# Little hole or gaping maw



## ForeverPvt (22 Jul 2003)

I‘m curious to see if anyone else shares my view of replacing the C7/8 with a larger caliber assault rifle


----------



## Cycophant (22 Jul 2003)

I‘ll offer this interesting link to read, about the debate of rifle calibers.

7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO 
Really Need Two Standard Rifle Calibers?

It‘s long-winded, but has some interesting parts.  Summarized, the paper states that the 5.56mm round _is_, for the most part, superior.  If someone worked about improving and upgrading the 7.62mm round from its current state, it would surpass the 5.56 round.  However, that‘s yet to be done - and I have my doubts the CF could afford more expensive rounds anyway.


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Jul 2003)

I do believe we went through this a while ago.

But anyway,me the old F.N. C1 any day.
The C7 get‘s just a little muck in it,it jam‘s.
For cleaning the C7 is a pain in the arse with the little cotter pin‘s etc.

The old C1 just crank up the gas and a way you go but again but was 12lb‘s with a full mag and was unwieldly but was easy to clean and no fiddley little part‘s to worry about,but you had stopping power!

The best weapon I have ever fired was the Hk assault rifle (7.62m.m.)forget the model,no recoil,light weight,user friendly and was accurat.
Fired it in Germany back in the late 70‘s,damb good piece of kit.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jul 2003)

Those little .223s bounce around the human body and tear up all kinds of stuff.  .308 Winchester just goes in one side and out the other.

If it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it.  I shoot much better with the C7 than I did with the C1.


----------



## Spr.Earl (23 Jul 2003)

Micheal,yup the old C1 was a bugger i.e. F.N cheek if you didn‘t know how to hold it,even black eye‘s,but it was a good weapon and I had no prob‘s with it and was a good shot with it even having going down jungle trail training with it and geting bruised rib‘s from the mag!OUCH!

I‘ll still take the C1 over the light weight pop gun we have now.


----------



## Cycophant (23 Jul 2003)

> Those little .223s bounce around the human body and tear up all kinds of stuff. .308 Winchester just goes in one side and out the other.


That is one thing I‘ve heard a lot about, in terms of merits for the 5.56mm round.  It has a lovely habit of spining as it cuts through human tissue, causing signifigant damage to unarmored targets.  The 7.52mm can penetrate body armor a little better, but generally will go straight through a body leaving a hole, but minimal tissue damage (comparitively).

There have been cases where a 5.56mm round was shot into a target and exited the body the same side it entered.  Apparently it hit the hip bone, richocheted through the torso to the shoulderblade, and back out the front chest.  I‘m going to take a guess that the poor man didn‘t survive.  But a  7.62 round in the same situation would just penetrate the body and leave out the other side.  Unless you hit something pretty valuable in that small diameter, you‘re not doing much.



> But anyway,me the old F.N. C1 any day.
> The C7 get‘s just a little muck in it,it jam‘s.


Sounds to me that‘s more of a problem with the specific rifle, than the actual caliber of the round.  The AK-series of rifles are chambered for a 5.56 round (usually), and are some of the most all-weather reliable guns.


----------



## klumanth (23 Jul 2003)

Quote

Sounds to me that‘s more of a problem with the specific rifle, than the actual caliber of the round. The AK-series of rifles are chambered for a 5.56 round (usually), and are some of the most all-weather reliable guns.

You may want to recheck your info before posting.  The AK-47 and it‘s variants are 7.62mm  and the newer AK-74 and it‘s variants are 5.45mm.  They can be modified to take a 5.56mm round but it‘s not common


----------



## Devlin (23 Jul 2003)

> The best weapon I have ever fired was the Hk assault rifle (7.62m.m.)forget the model,no recoil,light weight,user friendly and was accurat.
> Fired it in Germany back in the late 70‘s,damb good piece of kit.


Have to agree with you here the weapons made by HK certainly are nice. Probably a G36 model that you fired over there. It‘s one of the more popular HK models out there.

Around the C7 or C7A1 if your using the Elcan sight. What‘s your preference optical or iron sights. Does situation dictate, myself I prefer the iron sights. Any thoughts?


----------



## Cycophant (23 Jul 2003)

> You may want to recheck your info before posting. The AK-47 and it‘s variants are 7.62mm and the newer AK-74 and it‘s variants are 5.45mm. They can be modified to take a 5.56mm round but it‘s not common


My bad, you‘re right.  I was thinking of the 5.45mm round, and had forgotten that it wasn‘t really all that popular.

Strike that part from my arguement then


----------



## Danjanou (23 Jul 2003)

Maven, 
The AK series are not 5.56mm. The original AK-47 and the later Akm were chambered for 7.62mm short (7.62x39mm as opposed to the NATO 7.62x54mm)

The later AK-74 had a "new" 5.54mm(?) round.

The only "versions" of the AK in 5.56mm would be the Israeli Gailil(sp), the South African R4 (basically the same weapon) and some Finnish versions. Also I beleive the Dutch were looking at a version of the R4 too.


----------



## klumanth (23 Jul 2003)

quote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maven, 
The AK series are not 5.56mm. The original AK-47 and the later Akm were chambered for 7.62mm short (7.62x39mm as opposed to the NATO 7.62x54mm)

The later AK-74 had a "new" 5.54mm(?) round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read my original post you will see I was quoting from another post.  I don‘t have that nice little quote button (HTML is not enabled) but I will try and make my quotes stand out a bit more.

AK-74 and variants - once again it is a 5.45 round
and not that it really matters but I think the 7.62mm NATO round is 7.62x51mm)


----------



## Danjanou (23 Jul 2003)

Sorry Maven I guess I missed that.

Also thanks for catching my switching the numbers on the AK-74‘s calibre. not sure if that was a typo or I‘m just dyslexic today.


----------



## MG34 (26 Jul 2003)

The 5.56mm round‘s ability to wound has been jacked up quite a lot most of the stories of it entering one say the chest and exiting the elbow are pure BS.The 5.56mm round uses it‘s velocity to fragment upon hitting the target,this fragmentation is the source of most of the wound effect as mulitple wound channels are greated.The round will tumble when the velocity is not high enough to cause fragmentation.

The thing to note in the below pics is the size of the PERMANENT CAVITY which is caused by the actual destruction of organs and tissue.The TEMP CAVITY has no relative effect on the wounding potential of any round.

Typical wound from the 62gr SS-109 Round







Typical wound from 7.62x51mm


----------



## MG34 (26 Jul 2003)

And for comparison the 5.45X39 round fired from an AK 74






And the 7.62x39mm round fired by the AK74and SKS series


----------



## PTE Gruending (6 Aug 2003)

From what I have heard; the 5.56MM round is designed to maim, rather than kill. You can kill one man, taking one man out of the battle, or you can maim him - taking three men out of the battle, ie: the wounded man, and two men to carry him. Not to mention the resources it takes to feed and repair said wounded soldier.


----------



## MG34 (7 Aug 2003)

Nope  it is designed to kill,there is no sense in wounding the enemy only to have him come back at a later date.We aim for center of mass which is a killing shot into the vital organs of the enemy the intent is and always has been to kill the enemy.


----------



## PTE Gruending (8 Aug 2003)

MG, then why don‘t we use hollow pointed rounds? They would create much more trauma than an FMJ round.


----------



## MG34 (9 Aug 2003)

No it is not absurd,the current bullet design works just fine for the job at hand.War like anything else has to be governed by laws if there were no such laws then there would be horrific acts committed upon the innocent,and soldiers alike.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Aug 2003)

> War like anything else has to be governed by laws if there were no such laws then there would be horrific acts committed upon the innocent,and soldiers alike.


So what is it that soldiers are guilty of, if they are not innocent???

I wouldn‘t classify being shot by FMJ any less or more horrific than being shot by dum dum bullets.

There is no validity to the belief that wars are governed by laws.  There are, however, accepted conventions, that may or may not be respected by one side or another in any given conflict.  

There is no precedent for individual weapons being classified "illegal" simply because no international court exists to try violators.

There have been many conventions agreed to over the years by us, our allies, and our enemies.  Specifically I don‘t recall off hand any good examples; poison gas was not used in WW II, but not so much by convention as by general and coincidental agreement.  I dimly recall saw-toothed bayonets being not used in WW I due to international convention but stand to be corrected on that.

Today, Canada has agreed not to use landmines in future wars.  If we decided at some point that we wanted to, though, there would be nothing anyone could do about it.  I find it particularly interesting that we have agreed not to employ flame weapons (if this is actually true) given that WASP, CROCODILE  and LIFEBUOY (as well as OKE and BADGER in limited numbers) were the most effective and feared close quarters weapons we employed in WW II.

The only people who fight wars by rules are generally the losers.  Reference the British in 1776 or the Americans in 1972.

Lest we forget we and our allies spend the latter half of World War Two roasting civilians alive with incendiary bombs and deliberately created firestorms, and ultimately with nuclear weapons.  I can only imagine our enemies had wished there were a law against them.

I don‘t doubt that most "civilized" nations have agreed not to use hollow-point bullets.  The Geneva and Hague Conventions also allow for such things as humane treatment of prisoners, though our enemies have as often as not been willing to follow these conventions (the Japanese in WW II and the Chinese in Korea felt little compunction to treat prisoners according to the conventions). 

But if we find out the Taliban are using dum dum bullets in Afghanistan, there would really be nothing we could do about it, and they would be powerless to stop us from doing likewise.  The only court that would matter would be the court of public opinion; and since we like to maintain the moral high ground, I am sure we would honour any agreements we have made in the past.


----------



## MG34 (9 Aug 2003)

Perhaps law was too strong of a term,but there are definatly "guidelines" on how civilized countries engage in combat,One only has to read our own literature on the subject such as the Code of Conduct,it is spelled out in black and white.Just because some uncivilized savage wants to conduct war by hacking up his neighbours with a machete does not negate the fact that western armies all have a code that their soldiers are expected to follow.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Aug 2003)

Agreed, MG34, but the longer the war, the more likely soldiers will not follow their own codes.

The stories of how the Russians treated the Germans in WW II was well known.  

An example - in April 1945, a popular battalion commander was killed during an attack on the German town of Friesoythe.  It was rumoured that a German civilian had gunned him down - ie the Germans had violated the soldier‘s code.   



> as a result a great part of the town of Friesoythe was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal.  This unfortunate episode only came to my notice and thus got into the pages of history because I was in Friesoythe at the time and saw people being turned out of their houses and the houses burned.  How painfully easy it is for the business of "reprisals" to get out of hand!


The above quote comes not from an Eastern Front history, but from the Canadian official historian; the soldiers who burned down the town were from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.

I would venture to say that Canadian soldiers have been as good as any at following the accepted guidelines of war you speak of, but then, we‘ve usually had the luxury of fighting enemies willing to do the same.  One wonders what would ever happen if we had to fight "savages", as we did briefly in 1941.  Our allies to the south tried to fight "savages" from 1965-72 and came up short.


----------



## MG34 (9 Aug 2003)

The war in Vietnam was lost by political decisions that would not allow the US Army to do it‘s job.It is ureasonanle expect results from an Army fighting while having one hand tied behind it‘s back by incompetant civilian leadership who had neither the political will or support to fight the war.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Aug 2003)

> The war in Vietnam was lost by political decisions that would not allow the US Army to do it‘s job.It is ureasonanle expect results from an Army fighting while having one hand tied behind it‘s back by incompetant civilian leadership who had neither the political will or support to fight the war.


And how is that different from the Canadian Army in Afghanistan, exactly?

Sounds like us to a T.  Shall we expect more Somalia-like atrocities, then?


----------



## MG34 (14 Aug 2003)

You cannot compare Vietnam and Afghanistan,two entirely different subjects.AS for Canada‘s parcipitation the deployment of a single battlegroup and a few ships(in both cases) is a sure sign of the governments  lack of support to the War on Terrorism,do the minimum with the least amount,perhaps if more than a single battlegroup was deployed we would actually get to put our training to use instead of doing clean up missions after the fact.
 Either way the Code of Conduct is expected to be followed to the letter regardless of the circumstances,if a war did break out on Canadian soil the Code would stand although I am sure there may be local incidents but the punishment would be swift in coming.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Aug 2003)

> You cannot compare Vietnam and Afghanistan,p/quote]  Seems to me I just did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MG34 (14 Aug 2003)

The major differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan are mainly in Command and control,the Commanders have a far greater situational araweness now than ever before,we are better trained and equipped than the forces of that time,and there is of course the fact that our mission is entirely different..In short not even close.
  As for the code of conduct this is not the first time that canadian troops have been dropped in hostile areas,back in 1992 we had no problem sticking to the Code as it was then with our troops being wounded and shot at on a daily basis.The fact that you are under fire or have taken casualties dosnot give you lisence to go on a rampage,obviously you have some delusions that at the first casualty the troops are going to snap and go on some sort of a killing spree or some such nonsense.This speaks volumes of your lack of experience and knowledge of military training.I would expect much more from someone who fancies him self an authourity on the Canadian Army.
  As for the swift justice every where soldiers deploy there is a chain of command which is responsible to ensure the code of Conduct is followed. The saga of the CAR should be illustration of this alone,or the incidents involving the soldiers in Bakovici, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
 In short I hope you are just playing Devil‘s Advocate here because if you are serious perhaps you are in the wrong line of work,the Code is not a guideline or a suggestion and will be followed regardless of the situation.I may not agree with all sections of it but will ensure that it is follwed by anyone under my command.


----------



## Spr.Earl (14 Aug 2003)

Mg34 you also forgot to mention we have our R.O.E.‘s (depending on the theater),Q.R.&O.‘s plus the Genevia convention also the Criminal Code of Canada.

Which as a serving member of our Force‘s you are bound to follow and if you cross one of those line‘s you are history.

P.S.It‘s against the Geneva Convention to use a 50 cal. on troop‘s!!
It‘s only to be used against vehicle‘s and air craft.

Believe it or not.


----------



## Bringer (14 Aug 2003)

The .50 cal on troops rumour is actually an urban legend. Its roots start with an antitank weapon which used a .50 cal for aiming purposes. Firing the .50 against troops would give away the AT gun‘s position, so they were warned only to fire at materiel.

I believe the Hague Convention or Laws of Land Warfare lay out which weapons are "lawful" to use, and which are not. Unlawful weapons include glass bullets and the like, but there is nothing against using large calibre weapons against individuals.

Why would it be legal to use the 25mm gun on a LAV against troops, but not employ a .50 mg?


----------



## MG34 (15 Aug 2003)

It is also legal to shoot at Paratroops while in the sky,but not aircrew..Yes the .50cal thing is an urban legend that is unfortunately believed quite alot even in the CF.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Aug 2003)

> The major differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan are mainly in Command and control,the Commanders have a far greater situational araweness now than ever before,we are better trained and equipped than the forces of that time,and there is of course the fact that our mission is entirely different..In short not even close.


But in a general sense, we have boys deployed a long way from home for what will increasingly seem like dubious ends, especially if God forbid casualties should mount.  The difference in weaponry and equipment are not insignificant, but at its most basic you still have soldiers moving by foot and helicopter in rugged terrain trying to find an elusive enemy.  

I should think the largest difference is that while the communists in South Vietnam were numerous and well supplied by the North Vietnamese, with Soviet and Chinese assistance, the Taliban (I hope) have no major allies - and while Cambodia was a terrific sanctuary, I hope Pakistan is something less so...



> As for the code of conduct this is not the first time that canadian troops have been dropped in hostile areas,back in 1992 we had no problem sticking to the Code as it was then with our troops being wounded and shot at on a daily basis.


You mention the murder in Somalia.  My understanding of the event would lead me to believe that the conditions which fuelled the event aren‘t likely to repeated today - you both mention ROEs, for example, which I am sure won‘t be anything like "shoot between the skirt and the flipflops."



> The fact that you are under fire or have taken casualties dosnot give you lisence to go on a rampage,obviously you have some delusions that at the first casualty the troops are going to snap and go on some sort of a killing spree or some such nonsense.This speaks volumes of your lack of experience and knowledge of military training.I would expect much more from someone who fancies him self an authourity on the Canadian Army.


I understand military training quite well TYVM. No one expected William Calley to go on a killing spree at My Lai 4, either.  Their ROEs were clearly defined, they had a very good legal system, and a clear chain of command, and training for Vietnam-bound soldiers consisted of a minimum of several weeks basic training followed by advanced (trades) training and some form of "jungle school" - and yet not just one "bad apple" but his entire platoon proceded to kill the inhabitants of an entire village.  It happened in WW II at Friesoythe as I pointed out, though the Canadian soldiers there didn‘t kill any civilians.  Why should we believe that the current generation of Canadians would be any more exempt in any and all circumstances?



> As for the swift justice every where soldiers deploy there is a chain of command which is responsible to ensure the code of Conduct is followed. The saga of the CAR should be illustration of this alone,or the incidents involving the soldiers in Bakovici, Bosnia-Herzegovina.


We were discussing instances where Canadian soil was under invasion; I am not saying I would expect soldiers to forget their training, oath, and adherence to the codes, but I also wouldn‘t bet that 100 percent of them, especially in a long and ugly conflict, would do so, either.  There‘s no reason to believe we‘re any better than anyone else.  We have plenty of murderers (check out the pig farm in BC), rapists, villains and scum in Canada.  Try as you might, you won‘t keep them all out of uniform, especially if someone else‘s tanks were rolling across the border.



> In short I hope you are just playing Devil‘s Advocate here because if you are serious perhaps you are in the wrong line of work,the Code is not a guideline or a suggestion and will be followed regardless of the situation.I may not agree with all sections of it but will ensure that it is follwed by anyone under my command.


I don‘t doubt you would, in fact I would not only expect it but demand it, would have no qualms in reporting you to your superiors if you didn‘t, and would do my level best to follow it and preach to my colleages to do the same if I was in your section. 

Nonetheless, there is absolutely nothing to suggest to me that such things are impossible; I would have a hard time believing the commander of the Americal Division honestly expected his troops to commit atrocities against civilians. 

I think the main point you are making is that given our level of training and equipment (to which I would add the level of intensity of our current operations), conditions are not there to fuel such "events."  I agree completely, and, I have no doubt our troops in Kabul will operate with the honour that is rightly theirs.  

But given a hypothetical situation, such as a long term war in which lesser well trained troops were deployed out of necessity, this wouldn‘t always be so just because we have the rules in place.  The rules were in place in Korea in 1950, when the large massacre of civilians took place by US troops.  The difference was that they were garrison troops, terrified at that, in a country where people of an entirely diffferent race formed both the civil population as well as the enemy.  Well trained troops wouldn‘t have committed those acts, but it is still cause for concern; the Airborne was well trained (but perhaps not well suited?) for their mission, just as the Americal Division (dubbed after My Lai "Americalley" or "Amerikill") were.   The training for the current deployment is probably much better than what either of those two received, but shifting back to our hypothetical invasion of Canada - if we‘re assuming we could really defend the country with the handful of professionals we have now, then I agree any unfortunate incidents would not be likely.  If you were to add hastily raised units and troops into the mix...

y‘know?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2003)

"It is also legal to shoot at Paratroops while in the sky"

Nothing stops a commander from training his machineguns onto the drop zone and firing though.  I don‘t think anyone in their right mind wouldn‘t shoot at paratroopers who were falling onto their position.


----------



## MG34 (15 Aug 2003)

Ghost read the post,I said it was LEGAL to engage the paratroops under canopy


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2003)

Right then, read that wrong.


----------



## MG34 (16 Aug 2003)

Right then!!! Carry on as if normal!!


----------



## Coniar (17 Aug 2003)

I noticed the words "war" and "civilised" in the same sentence a couple times... at what point did war become civilised? Back a couple hundred years and what you call civilised now would have been unthinkable to british generals, if your not wearing a bulls eye and lined up in proper order its obviously not a civilised conflict... and besides that war on its most basic level is uncivilised, so no matter who your fighting or what your fighting with, "savages" or "civilised" people, dum dum or full metal jacket, really big club or really big club with spikes on it, once your in a war your all dragged down to the same level... and me personaly... id take the really big club with the spikes on it, because if you dont the other guy surley will...


----------



## Cycophant (17 Aug 2003)

That‘s frankly what I‘ve always viewed war to be, in 90% of the cases.  A break down in civilized behaviour.  It‘s all well and good that war has rules.  But I believe the only reason it‘s worked so well is that most battles over the last 50 years have been fairly one-sided.  True, guerilla  tactics are the "great leveller", but we haven‘t seen an equally-armed conflict like the World Wars since they ended.

If a similiar battle were to break out (presuming the respective leaders could avoid nuclear weapon usage), I wouldn‘t be surprised if many of Geneva, Hague and other wartime rules flew out the window.  Look what happened when the British tried to remain "civilized" throughout wars.  They were slaughtered when the enemy refused to fight unmatched battles.  At that point, they had to change their tactics if they had any open of winning.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2003)

And if you start blowing away someone who is surrendering their friends will see it and a) fight to the death inflicting far more casualties on your side then needed to win an objective and b) blow away you and your buddies if you try and surrender.

Heard a quote somewhere, when fighting monsters take care not to become one yourself.

I‘m pretty sure any country (like israel in 1973 almost did) will resort to using nukes if they have them should they be threatened with defeat.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2003)

No even matches since 1945?

Why did the Yugoslavian Civil War go on so long?

Why did the Russians fight in Afghanistan for 8 long years, or the Americans for about the same length of time (plus three extra years for the North Vietnamese and ARVN to duke it out)?  

Korea and Chechnya would be two more examples that come to mind.  If the sides have not been evenly matched, why were there no clear winners?


----------



## Cycophant (17 Aug 2003)

Those were all even matched in terms of an overall, objective sense, yes.  But from a firepower standpoint, they usually weren‘t.  Tactics seemed to be the levelling component in some of those cases.

And I apoligize, I meant no evenly-matched battles between nations/groups that desired to adhere to the Geneva/Hague standards.  If both sides never planned on following those rules, it‘s a moot arguement.

In all the recent instances I can think of, taking a "civilized" approach to warfare was usually done in a situation where that respective side had a signifigant advantage.  If/once that advantage was reduced, the rules would probably slowly slide out the window, one by one.  Some probably wouldn‘t, I agree.  PoW‘s probably would still be taken, but I imagine many other rules would be ignored.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2003)

I should think national resolve far more important than tactics, and you can look at Afghanistan and Vietnam for that.  The North Vietnamese simply wanted to win more badly than the South, and certainly were more willing to sacrifice than the Americans were.  That made up for the disparity in firepower.

I should imagine national resolve was why the Americans won their War of Independence, too, if you want to look back that far.

The Americans won all kinds of tactical victories in the field - destroying the VC as a fighting force in 1968 was certainly a mean feat.  Yet given media interpretation of Tet, the Americans didn‘t stand a chance after that - resolve crumbled.  The US Army and Marines in the field could still inflict tactical defeats on their enemies, but the people back home simply didn‘t want to maintain a commitment.

Significantly, perhaps, it was after Tet that My Lai happened.


----------

