# Variant of C7A2,  the Different Canadian Sniper Rifle and C9A2



## soldiers301 (16 Oct 2004)

Hre is 3 photo. One show 3 variant of the C7A2 Rifle, and the other show the different Sniper Rifle of Canada ! And finally, the new C9A2.


----------



## D-n-A (16 Oct 2004)

Actually in the first picture, two of the rifles are C8A2s? and the one in the middle is the C7A2.

Two of the sniper rifles look like the C7C2/SR25, and the third one is a McMillian TAC .50


----------



## soldiers301 (16 Oct 2004)

Yeah it is !


----------



## scm77 (16 Oct 2004)

The top and bottom weapons in the first pic have different barrels.  Is the top one a Diemaco SFW?





Doesn't have the modular handguards though.

Cool pics whatever they are.  Where are they from?


----------



## Crazy_Eyes (16 Oct 2004)

Is the barrel on the C9 supposed to be that short? I've seen other pictures and it looks longer, sorry guys still a civvie


----------



## Fusaki (16 Oct 2004)

> Actually in the first picture, two of the rifles are C8A2s? and the one in the middle is the C7A2.



I think the bottom one is a C8 and the top one is either an SFW or a C7A2 with an SFW upper receiver. Maybe KevinB would know the difference. On the top one you can just make out an ambidextrous fire control selector and it looks like it has a heavy barrel too.



> Is the barrel on the C9 supposed to be that short?



On the current C9 the barrel is longer, but on this new version its shorter. Also, check out the built in iron sights. SWEET!!

On another note, has anyone used any of the other kinds of simunition seen on the C9 pic?

*EDIT* I'm pretty sure the top one is a C7A2 with an SFW upper receiver because its my understanding that the SFW does NOT have the ambidextrous fire control selector.


----------



## scm77 (16 Oct 2004)

It (the top one) does indeed have a heavy barrel.  Appears to have everything the SFW does except modular handguard.


----------



## soldiers301 (16 Oct 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> The top and bottom weapons in the first pic have different barrels. Is the top one a Diemaco SFW?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are from an Equipment Demonstration in Toronto on March 3th 2004.

Here is a direct link to the rest of Equipment demonstrated : http://www.army.dnd.ca/GGHG/Photo_EquipDemo_1.htm


----------



## scm77 (16 Oct 2004)

Cool, arctic Cadpat.

http://www.army.dnd.ca/GGHG/Photo_EquipDemo_files/ClothSoldier(1a).jpg

Thanks for the link.


----------



## greentips (17 Oct 2004)

AoS said:
			
		

> Actually in the first picture, two of the rifles are C8A2s? and the one in the middle is the C7A2.
> 
> Two of the sniper rifles look like the C7C2/SR25, and the third one is a McMillian TAC .50



THe middle one is a commerical Armalite AR10 in 762


----------



## rounder (17 Oct 2004)

We're becoming, if not already, the best equipped Army in the world.


----------



## Crazy_Eyes (17 Oct 2004)

Yeah, it does seem like were getting some pretty good stuff....Just need alot more of it


----------



## soldiers301 (17 Oct 2004)

Yeah, the Canadian Ground Force is to be equiped with all the best available in the next few year !


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Oct 2004)

Rounder give your head a shake.   With personal gear maybe.  Overall not even close.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (18 Oct 2004)

Those C7s/C8s look pretty kick ass, and the C9 too, i wonder how much of an acuracy drop there is with the shorter barrel? I am excited by the different calibers of simunition, makes for better training, only thing is, is the effective range for the larger rounds increases from the 50m of the 9mm?


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Those C7s/C8s look pretty kick ***, and the C9 too, i wonder how much of an acuracy drop there is with the shorter barrel? I am excited by the different calibers of simunition, makes for better training, only thing is, is the effective range for the larger rounds increases from the 50m of the 9mm?



Reference barrel length, there is not necessarily a corelation between barrel length and accuracy.   A shorter barrel is not necessarily less accurate than a longer barrel...what is effected is the velocity of the projectile as it leaves the barrel.   A good rule of thumb for the C7/AR15/M16 is 50 ft per second per inch.   Your mileage may vary.  So if a barrel was 20 inches and the bullet left at 3100 feet per second, you could expect a 200 ft per second loss in velocity in a 16 inch barrel.   With a carbine of 14.5 and 10.25 inches in length, you can expect the bullet to leave the barrel at 2825 ft per sec and 2612 ft per second respectively.   The problem is not one of accuracy but terminal ballistics.....but that is another discussion unto itself.   

So in other words, there is no loss of accuracy with a shorter barrel, just velocity loss.   The trajectory will change and because of the lower muzzle velocity the bullet will begin dropping sooner than one leaving at a higher velocity but it will still be as accurate.   If anything in ballistic theory a shorter barrel is more stiff and therefore should perform more accurately....but there is more to accuracy than barrel length.

In terms of performance of the shorter barrels, they are being examined for personal defence weapon.   Considering the problems of introducing a new weapon system into the CF, a similar platform would ease the training bill considerably.   Unfortunately the short barrel have issues with terminal ballistics using standard ammo.   It is generally accepted that our FMJ performs best in terms of terminal ballistics above 2700 ft per second.   Below 2700 ft per second, terminal performance begins to degrade.   So the shorter the barrel, the more problematic terminal performance becomes.   You will note in our calculations above that the bullet is leaving the barrel below the ideal 2700 ft per second line.   Some of this can be addressed by a heavier bullet load such as a 77 gr projectile vs the current 62gr.   Much research is ongoing into this both in Canada and the US.  We could have an entire thread just discussing terminal ballistics.

So in summary.   No impact on accuracy necessarily.   Definite impact on terminal ballistics or in layman terms...what happens when the bullet hits its target.

Jeff


----------



## rounder (18 Oct 2004)

> Rounder give your head a shake.   With personal gear maybe.  Overall not even close.




     Hey... in the reserves personal gear is all we get. Oh... and maybe an Iltis.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

C7CT, AR10T and The TAC50 - all CF sniper weapons are supressed.

We dont call the SFW the SFW (for whatever reason) we call it the C8A2 or C8HB - depending upon who you draw it from - we did not subscribe to the KAC RAS either 
My SFW versus a C8A1






16" versus 14.5" bbl (for terminal affectiveness - the velocity issue Jeff touched on the 4" drop from the C7 to C8SFW is the same as the drop from the SFW to the 14.5" C8 bbl aprox 150fps for both)

C9A2 - I'll dig through my pics and get a good intheatre shot.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

Better one of the C7CT 





Dave and I hamming it for the camera





A bunch of us doing a "Hero Shot"




like my VLTOR shirt?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Oct 2004)

What sight is that in your first pic?  Issued?


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

Aimpoint M2 CCO - My issued EOTECH got recalled  : seems some officer though he needed it more than I - so I raided my buddies C8 while he was on HLTA (it is MY Aimpoint).


----------



## Gayson (18 Oct 2004)

I haven't read all the thread here so I apologize if it was mentioned.

Reference the shorter C9 barrel.  I read somewhere, I think here but I will look for the source, that the shorter barrel is a FIBUA barrel.  This barrel was made shorter so that the machinegunner use the C9 more easily in confined spaces.  It is also important to note that C9 gunners will as a result be carrying 3 barrels instead of 2 (2x normal barrel and the 1 Fibua barrel).  

[Edit]

I found that source, it was posted here some months ago.  I remembered it a little incorrectly as it says a gunner would be issued 2 short barrels instead of one.  Anyways here is that source, though I don't think it is as reliable as I remembered it to be. . . 

_(3)     Barrel.  New short barrels have to be
procured with a collapsible carrying handle.  The short barrel will be for
specific ops such as parachuting, FIBUA, and fighting in complex terrain
versus a full-length barrel (466mm).  It is envisioned that each C9A2 gunner
will be issued two short and two long barrels and use depending on the
mission in conjunction with an integral Backup Iron Sight._

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16430/post-73555.html#msg73555


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2004)

Curently only one long and one short are issued.

However according to DLR there will be two of both with the folding handle.

Most users prefer the short bbl for all uses - and bullet drop is aprox 6" different at 500m when using short to long (not 6' like some are saying...)

Cheers


----------



## foerestedwarrior (19 Oct 2004)

Is that a silencer on beside the C7CT??


----------



## SEB123 (19 Oct 2004)

yes


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2004)

We prefer the term suppressor  ;D

 All CF sniper weapons are now suppressed.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (20 Oct 2004)

were you with a specialized unit over there? or is that the normaly issued weapons now?


----------



## MG34 (20 Oct 2004)

It's all normal scale of issue for a deployed Infantry Bn.Note the "deployed " bit as it will be a while before any of this stuff gets into widespread issue (C7A2,C9A2,SFW,etc) The CT is already issued to units as are C8A1 for the most part.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (21 Oct 2004)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The CT is already issued to units as are C8A1 for the most part.



I wish, our unit has nothing close to that, i have broken both our C6's(not my fault). And our C9s are sketchy, and we got like 4 times as many C9s as we need. I heard that the CTs are supposed to be around, and i know of some units that have them, but definatly not mine. I have never even seen a C8 in real life, in 3 years in. meh it will come eventually. Maby if i get on OP BRONZE i may see it there.


----------



## baboon6 (21 Oct 2004)

Most armies seem to now prefer the Minimi/SAW/C9 with short barrel and collapsible stock- the ParaMinimi is the only one used by the Uk, France and several other countries, and is now appearing with the US Army in Iraq.


----------



## MG34 (21 Oct 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> I wish, our unit has nothing close to that, i have broken both our C6's(not my fault). And our C9s are sketchy, and we got like 4 times as many C9s as we need. I heard that the CTs are supposed to be around, and i know of some units that have them, but definatly not mine. I have never even seen a C8 in real life, in 3 years in. meh it will come eventually. Maby if i get on OP BRONZE i may see it there.



That would be Reg Force units,not the Reserves they will have to wait for theirs.The C7CT & AR10 will not as I have been told be issued to the Reserves


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2004)

From what we have been told by DLR only the reg forces Infantry will get the C7CT, AR10T's and the C8SFW's.  Reg Armour and Engineers will get the rest of the C8A1's 

 The rest of the army will have to survive with the C7A2  :-*


----------



## foerestedwarrior (21 Oct 2004)

Its kewl, im usually a gunner anyways, so unless we replace the C6, it usually doesnt affect me


----------



## baboon6 (27 Oct 2004)

Couple of questions
1


Couple of questions
1. Why issue the C7CT as well as the AR10T- aren't they basically the same weapon? Or is one 5.56 and the other 7.62?
2. Can the C8A2 mount an M203?
Thanks in advance









o


----------



## KevinB (27 Oct 2004)

C7CT is 5.56mm the AR10 is 7.62mm -- I know that a people feel the C7CT is a waste and we shouldjust issue the AR10...

Yes the C8A2 can take a M230A1


----------



## pappy (28 Oct 2004)

I've heard that the AR-10's (7.62mm / .308) arn't standing up well to heavy military use, becuase of the higher power of the bigger round.  More wear and tear effecting long term accuracy.

Not to say I wouldn't want one.....  well maybe if Bush is relected I'll give myself a early birthday gift.   ;D

Its my opinion that there should bacically be three style of rifles, lets leave machine guns / SAW's out of the conversation for a bit...

1, Standard issue weapon:  M16A2 / C7A2 (semi-auto and burst mode only)
(I believe these are the same, as I'm a former Marine I know the US designations and may make a error on CAF names, so bare with me)
The above goes to all enlisted, SNCO's and Officers.  (no sense making the Officers stand out in a crowd more then they do now).
If funds available 1X Aimpoints, or Trijicon Reflex type units. (whole another agurement on 3 to 4x scopes on all personal weapons)

2, on a limited basis, to the best shooters, i.e. Disgnated Marksmen: M16A3 (Semi-auto, burst AND full-auto) WITH heavier match grade barrrels, slighty heavier, lets not go overboard.
(flat top with Aimpoint (or matching to above) AND 4x32 ACOG & 3.5-10x40 scope, 3rd scope if funds available... AND if terrian warrents its use) (not all 3 carried at once)
Issued in a perfect world one per fireteam, or at least one per squad. 
The reason for full-auto option on this rifle and not #1 is that someone with better then average shooting skills will be better with full-auto and make it count.  Full-auto is great for everyone in video games, but a waste of ammo.  Well placed semi-auot fire is much more pratical and effective, burst mode is fine for traget rich enviroments with someone armed with type #1.

3, Sinper rifle, 7.62mm bolt action.  Lets face facts bolt actions are more accurate and cheaper then trying to make a semi-auto sniper weapon system, buy more bolt gus and train more snipers.  If designated snipers need semi-auto, see rifle #2 above.  Note this rifle #2 should be the Spotters rifle.
 (sniper teams in my opinion should be two man teams.)
3.5-10x40 optics as standard, and since its a perfect world, a second 1.5-6x40 for urban work.  With a possible M4A3 as a second weapon as needed with ACOG.

Of course Snipers these days have other larger boomers available, i.e. .50 cals for anti-material, looooonnnngggg range stuff.

#1 and #2 should have iron sights as backups.  And all should have night-vision/thermal abilities as needed.  All optics should have tritium reticals as well as the iron sights having tritium inserts.  

To me this makes the most sense.  Granted Special Forces units will have different needs.  And of course 40mm gernade lunchers should be added to #1 as needed.

I don't think everyone should be armed with some tricked out M4A3 with 40mm bloop tube as much as we all would like that.   ;D

Let's not get started on M14's for DM rifles, a fine rifle I agree, I love mine, but the US Army spent millions trying to make a slik purse out of a sow's ear.  It's just too hard to get semi-autos to maintain sniper rifle accuracy for thier life span.  Civilian use / match shooting is a whole different beast then combat.  The US military just doesn't have the trained personal or parts to maintian the M14 these days.  Hence the deveilopment of the AR-10.

Personaly if the military is going to develop a semi-auto sniper rifle like the AR-10 there needs to be a redesign on the gas system.  

Do Snipers really need semi-autos?  If there are large groups of targets, isn't that what Arty and close-air support is for?


----------



## pappy (28 Oct 2004)

addressing the one post that commented on the 11.5" barrel lenght with 5.56mm / .223........ 

having owned one....  repeat after me "extreme muzzle flash"  I knew you could.
Impressive to say the least, but even with a 4.5" flash hider, it was a lost cause.

Lots of velocity loss I agree, but also agreed not that much loss in accuracy, to a point, since the one I had was a Match grade 11.5" barrel.  But loss of velocity = loss of accuracy at LONGER ranges, that's a given, slower bullets are more driven off course by wind.

At combat ranges? maybe not an issue these days, but hitting power is a problem from 11.5" barrels

I don't see the need for anything less then 14.5" on something like the M4 series.  A good compromise.


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

Well I am getting more and more diagreeable over the day  ;D

I don't agree with pappy whatsoever. He comes the KevinB RANT...
Ecerpts from my service rifle paper..

Weapon Footprint:
 The size of the C7 is overly large for the roles of mechanized, light infantry, and special operation capable (or SOC) forces. 1PPCLI experiences in Kosovo have been documented, and the requirement for a smaller more maneuverable weapon was noted in the unit AAR. Soldiers repeatedly used pistols as a more handy and controllable (but less effective) weapon during VCP's / Cordon and Searches etc. Experience in Mechanized exercises and deployments highlights the need for a shorter and more maneuverable weapon. The space in a LAVIII APC is at a premium, and to exit the vehicle quickly and still be able to bring accurate fire immediately upon enemy forces a shorter weapon is required. 3PPLCI's combat experiences in Afghanistan are a true test of the C7/C7A1 and example of the desirability of the shorter C8/M4 Carbine
style weapon. Soldiers were constantly interested in the C8 carbine due to its short length and lighter weight. Light Infantry soldiers are encumbered by an assortment of bulk and heavy items in addition to their personal weapons. The 3PPCLI AAR asks for the Diemaco 16â ? SFW to compensate issues with the C8's 14.5â ?bbl.
Velocity table a few of us did up in testing 20" 16" and 14.5" Barrels
for those unfamilair with the mechanisms of wounding for the C77/M855/SS109 projectivel please consult the AMMO-ORACLE







 Sgt L. M. Gauley, CD's article in the Vol.6 No.1 Spring 2003 issue of the
Doctrine and Training Bulletin make clear the tasks that are required of
both Light Infantry (occasionally the need for Mechanized Infantry to
function as Light) and the skill sets, and equipment that are required for
those missions and that most of these mission in other armies would be farmed to
SOF's.


2) Modularity: The C7A1 Rifle's Picatinny type rail on the upper receiver (note the
Diemaco Rail spec is not a true M1913 Picatinny spec rail) is not long enough to
accommodate all of the required modular weapon system accessories of modern Armies
IR Laser/Illuminators, Visible Lights, NV systems, grenade and less lethal launcher
systems. To make effective use of these systems a modular weapons system is needed so
items can be added and subtracted as needed. The other users of plastic stock furniture
weapons (i.e. the US Army and USMC) have made several strides . Many allied rifle
and carbine upgrades call for an uninterrupted M1913 spec top rail.


C7A2





Observations
The midlife replacement project is making the C7/C8 a more versatile
option. Admitted there are currently deficiencies in the C7A1. Currently DLR has proposed the C7A2 to fulfill the deficiencies of the C7A1

Ambidextrous Magazine release;
Ambidextrous Fire Control Selector;
Diemaco Triad 1 (Light and Laser Adapter)
Green Furniture;
C79 Upgrade;Green C79 Sight Cover, replace Tritium Source (10year half life), and Retrofit 4 gen Side Spring
Accuwedge; and
C8 4 Position Telescopic butt


Recommendations

1. The C7A2 appears to be a start in the right direction but did not go far enough.
The weapon footprint was not fully addressed. While the idea of a telescoping
buttstock is desirable , the 4 position Diemaco stock is not a good representation
of the available choices in telescopic stocks.
 · The US Military has adopted the newer Colt 6 position stock for use on
the M4A1 Carbines and other weapons that has a larger toe â â€œ providing
both better purchase on the stock from the shoulder, and diffusing the
recoil impulse to a greater degree.
 · USSOCOM has adopted a number of Modular telescopic stocks, from the
Crane Enhanced M4 Stock, the VLTOR, and the Magpul M93 MSS.
 · Other off the Shelf Manufactures are creating modular stocks with
multiple positions that provide even greater flexibility to the shooter (7+)
 · Collapsible Stocks allow for the tailoring of the weapon to each
individual shooter to adjust to both stature and size, but also the
encumberment of equipment and combat clothing.
2. Barrel: With the shift in focus of the CF toward the close combat environment5 it
does not make sense to retain the 20â ? barrel of the C7. USSOCOM testing6 by
USNSWC Crane has shown the 18.25â ? bbl (Mk12 SPR) is the optimum bbl
length for accuracy and muzzle velocity; however the 16â ? midlength system is
the best overall combat length barrel for multipurpose roles occasioned by
Infantry and Special Operations Forces


More to follow


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

I'll cut this short but.

One thing I have noted is the 14.5 and 16" C8 barrels are TOO long for usage inside some dwellings (this is not North America) and in vehicles of which the majority of ambushes now occur.

*The 10.3" or 11.5" bbl upper should be acquired for use in limited numbers so troops can effectively use the weapon in some environments.





* All troops should be equipped with a 16" C8SFW type upper w/ MWS rail usign a combination of magnified and CC Optics's






* the 7.62mm MRS should be fielded as quickly as possible


----------



## rounder (28 Oct 2004)

> One thing I have noted is the 14.5 and 16" C8 barrels are TOO long for usage inside some dwellings (this is not North America) and in vehicles of which the majority of ambushes now occur.
> 
> *The 10.3" or 11.5" bbl upper should be acquired for use in limited numbers so troops can effectively use the weapon in some environments.




    What will the individual max eff range be with the 10.3, 11.5, 14.5, and 16" bbl be? My guesss is it will obviously be reduced which leads me to ask; will this create havoc with our current doctrine?


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

Rounder - it all depends upon what you mean by effective

 I took top in the 300m deliberate at this years NSCC (CFSAC Lite as it were) with a 16" gun.

Ken Fergunson won the entire match with a 16" including the 500m matches...


Acuracy is not related to bbl length no matter how hard some try to beleive that it is (well sight radius on iron sighted guns can hurt the carbien length guns - but a USMC SSGT won the PACFLEET Matches with a M4A1 gun iron sighted in 2003 and took top score in its history)

With the shorty carbines (10&11"ers) I have seen people use them out to 300m - In fact I would state one could easily pass the Inf PWT with one.

IF we talk about bullet fragmention and terminal effectiveness (which is why I posted the ammo oracle link...) which is something the CF tries to avoid like the plague and in fact does not ever teach troops about bullet erminal effects.
 10.3" about 10M of fragmentation
 11.5" about 15M
 14.5" 45M
 16"    90M
 20    140M

Bullet drop difference from a 20" to a 16" bbl is aprox 6" at 500m (most troops cant shoot that well so the it is moot)

 No past that the bullet will not fragment when it yaws and in fact at lower velocities it wont yaw and will just put a .22 cal hole (with a limited amount of permanent wound cavity and some larger temporary cavity)

 The key is seeing the shorties as specialty items - not for everyday usage - but for a VCP and hosue clearing or driving duties  - at up close and personal ranges it won;t matter - and the troops will have th estandard 16" upper on hand as well (an unfortunate gold bag approach - but nec for troop effectiveness to be increased.

 The 7.62mm AR10T with 168gr (but preferable 175gr) Sierra Matchking ammo will increase the range of precision fire at the section and give it a limited peneteration advantage as well.



Too many people are believing that short is useless without tryign it out themselves and educating themselves on the advantage and limitations.


-Kevin


----------



## pappy (28 Oct 2004)

lol guess that woke everyone up.  I don't agree with every post, but most make some good points. So I'll take my licks... and admit the errors of my ways.

I can see the points about mounted infanty, shorter barrels are a little handier I'll agree.  But I just think maybe people are trying to get the M16 family to do-all, be-all.

Seems there is a need for a submachine gun again....  Even with a telescoptic stock the 14.5" and 11.5" M16 family weapons are still long for inside small houses arent't they?

Why not just issue everyone MP5's? (or bring back the S&W M76) for urban / house entry weapons?  or bump up to the .40S&W if more power.  ahhh if the would was perfect we'd have it all. And I'd think a 9mm subgun rated round or .40S&W would do just fine at the close ranges inside the small houses.  But I think it would be wise to keep the options of the M16 available for outside use.  Not all combat is indoors, although it does seem to be going that way at times.

Yes, seems the M4 with the 14.5" or 16" does seem to be the upper desireable limit for lenght.  But I wonder if all the compaints about the hitting power of the 5.56mm round has gotten at the "longer" combat ranges 150m-300m is due to the loss of velocity.

I guess in todays military we're forced to have one weapon do it all, but can it do all roles equally well?
I think sometimes we spend too much time trying to reinvent the wheel.  If a Subgun is needed then use MP5's along side the M4's

Guess I'm an old Marine at heart, I hate to see us give up too much range.  Are combat ranges getting closer cause we can't hit and knock down targets at longer ranges because we're bulding shorter and shorter ranger weapons and failing to teach people how to shoot well ?
Being a Marine I also feel the best CQB weapon is Arty. yeah before I get flamed that was a little sracstic, but only a little.  I think at times we put our troops at too much risk to satisfiy politically correctness. If wars where more dangerous to our enenies maybe they'd think more about starting them next time.

Didn't they do a little house to house fighting in WW2 with M1's, Enfields, BARs, Brens.... guess wars change....


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

Pappy good points 

 I think a lot of this is interelated (prepare for KEvins Cosmic mumbo jumbo)

1 Source of Wounding: Firing Rates have gone up in all the recent wars, our soliders do not hold back like they previously did (95% firing rates for combat arm troops since Vietnam, whereas 50% for Korea and 10-15% in previous Wars - yup right back to the US Civil War and Napoleonic times) .  Prior to that the majority of direct fire small arms fire was from machine gun teams - and until we got into these more precision operations 

2 More Pop Culture:  Soldiers have been treated a a lot of on screen mayhem and seen what bullets are "supposed" to do - so when the Enemy gets hit and does not fly across the room, they are disappointed.

3 Decrease In Marksmanship: Troops juts dont shoot as well as they used to and get much less I quote RickBoucher a former SF MSgt and now a civilian instructor at Ft Bragg 





> Actually we have two types of combat failures. One is th eround not downing a bad guy. The other is the shooter not hitting what he is shooting at. While the first is actaully a relatively rare event, the second occurs all too often.


and from a paper (about the 6.8SPC round) I got from then CWO3 Mike Haugen the then S7 (Force Mod) for 1SFG (ABN) 


> A. Lethality. By far the largest battle cry for this caliber is that it is X amount more lethal than 5.56mm in general, but several times more effective than the current issued M855 (AKA green tip) specifically.
> 
> 1) Cause of issue: The overall problem of lethality seemingly stems from various conflicts of the past 20 years, more specifically it has been reported and passed around that troops deployed to Somalia and for Operation Anaconda repeatedly complained about lethality of M855 specifically and 5.56 mm in general. The most common compliant seems to be that the round merely passes through the enemy without significant damage.
> 
> 2) Reality: Like statistics, tests can be configured to produce the desired outcome especially when the subject focus is narrowed to one item and the proposed solution can be configured in any way.


and more from Mike


> Interviews with veterans of Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, and Enduring Freedom whose marksmanship skills are known have unanimously agreed that neither 5.56 or M855 pose any lethality problems, the issue is shot placement



and some more



> B. Accuracy. It is generally believed throughout the SOF community that the M4 and 5.56 are not overly accurate at ranges past 300 meters. This belief has been supported by routine training at ranges below 300 meters, more commonly less than 50 meters. Over 80% of SF marksmanship training is conducted at ranges less than 50 meters. On some teams this may not be the norm, however on most due to range availability and an increased emphasis on close quarters / urban combat training, long-range marksmanship training is not a priority.Human sized targets out to and including 600 meters can be easily engaged with M855 if the soldier is trained.




And forth 

4 Tgt Detection: While this does tie into the issue of marksmanship the advances in optical sight on weapons and available to commanders make it possible to id tgt's and engage them at distance that were unlikely in previous conflicts (despite popular myth).  So you have a worse shooter taken a longer shot which leds us into the "of course you caught a fish that big..." scenario.


----------



## pappy (29 Oct 2004)

Kevin, first off ranting is allowed, lol  So everyone feel free.  

But is all the expending of ammo becuase we have full-auto capabilities in almost all weapons? (or at least 3-rd burst, which still emptys mags quick)  While up-close and personal full auto fire does a nasty job of making hamburger, I think anyone that's emptied off a few mags on full auto has said something releated to these 3 comments below:

1, "F$%#ing-A that was cool"

2, "did I hit anything?"

3, "damn, hand me another mag."

Granted full auto 5.56mm ain't as uncontrollable as 7.62 doing the rock and roll thing. Anyone thats spent a little time behind a rifle will know a little movement behind the muzzle makes for some rather disapointing hits at 100m-200m down range.  

A sign I saw a few times in the Marine Corps:  "in combat only hits count"
Some know others don't but during the war in Veitnam, Rebublic of, that the US Marine corps REMOVED the full auto sears from 2 of three M14's.
semi-auto fire only makes one tend to take more time to aim and be sure of a hit. I'm not saying full-auto doesn't have it's place.

Most riflemen where armed with bolt actions when the allies won WW1, most bolt actions and semi-autos in WW2 when the allies won.  More semi-autos during Korea, that was a tie, but a close one.  Full-auto for almost everyone in Vietnam.... we know what happened there.

During Beruit our Marines where armed with M16A1's and knew how to shoot them, a few snipers with 7.62 Rem700s and not many hezbolla got close enough to do anthing more then harrasing fire.  They lost quite a few to well aimed fire, when the politicians let us shoot.  Before they got close enough to make thier hits count, our hits did. Sadily too many Marines still died, and most of thier blood can be blamed on our own politicians.  Once wars start, politicians should stay out of it, thier diplomacy failed, once the militarys called out, let us do our job.  And that job is killing the enemy.  I'm sure you Canadians have your own experiences with politicans wanting you to be "preacekeepers" in some far off land where peace is nowhere to be seen.  Marines and Soliders are warfighters, not peacekeepers. But I digress.

But times change, wars change with them, things are different now.  But the worse thing we're doing to our military is not treaching them to shoot and shoot well.

All the gadgets attached to a rifle don't mean squat if you still don't hit anyone.  Granted I must admit the current soldiers in  Iraq and Afgainestain are doing a fantastic job, it's amazing what they have accomplished.  But all that technology can and will fail, and then where do our Marines and soldier fall back on but training? if that training relies too much on hi-tech thier screwed when it fails, what happens when that fancy laser sighting system fails, runs out of batteries, gets smashed.  Tecnology is great, but not so fail proof to risk lifes on.  First train ALL Marines and soliders to shoot WELL with a simple iron sighted rifle, and then spend more time and money getting them better, then maybe add the cool toys later.  I think we forget optics on rifles where rare as hens teeth before ww2, hell in combat except snipers, the first gulf war was probably the first that common grunts had optics on thier rifles,  opps well the Brits in Northern Ireland did, sorry guys.

I think we've gotten lazy depending on full-auto rather then good honest shooting skills.  And Officers and SNCO have gotten lazy not doing thier job of maintaining slow accurate AIMED fire on traget.  Allowing everyone to fire away on full auto is more then just a waste of ammo, its dangerous.  Please don't get me wrong I'm not saying all officers and SNCO are to blame, most are highly trained imdividuals, but I do think we relie on full-auto way too much.

If we need more rounds down range, then lets get more trained men.  The western nations are spoiled rotten with the majority of our citizens not doing thier duty by serving in the military.  They enjoy freedom without every learning it's cost.

And as far as ammo goes.... lets not kid ourselve, bullets kill people, if the ones we've got aren't killing the ememy we HAVE to change them, screw the Geneva Convention. 
No sportsman wouldn't think it humaine to shoot FMJ at a elk or deer, and they ain't shooting back.  A swift sure kill on our enenmy is what we need.  Killing the enemy and bringing our own men home alive is more important then political correct laws.  Yes we are a society of laws, but war only happens when laws and political diplomancy fails.  Once they call the military, let us finish the job.  We shouldn't be designing weapons to be kind to our enemy, they are designed to kill the enemy.  Leave the kindness to the Peace Corps.

I don't think the firing rates are that high, 95%, I'd like to see the data to back this up, I'd like to believe that.  I find it hard to believe ANYONE that has someone shooting at them WOULD NOT fire back and want to kill them,  I sort of took it personal.

But lets not forget the real king of Battle is Arty.  Arty has killed more soilders then all the rifle fire.  As I said before if you need full-auto, call in arty.  Maybe one day I tell ya all about what 16" Naval guns can do to an anrgy crowd of Hezbolla armed with AK47s who are hanging out at a distance they thought was "safe".  Not quite as impressive as one friend of mine experience calling in an Arc-light strikes outside the perimeter of Ka Shan, but nothing says "payback" like three little words..... "fire for effect".


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Oct 2004)

Also all the studies that have been done since WWI,Infantry contact is still under 200 m.'s
Case in point,the Cemetery in Fallujawere the U.S. Marines were fighting with in 10 m.'s in some case's.
I still like 7.62 thank very much.


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

Most of the firing rate studies are in LtCol Grossmans Book "On Killing"

 The new USMC AAR's are actually promoting using burst now to drop opponents...

I am not suggesting that full auto is the problem just lack of basic marksmanship - troops firing on semi that suck - still suck just less fast.

People have to STOP thinking FMJ's lack of wounding is why we dont hunt with it - it is DUE to fragmentation - it ruins meat - hunting bullets 'mushroom' and cause clean wounds that bleed the animal out yet leave the meat intact














> Fragmentation causes significantly larger wound profiles with M193 and M855 (as well as lighter rounds like 50gr and 55gr JSP or JHP) than controlled expansion rounds do.  The size of these wounds make torso hits devastating and in non-torso hits can cause enough vascular damage to increase the rate of "bleed out."  The penetration of M193 and M855 in tissue is not compromised by the fragmentation either, as large portions of the round, particularly the nose, retain enough mass to penetrate out to 14.5" after fragmentation.  Because effective rounds need to do the most tissue damage possible, fragmentation is an ideal wounding mechanism and gives the small 5.56mm round more "bang for the buck" than even 7.62mm rounds that don't fragment


----------



## pappy (29 Oct 2004)

Good info Kevin, I'll have to take a look at the book.  

I think we both agree marksmanship is the key.  And that is the key.

Yeah burst mode is handy, with a well trained good shooter it can be done quite well.... I'd post a viedo clip, but I'm sure it would get "bleeped"

Viedo I sure is floating around the net.  I was at a old Marine friend of mine the other week doing some work on his computer... oh and doing a little drinking too   ;D

He pops up a .MOV file taken by some TV reporters following the folks around that where on the recieving end of some 3-rd bursts....  some good shooting, two in the chest, one in the head.  The bad guy poped around the brick wall with an RPG, got dropped in his tracks before he could fire.

I've always like the 5.56mm I've seen it work.  I think its the same augement we heard since the cavemen used clubs, each improvement and it the same old story "I like ??? better then ???"   ;D  But in the end, thier tools, we all have our favorites, but we should all learn to use them all well.

I've seen a few hunters do some bad work on elk and deer around here, saw one guy hit a deer with 5 shots from a .300 win mag... tough deer, but not much meat left on him that wasn't shot up.

I own 7.62mm's as well, glad I have a chioce between them, I'd hate to have to make a choice of one other the other, it would be tough.  But The military doesn't always get that choice. 

Wish the military had the choices too,  different tools for different tasks.


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

Pappy - I've seen it - the SAW engagment.
  Notice the RPG gunner has one leg?  They pay cripples to do that sort of thing...  A one legged man in Afghan or IRAQ can;t make money for his family - so they get paid to be some terrorist "laundry boy" - or - perhaps a better description a new USMC reactive tgt  ;D...


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

and back to other dicussion

Pic of the C9A2 (and custom LBV   ) and his personally bought sling...


----------



## Dissident (24 Nov 2015)

I'm bumping this up. This is over 10 years old and, at the time this was posted, really started me down the path of professional development regarding ballistics and the effectiveness of the M16FOW. To this day I still introduce many to some of the info that is shared here. Will we ever learn?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2015)

By the way the Houthi Rebels have found to be using Timberwolfs captured from Saudi Forces. Our guns are getting around!


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I'm bumping this up. This is over 10 years old and, at the time this was posted, really started me down the path of professional development regarding ballistics and the effectiveness of the M16FOW. To this day I still introduce many to some of the info that is shared here. Will we ever learn?



A lot of new ammo has arrived that a lot of my stuff from back then is no longer relevant.


----------

