# Replacing guns



## wanderer (22 Dec 2000)

For having been a soldier for 2 years, and having often used the C-7 riffle, all I can say is that it is a GREAT weapon. it is light, precise, and easy to use and clean! (easy cleaning is a MUST because it‘s a pain in the a**). The sight is O.K.; not the best I have used, but at an adequate distance (at least 100 metres), it‘s a suitable scope; plus it has "combat sights" on top, which resemble the former sight when the C-7 still had a handle... Anyway, from what I‘ve heard, the issue is NOT to replace the C-7, but to improve it; one added item is the grenade launcher (no, I‘m not kidding!).

    The C-6 is a very powerful weapon, so if the DND wants to replace it, the new weapon would have to be OUTSTANDING. The C-6 stability is only equalled by its great range and accuracy.

    As for the C-9, I must admit the C-79 sight is a bit to precise to be used on the C-9, but it is still a powerful section weapon. indeed, while there is only ONE C-6 per platoon, there are 2 C-9 per Sections, ready to provide cover when it‘s needed!

    Of course, it is hard to say "I am for" or "I am against" changing these weapons. To me, they seem still adequate for our needs. I would have to SEE and TRY the hypothetical new weapons to take a clear decision... in any case, I like the C-6, love the C-9 and adore the C-7!


----------



## Mud Crawler (27 Dec 2000)

I‘ve never fired the C7, but the only time i shouldered it, I found it‘s close to 10 pound weight ws perfect for stabalizing it.I put the crosshair(if we can call it a crosshair) on some window lets say at  60 meters and it stayed stable.I like it already.


----------



## the patriot (29 Dec 2000)

Gentlemen,

We had a discussion on this piece quite some time ago.  You can refer to it in the archives if you select "Go to postings from last year". It‘s heading is "The C7 VS. the FNC1A1".  And further to some musings by certain individuals.  All are welcome on this forum for a discussion, regardless of their MOC, time in, civy, and ex-military.

-the patriot-


----------



## Yard Ape (21 Mar 2001)

What about a new HMG to replace the .50 for the light Inf?  I hear the US has developed a 25 mm  machine gun.  Improved rate of fire should be a consideration.  Maybe 10 mm or 15 mm would be better for a new HMG.  These sizes bracket the current size and would limit an increased is ammo weight required by a greater rate of fire.  

 Yard Ape


----------



## ender (21 Mar 2001)

I love the C6.

(except when I have to lug it around all weekend on winter ex and they have 556 blanks but no 762 so I didn‘t even get to shoot it, but I guess I didn‘t have to clean it either.  Plus the infantry regiments didn‘t even bring thier machine gun so I got to impress all my infantry friends.  End of rant)

Don‘t love the C9 as much.  The scope is just silly.


----------



## McG (22 Mar 2001)

There are 7.62 blanks. Unfortunatly many reserve units cannot afford to train with these given their current budgets.  The same is true for larger weapons.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Mar 2001)

The light Inf could also put 40 mm automatic grenade launchers to good use.

  yard Ape


----------



## ender (22 Mar 2001)

I know 762 blanks exist (I‘ve seen some), our unit tried to get some but we couldn‘t for some reason.  Lugging around that big heavy machine gun is no fun if you can‘t shoot it.
("bang bang bang, budget cuts, budget cuts")


----------



## Master Blaster (29 Mar 2001)

Come on you guys!  If you can‘t hump it, dump it!  The question isn‘t wether you should have to fire the F‘n thing, it‘s do you know how to deploy it in the defesive/offensive roles?  Was it in the Light (bipod) mode or the SF kit that makes it an outstanding 1000m weapon?  Area denial as well as hit/kill/wound ratios are the primary roles of the GPMG and the C6 has been demonstrating that capability for 40 years (originally called the MAG 58, this weapon has been deployed in armed forces throughout the world since 1958/59).

Just a note from an old soldier...if you humped it all weekend, you damned well better have cleaned it before returning it to the Q.  Water, dust and grit are almost as hard on the GPMG as firing blank ammo.  I‘ve seen too many excellent weapons reduced to expensive paper weights because of lax cleaning and user maintenance practices.  From your posts ender, I make exception...you are probably one of the most informed and intelligent NCO‘s I heard from in the last 29 years (present company excepted, of course).

Regarding 7.62 lniked blanks, theyu are available in the system though are getting more difficult to obtain.  Suggest to your Ops O that he/she order 6 to 9 months in advance of training to ensure that supply is available and that your unit can afford them.

As always

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## Yard Ape (30 Mar 2001)

The GPMG is great.  It is with the heavier stuff that we are lacking.  The rate of fire on the .50 is too slow, and we have nothing bigger which can be deployed by the Light Inf.

 Yard Ape


----------



## ender (5 Apr 2001)

Thanks for the complement Master Blaster!

I‘ve never actually seen the SF kit and I probably won‘t unless I get my gunners course. (please, please I want a gunners course!)

And yes I did clean it before I turned it in, and yes it did need cleaning.

I complained about the lack of 7.62 blanks to my troop commander  after the excercise, and maybe they‘l sort it out. (ha, I doubt it)  I don‘t even know who the ops O is, and he probably doesn‘t like private level sappers telling him what to do anyway.


----------



## CH1 (14 Feb 2005)

Here we go with the old days again!

     Before the CF fixed the headspacing on the.50, you could get rates of fire up around 800 rnds/min, by adjusting head space.  the head space gauge on the combo tool used to give about 400-450 rnds/min, if I remember right.  Maybe another OT can verify, without me finding the book.

     The down fall of this was seeing the rounds go up the barrel at nite, & hence the cost of replacement barrels.  This being in the days of cost is no object for Trg, & ammo flowed like beer.

     That combined with a reduction in Trg time probably led to the fixed head spacing you now have on the .50.  If I remeber right from my last update left the cylic @ 350 rnds/min.  If my stats are off @ somebody has the current stats, please feel free to correct me.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (14 Feb 2005)

Hows the XM-8? I hear its going to be replacing the M-16s the US is using by 2006 or 2008.


----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2005)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Hows the XM-8? I hear its going to be replacing the M-16s the US is using by 2006 or 2008.


:

Not likely - HKD dumped part (or all) of the XM-8 onto General Dynamics (Land) - having handled the XM-8 - I can fairly say I woudl much prefer a C8/M4.


----------



## Servant of Canada (15 Feb 2005)

http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html   

I hope that created a link, any way that is a link to the H&K web site to the exact page with the specifications to the XM8. Yes this rifle is very light weighing only 6.2lbs and already comes in carbine form. This weapon also has a scope right on it and does not have to be zerod....or so it claims. The XM8 will also have a 12 gauge shotgun module and the new XM320 quick detachable single-shot 40mm grenade launcher.. I guess thats fancy for M203 or similar. The XM8 will supositally have a caliber conversion system. Here is the exact statment from the site: 
A unique feature of the XM8 modular weapon system is the ability to easily and quickly reconfigure the weapon from one variant to the other to meet changing mission requirements, to include caliber conversion. 

So, this weapon just seems to be  an upgraded version of the M-16/M-4 which also seems to be the main intention of this rifle, to replace the aging M-16, not a bad idea mind you as its been around for decades and has seen combat many times and has proven itself many times, but should they really mess with a good thing? I just hope that if Canada plans to do the same they think it through, Id rather see a G36 over a XM8 or better yet just keep the C7.. or as it soon will be... the C7A2.. or is it the C8A2?I get the two confused. 
I have been watching this rifle for a while and it seems to be doing very well, and if  any armed forces do see it in the future, I would very much like to hear there 2 cents. 

Servant of Canada 

P.S this is my first post and was kinda nervous about posting as i dont wish to be ripped apart for my opions on this matter... if you plan to do so...please in a kind matter. Also sorry for blabing, I tend to do that on topics I know of.


----------



## Kal (16 Feb 2005)

I believe the whole system of operation is identical or very similiar between the G36 and the XM-8.  I'll admit, while the G36 and more so the G36K does look sharp, the polymer frame isn't as structurally sound as steel or aluminum.  One characteristic of these two weapons I thought might be quite useful was the gas tube routing the carbon outside of the weapon instead of that exhaust pipe in the C7.  However, that doesn't seem to be the case.  If the system could be improved I would think that it would be quite beneficial for a C7A3........


----------



## Freddy Chef (17 Feb 2005)

The M16 family of weapons (C7 inclusive) has gas going directly into the bolt carrier (bolt key). 

How do rifles with a bolt and gas piston, FNC for example, compare to the M16 family?

Is there a difference in accuracy?

Is there a difference in maintenance?

Would selecting a rifle with a bolt and gas piston to (eventually) replace the C7/C8SFW be considered a step backwards/a de-evolution?


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> the G36 and more so the G36K does look sharp,



Looks just does NOT cut it, practicality, reliablity, and soldier friendlyness does, and the M16 FOW has been in service now for 40 years.

A small portion of gases truly go into the bolt carrier key to recoil the action, and this gas is exhausted out the side of the bolt carrier thru ports machined into the carrier. Some residue in carbon form is left behind.

The M16 FOW is the most extensive combat proven 5.56 x 45mm rifle, and why mess with the basics when they work fine.

Any crap you hear about stoppages due to dirty propellant residue was worked out back in pre-1968, and the rifle has evolved a great deal since. However, every soldier's rifleneeds to be cleaned often, and that should never be ignored.

So, don't sell the M16 family of weapons short! Its a fine weapons system, and if you look at any other 5.56 x 45mm service rilfe in existance, it beats it hands down. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kal (18 Feb 2005)

I never said the G36 was an outstanding weapon because it looked sharp, nor did I say any weapon functions mechanically to a higher degree because of it's appearance.  To make such a statement would be foolish.  I merely stated that the weapon looked "sharp".  As to the issue with the gas tube, if the mechanics could be reworked for it to port a large amount of carbon and gases while still remaining the same or higher degree of operation, would it be such a bad thing?  Why not improve an already outstanding system?


----------



## Glorified Ape (23 Feb 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Looks just does NOT cut it, practicality, reliablity, and soldier friendlyness does, and the M16 FOW has been in service now for 40 years.
> 
> A small portion of gases truly go into the bolt carrier key to recoil the action, and this gas is exhausted out the side of the bolt carrier thru ports machined into the carrier. Some residue in carbon form is left behind.
> 
> ...



Being with the Aussies, you must have had pretty extensive experience with the AUG, no? How do the two compare?


----------

