# C9 Rail mount/ EO-tech



## matty101 (17 Jan 2008)

hey there i was wondering about the addition of a EO-tech to the C9. i was told that it  wouldn't be such a great idea mounting optics to the feed cover as it will never hold it's zero.  doe anyone have experience with this?  Also i was wondering if there were any quality rail mounts out there that would be compatible with the C9?  thank you Matt


----------



## combatbuddha (18 Jan 2008)

Talk to your unit/ supporting base Wpns and EO Techs.
Apparently you haven't been around much, or else you would know the answers already.


----------



## KevinB (18 Jan 2008)

Zero on a belt fed is a relative term anyway -- its close enough for Gov't work.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jan 2008)

C79 sights can and are on the C9.  Good for about the first round then look for the kick up and walk rounds in.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jan 2008)

MTH said:
			
		

> hey there i was wondering about the addition of a EO-tech to the C9. i was told that it  wouldn't be such a great idea mounting optics to the feed cover as it will never hold it's zero.  doe anyone have experience with this?  Also i was wondering if there were any quality rail mounts out there that would be compatible with the C9?  thank you Matt



Its a MG, not a sniper rifle.

The EOTECH has zero magnifaication, utlilising an adjustable ( for brightness) red dot (numerous reticules to choose), which from any angle you view it, the rd goes where the dot is.

I used one in Iraq on my issued F88SA1C. We also used them on our Para-Minimi MGs. It was great for 'shooting' on the fly from a LAV, much more practical than the ELCAN or stock standard 1.5x F88. The lads always used the EY sights on these as there is no time to get a good sight pic at 60kph with adrenal gland squirting at the same time.

Picatinny rails are common. I have one on my civvy rifle, an AIA M-10A2 carbine in 7.62 x 39mm. Works well.


----------



## Fusaki (21 Jan 2008)

combatbuddha said:
			
		

> Talk to your unit/ supporting base Wpns and EO Techs.
> Apparently you haven't been around much, or else you would know the answers already.



I tried talking to an EO Tech yesterday, but couldn't get an answer. Everyone around just laughed at me.  :'(

You've obviously been around longer then I have though. Maybe you can share some of that wealth of experience. What would an EO Tech say on the issue?


----------



## Kendrick (21 Jan 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I tried talking to an EO Tech yesterday, but couldn't get an answer. Everyone around just laughed at me.  :'(
> 
> You've obviously been around longer then I have though. Maybe you can share some of that wealth of experience. What would an EO Tech say on the issue?



Hehehe so funny.

buddha, I sold my 552 to my buddy in my section, and he's been using it on his short barreled C9 for the last 5 months here in Kandahar and is quite satisfied, and doesn't have issues with the zero.  Besides, like Infidel said, zero is very relative on a belt fed.


----------



## MG34 (21 Jan 2008)

An EOTech or Aimpointis a much better optionfor any MG than that POS Elcan.With the non magnified optics you get much better SA and a wider fieldof view,now if we could get the Vortex flash hiders on the damn things to dealwith the muzzle flash at night we would have a decent system.


----------



## combatbuddha (24 Jan 2008)

An EO Tech would mention to look in the "Warrior Handbook." (at least the "helpful" smart asses I know.) The modified elcans are more robust than before, but only slightly.

Honestly, magnified optics on a LMG is not a great idea as SA is lost as previously stated, but the counter point is that for observing distant targets it works as intended. The proffesionals all have their opinions. Ain't heard of too many UCR's, so it can't be all bad.

Elcan is developing a new version of sight that has the standard magnification AND a change over lever for unity. It could be a good alternative. Problem with holographics is that now with surefires, laser pointers etc we now have to carry half a Wal Mart battery department's stock of replacements. 
That being said, we all know that good operators never leave the wire without knowing that their kit is 100%.


----------



## Fusaki (24 Jan 2008)

> An EO Tech would mention to look in the "Warrior Handbook."



Are you joking?


----------



## Blakey (24 Jan 2008)

Wonderbread, been in the Cbt Arms myself for 18 years, I haven't the foggiest of what an "EO Tech" is myself, besides being a holographic sight...

EDIT: Maybe you treat it ("Eo Tech") like a magic eight ball?  

Second Edit: After a little searching, I found this two year old thread.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45015/post-393585.html#msg393585


----------



## Blakey (25 Jan 2008)

Well shiver me timbers, ya learn something new every day.
http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=434&bhcp=1

I'll still call them FCS Techs though.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Jan 2008)

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. 



> Insert Quote
> Well shiver me timbers, ya learn something new every day.
> http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=434&bhcp=1
> 
> I'll still call the FCS Techs though.



*******

Wow. Its a good thing they have that warning there... I stand corrected.


----------



## MG34 (25 Jan 2008)

combatbuddha said:
			
		

> An EO Tech would mention to look in the "Warrior Handbook." (at least the "helpful" smart asses I know.) The modified elcans are more robust than before, but only slightly.
> 
> Honestly, magnified optics on a LMG is not a great idea as SA is lost as previously stated, but the counter point is that for observing distant targets it works as intended. The proffesionals all have their opinions. Ain't heard of too many UCR's, so it can't be all bad.
> 
> ...



In y Coy 75% of the Elcans were replaced on the C9s in the last 2 years, the Elcan is an inferior piece of kit that  has no place on a LMG (or rifle for that matter) ,as a viewing aid the Elcan suffers from poor FOV with decreased  adverse light performance.
The Elcan Spectre DR is another inferior piece of kit.Zero retention when switching magnification is still an issue,and it suffers from the Achilles Heel of the system, having windage and elevation adjustment on the mount. The design is flawed, always has been , and likely always will be, the addition of a spring doesn't do a thing to fix anything WRT the Elcan and it's mount.


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2008)

Thank you for the very polite post. 

No one said Kilroy was wrong, they were pointing out their experiences with the sight and he the way he went about responding to them and went about posting in a manner that was giving others a bad impression of whether their knowledge was useful or not. He failed to take note of that in their (and my) posts. 

So, enough said on on that.


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> An EOTech or Aimpointis a much better optionfor any MG than that POS Elcan.With the non magnified optics you get much better SA and a wider fieldof view,now if we could get the Vortex flash hiders on the damn things to dealwith the muzzle flash at night we would have a decent system.



So you say (I assume as a user from the sound of your post) that a NON-magnified sight is a better option on the C9? If this is the case, would the original open peep sights be just as goos as an EO tech sight? I agree the Elcan doesn't exactly work on the C9. I recently had to repair a whole bunch of them that came off of C9's after we did a stores inspection, but I always thought that the C79 would atleast be good for the C9 operator to better observe a target to start out with, instead of using Bino's, putting them down then starting to fire? I do not normally operate a C9, and if I am on a tour and operating a C9, you know there's trouble! (I'm a tech, not an infanteer!     ) But we were always trained to use the C79 for the initial shot, and then come onto target, or stay on target, with the tracer rounds.


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Well shiver me timbers, ya learn something new every day.
> http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=434&bhcp=1
> 
> I'll still call them FCS Techs though.



Heck, I AM one and i still call myself an FCS tech. Then again, I still proclaim to be a 433, and not a 434.   ;D   Guess old habits are hard to break!


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> In y Coy 75% of the Elcans were replaced on the C9s in the last 2 years, the Elcan is an inferior piece of kit that  has no place on a LMG (or rifle for that matter) ,as a viewing aid the Elcan suffers from poor FOV with decreased  adverse light performance.
> The Elcan Spectre DR is another inferior piece of kit.Zero retention when switching magnification is still an issue,and it suffers from the Achilles Heel of the system, having windage and elevation adjustment on the mount. The design is flawed, always has been , and likely always will be, the addition of a spring doesn't do a thing to fix anything WRT the Elcan and it's mount.



ANY magnified sight will decrease your FOV. Maybe the reason the Elcan is only a 3.4x magnification. Maybe what the military should do, is like what they did when designing the LAV, ask the soldiers who use the kit what they want. If, as you make it sound, open sights are much better, than maybe the military brass should shake the marbles out of thier heads and listen to you guys!!


----------



## KevinB (3 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> ANY magnified sight will decrease your FOV. Maybe the reason the Elcan is only a 3.4x magnification. Maybe what the military should do, is like what they did when designing the LAV, ask the soldiers who use the kit what they want. If, as you make it sound, open sights are much better, than maybe the military brass should shake the marbles out of thier heads and listen to you guys!!



  FOV is not just in relation to the magnification -- the x4 TA01 and TA31 series ACOG's have a much larger FOV...

The primary method of adjusting MG fire is from observing strike and tracer -- thus while magnification can help it is not always necessary.  CCO's are not open sights -- but a single plane aiming system that is MUCH faster than irons under all conditions - and also allow the user to maintain better situational awareness, they do have disadvantages with target detection and discrimination - and the user and the user group needs to find the best tradeoff for their mission.


----------



## combatbuddha (3 Feb 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Are you joking?



Absolutely.


----------



## Fusaki (4 Feb 2008)

This whole FCS Techs becoming EO Techs thing is news to me. I had no idea about it and I take back my smartass comments. I'll admit it - I'm the one who's all fucked up.

I suppose I don't know everything, after all.  ;D

cheers


----------



## Blakey (4 Feb 2008)

Now that the thread is cleaned up, maybe I'll try and pose this question again.
Does anyone know if the lenses of the C-79 are magnesium fluoride coated?, I'm not at work right now so, 
I can't ask my friendly neighborhood Eo Tech  ;D.


----------



## darmil (4 Feb 2008)

Magnification on a MG is only good for long distance to observe splash and adjust makes it a little easier to see, being an ex C9 gunner and MG qualified the old course not this DP2A crap.I never liked the C79 on the C9 FOV is shyte .I'd like a sight with a big field of view.When my platoon was attached to A3 we where on the range shooting C9 PWT guys in my platoon had the C79, gunners from A3 had open sights they where shocked to see C9's with the C79 the guns we where issued were from 1VP.I'd like to shoot a C9 with an EO tech.There is a guy in my platoon that has one for his gun maybe I'll try it when i get to the box.


----------



## PhilB (4 Feb 2008)

As others have said the Eo Tech works extremely well on the C9. A couple of the gunners in platoon are using them, and our chain is trying to get a few more to throw on our other guns.


----------



## Kilroy (6 Feb 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Now that the thread is cleaned up, maybe I'll try and pose this question again.
> Does anyone know if the lenses of the C-79 are magnesium fluoride coated?, I'm not at work right now so,
> I can't ask my friendly neighborhood Eo Tech  ;D.



The lens ARE coated (atleast the OG is), but with what exactly, i do not know. I'll try and find an answer for you on friday, or early next week.


----------

