that attached to your hip/leg would only get in your way. Most of them aren't compact due to the external mag. You'd have to have awfully big mits if you could get one chambered with the mag loading in the handle. Kel-Tec PLR-16, BM Carbon 15, etc are all fancy but in a compact sense aren't logical.

The .45acp is time tested, military approved. Do a search on forums.military.com and read the extremely overwhelming approval from LE and Military personnel for the .45 in the .45 vs 9mm thread.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2007)

WOW 20% eh?   like 1 in 5 -- so I guess we just fuck off the opinions of the 4/5th of them  ???
  Frankly very few soldiers outside of USSOCOM (and CANSOF in Canada) have any idea how to shoot a pistol 
- so really accomodating them is like licking an electric fence -- you can, but why?  I'd much rather spend the little range time troops get teaching them PROPER basic rifle marksmanship.

  In a cbt shooting scenario, 9mm overpenetration issues are nonsence.  While I am a .45 fan, I've carried 9mm the majority of my time carrying a pistol, and I certainly dont feel undergunned if I do my part.   Secondly due to the Hague Convention on expanding bullet and bullets that deform easily, troops that are not specifically dealing with criminal or CT operations are forbiden from using JHP.  So your argument about a 200-230gr JHP falls apart legally.
  I personally woudl argue that the current operations undertaken by troops are against unlawful combatants and would like to see JHP issued -- however a lot of pistols will not feed and fire JHP as reliably as ball (cough CF issue Inglis Brownings).

I think the M9 pistol is a dog and that the US MIL errored big time in adopting the Beretta over the Sig P226 in their X9 pistol trials -- but thats just me.


----------



## Fry (30 Jun 2007)

I've seen overpenetration first hand many times with 9mm on a number of different targets. It's the main complaint about the round. As for JHP's, I know they're illegal for military use, but that's crap. There's nothing humane about shooting someone anyway, but I won't open that can of worms. Sig makes some fine arms, but for a more modern pistol in .45, Springfield XD is a beaut.


----------



## mudgunner49 (1 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> I'm out of my lane? Do you even know what I'm discussing here? I commented on the handgun portion, and you're arguing for a rifle cartridge? Obviously, one wouldn't argue that a .45 would be best used as a primary weapon. The main problem with the 9mm is overpenetration. Even with FMJ, the .45auto has a much lower 'overpenetration' rate than 9mm.
> 
> With a handgun, you're looking for something that's much compact than a carbine or rifle. I've seen a few .223 'handguns' but to have something as big as that attached to your hip/leg would only get in your way. Most of them aren't compact due to the external mag. You'd have to have awfully big mits if you could get one chambered with the mag loading in the handle. Kel-Tec PLR-16, BM Carbon 15, etc are all fancy but in a compact sense aren't logical.
> 
> The .45acp is time tested, military approved. Do a search on forums.military.com and read the extremely overwhelming approval from LE and Military personnel for the .45 in the .45 vs 9mm thread.



Relax Sparky - your post said nothing about handgun as opposed to rifle.  All (or at least most) of the preceding posts were WRT C7/8/9 and you post a one-liner advocating 200-230 gr JHP in .45 ACP as the panacea.

Context, my friend, context.

Kevin has covered the whole 9 vs .45 quite sufficiently.  I am a .45 fan and have several in the stable including a 1911 or 3, SIG 220, and more than a fistfull of wheelguns.  I'm currently waiting on a Smith M&P in .45 and have owned probably a dozen or so all flavours.

I also own and shoot 9 & .40 regularly and frequently.  While I admittedly have yet to have any reason to engage a biped with any of these calibers, I have shot deer (one with 10mm, 2 with .45 Colt, 1 with .45 ACP), one black bear (.357 Mag), multiple wolves/coyotes (9/10/.40/.45 ACP & Colt, .357, .44 Spec & Mag, .22 Mag...), a couple of wild hogs (both .44 Mag) and literally dozens of racoons and other vermin with a multiplicity of handguns in various calibers, and the one thing that I've noticed (and we're not breaking new ground here) is that the 9 and the .45 work about the same with similar shot placement.  I've seen .45 exit and 9 stay inside and vice versa, and I've seen both fail to stop with good hits and follow-ups were required.

Bottom line - we're not going to go to the .45 anytime soon, though that would tickle me pink (unless the powers that be adopted something like the HK Mk23 SOCOM monstrosity) and 9 will remain the flavour of the day for the foreseeable future.  My recommendation?  If you can't shoot them hard, shoot them lots.  it doesn't seem to matter what you shoot folks in the face with, it tends to disrupt their OODA loop.

Kevin, I have a couple of Browning MkIII's that feed Ranger RA9T 127 gr. JHP +P+ like grease - there is nothing like a really slick HiPower...


blake

PS - Fry, I still think that you're at least a little bit out of your lane... :argument:


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2007)

No worries, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I know we probably won't see the juicy .45 round ... probably at all, as I think it's really being phased out. The .357 sig appears to be a fine round, but I've yet to fire it. .40 S&W is a great .45 alternative.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jul 2007)

I really can not comment on stopping power etc of a .45 vs a 9mm, as I only shoot what the army gives me.

But if I were trying to give a credable argument about handguns, I would not be caught dead in holding my handgun in that leaned back stance you appear to be in, in your avatar picture. Actually, I would be never caught in that stance with any gun in my hands, lest I end up on my ass.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I really can not comment on stopping power etc of a .45 vs a 9mm, as I only shoot what the army gives me.
> 
> But if I were trying to give a credable argument about handguns, I would not be caught dead in holding my handgun in that leaned back stance you appear to be in, in your avatar picture. Actually, I would be never caught in that stance with any gun in my hands, lest I end up on my ass.



Glad I wasn't the only one to notice the poor stance.


----------



## Big Red (1 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> I've seen overpenetration first hand many times with 9mm on a number of different targets. It's the main complaint about the round.



Are these targets paper or badguys? Unless they are humans or reasonable facsimiles then you have nothing to base this complaint on.



			
				Fry said:
			
		

> I know we probably won't see the juicy .45 round ... probably at all, as I think it's really being phased out.



Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.  The .45 is NOT being phased out of use with other forces.

As others have said, it's hard to take your opinion on this seriously as you've never carried a weapon in combat and it appears you have no formal handgun training (judging by your stance).

My opinion on 9mm vs. 45- I've never felt 'outgunned' carrying a 9mm. My pistol is my secondary most times anyways. I think the near double capacity of most 9mms to a .45 will make up for whatever difference there is in terminal ballistics. I do prefer the 1911 because it 'points' well for me and it is also easy to conceal if needed. The fact that guys with a lot more trigger time than us choose to carry it lends the 1911 credibility.  Plus it looks cooler.


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2007)

Nope, I never been in combat. I offered my opinion based on what I've seen and you're certainly welcome to offer your opinion as well. Overpenetration in hard targets is what I was referring to. The 9mm is certainly a fine round, but I'm one of the big .45 fans. The ongoing debate about 9mm vs .45 will never end, both have ups and downs.

With regards to the picture, that the first clip I ever fired... a long while back... it certainly taught me that handgun shooting is like learning all over again.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jul 2007)

Fry these gentlemen are not just offering their opinion they are offering their experience...if you have a degree of common sense would realize how your "opinion" is really looking right now....


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> .
> 
> With regards to the picture, that the first clip I ever fired...




Errrr, its called a magazine!

How long have you been shooting?

At least your profile is honest, but take a moment to learn for others on here that have done much more than target shoot.

Remember Fry, its your integrity, not ours.


Wes

PS

Bad stance.


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2007)

For sure. I certainly realize that many on here have been shooting longer than I have, at more than just targets and game. Hats off to them for that. I've been shooting for 17-18 years (since I was 3-4, but never really got serious until about 10-12 years ago. My pistol shooting has come a long way since that picture.  I still love the .45acp cartridge though


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> For sure. I certainly realize that many on here have been shooting longer than I have, at more than just targets and game. Hats off to them for that. I've been shooting for 17-18 years (since I was 3-4, but never really got serious until about 10-12 years ago. My pistol shooting has come a long way since that picture.  I still love the .45acp cartridge though



Come on Fry, 3 or 4? I think thats a crock!

What parent would had a firearm arm to some one that young (even under strict supervision)?? Ya, and I am from Redneckville Saskatchewan too, and that would not even be acceptable!

I was about 9 when I got my first .177 pellet rifle, not that it matters, I've got nothing to prove on here.

Second, the matter is not how long you have been shooting, but rather in profession which involves the responsibility of carrying a loaded pistol in the line of one's occupation. As in carrying one in theatre, with the potential to use it, or that you have used it in the defence of your life.

Personally carrying a pistol in a locked carrying case, in the trunk of your car, enroute to a bonified range, then wearing a holster to plink targets at said range, then encase the weapon for the trip home does not qualify on anything shy of passing a simple test to become a pistol club member.

These people who have 'opinions' (as you refer to) are 'over there' right now in harms way, and not on the way to a range where their ownly worry is a flat tyre or speeding ticket.

Get a grip, and stop the BS, like I said its your integrity on here, not ours, and yours is doing the 'Titanic' right now.


----------



## Pte_Martin (1 Jul 2007)

Maybe he was one of those really super smart kids, but instead of being able to play the piano or be good at math he was good at shooting. It could happen.


----------



## Fry (2 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Come on Fry, 3 or 4? I think thats a crock!
> 
> What parent would had a firearm arm to some one that young (even under strict supervision)?? Ya, and I am from Redneckville Saskatchewan too, and that would not even be acceptable!
> 
> ...



I shot and hunted game at a very early age Wes, and have certainly bagged game before I was 9. Of course at the earlier years I was under extreme supervision and didn't carry myself. I could barely hold a firearm when I was first exposed. But I was exposed to shooting at a young age and have been shooting since I can remember. 

Have you not read my previous post? I agree with what you said earlier. Chill out.



> Second, the matter is not how long you have been shooting, but rather in profession which involves the responsibility of carrying a loaded pistol in the line of one's occupation. As in carrying one in theatre, with the potential to use it, or that you have used it in the defence of your life.



The thread WAS about insufficent weapons/ammo. I mentioned that the .45 is still a fine round, even though 9mm has become a little more popular. 

I didn't post here as a 'big shot better than you' nobody civillian. I certainly appreciate the work our fine troops are doing/have done overseas and at home. Are they more knowledgable about this topic than I am? Certainly. Does that mean I know nothing about pistol rounds though? No. Can I offer my opinion? Sure. Based on my experience with firearms,(which again is quite limited compared to some individuals on this board), I post. Agree or disagree, that's up to you.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> I shot and hunted game at a very early age Wes, and have certainly bagged game before I was 9. Of course at the earlier years I was under extreme supervision and didn't carry myself. I could barely hold a firearm when I was first exposed. But I was exposed to shooting at a young age and have been shooting since I can remember.
> 
> 1. Chill out.
> 
> 2. The thread WAS about insufficent weapons/ammo. I mentioned that the .45 is still a fine round, even though 9mm has become a little more popular.



1. You're the one who stuck his foot in his mouth, not me, so DON'T tell me to chill out.

2. I never thought 9mm was ever unpopular both in civvy world and elsewhere. When I first started competitively shooting IPSC in 1979, it was .45ACP which was not popular. The 11.43 rd was more of a US thing, however it was still encountered at local events, but who am I, you seem to be the SME here.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Jul 2007)

Anyhooo....

Let's stick to the topic at hand guys. Personality conflicts, misunderstandings, and other tit-for-tat conversations can go to PMs

Thanks in advance

Army.ca Staff


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jul 2007)

Too right!

I was barked at in public, so I wanted to politely reply in public, as I am not a soft target. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fry (2 Jul 2007)

Well what changes, if any, with regards to weapons/ammo would anyone like to see?


----------



## KevinB (2 Jul 2007)

Well this was a US Military based thread.  
  Few posters have experience with what they issue -- and I would further guess that not a lot of posters have had the ability to use this kit in an operational environment -- and without the enduser point of view -- your pissing in the wind.


----------



## Pte AJB (2 Jul 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> "Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."



Leading statistics here. Those that attach weapon accessories are likely those that will be needing them. The more rounds downrange, the more stoppages you get.


----------



## Pte AJB (3 Jul 2007)

I know I'm replying to my own post and all, but this has been bugging me. Reading the study, only 64% report being issued a cleaning kit with their weapon. (p.26)  Worse, 45% conduct a complete teardown cleaning of their weapon once a week, while only 21% conduct a quick wipedown once a week! (p.20 of http://images.military.com/pix/defensetech/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf) I have NO operational experience, but I know that is not enough. 

How many of these failures are due to improper cleaning? Recalling the Jessica Lynch story, these troops were unable to defend themselves due to their weapons being in a negligently dirty state. Education on proper cleaning techniques, and some cleaning kits would remedy a lot of these reported failures. 

The C7 and it's family is old and worn out (the design is 40+ years old!). I know I and others would love it if the CF picked up some HK417's.  ;D Until that magical day, that means using the C7 and family, and unfortunately cleaning the suckers a whole lot.


----------



## Dissident (3 Jul 2007)

FifthHorse said:
			
		

> The C7 and it's family is old and worn out (the design is 40+ years old!). I know I and others would love it if the CF picked up some HK417's.  ;D Until that magical day, that means using the C7 and family, and unfortunately cleaning the suckers a whole lot.



Oh boy. If that wasn't an invitation for a smackdown...


----------



## Pte AJB (3 Jul 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Oh boy. If that wasn't an invitation for a smackdown...



After reading my post I should clarify that I wasn't directing my comments to those here on the forum, they've forgotten more than I know, but rather to a situation in general alluded to in the original document posted.


----------



## KevinB (3 Jul 2007)

The issue you (5thHorse) are refering to has been beaten to death on the forums.
The problem remains that some shitpump that won't clean their weapon in an operational theatre, wont clean it regardless what weapons system they are issued.
  Poor personal admin and lack of responsibility does not get corrected by a new weapon, it needs to be fixed by the NCO corps...


----------



## Pte AJB (3 Jul 2007)

Seen and in agreement.


----------

