# Is that an ELCAN?



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

Is this a C-79 sight on a US MG?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Dec 2006)

Sure shit looks like one.....


----------



## MJP (9 Dec 2006)

Yes they use them quite a bit.....it seems always to be on their M240(same as our C6, well kinda...)


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

MJP said:
			
		

> same as our C6, well kinda...



Tried to explain that to a US marine Captian (FAC), on a hill top in Ft Hunter Ligget. Did not go so well.
Then tried to explain how the C9 and  SAW were basically the same. "No...ours is .223, your's is 5.56. Your's is bigger." 
Even with the C6 and C9 side by each, it did not connect.  :


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2006)

Frankie said:
			
		

> Tried to explain that to a US marine Captian (FAC), on a hill top in Ft Hunter Ligget. Did not go so well.
> Then tried to explain how the C9 and  SAW were basically the same. "No...ours is .223, your's is 5.56. Your's is bigger."
> Even with the C6 and C9 side by each, it did not connect.  :



 ???  OK!  You lost me.  A C6 is 7.62 mm and the C9 is 5.56 mm.  Did you try comparing our ammo for the C6 to their ammo to the M240whatever?  and then do the same for the C9 ammo and their M16 and Mwhatevertheir SAW is?  Comparing our C6 to our C9 doesn't make sense.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

The C6 and the C9 are based on the FN MAG and the FN MINIMI respectively.  The FN MAG came first.  The FN MINIMI is of a similar design as the FN MAG, but tooled a bit differently (MINIMI has a bolt, MAG has a breech block, among other differences).  Handling, etc, are virtually identical.  Also, if the mag housing were not on the C9, it could be used in the SF Kit in lieu of the C6 if the C6 were to be NS for any reason.  Check out the holes on the side of the C9 and the C6 when they are side by each: identical dimensions.


I think that's what the poster meant, maybe.


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

Whole conversation started with "Hey that thing is kinda like our SAW." referring to my C6. 
"Yes it is sir, only 7.62. Basically the same weapon as your 240. We have basically the same weapon as your SAW, we call it the C9, it's 5.56" 

"No, our's is .223, your's bigger"

"No sir, the C9 and SAW are pretty much the same weapon." I grab a C9, sit it beside my C6. "See, this C9 is 5.56, and this C6 is 7.62. The 5.56 C9 and .223  SAW are the same basic weapon in all measures."

No luck.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2006)

Guess he was one of the few 'thick ones' that snuck through the Marines.


----------



## Yrys (9 Dec 2006)

Frankie said:
			
		

> "No, our's is .223, your's bigger"



Small civy hijack : I presumed that is in inch ?
So he got confused with cm and inch ?


----------



## GAP (9 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess he was one of the few 'thick ones' that snuck through the Marines.



Hey....I resemble that!!!  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hey....I resemble that!!!  ;D



Hey.....You were a Marine.  I didn't think you were thick too?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2006)

Sorry.......I guess it was "the few" that threw you off.   ;D


----------



## sober_ruski (9 Dec 2006)

It looks like an Elane scope.
http://www.safarasoftair.com/images/ELANE-M1A5-L.jpg

Note the little thingy sticking out.


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.......I guess it was "the few" that threw you off.   ;D


 :nana:


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> Note the little thingy sticking out.



Ques que thingy?


----------



## sober_ruski (9 Dec 2006)

"Ques que thingy?"

urgh?


----------



## Klc (9 Dec 2006)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> It looks like an Elane scope.
> http://www.safarasoftair.com/images/ELANE-M1A5-L.jpg
> 
> Note the little thingy sticking out.



Yeah, because I'm sure they put the airsoft knockoff of a real elcan scope on their weapon...  :


----------



## sober_ruski (9 Dec 2006)

it was the first picture i could find of it.

Airsoft stuff is a replica, ie: as close to 1:1 as you can possibly get.

That little protrusion sticking out in the M240 pic. Elcans, at least the ones i've seen, did not have those.


----------



## Klc (9 Dec 2006)

The box says *toy* right on it! Airsoft "equipment" does not equal real kit!

[Edit: Link went and broke itself. Picture is halfway down on this page http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/reviewpost/showproduct.php/product/259/sort/2/cat/52/page/1]

Please move back into your lane, so I can follow (I am a little bit of a SME in airsoft, but that is not what this thread is about)

If you want to talk airsoft, go to radio chatter - I'll meet you there  ;D

[edit: Anybody know how to post a pic so it shows a thumbnail? I don't want to waste bandwith on this shite]


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> urgh?



Pretty much the same thought to came to my mind, you thinking of him going operational with an airsoft scope.


----------



## sober_ruski (9 Dec 2006)

My point is that it is not a C79.


----------



## Klc (9 Dec 2006)

Why, because your looking at it from the other side? STOP
Don't forget that the toy "elaine scope" is a 1:1 replica externally. STOP
You are making no sense. STOP
Thinking about posting? STOP


----------



## sober_ruski (9 Dec 2006)

Here
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterOS34x.php






same angle, no sticky outy thingy there.

This kinda looks like it.
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterM145.php


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

The SME will be along to sort this thingy thing out I am sure.  ;D


----------



## Armymedic (9 Dec 2006)

a bit of a hijack:

I was reading thru the rifle sights Elcan provides, check this baby out:
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterDR.php



> Dual Role 1x and 4x Combat Sight
> 
> SpecterDR represents a revolution in optical sight design. The world's first truly dual field of view combat optical sight that combines the best of close and precision fire ranged combat features. SpecterDR switches instantly from 4x magnified sight to a 1x CQB sight at the throw of a lever. Unlike zoom sights, the SpecterDR offers an optimized optical path and identical eye relief in both 4x and 1x modes. Depending on the situation, the user may adjust the sight to illuminate the entire crosshair or just a 1.5 MoA dot in the center. In 1x mode, the SpecterDR has by far the largest field of view in the industry. In 4x mode the SpecterDR offers a generous field of view, long eye relief, and ELCAN's legendary crystal clear image. Situational awareness in both magnifications is improved with ultra-wide viewing angles and unmatched viewing in low light conditions. SpecterDR is half the weight and twice the capability of carrying two scopes, without compromise to mission effectiveness or reliability.
> 
> The SpecterDR offers the best single solution for both CQB and Long Range engagements and is designed to withstand the rigors of modern professional use.



Its a 1x AND 4x scope, with a dot or illuminated crosshair. Would this not be a better rifle sight for all of our riflemen?


----------



## Klc (9 Dec 2006)

> The SME will be along to sort this thingy thing out I am sure.



I should hope so  ;D

If not I might have a couple more drinks and think I'm allowed to post in this forum again  .


----------



## aesop081 (9 Dec 2006)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> Here
> http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterOS34x.php
> 
> 
> ...



its an ELCAN.......the "thingy" is an optical illusion because of the photo angle.

an airsoft sight on a real MG.......give your head a shake  :


----------



## Pearson (9 Dec 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> If not I might have a couple more drinks and think I'm allowed to post in this forum again  .


Advice, put your mittens on. 
They let you use a mouse, but not type effectively. 
Think of them as a BFA for your keyboard.


----------



## Klc (9 Dec 2006)

A good idea on a desktop, but my laptop has a trackpad. I thought about disabling the keyboard, but I always just re-enable it to type me feet into me mouth.

Someone should make a USB Breathalyzer, and find a way to keep me from posting if I fail it... I'd buy it.

/unhijack


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2006)

SMMT -- The SpectreDr has suffered a number of problems -- people in Pet and down the road tested them and found that the switch from 1-4 would typically alter the zero...
 USSOC added a Dr Optic min reddot to the top so the shooter could keep it at 4x and use the Doc for CQB...

The scope in the the initial picture is the M145, it has the "picatinny clicker" mount that has a torque knob that the user can tighten to a certain pressure (IIRC 65ft/lbs) and then it willl just stop and start clicking as it will not tighten past [in theory....] the US Army issue M68 CCO (Aimpoint) has the same attachment device.
 Talking to friends in USSOC - they have had some zero loss issues but they where for a heavier upgraded version of the mount after learning from our C79 experiences


----------



## Pearson (10 Dec 2006)

SMEe has spoken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Thanks I6


----------



## foerestedwarrior (11 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> SMMT -- The SpectreDr has suffered a number of problems -- people in Pet and down the road tested them and found that the switch from 1-4 would typically alter the zero...



Interesting, I should ask my friend about this(he is one of the optical engineers working on that scope), I heard about it comming about 2 years ago. Neat to see it now.


----------



## Trooper Hale (13 Dec 2006)

So this is common dog for the Yanks? I just wouldnt have thought that there would be a whole lot of need for a 3.5* sight on a MAG 58 (Thats aussie talk for C6). I would have thought firing with a scope defeated the whole purpose of the weapon, mainly putting multiple rounds onto the target in the shortest possible time.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2006)

Hale said:
			
		

> So this is common dog for the Yanks? I just wouldnt have thought that there would be a whole lot of need for a 3.5* sight on a MAG 58 (Thats aussie talk for C6). I would have thought firing with a scope defeated the whole purpose of the weapon, mainly putting multiple rounds onto the target in the shortest possible time.


For longer range shots, I could see *some* use for a magnified sight.  Having said that, the proper method for engaging with the MAG 58 (or "C6" in Canuck) is to align the sights on the target, fire, then raise your head and together with your number two, observe the strike.  Does it warrant its use all the time?  No friggin' idea....


----------



## lostrover (13 Dec 2006)

Helps alot for target acquisition


----------



## Trooper Hale (13 Dec 2006)

Cheers Man who goes under many names but was once known as Capt Scarlet. It struck me as a bit odd because, as you said, your not going to keep your head looking down the sights when firing and i wouldn't have thought for a decent burst you'd be able to see much through a sight with all the shake and that. I suppose our American brethren can afford to do it though. And I'm sure that it'd come in handy at some stage.


----------



## Kilroy (3 Feb 2008)

One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??


----------



## KevinB (3 Feb 2008)

It is a M145 MGO -- with the 7.62 reticle (also a battery powered red dot as well)

Depending on the round and MV you can get 5.56mm that mimicks 7.62 trajectory out to 600m.


I'd submitt your really out of your lane on this.


----------



## Kilroy (6 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> It is a M145 MGO -- with the 7.62 reticle (also a battery powered red dot as well)
> 
> Depending on the round and MV you can get 5.56mm that mimicks 7.62 trajectory out to 600m.
> 
> ...



Ya, and depending on the weather conditions, it might rain and it might not. Since, the C79 is design for our C& weapons, and to some extent the C(, which shoots the NATO STANDARD 5.56, and since the weapon in question was thought to be a C6 which would shoot a NATO STANDARD 7.62, it is easy to understand that the bullet trajectories would not match. 

I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2008)

oh sweet jesus

op:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Feb 2008)

Think we are going to need a bigger peanut gallery CDN Aviator,

btw pull up a chair.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!



Kilroy, I would submit that you only dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole almost every time you post.  

Infidel-6, on the other hand, is someone I've worked with and traveled through the plateaus of the Hindu Kush with, and in whom I'd unquestioningly trust my life to, so I'll be leaning 100% towards trusting what he has to say.  You should stop now while you're only marginally behind.  With a fifth of a century of service to your country, you'd think you'd know when the time is right to adopt listening silence....

G2G


----------



## medaid (7 Feb 2008)

Holly MOOOO, did he come back JUST for that?!  op:

Who wants beer?


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!




Holy shyte, over!

Putting on my ECBA  :warstory:

Let  the meltdown commence (sorry Tess - stole your fav line )

Taking cover behind a HESCO (oops flashing back).


----------



## Big Red (7 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> Ya, and depending on the weather conditions, it might rain and it might not. Since, the C79 is design for our C& weapons, and to some extent the C(, which shoots the NATO STANDARD 5.56, and since the weapon in question was thought to be a C6 which would shoot a NATO STANDARD 7.62, it is easy to understand that the bullet trajectories would not match.
> 
> I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!



Since we've already established that it's OBVIOUSLY not a C79 (have you been around US troops in the last several years?!), you are the one pulling straw out of your ass.


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2008)

Well you got me Kilroy  :
  I have a 7.62mm M118LR cam on my ShortDot -- it is a ballistics match to the 77gr Mk262 Mod1 round at 2750fps from a 16" barrel (out to 450m) and a MOA here and there past...

The weapon in question is clearly a US M240B  and the US Army MGO is the M145 as several of us who work in an around these circles have repeated over and over again.
  











We where running a 552 EOTECH but now for BS asscovering reasons its been determined we need to run a M145.

You may be a great FCS Tech but your lacking in the other fields - and when you comment incorrectly it kills your credibility.


----------



## cdn031 (7 Feb 2008)

Go 6!
Sweet ride.
Do all the spent casings and link add to the Vehicle's ballistic protection? 
Or just no shovel handy?  

Be safe!


----------



## herseyjh (7 Feb 2008)

Now that is what I call a loaded SUV.  Did you get power windows also?


----------



## Pte.Butt (7 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??



I am out of my lane on this one, but if the sight is zeroed for that weapon, wouldn't the given trajectory caliber not matter?


----------



## Pte.Butt (7 Feb 2008)

silver said:
			
		

> You're right, it wouldn't matter for the range you zeroed at. But as soon as you started to adjust with a standard sight for range it wouldn't necessarily be on.
> The M145 in question though has a bullet drop compensator reticle with markings for various ranges, meaning you just change your point of aim on the reticle from the top for 100m say, down to say the 800m line at 800m, s**t simple. Not like the C79 where you actually dial in the range.




Understood, thanks for clearing that up for me, Silver.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Feb 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> I am out of my lane on this one, but if the sight is zeroed for that weapon, wouldn't the given trajectory caliber not matter?



Yup definitely outside your lane there.

Oh yes,


GAS! GAS!  GAS!


 ;D


----------



## Thorvald (8 Feb 2008)

Just to backup I6's info on the M145 (MGO, NSN 1240-01-411-6350):

Civy Model of the MGO (Machine Gun Optical):
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterM145.php

http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=ELCM145W

The "thingy" is not an optical illusion, it is the rotary switch to adjust the levels of illumination for the reticule (11 levels plus off).

---

There, with that out of the way, we can get back to watching the "mud slinging" ensue  ;D


----------



## Kilroy (8 Feb 2008)

ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




> Is this a C-79 sight on a US MG?



I then say:



> One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??




So, NOWHERE did I dispute what the sight actually was, and no where did i dispute what the weqpon actually was. All I said, was that it COULDN'T be a C79 on the weapon, because the reticle in a C79 would not work with the balistics of the gun the sight is mounted on!!!!


EVERY other claim that I said ANYTHING has been fabricated or misunterpreted by everyone else would couldn't be bothered to actually read the entire post. As for my credibility, it still stands. 

To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## aesop081 (8 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Calm down there trigger, lest that verbal turns into a ban...

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Feb 2008)

Take a pill : Most of what has happened, right or wrong, is your condecending and grating attitude. People have gotten used to just skiming what your saying and may be missing something your posting. You'd probably get along alot better if you didn't get up in everyone's face everytime you type on the keyboard. 
Just some advice and my $00.02

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I then say:
> ...



Simply an observation from pretty much all of your posts period. Right from the get-go, you've had a number of issues. Maybe its time to move on if you are not going to contribute in a positve fashion.

Again, not a 'personal' attack, again an observation.

Attitude, attitude, attitude. Do you behave in this manner at work?

If so, I know know why you're a 20+ Corporal.

Anger management issues?

Talk about touchy, and ultra sensitive.

All this holier 'than thou attitude', I've had enough.

Like I said from the beginning, its your integrity on here, not ours, and not that you seem to care anyways.

The saga continues op:


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The original post was made on *9 Dec 2006*.

By reply #29, on 9 December *(the same day)*, it was confirmed to the participants that it was not a C79, and the identification of the sight was presented.  And who do you think gave us that data:



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> SMMT -- The SpectreDr has suffered a number of problems -- people in Pet and down the road tested them and found that the switch from 1-4 would typically alter the zero...
> USSOC added a Dr Optic min reddot to the top so the shooter could keep it at 4x and use the Doc for CQB...
> 
> The scope in the the initial picture is the M145, it has the "picatinny clicker" mount that has a torque knob that the user can tighten to a certain pressure (IIRC 65ft/lbs) and then it willl just stop and start clicking as it will not tighten past [in theory....] the US Army issue M68 CCO (Aimpoint) has the same attachment device.
> Talking to friends in USSOC - they have had some zero loss issues but they where for a heavier upgraded version of the mount after learning from our C79 experiences



Yup, one of the recognized small arms SMEs on the forum gave us that.

The thread then ceased receiving posts on 13 Decemeber 2006 ...

 ... until ...

YOU showed up one year, two months later.

YOU reopened the discussion with an unnecessary statements starting with:



			
				Kilroy said:
			
		

> One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??



And then we were off and running with your uncooperative attitude in a discussion that had no reason to occur.  I can only ask if you actually read the thread before you started this mess.

Your last little rant is just so applicable to yourself:



			
				Kilroy said:
			
		

> To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Now, you've had enough private exchanges with Staff and apparently still don't get it.  Suck back, slow down, and think about whether or not you want to be here.  If you do, post with that intent.  If you don't like it here and continue in the same tone, you won't be here long.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (8 Feb 2008)

Mods, may I recommend that we lock this topic, so as to prevent further aggravation.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2008)

Agreed.  Folks, why don't we let this one cool down for a bit.  Usual caveats apply...valid posts to a mod for inclusion in the thread.  Thanks.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------

