# C7 sights: Optical & Iron



## Doug VT (23 Nov 2000)

The iron sights are in the system(reg force only possibly), although they're plastic, not rubber.   I've already broken two.   I prefer it over the elcan anyday.   I used to leave my elcan in my locker but now they want us to carry both, elcan as primary, iron as secondary.


----------



## Doug VT (23 Nov 2000)

Oops, I meant to make that as a reply in "Is it time for a change?! - The C7"


----------



## the patriot (28 Feb 2001)

Just a point for discussion.  Does anyone find that a whole generation of soldiers have missed out on marksmanship on the classic iron cast sights?  Meaning, if the ELCAN sights were to be blown of one‘s weapon in the heat of battle, would they then become sitting ducks....?  It seems that today‘s infanteer may be at a disadvantage in the name of technological progress.

-the patriot-


----------



## GPMG (1 Mar 2001)

Perhaps, but speaking from my limited experience with iron sights, I found it easy enough to adapt to the C6‘s sights. Would you consider them equal to rifle iron sights?
I find myself able to shoot better with these than Elcans.

In any case, marksmanship principles are still the same in the end are they not? The only changes being the magnification and the sight picture.


----------



## ender (13 Mar 2001)

actually, on our QL2, the entire lesson plan is still based on the iron sights.  The use of the scope is somewhat of an addendum on the lesson.
I also didn‘t find the transition to the iron C6 sights difficult.  One thing: what idiot decided to put a scope on the C9?


----------



## Mud Crawler (13 Mar 2001)

Oh an hord of enemy, lets snipe em with my full auto C9.I see sky, i see land, i see sky...


----------



## the patriot (3 May 2001)

Hello,

A few years ago there was a tragic mishap by where a PPCLI soldier accidentally killed his fire team partner while doing an Advance to Contact on a live fire exercise.  What happened is that he was strictly looking through his Elcan sight on the C9 he was using.  Therefore he had NO PERIPHERAL VISION!!!!!  This seems to be a problem not only with the C9, but also with the C7.  Now taking all of this into account, I feel that it is time that we got rid of these rediculous scopes and soldier the old fashioned way with the cast iron sights.  This way there  would be peripheral vision on the battlefield and one would not accidentally kill their fire team partner.  How do YOU feel about this?!

-the patriot-


----------



## ender (4 May 2001)

I think the issue of sights on the C9 and the C7 are very different.

I‘ve never heard a good argument of why there should be sights on a machine gun.  It‘s an area weapon!  I could see how sights could have contributed to the incident to mentioned.  Also, it‘s rather hard to look through a sight when you gun is vibrating rapidly.  I found the iron sights for the c6 vastly superiror.  The use of the optical sight on the c9 is pretty unjustifiable.

On the other hand, I think there are several valid reasons why the c7 sight is usefull and should be kept.  One is the light amplification factor.  The sights gives you an extra 15 minutes of daylight either way while the iron sights decrease your vision.  Also, marksmanship is a very important skill for every soldier to be effective on the battlefield.

I also can‘t see how the c7 sight could lead to you shooting your fire team partner.  You shouldn‘t be aiming that close to him anyways.  I think we should keep  c7 optical sight for the c7.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2001)

I find this kind of strange. If the weapon was properly sighted, as it should have been from the initial range practice, the team leader must have been in the sight picture to be shot. Unless he was hit with a ricochet or flyer. It sounds like theremay have been a lack of control on the RSO‘s part, which becomes even more critical on live fire and movement ex‘s. Also as far as peripheral vision, it is possible with practice to shoot just as effectively with both eyes open, scoped or iron sights. As long as the prominent eye is used for sighting, you can disregard the "close the disengaged eye rule. As ender says, the idea of a scope on an mg makes little sense, except for identifying the target. Once it is aquired, an initial ranging burst with the iron sight is all that should be needed, then by retaining a picture of the fall of shot, burst on target technique takes over and sights aren‘t even required for killing bursts. This is much more effective than trying to walk rounds to the target through a vibrating gun sight, scoped or open.


----------



## Disturbance (4 May 2001)

I was gonna say that it is possible to shoot with both eyes open in fact that way should be better as you can see the sight and where the rounds are goin but at the same time see what the hell is goin outside that zoomed area in case another enemy pops up outta no where.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (5 May 2001)

Maybe the sights should be removable and/or have the option of zooming in or out. That would eliminate the problem with not being able to see out side of the zoomed area.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (5 May 2001)

...Maybe the RSO should get a grip on his range.  Maybe the soldier should un-glue his eye from his scope. I dunno, I‘ve never done any kind of fire-and-movement with either the C7 or C9(especially) with the scope up to my eye the whole time.  I don‘t shoot at anything farther than ten or so feet away from me without first taking aim.  I do not take aim when I am on the movement stage of my pepper potting advance.  Buddy is covering me.  Both eyes are open and the sight is off my face (methinks it would hurt when it would bump on and off my face as I did my pepper potting).  In any case, I was not there, so I do not know the particulars of this case....I do know I don‘t like the scope one bit.  I‘ve fired iron sights and I can affirm that they are much much more reliable.  I shot the iron sight accurately from 400M.  If you are engaging an enemy at ranges greater than, say, 500M with nothing but rifles, it is time to call in some fire support.  Either you are in big trouble or you are also out of the enemy‘s small arms range.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2001)

Out of small arms range at 500 meters? Not in my world.Suppresive fire can come from a lot further than that!


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (6 May 2001)

That is only likely if the enemy is in greater numbers and has lots of ammo.  Once out of the effective range, you end doing the spray-and-pray thing.  Ammo is heavy and takes up lots of space.  If the enemy is a platoon or stronger, the above-mentioned spt wpns come into play.  If you‘re on the receiving end of GPMG fire you are in big trouble.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2001)

Not everyone uses the 5.56, any half decent shooter with anything in the .30 cal ( 7.62 NATO) range will put you in the hurtlocker. Don‘t need a platoon. As far as ammo loads, not everyone walks.


----------



## ender (7 May 2001)

I think this entire debate underscores the lack of support for marksmanship in the CF.  The rifle (and the machine gun) is an infantryman‘s primary weapon.  He should be able to use it.  If you arn‘t hitting anything it doesn‘t really matter how many rounds go down range.  We have infantry units in our brigade that didn‘t have a shooting team last year. (the medics not having a shooting team I can understand: but infantry?  I thought shooting guns was the reason a lot of us joined?)  The C7 lesson plan for QL2 is still designed for the iron sights.  Now, weither or not you agree with thier use, it‘s what we have.  Shouldn‘t the lesson plan have been redesined by now, not just amended?  Marksmanhip is even more important in a peackeeping situation where you can‘t just indiscriminantly fire.  And, as someone above said, ammunition is heavy.  So we should make every shot count.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2001)

My point exactly, you should be able to shoot 500 mtrs.on any given day. One shot, one target. Granted with ammo allotments not a lot of practice is feasible. However, any body interested in shooting will find a way to improve. There‘s lots of clubs around.  Or what about your unit SAT trainer, not ideal but better than nothing. ORA shoot is the 18th of this month, in Borden. See y‘all there.

ender -- check with your standards people. I was a QL2 Crse Warrant over a year ago and my instructors used a lesson plan with the Elcan sight. Don‘t wait for someone to hand it to you, go look for it. If you can‘t find it, make a lesson plan and have standards approve it. Be proactive, don‘t complain if you don‘t have an answer.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (7 May 2001)

The official reason, as I‘ve been told, for Canadian soldiers not shooting past the 400M line is that we have the standard barrel on our rifle.  When most soldiers have to learn the fundamentals, it is pointless to try and teach them how to arc the rounds so they lob into the target from distances "out of range." 

The heavy barrel (the one on the M16 A2 and A3) increases effective range to 550M.  Besides, I know I spend most of my time on the range wishing that damn Elcan scope were thrown in the butt can and a carry handle & rear aperture magically appear...


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (7 May 2001)

Oh yes... recceguy is correct.  While MOST foot soldiers carry either 5.56 MM or 5.45 MM rounds, armies like the Chinese still use old  AK47‘s with the 7.62‘s.


----------



## RBruceMair (7 May 2001)

Some observations about the sight.  1st, why not have it on the C9?  Yes it‘s an area weapon and now I can see that area 600m away!!!  Could you see that distance without the scope?  2nd, regarding peripheral vision.  I have received advanced psychology of combat training through the Ontario Police College and I‘m here to tell you tunnel vision is the result of heightened adrenaline levels, heart rate and concentration on the task at hand.  No doubt the sight also cuts down on this vision but getting rid of the sights will not get rid of fraticide by C7/C9.  In addition to tunnel vision soldiers experience "audio exclusion".  You‘ve seen it, your yelling at a guy to move, he‘s looking at you and not moving.  He‘s got audio exclusion and tunnel vision due to the adrnaline and his high heart rate (yes, that‘s what I said).  What we have to do with these sights is train the guys effectivly and that means putting rounds down range, lots of them and under different, stressful conditions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2001)

Mair,
I agree. I‘m not advocating removal of the Elcan from any weapon, it works, amongst the reasons being the ones you mentioned. People have to practice and get to know it. They are inherently against change when they have something they‘re comfortable with. I also agree not enough time is spent on what we used to call basic musketry skills. Shooting does not consist wholey of punching holes in paper. People think when they get a pass on the PWT that‘s the end and no other work is required. It‘s ongoing. After almost 40 yrs of military and competition shooting, from .22 cal to the 105 L7 tank gun, I still learn with every trip to the range. If you don‘t you may end up "spraying and praying" while someone has you pinned from over 500 meters!! A big part of the problem is we don‘t compete or teach any of the longer range stuff any more, and too many people are content to leave it to the other guy (the mortars, arty, fast air, etc) rather than depend on their own skills. You sound like someone who is willing to spend the time to help and convince the younger guys, much as I like to do. Keep it up, we‘re becoming a minority!


----------



## JRMACDONALD (8 May 2001)

I have followed this thread for four days, and I don‘t know whether to laugh or cry! Here goes:
Patriot- 1. Give it up! The C7 rifle has been here for 12 years. The C79 IS a good sight, it‘s just that everyone expects IT to make them marksman. They are going to be here for quite a while yet, learn how to use them!
2. How can anyone  be expected to have peripheral vision, with" the disengaged eye closed"? I think you mean "tunnel vision" right?
This physical effect occurs with iron sights as well! This could be corrected , if we took the time/ammo to teach people how to shoot with both eyes open. I know it works for me, in certain circumstances.
3. Do a little research on that incident( ie the Summary investigations, newspaper reports and subsequent Court Martials) . It was a Pl/ Coy Live fire atk against a trench system.  The lethal shot was, supposedly, fired from a C9 in the fire base( 200-300M away).( if we‘re talking about the same incident)

Everyone else- 1. It is obvious to me, that the comments made on Infantry Live fire Atks, Pre trg, and RSO duties during these atks, are based on supposition, and NOT a comprehensive understanding of, or experience doing these Tasks. If you wish to state an opinion , GREAT! ( Just know what you are talking about!)
2. Small Arms Fire- Theres " effective range"(where the average Joe/Josephine can, reasonably, be expected to hit the tgt) and Maximum effective range( where the projectle fired, by a competent shot, can still cause damage/ injury to the tgt) The 556mm
cartridge is lethal ,a lot farther then you think!)
ENDER- you hit the nail on the head! Marksmanship trg is the key!
Fortunecookie5084- The C7 does have the heavy barrel on it( take a look at a M16A1). The AK-47 fires 7.62x39( definitely Not equivalent to 762 NATO!)
Mair/ Recceguy- Your last two posts bring up, very basic,yet,excellent points. It 
all boils down to mastery of basic skills, exposure to, and understanding of, the hazards of live fire training .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2001)

Mac,
Thanks, I‘m getting to old to piss any higher up the wall.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (8 May 2001)

Recceguy- hint- 1. drink more beer! 2. keep peeing at the same spot!( the wall will eventually , collapse   )


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (8 May 2001)

JRMACDONALD, I refer you to http://www.dmi.usma.edu/Milresources/Weapons/m16a2rifle.htm 
 which indicates that the M16A1 had a weaker barrel.  I refer you to the DND Army site: http://www.army.dnd.ca/equip/wpn/C7_E.HTML   where they admit our rifle is based on the M16A1E1, and effective range is only 400M.  Looks like Canada went cheap on the rifle...


----------



## ender (8 May 2001)

recceguy,

  I was using the QL2 thing as an example.  When I did my QL2 we were taught with the iron sight lesson plan and that‘s what they are using in my area today.  I‘m a Private though, so I‘m not teaching anything, and getting the lesson plan changed isn‘t really by buisness.  Also, my father, a MCpl, has been trying for the last two years to get the lesson plan changed to one that he wrote, and they won‘t let him.

  My unit has a pretty good shooting team which I hope to join.  Expect that I‘ve only fired the rifle once, on QL2 because I was tasked out and missed the unit firing ex, so I havn‘t exactly had any practise. 

  What‘s an SAT trainer?


----------



## JRMACDONALD (8 May 2001)

Good to see people are capable of doing research! ( if it ,only, occured before they post, this would be a great site!)
Fortunecookie5084-- good links. Now, what are the differences/improvements between M16A1 and A1E1?  What rifle was the M16A2 based on? ( hint , something DIEMACCO had in production at the time!)
Ender-- amendments to the rifle pam, WRT C79 sight have been out for about4-5 years.(lesson plans, too! tell your dad to stop worrying)
all-- chk the DIN site for PUBS, or the SMALL ARMS Wing at INF SCH, CTC Gagetown. ( the info is there IF YOU LOOK FOR IT!)
THIS  IS GETTING TO BE SOOOO MUCH FUN!


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (8 May 2001)

I tried to find specs for the M16A1E1, but found only specs for the A1, A2, and comparisons of those.  The C7 looks like the more modern M16 (better handguards, spent casing deflector), but they still advertise a shorter range than the M16A2 and the rifle has an AUTO fire selection like the A1.  I‘ve asked a few people and they can only quote what they teach on the QL3 INF (none of the juicy new info I crave).  Nobody seems to know the specifics.  I‘m tempted to e-mail Diemaco...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2001)

Ender- The SAT stands for small arms trainer. It‘s a computer generated range. The weapons are from C7 up to and including Carl G. They are hooked to a pneumatics system that provides the recoil when fired. Sound system for realistic noise.The system operates by computer and will allow live scenarios, ie: battle simulation with enemy and vehicles as well as standard range practices. You can review your shooting and it will even show you a close up of the target with your sight pattern wavering around on it. In the enemy scenario, it will tell you know how many kills you got compared to the rest of the group. Lots of other stuff, all you have to do is program it in. It counts your rounds, when you run dry you have to change mags etc. We can even build in stoppages as you fire. We‘ve had ours for over a year. It is designed to be portable but we built a dedicated room for it. Not as good as open ranges, but allows for practicing the basics. Best, you don‘t need RSO‘s, FPO‘s, Med A‘s, ammo partys, butt party‘s etc, etc, etc. Just competent people on the computer. We let MCpl‘s run the practices

fortunecookie - don‘t think about it, do it!! The worst thing is, they‘ll ignore you the best thing maybe you‘ll get the answers your looking for. Email them and don‘t forget to ask them about the hundreds of improvements they made to the M16 when they got licenced to build the C7. Many of which have since been adopted by our brethren south of the border (chrome barrel linings, etc). It‘s not even the same weapon. Stop comparing them. Steel, tracks and green paint don‘t mean it‘s a tank.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2001)

ender - just reread something in your answer that‘s disturbing. I‘ll quote you." I‘m a Private, so I‘m not teaching anything, and getting the lesson plan changed is‘nt really my business". That‘s a dangerous trap your falling into. It gets easier and easier to say it‘s not my job, let someone else fix it. Next thing you know........? You don‘t have to yell and bitch. Identify the problem, offer a solution(always, may not be the right one, but there‘s nothing worse than someone who complains without offering input). Get dad to show you how to do a lesson plan, have him and your unit standards guy vette it, and offer it to anyone that will listen. When your all done compare it to the one on the DIN and see how you made out. Cheers.


----------



## the patriot (9 May 2001)

JRMacdonald,

So that‘s what we need to do to have you post on the forum.  Nice to see that you‘re still around!  Agreed, marksmanship training is key to preventing accidents like this from occurring.  That doesn‘t help the soldier who was killed due to the training accident now does it.  And yes, there are people who know how to use the C79 Optical Sight.  They‘ve used it so well that they‘ve killed buddy!!!!

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (9 May 2001)

By the by,

I‘ve come accross the official Diemaco website.  They are the manufacturer of the C7 family of firearms and the C79 Optical Sight.  I added it to the "Canadian Military Related" portion on User Submitted Links.  Take a look at it and compare it against what we‘re already using.
www.diemaco.com 

-the patriot-


----------



## ender (9 May 2001)

Recceguy,
I‘m not trying to get caught up in "it‘s not my problem".  But how would I adress this problem from where I am?  To I go up to my section commander and say ‘MCpl, you know the C7 lesson plan for QL2, I think it‘s messed up.  Let me write up a new one, even though I have no idea how to write a lesson plan, and I‘m really not qualified to write one up for the c7 because I havn‘t shot that often.  Oh, and by the way MCpl this is exactly the same lesson plan that‘s my Dad has been unsuccesfully trying to get approved for years".  My Dad has already written a lesson plan.  He‘s been trying to get it approved by Brigade for years now.  The unit is fine with it, but Brigade runs a lot of the QL2‘s and they won‘t allow him to change it.  They keep giving him some crap about national standards and the Navy still using Iron sights.

From where I am, I can‘t see any way to deal with this through my chain of command.  The best way I would think would be to go through the musketry NCO, and the area rifle guy, who is my Dad.  This is something I really don‘t have the qualifications or experience to deal with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 May 2001)

ender - let‘s try this again.. I‘m not ragging on you, you seem like a person that cares for the military and your career. I‘m just trying to point you in the right direction. Your close in what you say. Yes, go to your MCpl and say you think it‘s screwed up, see if he agrees. If yes, ask him to help you find out how to change the problem, help you  find the right people to talk to. That‘s his friggin job! If he doesn‘t want to help one of HIS junior soldiers with a military or civilian problem, he shouldn‘t be wearing his leaf. (more "it‘s not my problem syndrome"!) This goes for any problem, we were all Privates once, and what we learn early sticks with us and helps us later in life when approched by a subordinate for help. Go to the DIN and check PUBS, or check CTC Standards in Gagetown, the new one should be there. If it is, local standards can argue till they‘re blue, that‘s the one you use, period, end of story. There‘s to many people empire building and think the world revolves around them. Your entitled to satisfaction or a reasonable explanation.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (9 May 2001)

ender, if there is one place I complain more than here about everything to do with my Army, it is to the people at my Regiment---including those instructing and my section comd.  

I had a beef with some of their marksmanship principles, too, and I mentioned that their trg was completely at odds with what had been taught to me by a qualified reg force Van Doos sniper from one of the recce platoons.  It sucked when they pulled out the pam and "showed" me that I was wrong and that I must have not been paying attention that day.  But heck, my PWT3 score is still sky-high using Sgt. 22‘s tips, so...

If you have input, always give it.  One day you will be leading the troops and the idiots who laugh you off will be gone. Think of how good the unit will be then, eh?


----------



## ender (9 May 2001)

You guys are right.  The reason I wouldn‘t want to approach my section commander on this one is that there is already someone from the unit trying to fix this.  In my case, the right people to talk to would be my Dad who is the musketry NCO, and who is already on it.  The unit seems to handle problems pretty well, but once you get up to Brigade they are pretty ridgidly inflexible.  I‘ll tell my Dad about the new standards though, and hopefully he‘ll be able to get them to implement it.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (9 May 2001)

I have e-mailed Diemaco regarding the C7 barrel.  When I get their reply I‘ll post my e-mail and their answers to my questions.


----------



## Master Blaster (10 May 2001)

I wish that I had picked up on this thread a few weeks ago and not today.

There is a simple reason why the M16 has an ‘extended range‘ over the C7 and it has not much to do with the rifle itself.  The M16 fires a 52 grain projectile (avoirdupois measurement = 7000 grains to a pound of 16 ounces) at 3200 feet per second while the C7 fires a 62 grain projectile at 2950 feet per second.  The M16 has a rifle twist of 1:7 (that is one turn of the projectile on it‘s axis for every 7 inches of forward movement) while the C7 has a 1:9 rate of twist. The heavier projectile has more inertia at a shorter range than the light projectile has a longer range and for that reason the M16 is rated at a greater range than than the C7.  THe C77 ball ammunition used by the CF is a metal cored projectile and is more than capable of penetrating hardened targets at greater distances than the projectile fire from the M16. I‘m not going to go into a dissertation regarding the flight of projectiles during the 4 phases of ballistics but I will tell you that the C7 is a superior weapon to anything ever turned out by Colt or Armalite.

Regarding the use (or usefulness) of the C79 scope...It makes poor shooters average, average shooters marginal and great shooters piss poor.  Not logical but I‘ve seen it with my own eyes at every serious competition.  The minute of angle graduations are too gross (1 click = 1 inch at 100 yards) and are fine for a battle sight but not for a precision shooter.  Not a precision rifle you say?  If the target goes down and stays there and it‘s the target you pointed at just before it made the loud noise, then it IS a precision piece of equipment without doubt or reason.

I would prefer my battle rifle to have a sighting system that works in all environments (doesn‘t fog up with moisture, snow or other climatic anomalies) and it precise enough that if I want to display my concealed position at 500 yds I can do so knowing that at least one person (with the potential for more) no longer cares where, why, what, when or how I am.

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## John Nayduk (11 May 2001)

ender:

You or your Dad should e-mail the Army Lessons Learned Centre about the lesson plan.  I was talking to a major from the Centre while down in Fort Benning in March.  They really seem to want to help and are always interested in hearing your concerns.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2001)

Got the range practice schedule for my team this weekend for the ORA military match in Borden this month. Geez... guess what, there‘s two 500 yard matchs, hmmm... how ‘bout that.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (14 May 2001)

Patriot- 





> So that‘s what we need to do to have you post on the forum.


 If you‘re talking about presenting an opinion as a point for discussion,( one which is devoid of fact,and based on a personal lack of understanding of facts or the situation at hand), you are wrong. I just don‘t like to see the the younger ,less knowledable/ experienced members of this forum to be led down a "garden path".  Every other post, at least, provided( or attempted to) solid information to increase the knowledge and understanding of individuals. Yours didn‘t! ( oh yeah, when you say "we" , do you have a mouse in your pocket?)


----------



## CareerPrivate (15 May 2001)

Just a couple of thoughts from the new guy..

The C79 on the C9 works, so long as you keep both eyes open to watch the tracer. Also, the sight doesn‘t rattle that much if you hold the gun good and tight, although, admittedly, that may only be true for us bigger guys. (And hell, we always wind up humping the C9s anyway, right?)

And the C7 lesson plan should be updated, if only for those clowns that don‘t realize that iron sights and optical sights aren‘t the same thing. I recall one such case from my QL2:

We had a guy who assumed that the ‘line up the rear and front sights with the target‘ instructions we were given in the classroom meant to line up the aiming post on the C79 with the front iron sight. (It is possible, if you cant the weapon upwards, although the fronts sight is rather blurry)

He managed to get about a 10 inch grouping at 100 meters, not bad considering how he was aiming... except it was on the upper right corner of the big number three placard about 30 feet above his target. It took 20 minutes to figure out why his rifle worked perfectly for everyone but him.


----------



## the patriot (15 May 2001)

JRMacdonald,

My position as moderator is to create topics and/or issues to cause thought provoking discussions that deal with the Canadian Infantry.  The fact that you‘re posting is all the indication I need to prove that you are paying attention.  And no. I don‘t have a mouse with me in my pocket.

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (17 May 2001)

Patriot--after all that hammering, you‘ve decided to "fall back" assuming the"cloak of authority". How appropriate!  I will admit you do "create" topics and you definitely "provoke" discussion. As a moderator( re check the definition in any dictionary!) your skills would be better employed on the web site for the "National Enquirer"!  Personally, I think you do this to keep people posting , rather than, initiating thoughtful discussion. I( and I think quite a few others!) would be VERY interested in seeing you post your MILITARY "BONA FIDES" on this site.


----------



## the patriot (17 May 2001)

Position of authority?! National Enquirer to keep people posting.  That‘s very interesting.  I understand that you don‘t take weapons seriously which I find very odd in light of your UN Peacekeeping Tour.  What was the Queen thinking by letting you go on tour?!!  Maybe if one of your Calgary Highlanders were killed due to some idiot on the firing range, your bravado would dissappear (and to find out where to shoot, that would be inside and up the kilt; make sure that you are regimental!!).  As Mr. Bossi has mentioned on other threads, your condescending and unwarranted insults are not welcome by anyone.  I guess that might explain why your "Canadian Alliance" party is not doing well because they are just like you.  

-the patriot-


----------



## RCA (17 May 2001)

Patriot:

Me thinks you protest a little too much. Maybe the round are moving into the short bracket.

As for the topic. If it is the incident  I think it was the young PPCLI soldier was shot in Wainwright (or Suffield) while doing live fire trench clearing. There was a Board of Inquiry and I don‘t remember the findings but I‘m sure peripherial vision was a factor. But I know either (or both) the RSO and Coy Comd were charged. (can‘t remember the verdict either-age creeping up) but the point is the sight didn‘t cause the accident, but poor training and range mangement did. I do remenber there was an article or msg that came out warning about peripherial vision and the C79 sight. Training accidents are tragic but when using live ammunition they can happen. And I‘m sure if someone looked, you will find  the same type of accidents using iron sifghts.

You pull one incident out and condemn the sight. Personnally I prefer iron sights but I‘m old fashioned. But unlike you I moved on with the times. My army issued me a C7 with a C79 sight and that is what I will use. And because I am a professional (or like to think I am) I have become damn good with it. A soldiers duty (and the same applies to you if you are one) is to do the job with the tools you are given and not whine about it. At least the sight is a step forward not back. It has sight magnification and a certain light gathering ability. 

I remember giving up the "old" C1 for the mattle toy and how many thought it a mistake. That was because we were rooted in the past but deep down we knew the C7 was here to stay so we carry on. I suggest you do the same.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (18 May 2001)

Patriot- I thank you for your prompt response on your "BONA FIDES". I stand corrected,and humbled. ( change your web name to "the poser")
RCA- email me( honest). When We meet I buy the beer!


----------



## JRMACDONALD (21 May 2001)

Patriot- rest assured- YOU WILL NOT open your mouth on this site without having this  person CORRECTING you, from the word"go".
( HAVEN‘T SEEN YOUR ‘BONA FIDES ‘ YET!)


----------



## hexamine (22 May 2001)

I remember when the C7‘s had iron sights, I personelly think they were the best things going for these weapons. I remeber hearing that the scopes where mainly used for Defensive purposes only. I have done alot of advance to contact and the scopes aren‘t that great, were as the iron sights well I think they are the way to go! However, the yanks have scopes that mount on top of the carrying handle, they also have handles that can be removed. So I think the CF should go back to the Iron sights and get rid of the scopes and try and find out a better system. Remember whatch those arcs of fire, gents.


----------



## hexamine (22 May 2001)

I remember when the C7‘s had iron sights, I personelly think they were the best things going for these weapons. I remeber hearing that the scopes where mainly used for Defensive purposes only. I have done alot of advance to contact and the scopes aren‘t that great, were as the iron sights well I think they are the way to go! However, the yanks have scopes that mount on top of the carrying handle, they also have handles that can be removed. So I think the CF should go back to the Iron sights and get rid of the scopes and try and find out a better system. Remember whatch those arcs of fire, gents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2001)

Hexamine,
Can‘t agree. With the PROPER training the scope is just as effective. It also provides a new shooter with an advantage. Speaking of advantages, the scope has some over iron sights, magnification to help identify and light gathering allowing better vision for a longer time, to name a couple. But hey to each his own, I‘ve been shooting competition and for pleasure for almost 40 years and find absolutely no problem. I‘ve also found it easier to coach people by being able to spend more time on some finer points of shooting opposed to sighting and grouping. Just my opinion, like I say to each his own. However, all our input will not change the way the brass thinks and a change will only happen if they believe they thought of it. Learn to use what you‘ve got properly and get on with it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2001)

This post duplicated same as hexamines. So I deleted it. No new info.


----------



## DJD556 (4 Apr 2004)

I was just wondering about the general concensus of people here on c7 sights.  Who prefers the old iron sight and who likes the c79 optical.

Myself I like the iron sights because our opticals are usually FUBAR by the time we get into the field.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Apr 2004)

The optic is great...I dont think i could get a 5 round grouping from 100 yrds within a 5 cm radius with iron sights. BUT, I quickly learned that they fog up in the rain. lying in a mud puddle in prone, looked through and my breath fogged the whole thing up. I wasnt happy...


----------



## AlphaCharlie (4 Apr 2004)

Well i‘ve never used the iron sights, and from what I can tell with my little C7 training, the sight makes the cocking handle quit hard to pull if you need the sight real far back (dam short arms    )

I havnt been in the field with it yet, however so I dont know how it works in that respect.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Apr 2004)

I only had a problem with the cocking handle when I had bulky gloves on


----------



## McInnes (5 Apr 2004)

If you kinda bring in your lower lip, your breath will go downward and stop fogging up the optics.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2004)

We used to have some stuff with the old respirator, called Anti Dim. No more than a small cloth with paraffin wax on it. Rubbed it on the eye pieces and no more fogging. Try a small amount of wax on a rag. Just a bit, you don‘t want it to smear.


----------



## Korus (5 Apr 2004)

I personally think the C79 sight is a bit odd on the C9 LMG..


----------



## Redeye (5 Apr 2004)

If your sight fogs in the rain ( at leats on the inside), it‘s probably cracked and therefore N/S.  Let your storeman know.


----------



## MG34 (5 Apr 2004)

The C79 Sight is junk pure and simple.It has no place on a rifle much less an LMG.It is prone to breaking,has serious return to zero issues,theglue on the rubber shroud dissolves in CLP/solvents and comes loose,the back up sights are useless nubs that rub off far too easy,I could go on and on but won‘t. As far as the optics themselves go they are quite good but the mount is the problem,Gen3 or what ever still suffer from tyhe same problems.The sight design doesn‘t take into consideration the fact that a firer will be wearing a helmet most of the time,along with the substandard design of the C7A1 rail system means that the helmet will contact the sight and loose it‘s zero. the sight cannot be mounted forward so as not to contact with the helmet brim and still maintain proper eye relief. It is flawed I‘d sooner have the option of another optic that could be mounted forward,on the rails of the rifle.
 The C79 has no place at all on an LMG ,who ever though that one up needs a swift kick in the rear!


----------



## DJD556 (5 Apr 2004)

True enough about the LMG having a sight, your firing for an area affect not an individual [most times] so having a sight you have to zero is rather thoughtless.  I must say though the thing I like most about the iron sight on the C9 is the fact it weighs less


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Apr 2004)

Agreed. 

Personally I dislike the Optical Sight. for all the reasons discussed above. especially for the Zeroing problem. It would be nice if we had an Iron sight attachment at our unit so we could choose what to shoot with.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (5 Apr 2004)

For the iron sights, does the rear sght just bolt on to the same notches as the sight would?


----------



## DJD556 (5 Apr 2004)

If you have a c7a2 [with the rail] then you can get an emergency iron sight that bolts onto the rails inplace of the optical.  The original c7 has an iron sight built into the upper reciver as aposed to the rail ... think of an m16


----------



## willy (5 Apr 2004)

There is an iron sight attachement that does mount on the rail, but the old C7 (as opposed to the current C7A1) had no sight mounting rail, and the iron sights were an integral part of the weapon.


----------



## jbeach95 (6 Apr 2004)

While I have never used the C7‘s iron sights, I would probably prefer the C79 optical sight anyway. I have done night shoots with no illumination and found the titium reticle in the C79 helpful. And the optical sight increases the effective range.
As for use with the LMG, I have used iron sights and the C79, and I prefer the C79. Maybe it‘s just me, but I find it easier to see the tracers and the splashes through the C79.
How about the Americans using the C79 on their GPMGs?


----------



## MG34 (6 Apr 2004)

Sights have nothing to do with the effective range of the rifle,that is an issue of balistics not optics.The iron sights allow you to effectively engage out to any range you would reqiure. I shot with irons out to 600m trust me there is no problem in hititng your target.Night shoots,well the tritium reticle on most sights is either too bright an blocks out your target or too dim to be of any help.With the advent of the PVS 14 and PAQ 4 combination you can engage targets much more effectively than the C79 ever could,not too mention Kite sights and Maxi Kite.
 the biggest problem with the C79 is the loss of situational awareness caused by the narrow FOV,espescially a problem on the assault as you loose sight of your fireteam partner while your head is buried looking through the scope.A C9 cannot give effective covering fire if the gunner cannot see the assaulting troops and know when to shift fire.In the defense it use of the optical sight limits your vision to the extent that troops approaching from the flank are not picked up until it is often too late. Another sight system such as iron sights or a occluded eyesight scope are much better as they allow the widest possible periferial vision.
 As for the US putting C79s on their GPMGs well I am sure tis is a lesson they are currently learning.BTW the sight on the US GPMG is not the same as ours it has a different reticle pattern.


----------



## sdimock (6 Apr 2004)

The C79 is one of those things that only works well under good/ideal conditions.

It does help me get a tighter grouping on the range though.

(I‘m older my eyes aren‘t quite what they used to be      ).

In the field it‘s performance is lacking.

When clear it‘s nice that every soldier has a scope to check distant objects.

(I know, use your binoculars not your scope    ) 

On winter ex. the sight is almost useless.


----------



## Farmboy (6 Apr 2004)

Let‘s see...

 It‘s a pain in the #$% to use with a helmet, for proper eye relief my helmet sits against the scope.

 We had one fall off this weekend at the range, not in the field in combat (I can imagine how many might though).

 We had a bunch fog up at the end of the day.

 It is wobbly, so zero can not be maintained, if your off 1-2 inches at 100 yds thats 4-8 inches at 400yds.

 Plus all the other problems listed above, yup it‘s useless!

 There are much better options out there.


----------



## scm77 (6 Apr 2004)

What about the ACOG?  The US military seems to use them alot in iraq and afghanistan.


----------



## MG34 (7 Apr 2004)

The ACOG is about the premiere combat oriented optic on the market,but at a cost per unit of over $1000.00 USD ,Iwouldn‘t count on seeing in the CF anytime soon.Remember it is about cost NOT quality when it comes to the CF.


----------



## scm77 (7 Apr 2004)

I found this pic on combat camera.  If you look at the third guy from the left, he‘s got an aimpoint of some sort.  Perhaps they‘ve realized that the C79 isn‘t very good?

 http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/012304/KA2004-A037D.jpg


----------



## MG34 (7 Apr 2004)

He also has a Knight‘s Armament RAS on his weapon,the scope is an Aimpoint Comp ML2 which is the current issue to the US Army. The 3 R22eR Battlegroup like the 3 RCR BG was issued all sorts of new kit to trial and evalualte during the Roto in Kabul,perhaps someone in NDHQ has finally got the message that better kit is needed.More likely than not the kit was purchased by the unit for the Roto,this is the fastest way to get changes made as the kit purchased by the unit gains the attention of the higher ups and is adopted sometime down the road,the camelback is a prime example.


----------



## tabernac (16 Jun 2004)

http://www.combatcamera.forces.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/!2004/050404/IS2004-2050a copy.jpg 

The scope for the Corporal's C7 seems to be missing. Any ideas (or explanations) why?


----------



## sinblox (16 Jun 2004)

He's using an iron sight.


----------



## Smoothbore (16 Jun 2004)

Beutiful uniform and kit. Even the Germans can't compare.
The Corporal seems to be carrying a C8A2.


----------



## tabernac (16 Jun 2004)

Ahhh should have come to the conclusion that it was a C8A2. With the green furniture and telescopic butt it looks like a C7A2. Honest mistake.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (16 Jun 2004)

Is it not a C7A2?   The Diemaco C8A2 product description does not include green finishing.   You can't see the barrel length, which is the only noticeable difference, isn't it?   I'm pretty sure the main receiver groups are the same size.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

Its a QD (Quick Detachable) rear iron sight, and the same kind we use here on our Colt M4s. They are quite common. Remembe,r the Picatinny rail accepts many different types of accessories, not only the C79 ELCAN.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

Looks like his wpn also has the latest charging handle upgrade too, and his Mate has the new type Diemaco Minimi too, note the M4 type retracting butt on the Minimi.

I had read that the new Colt m16A2/M4 charging handle has been adopted by the CF, but I dont know where it stands when it comes to repalcement. Been out of that loop for 10yrs now.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## stukirkpatrick (16 Jun 2004)

Oh yeah, the handle does look different.  Is it changed for ambidextrous shooting?  I'm a left handed shooter, and have gotten used to twisting my hand to cock my rifle, but I guess this is so that anybody can switch back and forth easily depending on the terrain etc...


----------



## Doug VT (16 Jun 2004)

It is an iron sight.   All the members(rifleman) of the Parachute Company (3RCR) are issued one.   We weren't allowed to use them in Afghanistan regardless of preference or not.   In the RCR kitlist, the iron sight is for back-up only.   Sometimes...well a lot of the time, we're our own worst enemy.

Oh, and the rifle is the C7A2, not the C8A2.


----------



## excoelis (16 Jun 2004)

No Doug, that just applied to you.  Cuz we couldn't figure out a way to make you tie it on so you wouldn't lose it. :-*

 ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

Another thing I noticed on the pic was ...  which if I remember right from CF degrees of wpn readiness means one of two things ... Judging by his happy face, I would say he is ...

The degrees of wpn readiness are different here in Australia. 

Firstly at all times is the F88 family of wpns (AUG/Austeyr) to be ...

Of course different wpns have different drills say for the F89A1 Minimi, the MAG 58, and the M4 carbine.

More wierd Aussie facts.

Cheers,

Wes
*(Moderator note:  Censored for OPSEC - feel free to PM me if you don't know why)*


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2004)

Like Doug said its the C7 with the new upgrades which includes the telescopic butt, tri rail mount around the barrel, safety selector and mag release switch on both the left and right now as well as a modification to the cocking handle.  The barrel length has not changed.


----------



## Doug VT (16 Jun 2004)

I knew it was something like that!   That's why the CSM always took a half hour to sort me out before every patrol???!!!   And you knew this the whole time?   I guess I must have been the running joke of the tour, I can't believe that I was so blind.....how could I have missed that......this sucks.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2004)

The iron sight is also considered back up in 2VP as well.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Jun 2004)

Buddy on the right has a telescopic butt on his C9. I wish I had one of those...


----------



## chrisf (17 Jun 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Another thing I noticed on the pic was ...  which if I remember right from CF degrees of wpn readiness means one of two things, ...
> 
> The degrees of wpn readiness are different here in Australia.
> 
> Firstly at all times is the F88 family of wpns (AUG/Austeyr) to be ... at all times ...



The C7 ... *(Moderator note:  This post censored for OPSEC - feel free to PM me if you don't understand why)*.


----------



## Da_man (17 Jun 2004)

detective da_man to the rescue once again!


http://www.combatcamera.forces.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/050804/IS2004-2057a%20copy.jpg

an other pic of the same guy.   Its a C7A2


----------



## 63 Delta (17 Jun 2004)

What is on the soldiers carabeene (Spelling?) ?  :warstory:


----------



## MJP (17 Jun 2004)

On his carabiner he has a military GPS.


----------



## scm77 (18 Jun 2004)

How come it's so big?  You can get ones the size of cellphones at Walmart.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jun 2004)

This one is probably more durable then the ones you get at WalMart.


----------



## excoelis (18 Jun 2004)

They've also been around a lot longer than those NEW cell phones and GPS units.  Remember the size of the first iteration of anything electronic?

Not that I'm defending them..........fact of the matter is, since the selective availability was shut down I have always used personal GPS due to size, weight, features, availability/convenience of 'AA' batteries, etc........

Having said that, don't underestimate the importance of being proficient with the Mil issue PLGR, BEFORE relying on a personal one.  In a case of high threat, national emergency, or the big W, they can just turn on SA - effectively turning your civvi GPS into a paperweight.  The crypto function unique to mil gps (just like the new radios) is for just such occasions.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jun 2004)

Pretty sure that Doug and I both said that it was a C7.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (18 Jun 2004)

This is sort of off topic as this forum is about the C7A2 etc, but seeing as this forum turned into about kit as well I'm going to ask.

I was looking at the second guy, with the new C9A2, it looks like he has a CADPAT hydration system and it doesn't look like the one from Wheelers! ( Maybe it is  )

Does anyone know if the CF has invested into a camel pack system?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Jun 2004)

The CF has been issuing Camelbacks for at least three+ years.  I got one when I went to Africa in Dec 2000.  That was a plain-jane 2 litre with the small mouth and seperate bladder/cover.  For the Haiti deployment there are at least three different types being issued.  There were a few of the old 2 litre still kicking around, there is a desert cam (US pattern) 3 litre one, and a CADPAT 3 litre that has all the bells and whistles, big spout, on/off valve, cover flap for the screw cap.
You got issued whatever was at the top of the pile when you came through, I'm still using mine from 2000.


----------



## kyleg (24 Jun 2004)

Just curious, but how can you tell he's a corporal? Maybe i'm blind as hell, but I don't see a rank anywhere.


----------



## Fruss (24 Jun 2004)

Gremlin: I was thinking the same thing, I think that the text that comes normally with the pic says so..  I didn't see it but....   

Anyone can take a guest as of the Corporal MOC??  a radio and a GPS, could it be any MOC or is he in comm branch?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2004)

> Anyone can take a guest as of the Corporal MOC??  a radio and a GPS, could it be any MOC or is he in comm branch?



Due to the fact that he is out on patrol, I'd say your pretty safe betting he is an 031 type.  Radios and GPS are handled by all soldiers at the most basic level, especially Infantry on dismounted patrol.


----------



## bossi (24 Jun 2004)

Geez, Louise ... I can't believe this:   Nobody has commented yet on the "high-speed, low drag" sunglasses the other dude's wearing ... (chuckle - JUST KIDDING - there was a whole thread that got hi-jacked a while back about which sunglasses are worn by ... er, um ... well - I can't tell you who, or then we'd have to kill you ...)


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> Geez, Louise ... I can't believe this:   Nobody has commented yet on the "high-speed, low drag" sunglasses the other dude's wearing ... (chuckle - JUST KIDDING - there was a whole thread that got hi-jacked a while back about which sunglasses are worn by ... er, um ... well - I can't tell you who, or then we'd have to kill you ...)



(Humming the James Bond theme) Dada-Dadadaaaa...  8)  Come on guys, theres only one uni...excuse me group of soldiers who use those shades!

 :sniper:


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Jun 2004)

Cpl Sebastien Cloutier (L), and Para Ismael Oussman, Canadian soldiers with the 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment Battalion Group (3 R22ndR Bn Gp), wear the CADPAT (AR), (Canadian Disruptive Pattern Arid Region) uniform during a dismounted patrol near the ruins of the King's Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Above is taken from the splash text shown with the picture from the public Combat Camera site.

Cool shades btw...

Edit:  Just wanted to add that the radio, GPS, and patrolling doesn't automatically mean 031, could also be CIMIC, Engineer, or pretty much anyone.  However the PAQ-4 on his weapon his weapon in this pic... http://www.combatcamera.forces.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/050804/IS2004-2057a%20copy.jpg (watch it, its large) would indicate that he is infantry.


----------



## from darkness lite (24 Jun 2004)

"Cool shades" are allowed on tour, at least on all the tours I've been on.  The guy in shdes with C9 is Infantry with 3RCR (not that "other" unit) and the civie with shades is the patrol's language assistant.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Jun 2004)

I'm suprised that with the backup iron sight the CFs didn't opt for one that could be more easily adjustable for windage and distance, such as http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/scopes/arms40.asp


----------



## tabernac (24 Jun 2004)

I'm getting some mixed feedback from CFL, Doug and Da_man. Is the rifle C7A1 or C7A2? I thought the C7A2 was still in the development stages.


----------



## Da_man (24 Jun 2004)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> I'm getting some mixed feedback from CFL, Doug and Da_man. Is the rifle C7A1 or C7A2? I thought the C7A2 was still in the development stages.



the C7A2 is issued only in Afghanistan for now.


----------



## MJP (24 Jun 2004)

It is a C7A2.  there are quite a few of them around the forces, our entire BG for ROTO 2 Op ATHENA has been issued C7A2s


----------



## IceHawk (27 Jun 2004)

Could someone please explain what PAQ-4 actually is?  It's been a couple years since I was a ground pounder and we didn't have any of these newfangled pieces of kit when I was in.  As for the C7A2 in Af'stan, they issued a number of them for operational trials during this tour before the officialze the whole refurbishment program, the idea being to identify any improvements to the A2, like the groovy little handle some troops are sporting under the handguard.  It is not infact a "replacement" rifle as many seem to believe but simply a refurbished C7A1.  The CASR site has a nice link about it here:  http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm


----------



## MJP (27 Jun 2004)

Info on the PAQ-4 can be found here..http://www.nightoperations.com/CDN-equipment.htm


----------



## IceHawk (27 Jun 2004)

thanks MJP


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2004)

IceHawk said:
			
		

> As for the C7A2 in Af'stan, they issued a number of them for operational trials during this tour before the officialze the whole refurbishment program, the idea being to identify any improvements to the A2, like the groovy little handle some troops are sporting under the handguard.   It is not infact a "replacement" rifle as many seem to believe but simply a refurbished C7A1.



C7A2 is getting foisted on us regardless - the new CH is a POS and the "improved" ambicatch cause more mags to be dropped (it has a larger button than the Norgon original)

 Troops ask for a RAS - we get the TRIAD 
Troops ask for a Vertical grip we get ignored - until enough have flaunted the CANFORGEN on wpns mod that the system desides to get one.

Troops ask for a BIS (still waiting) the Diemaco Rear Sight is not a backup it is an alternate - for a true back up allows for both to be used in tandem.  Like the first four pictured here


----------



## SOLDIER702 (28 Jun 2004)

Diemaco recently introduced the C7A2. It is the Canadian Forces midlife upgarde from the A1. More info can be found at 
http://www.diemaco.ca
As seen in the photo the CF has started field testing the A2


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2004)

Thanks tips.

The C7-A2 is in operational use by deployed army units; you obviously didn't read the thread.


----------



## SOLDIER702 (28 Jun 2004)

Thats what I meant, simply that it hasn't replcaed the A1 as the standard service rifle.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2004)

:

The field testing is over, with the proposed changes being adopted and the funds dedicated to the refurbishment costs

If soldiers are using it on active deployment, then it is a standard, isn't it?

Don't you have some marching or rank structure to be practicing?


----------



## SOLDIER702 (28 Jun 2004)

Now thats not very nice. Did I scuff your boots or something?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2004)

Your profile stated earlier that you were at St Jean.  If you are a recruit, you obviously should be doing other things then supplying "expert" advice on Army small arms (incorrect advice that contradicts earilier posts on this thread).

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## SOLDIER702 (28 Jun 2004)

Ok your right, I'm just gonna go somewhere and smear green paint on my face...


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2004)

FYI

C7A2 w/ M203A1


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2004)

KevinB is that you in the picture and if so did you find it very awkward/unbal;anced to shoot the c7 with the m203 on it?
Looks like theres a lot of weight on the front end.  
I'd figure it would cause a bit of strain on the forearm maybe?


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2004)

Not me - it was a Cpl attached to my Mortar det.
 The TRIAD on the C7A2 when using the PAC-4C or (in my case) the PEQ-2A and Surefire Lights does make it REALLY muzzle heavy - however it is a capability we did not have before.  the muzzle heavy attitude is compounded by the M203A1 and its bizzare low mount.

 The C8A2 (SFW barrel) solves some of the problems (shorter) but we still have been pulling our night fighting gear off during daylight do to the weight issues and worries about it being out so far it will take damage easier than on other systems. 
Some units have been buying Knights Armaments Company (KAC) www.knightarmco.com Rail Accessory Systems (RAS) for their C8 and C7 rifles.

C7A2 - note PAC on right side





C8A2





C8 with Colt M4 barrel and RAS





C7A1 w/ M5 RAS





and in trials down in Ft Benning








 I have been accused (rightfully) of being an enemy of the C7A2 system so take my comments with that in mind.


----------



## portcullisguy (29 Jun 2004)

I just got back from a two week small unit exchange my unit did with the Georgia Army National Guard.

It was neat to see in these pictures some of the kit we were playing with while in Florida this past two weeks.

I used the PAQ-4 IR laser, and can see plenty of potential with it (although my own results were horrible on the qual range, since we only had 9 rounds to zero it with, and weren't told how to adjust it).  Shooting and using night vision was a learning experience, and something that I haven't yet done on Canadian soil, being a reservist.  It's rare to see that sort of kit at my level.

I carried a Colt M4 for the whole exercise.  It was brand new, right out of the box, bone dry and only test fired.  What a pleasure to play with that kit, and I certainly hope the C8 comes into more use in the 031 trade, it was very good kit for OBUA/MOUT ops.  The accuracy wasn't a problem, I scored 36/40 on the US army's rifle qualification, (although my first score of 33 was the one that counted - I earned a Sharpshooter marksmanship badge).  Unlike out 1989-1991 era C7's, which are filthy no matter how well you clean them, the M4's we used left our hands as spotless at they were given to us, and the Americans couldn't tell we had fired them.  By contrast, the M249's (C9s) they signed out to us were disgusting and rusty, which would have earned a charge up here.  We did them the favour of removing the rust and thoroguhly cleaning them before returning them.

Finally, with regards to the C79 Elcan sights.  Thank god we didn't bring ours done, I never would have qualified on the rifle range.  I used to think this was a great sight, and it certainly does have it's high points.  But in Florida, we were issued the M68, a red-dot sight made by Aimpoint, a Swedish firm.  This sight was infantry proof!  Oncezeroed, it can be removed from the rifle and replaced, and it will retain its zero.  It does not rely on eye relief, and when firing beyong 50m, the red dot stays on target, even if it is not centred within the sight or you move your head around.  You fire it with both eyes open, and it is accurate even if the front sight cover is closed.  One eye sees the dot, the other sees the target.  We tested it, and it works.  It is also lighter and smaller than the bulky C79.  Unfortunately, it is cost prohibitive for the Canadian Forces.  Back in April, I met an Aimpoint rep at a police trade show in Markham.  He explained the cost of these sights was somewhere around $2,000 per (although I found out the cost to the US Army was probably far less).  If you can get your hands on this kit, I recommend it.  It takes some getting used to - firing with both eyes open, no magnification, etc, but it's well worth it.

Finally, I saw from the pictures those guys in Afghanistan carrying a handheld GPS.  The PLGR, I believe the Americans call it.  I got to play with this same kit last week, and thought it was an effective tool to aid map & compass navigation (but not a replacement for it).  Wish I had more time to play with it.

Anyway, glad to see we are finally getting the good kit.  If only we can get those Aimpoint sights!


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2004)

The M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M) was replaced with the Aimpoint M2 - not sure if they changed the designation though, they are about $400 USD RETAIL Who ever gave you the cost estimate was on crack.  The CF is using the EOTECH 552 as its CCO optic.
  The problem with CCO's is no magnification therefor target detection and discrimation is lower than magnified optics.

 We have had PLGR in the regs for a LONG time as well as the PAQ's/PEQ's for operations.


----------



## cpl forrester (17 Jul 2004)

as I'm a Brit i say susat? susat sight very effective don't know that much on the elcan , but the sa80 comes with the iron sight as will (carrying handle) it depends on ur preference i presume that many long serving personnel preffer the iron sight as thats what thy came up on?


----------



## Righty (9 Sep 2004)

I was thinking today....(not something i do often)

anyway, I was wondering when the C79 op sight came into service? Was it when the C7 was introduced or after the C7 was introduced into service.


----------



## Navalsnpr (9 Sep 2004)

The C7 was introduced to the service in the late 80's, 1989 I was when I saw it in West Germany with 3 RCR.

The C7A1 was adopted either in 1995 or 1996.

A good site with the weapons of the CF can be viewed at:  http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101sm-arm.htm


----------



## KevinB (10 Sep 2004)

C79 - We got the C9's with them in 93'ish and the C7A1's in 94


----------



## Bartok5 (10 Sep 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> C79 - We got the C9's with them in 93'ish and the C7A1's in 94



And real soldiers have been regretting it ever since.....


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

G'Day Mark. I hope things are fine in the 'autumny' province of NB. Nothing new here at all.

The ADF has many thousand of the C79, and we have modified the mount, as there was a hydraulic problem which had to be addressed. The sight has been criticised by many.

The US Army are using a ELCAN variant on their US made M240B 7.62mm GPMGs. I do beleive they call it a M145 if I remember right.

EDIT: M240B with ELCAN pic added below

The standard C79 does not hold up well here with the rubber housing quckkly losing the EY battle sights up top. The notorious red bull dust gets into everything.

However compared to the generic detachable ADI 1.5X optics, many do appreciate the stronger magnification on the C79.

C79s have been used effectively both in A'stan and Iraq by ADF personnel.

Cheers,

Wes,


----------



## GreaseMonkey (11 Sep 2004)

... and made good shooters out of bad shooters, and good shooters out of great shooters. When I joined in 94, C7s were just being modified with weaver rails to accept the C79. I agree about the housing losing the battle sights, and know that they, along with the C7, will be undergoing mid-life mods but I don't know the extent of the changes. The ambient- light gathering characteristics are a big plus, too.


----------



## Bartok5 (11 Sep 2004)

GreaseMonkey,

Done any CQB lately?   I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to herald the C79 sight.   Notwithstanding the mount (Gen 4 and counting) problems, the biggest issues that most Infantry soldiers have with the C79 are:

1.   Magnification - this is a decidedly mixed blessing.   At ranges beyond 200 metres, it is a bonus.   At anything less, the infantry are far better off with a zero-magnification "reflex" sight offering a single point-of-reference for aiming.   Given that the vast majority of infantry engagements occur at less than 100 metres, and given that the Canadian Army is further "optimizing" for complex terrain, the highly questionable long-distance "advantage" of the C-79 sight is entirely moot.   Truth be told, it becomes a significant impediment to rapid target acquisition at typical infantry engagement ranges due to eye-relief, constricted field of view, and positioning issues

2.   Obstruction -The C79 Optics obscure the natural line of sight down the body of the C7/C8, to the extent that the firer is severely disadvantaged when conducting any form of "instinctive shooting" drills.

3.   Weight/Size - The C-79 sight is top-heavy and overly-bulky.   It is a "pig", full-stop.

4.   Vulnerability - Compared to the various "reflex" sights currently on the market, the C-79 (even with ÃƒÂ­t's 4th Generation mount) is a comparatively fragile piece of kit.   It is very ill-suited to banging about in the back of an APC.   It is even less suited to typical infantry use, as it simply cannot stand the inevitable abuse.

At the end of the day, the ELCAN C79 Optical Sight was recommended for procurement by "target shooters".   Although it underwent repeated field trials with varying degrees of success, it was adopted wholesale for the Canadian Army field force in the mistaken expectation that magnified optics would compensate for a lack of marksmanship training and ammunition.   To its purchaser's credit, the C79 Sight achieved that aim for a very short period of "peace" time.   However, the minute   Canadian soldiers actually engaged in combat operations in the Balkans during the early 1990's, the inherent shortcomings of the C79 Optical sight became abundantly evidient.      

I am not going to spend a bunch of my time arguing the gross inadequacies of a fundamentally flawed small arms sighting system on this board.   This has all been discussed in far greater detail ad-nauseum elsewhere.   Anyone who chooses to believe that the C79 Optical sight is well-suited to Infantry use is quite welcome to their opinion.   Those folks have the distinct pleasure of joining some very rarified company.   I will simply note that the vast majority of soldiers that I have personally served with despise it as an abject piece of crap.   Hmmm - I wonder who is right?.......   

The C79 may have a place on certain weapons, but I doubt it.   Placing it on the C9 LMG (at the expense of the existing iron sights!!) was an utter fool's errand.   Quite frankly, whoever came up with the idea of putting an optical sight on an LMG - let alone on the "loosey-goosey" feed mechanism cover, was an abject moron without a clue regarding the sighting and "fall of shot" adjustment principles pertaining to the operation of a bipod-mounted LMG.   Full-stop.   

I could go on and on about the inherent inadequacies of the Elcan C79 sight - even in its 4th Generation   mount.   Some (who are lousy shots) may like it, but I am here to tell you that in my professional experience most infantry soldiers do NOT care for the C79.   It is a cumbersome, slow and comparativey fragile sighting system.   Given a choice, most infantry soldiers will opt for the basic iron-sighted C7/C8 in lieu of a better alternative. 

The zero-magnification EO Tech and Mil-spec Aimpoint "Red-Dot/Reflex" sights are the far superior alternative if available.   These electronic systems offer a vast improvement over both the iron and magnified optical sights.   The "single-point" electronic sights are akin to "iron sights" without the need to squint through a constricted aperture nor line-up multiple points of reference.   They do not compromise peripheral vision, they do not require finicky eye-relief, they are not prone to loss of zero due to rough handling, etc, etc, etc.   

The Elcan C79 optics were nothing more than a misguided target-shooter's wet dream.     How such a procurement decision was ever foisted upon the CF still escapes me to this day.   It was an utter travesty, ranking right up there with the failed 6-year experiment concerning the "Thermold magazines". Despite no less than 4 modifications over 6 years, those magazines NEVER worked properly.   Yet we REPEATEDLY sent soldiers into harm's way in the Balkans of the early 1990s, equipped with those flawed magazines because the "techie" project manager was bound and determined to get it right.   Yeah, whatever.   That's why they finally gave up and simply bought proper aluminum teflon-coated mags after 6 years of dicking around and putting soldiers' lives in danger....

There are far more experienced and technically educated minds than mine regarding the issue of service weapons and optics.   I will leave any further comments to them.   I will only say that from an "end-user" perspective, the C79 sight has been an utter failure for more reasons than I could string together in one sentence.   "Abject POS" seems to sum it up quite nicely, from a "tactical user" perspective.....

But of course, those are merely my personal thoughts.   I will wait for Kevin B and a few other knowledgeable "users" of the various rifle/carbine sighting systems to weigh in.....


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

Good post Mark.

For those of you wondering about the ADI optics - 

In comparison to the ELCAN C79, here is a pic of the Australian ADI manufactured (Lithgow, New South Wales) 1.5X optics used on the Austeyr F88SA1 and F88CSA1 individual weapons, and on the F89A1 (P) which is the model of the FN minimi used by the ADF. ADI makes many components to this weapon.

Windage and elevation are easily adjusted with a special tool (ADI unique), and there is some EY/CQB iron sights on the top with 'white dots' on the front and rear sights for low light.

On the Australian version the aiming point is a cross hair with a hollow donut in the centre. There are at least three different configurations currently in use by different nations.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

Here is a better one...

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2004)

Sir, you stole my thunder...

 I will agree with each and everypoint you made.

Further issues with the C79 are the range stadia - rather than a quick 'point and click' system like the TA11,TA31, TA01 Series of ACOG scopes from Trijicon which have the range stadia bar the width of an avg (19") chest at the differing ranges the C79 makes you move your reticle off tgt and attaempt to arbitraily judge the height of an individual by using the two horizontal range stadia.

The 800m BCD - it never worked for the C77 ball round out of the C7 with any degree of accuracy - rifle teams were flipping the gate up and using it as a 1MOA click scope.   

Secondly the idea of adjusting sights on an infantry weapon in combat is foolhardy - troops should know thwe trajectory of the bullet and be able to aim off (as yuo will end up aiming of for wind and rnage anyway as very few of the two way range the enemy is kind enought to put up both ranges leveled off to the 100m point and wind flags.

For those that crow the Elcans glories - I suggest you wait till these sights have a little bit longer field usage in other armies - and then you will realise why the Canadian Infantry want to give it the long walk off a short pier.

The low light aspect is highly over rated in the age of suppressors, MNVG's and PAC/PEQ's anyone using a day sight is prey for those who are not.

As MarkC mentioned the C79/C79A2 is not suited for the type of operatiosn that we conduct.   It is neither suited for extended field duty for for CQB, but it thrives on the range.
   
Currently most of us are using the EOTECH 552 in Afghanistan with several iron sights and a few personal Aimpoint CCO's -- When Mark was over with 3VP they did not have the great luxury of the 552's but most felt much more comfortable with the ironsights.

 Given that the troops at the point don't want the C79 - one wonders why we still have it?


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

Now here is something I think is, well not the greatest, but considereing this type of optics have been around for a long time, and its very similar to the UK's earlier SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry trilux) as used on the 7.62mm L1A1 SLR. The UK's SUSAT pictured below (Sight Unit Small Arms trilux)   is used on their L85A2 and L86A2 weapons.

Excuse the blurred sight picture, as I was too close, and one of the internal prisms was rooted. Although I am no FCS Tech, I did try to repair this, but to no avail. This SUSAT was BLR'd, as we did not have any access to parts.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

A US Army ACOG mounted on an M16A2. These were all NIB, and the 25th ID out of Hawaii was really having problems keeping them zeroed. They were all kind of antsy about is as they were deploying to Iraq only weeks after I took these pics.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Sep 2004)

Sorry for the band width, but here is a pic of a standard Colt scope on a Fijian Army M16A2 rifle. Below this pic is a soldier from Brunei with a C79 on his M16A2.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2004)

I have heard a few complaints about ACOG zero - mostly it appears on the carry handle mount - and upon closer look the weapons had to have the scopes removed to go into the weapon racks in the weapons room...

The USMC specified the TA31 ACOG as their new optic.

The TA31M (and TA31 'donut of death' with M4A1/M855 range reticle) was the USSOC E-COS favourite.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (13 Sep 2004)

Well? I've seen many pictures of our boys with the C79, and many pictures of the yanks with their iron sight, and I'm wondering what the general consensus is on this?

Personally I'd think that Iron Sights would be more practical for urban fighting/short-medium stuff, plus it wouldn't get unzeroed. The C79, however, I would gander is much better for the range as you would get a zoom, which is better.

Also, on the live fire defensive at arcon this year, after about 1000 rounds, my sight on the c9 was crazy unzeroed, it was shooting really high. this happened to anyone else?


----------



## Gayson (13 Sep 2004)

The sights loose a little zeroing everytime the weapon gets smacked on something, like a tree or whatnot.

I would personally prefer an ironsight because it has the zeroing issue, and I don't like the tunnel vision it gives you.


I think it would be great if we could choose what sight we wanted.  Grab your rifle than choose what sight to take with you, or you could be issued both when departing for the field.  The rail mounting on the c7 and c9 would make it easy for soldiers to carry iron sights to put on when they needed it for fibua or if the c79 broke.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (13 Sep 2004)

I would love that! Too bad it will never happen.


----------



## Da_man (13 Sep 2004)

what about a red dot?


----------



## Redeye (13 Sep 2004)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> The sights loose a little zeroing everytime the weapon gets smacked on something, like a tree or whatnot.
> 
> I would personally prefer an ironsight because it has the zeroing issue, and I don't like the tunnel vision it gives you.
> 
> ...



This isn't some vague idea, this is what should be happening at your unit - we are always issued iron sights, and I (like many) find them superior for the most part.


----------



## jonsey (13 Sep 2004)

I haven't shot with either (my shooting experience is limited to two 20 round mags of simunition on a flat top sightless c7), and only have  briefly viewed through either on displays, so take my opinion as that of your average Canadian citizen.

The iron sights just seem to be more practical, to me. They're more streamlined with the rifle, there's the carry handle, and they just felt more solid.  But, hey, what do I know.


----------



## Redeye (13 Sep 2004)

Well, with the CF iron sights, there's no carrying handle, it's just a little piece bearing an "A1" style iron sight, plastic mostly, but they are pretty effective.  Irons don't have magnification to adjust to so you can pick up the target very quickly - more so that with the optics - and the C79 is notorious for losing its zero with great speed.  A troop who has practices with irons - at least inside 300m - should have no trouble with them.


----------



## Spooks (13 Sep 2004)

_"I think it would be great if we could choose what sight we wanted.  Grab your rifle than choose what sight to take with you, or you could be issued both when departing for the field.  The rail mounting on the c7 and c9 would make it easy for soldiers to carry iron sights to put on when they needed it for fibua or if the c79 broke."_

I have both. The iron sight mounts on the rail. It's fun, and I have it as my backup. Our C9's use Irons now since the vibration of the weapon was unzeroing the C79. I shot that and found it fine to engage a target. I like the C79 on the C7 for the long range accuracy. If I'm worried about tunnel vision in FIBUA, then I don't look through the scope.

-Spooks


----------



## PteCamp (14 Sep 2004)

When I did my basic we had the Iron sights on our weapons, and I gotta admit I hated it, I couldn't see a thing. I failed my weapons test twice.
Once I got back to my unit though we have the C79's on our weapons and it's 10x better. I think I would much rather have the C79.


----------



## MG34 (15 Sep 2004)

Iron sights all the way,with the exception of an EOTech holographic sight.Iron sights should always be availible and ready for use as the Elcan is a piece of junk ,it is not a question of if it will fail but when.The Elcan is useless in  snow and rain,at least with iron sights you can just blow the crap off of them.


----------



## KevinB (15 Sep 2004)

Ditto to MG34 - the C79 needs a long walk off a short pier.

EOTECH and IRONS






and one of our guys with his Aimpoint.


----------



## Gayson (15 Sep 2004)

I was told by a Mcpl once that the c79 also throws the center of gravity of the rifle off slightly, reducing accuracy.  Is this true?  I always thought the C79 sits directly above the center of gravity on the C7.


----------



## ackland (15 Sep 2004)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I was told by a Mcpl once that the c79 also throws the center of gravity of the rifle off slightly, reducing accuracy.   Is this true?   I always thought the C79 sits directly above the center of gravity on the C7.



The sight moves on the rails to allow for the shooter to adjust their sight picture. Since it moves from front to rear it can not be at center of gravity.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, with the CF iron sights, there's no carrying handle, it's just a little piece bearing an "A1" style iron sight, plastic mostly,



But if we went back to the C7 no A1 or A2 we would ahve a carrying handle and that would be great with me.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (15 Sep 2004)

Do most units have Iron Sights in their stores or whatnot? Could I put in a memo to see if we could be issued IS with our EIS?


----------



## ackland (15 Sep 2004)

AlphaCharlie said:
			
		

> Do most units have Iron Sights in their stores or whatnot? Could I put in a memo to see if we could be issued IS with our EIS?



What you are refering to is the battle sight. Although similar to the Iron Sight it is not. The iron sight was exactly that an iron sight mounted on a carrying handle. much more effective I found. The battle sight is very similar but vulnerable to defects as it is PLASTIC. :sniper:


----------



## scm77 (15 Sep 2004)

Nice pics Kevin.  Do you have any more you can share?


----------



## KevinB (16 Sep 2004)

I will start a thread somehwere else for pics

http://army.ca/forums/threads/19301.0.html


----------



## armdsgt (28 Sep 2004)

The C79 Optical sight is a good sight if utilized correctly.  The same as a commander in an armed veh, first "I scan with my eyes, I scan with my binos".  Yes, if you keep your ONE open eye in the sight for the duration of the engagement, you will not have peripheral vision.  However, the good lord gave you two eyes, use them BOTH.


Perseverance


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2004)

Armdsgt - the C79 is not a good sight for what we need.

 The TA31 ACOG, Nightforce 1-4 and EOTECH552 should be acquired in a mixed for the sectiosn so they can tailor the weapons to the mission.

 The C79 is a failure thru and thru


----------



## pappy (6 Oct 2004)

BOTH, "stuff" breaks, Optics are great but turds happen and stuff can break, Iron sights are always necessary, optics optional. should I say GOOD IRON SIGHTS.  to this I would use as an example standard AK vs. something like the M14 or M16A2 series.  M16A1 sights ain't bad either. The AK will do the job for any 3rd world teenager.  But a well train individual with a M14/M16A2 is a ture weapon system. 

Pretty tough to put a set of Iron sights out of action. A good set of iton sights will bring down any target you can see on todays battle frield.  Lets remember optics where rare as hens teeth before the mid 1940's. 

Optics have thier place, every rifle and MG should have them, but Iron sights should still be there too, and the man behind them should be able to use both equally.

I own a ACOG 4x32 and wouldn't trade it off for anything.  rock solid optics, in my opinion.  Just glad I got it way before they got spendy.  Ten plus years old and still holds zero, still as clear and criisp as the day I bought it new. screw batteries, Tritium rules  ;D  Still glowing strong after 10 years.

I wonder what the number of these made are, any one wanna share serial numbers?  I think the US should adopt this as the standard M16 / M4 scope along side the Aimpoiont DOT sights, both have thier place uses.  Wish they had money for both.

My name is Pappy and I approve this message.

damn are the elections over yet?


----------



## pappy (6 Oct 2004)

oops, and one other thing..... EVERY set of iron sights, pistol, rifle, MG should be lit with tritium, screw the expense.  If you can't see your sights at night your toast.  yeah yeah everyone gets issued night vision and all the batteries they suck down right?  and they never break right? 

rant off


----------

