# Two Questions: Grenade Launcher and C79



## cagomez (19 Feb 2002)

Anybody know if and when they will begin training on the 40mm grenade launcher for the C7 in the RES F. Saw several pics of our troopsarmed with C7 and grenade launcher attachment. Do they already have active training with this weapon for the regs. If so would you have any info on how many they would deploy with sect or pl and ammo loadout ?

Also saw several pics of c7 with no c79 sight, just the handrail iron sight. Thought all CDN service rifles from DIEMACO were issued with C79. 

Thanks for any info


----------



## Marauder (20 Feb 2002)

Fus;
What I have heard is that we (31 Brigade types) are getting checked out on the M203‘s (the GLs) when we go down in a couple of weeks to Ft. Knox for the new incarantion of Southern Drive. I don‘t know if you guys are doing the same as us, but for the week long ex we are sending a section of guys who don‘t have work/school and some higher up Class B types, and then the rest of us are going down for a few days for the weekend.
Also heard rumours that we are gonna focus on FIBUA since they have a high speed MOUT site down there, and that we will also be doing C6, Carl G, and maybe mortar shoots since they have applicable ranges down there and none of us fresh from Meaford types have shot live on those weps systems.

As for the C7s, I too thought all of them were the FT (flat top) version, but I have seen pics of the carrying handle version that looks just like the M16A2/3. They may just be early versions from after the transition from the FNs. I‘m sure some of the older, crustier, and wiser types among us might know.   
Hope this helps. Maybe I‘ll see ya down there.

PS- Were you around for the Southern Drive at Benning a few years back? Man oh man have  I heard some "no sh!t, there I was" horror stories from ‘they that were there‘. LMAO


----------



## Recce41 (20 Feb 2002)

Yes the Regs have the 203. They were issued a few yrs back.
 Sgt J.   CD,CDS com


----------



## Recce41 (20 Feb 2002)

Well some of my post is missing. Iron sights are issued also to Reg force units. Mostly Inf. Its part of the Weapon EIS for Grunts.
Sgt J.   CD,CDS com


----------



## enfield (20 Feb 2002)

The Navy uses iron sights as well.


----------



## Spr Earl (20 Feb 2002)

Me think‘s they are re thinking about sight‘s as for the C79 useless for the infantry as it get‘s knocked about, you can‘t do that to a Telescopic sight as get‘s knocked out of alignment.
  In Bosnia they handed out those PLASTIC QUASI iron sight‘s and made us take off the 79 and shoot with these half of them broke putting put them on!    :rage:  

 For the C7 the iron sight work‘s well and I‘am no **** hot shot ,after only having fired the weapon twice (we engineer‘s don‘t to shoot much) from 400 mtr‘s I scored a 28 out of 35! BLEW ME AWAY
I thought I was Alvin York!!!!      
(When first issued)

 The Iron sight is the only way to go with the C7!
If you can‘t hit with this weapon with the iron sight somthing is wrong!

 The only bitch I have is if you don‘t keep the C7 SOOPER clean and oiled forget it ,it‘s worse than the F.N. which at least you could turn up the gas and over ride clog‘s and crap to a point.

 Just an old Sapper‘s point of view


----------



## JRMACDONALD (21 Feb 2002)

M203 already issued to Res F units- mine got some 4 wks ago(ammo is a diff story)  Dry TRg is almost complete (only 4 lessons) the "plastic sight" has been out for a while here. (it wasn‘t  issued ‘cause there weren‘t enough) ( do you need it to shoot blanks!????)


----------



## cagomez (21 Feb 2002)

The 203 really looks like a great piece of kit to have in the section. Does anybody know the typical loadout of ammo (# of HE or illum) per trp and if there is any placement for them on the new assault vests. Saw several "Grenadier" LBVs but was pretty positive they were all US issue.

As for Southern Drive ie "Bold Venture" I have put my name in to go. Really excited about this ex. Been reading about US training and they got some of the best FIBUA sites in the world. Had some live fire Kill House Training and participated in a platoon sized FIB ex at Fort Drum NY prior. Excellent training, and could really understand why the Rangers had such a hard go at it in Somalia. That training ex was the reason I decided to invest in knee pads !!!  :mg:


----------



## Jungle (21 Feb 2002)

Hey Earl,
You‘re right about the FN C1, but then it was a bitch to clean... remember we were not supposed to use steel wool, but if you didn‘t use it, the baked carbon didn‘t come off. Of course that was before CLP... 
The C7 is a great rifle, but the C79 scope is questionnable. During a CAR depl to Ft Benning in ‘94, we were in a hangar all dressed up for a jump when a RIP platoon came in and one of them asked me if we were a Sniper Battalion (I wish we could afford a Sniper Battalion in this Army!!!) I did not ridicule the poor Lt too long...


----------



## bob (21 Feb 2002)

> Originally posted by Jungle:
> [qb]Hey Earl,
> You‘re right about the FN C1, but then it was a bitch to clean... remember we were not supposed to use steel wool, but if you didn‘t use it, the baked carbon didn‘t come off. Of course that was before CLP...
> The C7 is a great rifle, but the C79 scope is questionnable. During a CAR depl to Ft Benning in ‘94, we were in a hangar all dressed up for a jump when a RIP platoon came in and one of them asked me if we were a Sniper Battalion (I wish we could afford a Sniper Battalion in this Army!!!) I did not ridicule the poor Lt too long...    [/qb]


----------



## Infanteer (22 Feb 2002)

Even more rediculous is the C-79 on the C-9.  I‘ve shot iron sights on both weapons and I must say I prefer it to that silly sight.


----------



## cagomez (22 Feb 2002)

:sniper:    :fifty:  

Ah the ongoing debate about the C79, every picture I have shown to civie firends of me carrying my rifle has often been "Dude, are you a sniper ? " Whatever. Though I have hesitantly accepted the the C79 (whatever thats worth) I always try to find more and better explanations from higherups as to why its issued. It certainly does aid in observation ie op‘s, target ident, some intensification of ambient light, ranging etc. Though these are very valid reasons, the faults dont seem to justify gains. First off the sight is just way too sensitive, any little bump and it may be off, and the dials and lenses are prone to failure. Second it takes time to actually sight. Though there is that optic jobby that plugs into the barrel to rough sight, it is only suppose to "get you on the paper". You still have to shoot from the 100m. Yes we should be careful with our weapons and clean them, but why should we babysit them, they‘re suppose to work for us not the other way around. The hardest thing for me to get over was the c79 on an LMG and only recently have I been given a somewhat valid reason (My pessimism towards the subject must be thoroughly shared) and was as follows.

Most people have the sterotype that if your weapon is mounted with a scope that you must be carry a super accurate sniper that engages precisley to hundreds of yards. Not always the case as there is an optics system for the c6 (SUPPORT KIT) and nobody seems to complain about that. As machines have double the range of c7 (due to volume) the c9 is expected to engage at father ranges. You only need the site to identify (very important) and aim the weapon. Once you fire you immediatley look over the sight and watch for tracer and splash. The vibration causes the sight to be useless but the same would go iron sights.

I found this to be the most useful answer to why c9 would have a scope, but still the c79 on c9 shares the same faults mentioned earlier. Still this reason is better than none at all. Anybody comments ?


----------



## Korus (22 Feb 2002)

> Home is where my rucksack is


Nice    

The guy at www.tactical.dk really praises the reflex sight... Obviously I don‘t know shi*t about it because I‘m still in the wonderful recruiting process, but I‘m wondering if anyone here has tried it out or has opinions on it.. (or if the CF even allows soldiers to change the sights on their weapons)


----------



## Doug VT (22 Feb 2002)

The Elcan site is junk. The only thing that it‘s really good for is range work.  But even if you hit it with your helmet it gets knocked out of its zero.  The iron sights were much better(carrying handle)  I use the plastic iron sights but I‘ve already broken two.  They should have made the clamp out of metal not plastic.  

The Elcan on the C9?  What were they thinking...JUNK...

Fus- Teh C2 sight that is used with the C6 SF kit is nothing more than an allignment tool.  All the actual tgt sighting is done through the C6‘s iron sights and then recorded with the azimuth and elevation off the C2 sight.  Then the machine gun can engage pre-recorded tgt‘s or areas in low light, darkness, or obscuration.


----------



## enfield (23 Feb 2002)

My unit has just got some C9‘s with iron sights... *drool* Very nice, a huge improvement. 

C79 is ok for the range, but not so great anywhere else. Good luck aiming at anything closer than 200m.

How do they Brits issue their optic sights? I know some units get them and some get iron sights, but I forget if combat units get the iron or optic (SUSAT I think it‘s called) sight.


----------



## BillP (23 Feb 2002)

Most of the Brit front line units get issued the irons, for their Sa-80s, while other "rear" elements get the SUSAT. However due to the short sight radius of the SA80, the irons are next to useless. Try aiming at a target 200m plus with what amounts to pistol sights(that‘s what its like!) 
 The C79 is OK, it just needs to go on a diet,and get a better, more secure mount (4th gen. mount,& still they haven‘t got it right!) Mind you, I still prefer, and miss the carrying handle on the original C-7.


----------



## Spr Earl (24 Feb 2002)

> Originally posted by Jungle:
> [qb]Hey Earl,
> You‘re right about the FN C1, but then it was a bitch to clean... remember we were not supposed to use steel wool, but if you didn‘t use it, the baked carbon didn‘t come off. Of course that was before CLP...
> The C7 is a great rifle, but the C79 scope is questionnable. During a CAR depl to Ft Benning in ‘94, we were in a hangar all dressed up for a jump when a RIP platoon came in and one of them asked me if we were a Sniper Battalion (I wish we could afford a Sniper Battalion in this Army!!!) I did not ridicule the poor Lt too long...    [/qb]


Hey Jungle you never use viniger?Worked great but you had to get the oil on fast as it took everything off!!!! and if you didn‘t you could sit and watch the rust form!


----------



## Jungle (24 Feb 2002)

No earl, I never tried vinegar... This is the first time I even hear about it. But with the C1, whatever worked was fine !!! Also, when going on 5B/6A, we brought spare piston, gas plug, magazines etc... (all brand new) for inspections.
Now, the C79 should be removed from the C9 and keep a mount for night vision eqpt (such as the kite sight). Work should be done to improve the mount on the C7 and make it more sturdy.


----------



## jdmarshall (24 Feb 2002)

Inf Journal No 13
Spring 1985 - Volume 13
TECHNICALLY SPEAKING BY CTC TRIALS AND EVALUATION SECTION

Small Arms Optical Sight for C7 and C9

The standard aperature sights that traditionally have been used with service small arms suffer from several limitations:

a.	The lack of a single focus to encompass the rear and front sights, and the target reduces the precision of weapon lay on the selected target, and hence the hit probability for that range of engagement.

b.	At dusk and dawn, the reduced light levels available further degrade the problem outlined in the previous sub-paragraph.

c.	At night, the traditional iron sights are almost useless, requiring their temporary augmentation by electro-optical night sights.

d.	With the 5.56mm NATO round, it is often difficult to detect bullet strike in many soil conditions at ranges over 200 metres, by the unaided eye, in order to correct fire and to assess wind drift of the bullet. Tracer in bright light conditions is often very difficult to detect by the unaided eye.

ERNST LEITZ CANADA LIMITED has produced at CF request optical sights as part of a project to find a better small arms sight than the standard aperature sight.

A user trial was conducted in June 85 with the aim of evaluating the optical sight against the standard aperature sight of the 5.56mm C7 rifle and C9 LMG.

a.	The general impression of the sights overall effectiveness was very positive;

b.	Firers could detect targets out to 275m (Max Range available) on the edge of a forest shadow, at dusk or on a clear night with moonlight when figure 11 targets were not readily visible to the unaided eye; and

c.	With optical sights, a 10 round grouping was approximately the same for day and dusk, approximately half (day) to quarter (dusk) that of iron sight groupings. At night firing against moving figure 11 targets at 100m, the average hit probability was 90 percent vice 5 percent for iron sights. The unaided eye could just detect target movement but not through the iron sight. Some modifications were recommended to both the optical sight and the C7 rifle. These modifications are under way and a new trial should commence in Feb - Mar.


----------



## BillP (24 Feb 2002)

One question about the grenade launcher; why did Canada opt for the "short" barrel version. I know it doesn‘t make to much difference, with a HE round, yet with all the versions out there, why that one in particular?


----------



## Spr Earl (24 Feb 2002)

Why the short barrel? May be weight and bulk being added to the weapon is all I can think of and as a lot of studies state actual fighting occur‘s under two hundred mtr‘s.(man to man) any longer range you have your medium and heavy machine gun‘s along with other fire support weapon‘s.


----------



## Jungle (24 Feb 2002)

You will find out as soon as you carry the C7/M-203 combo for a while... it adds a fair amount of weight to the rifle.


----------



## cagomez (25 Feb 2002)

Just got of an ex. Took a quick look at a c7 mounted with an carrying handle/iron sight on the flat top, belonged to the wpn tech. Felt much lighter and sturdy, more useful and quick to aim at short distance. Would lave to have the oppourtunity to actually shoot with an iron sight.

Diemaco had a display going at our armoury once. One of their display weapon was a C8 with 203 attachment, i think it was called a "special forces weapon" on the website. It did feel like there was a lot of weight on it (mag and launcher unloaded), must be a #itch to hold it up in the shoulder/standing position for long periods of time !


----------



## Jungle (25 Feb 2002)

FUS
The weapon is indeed the "special forces weapon". It is similar in size to a C8, but with a number of mods, like a heavy barrel. This is the weapon the Brit SAS are buying.


----------



## BillP (27 Feb 2002)

A quick question to anyone who knows?
 Will the new up-and-coming LBV have specific provisions for carrying the 40mm grenades, or will bandoleers still be req‘d ?


----------



## cagomez (27 Feb 2002)

Was one of my original questions for this thread. I took a look at some pics of the LBVs both on the CTS page on D-Net (the CADPAT one) and also of some pics of LBVs issued to those in Afghanistan. All I could make out was mag and utility pouches(fit C9 boxes ?), no 40mm. I thought I remembered seeing pics of a CADPAT LBV with frag grenade pouches but cant find them any more. I probably doubt they would put 40mm pouches on our new LBVs since only a fraction of the troops wearing them would actually use them, unless they could fit both 40mm and M67 frags  :rocket:


----------



## hhour48 (27 Feb 2002)

The mag pouches on the LBV only fit one mag, too ;(


----------



## cagomez (27 Feb 2002)

In regards to my earlier post, found a rotating pic of the cadpat LBV. Looks like there are some sort of grenade sized pouch. Hope the link works.

 http://www.dnd.ca/dless/wes/Eqpmnt/tv_rotate.gif 

It really does suck that the pouches only hold 1 mag each for a total of 5 (4 on vest, 1 one weapon). Bombing up mags under fire really sucks !!!  :mg:


----------



## rceme_rat (28 Feb 2002)

The theory of the plastic magazine was that it was to be a disposable iterm.  All ammo was to be supplied in the magazine - no need to reload them.  Many early problems were attributed to plastic bits being broken off the magazine.  The solution was a more robust magazine - which made it too expensive to be a disposable item on exercise.  Be interesting to see whether it is treated as disposable or not in locales where it is more important to have ready access to ammo than it is to minimize expenses to such a degree.


----------



## BillP (28 Feb 2002)

A question, I heard that the CF is upgrading their C-8s to the heavy barrel version, identical to the Diemaco SFW.Also modular rail attachments are being added to the handguardsfor various lights/optics/sights.The barrel being stepped, like the US M4, would accomodate the M203.  Fact or fiction?? I recall a travelling road-show where several different variants of the C-7/C-8 were on display. Fact or just another way to tease the soldier?


----------



## BillP (28 Feb 2002)

P.S.
 I found a site that has some really detailed pix of the new LBV, the new gas-mask case, and info on Cadpat!
www.geocities.com/murphquake/CADPAT.html


----------



## TOW2B (28 Feb 2002)

Here is my 2 cents,I have been inflicted with the piece of crap ELCAN C-79 ever since it was introduced and simply put IT IS JUNK!!!I personally don‘t use it and never will I have a detachable carring handle on my C-7.Why some twat placed it on a C-9 I will never know but the LMG is the last place where the thing should be.As for the excuse that it aids in observing fire and helps at night BULLS#*T you can see strike of C9 hits out past 500m and at that range the tracer is still burning even out past 600m.The rail should be kept as you can mount something useful such as the KITE Sight or Maxi-Kite but that‘s all that should go up there.
 The M-203 PI was chosen because it can also mount on the C-8,it is a good system with a pathetic mount I have lost count as to the amount of time I have seen then fall off because the are mounted to a handguard I hope the new mount will sort this out.The handguard mount works on some rifles such as the Norwegian G-3A4 that the system was intended to fit on but with the slip ring system on the C-7/C-8 it is next to useless.
  I just hope that someday they actually put someone with field time and experience in procurement instead of a University educated sock counting WOG who wouldn‘t know the field if he fell in it.


----------



## portcullisguy (17 Mar 2002)

> Originally posted by BillP:
> [qb]A question, I heard that the CF is upgrading their C-8s to the heavy barrel version, identical to the Diemaco SFW.Also modular rail attachments are being added to the handguardsfor various lights/optics/sights.The barrel being stepped, like the US M4, would accomodate the M203.  Fact or fiction?? I recall a travelling road-show where several different variants of the C-7/C-8 were on display. Fact or just another way to tease the soldier?[/qb]


I have heard that the CF does stock this bit of kit (M203) although speaking to the odd soldier, none have yet seen or used it.  With the latest activity in Afghanistan, however, I have now seen images of both CF soldiers using an M203 attachment, as well as in today‘s Toronto Sun, troops in the mountains on Op Harpoon carrying the C-8, distinctively noted by its adjustable stock.

I haven‘t yet seen the C-8 with the M203.  This is, I have read, a common U.S. special forces configuration.

I suppose in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the range difference between the longer C-7 and the shorter C-8 are too negligible to worry about.

I have read on this website up to now that the C-8 is only generally issued to vehicle crews -- however, is it something that an infantry soldier can request?  For example, in Afghanistan, would the head sheds come around to all the troops and asked, "Hey, would you like a nifty C-8 instead of that long, akward C-7?"  Or is it more likely to have been, "Hey, here‘s a C-8, give us back the other rifle now while you go searching for Taliban in them mountains..."


----------



## BillP (17 Mar 2002)

Thanks for the info Portcullisguy,
 I found a website that shows the new "versions" of the C-7/C-8, and pertains to my previous post of C-8 modifications: 
www.mcaroy/cadpat2.htm
A few interesting pix!


----------



## BillP (17 Mar 2002)

Correction on that website! It‘s actually
www.mcaroy.com/cadpat2/htm


----------



## Canidule (17 Mar 2002)

I think you mean
 http://www.mcaroy.com/cadpat.htm


----------



## BillP (17 Mar 2002)

Also heard that steps are being taken to replace the plastic emergency rear sight, with a more sturdier one( a.r.m.s. #40 flip up rear sight!) Could this perhaps be a shift in DND thinking, and spell the end for the C-79


----------

