# a weapon question



## onecat (23 Oct 2002)

Okay, I was just reading the old posts on the FN- C7 debate, and my question is not about which round is better or which site is better.

My questions is this people always bring the factor of weight, and the you can carry more 5.56 than 7.62.  But how much?  I‘ve tried to look for standard amounts, so maybe the expereince here can help.  I know that when the US made the decision to change in Vietman, it was said because that M-14 was too heavy, but much more did they carry when they made the switch.

I‘ve only used the FN on the range when I was in cadet way when, but personally I liked it.  But it was harder to zero in on the target than my friend‘s M-16, M-14 or Galil.  The Galil was awesome by the way.


----------



## portcullisguy (23 Oct 2002)

I have heard that you can carry double the 5.56 than 7.62, but this is anecdotal rather than empirical.  I actually have no idea, having carried neither yet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Oct 2002)

384 -  5.56 mm rounds weights 10 pounds.
187 -  7.62 mm rounds weights 10 pounds.


----------



## Doug VT (27 Oct 2002)

Oh yeah, 7.62 gets heavy fast.  The average rifleman carries about 300 5.56 rds(7.81 lbs),  when the #2 on a C6 may carry as much as 5 belts of 7.62 (1100 rds@58.82 lbs+link) along with his 5.56 and pers weapon.  And usually the belts are all in a nuke bag, which by the way gets trashed in the process.


----------



## portcullisguy (29 Oct 2002)

Thanks for sorting all that out.

I was told that the basic load is 5 mags x 30 rds, or 150 rds.  Is it usual to carry 10 mags?  Or is additional ammo carried in the ruck?

Also, does loading 29 rds instead of 30 decrease the chances of misfeeds any?

Finally... what is the "normal" ball:tracer ratio?  I‘ve read books by people who load the first two, the middle, and last two as tracer, but I‘m sure there‘s lots of theories on this.  Anyone here have any theories of their own?


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Oct 2002)

When we had the F.N we carried 5 mag‘s by 20 round‘s a mag and had no trouble with putting a full 20 in as to the C7 mag‘s ,I alway‘s put in 29 as I have found the bugger tend‘s to jam at time‘s when you put in a full 30 grrrr.Just like some automatic pistol‘s do the same with a full mag.


----------



## portcullisguy (29 Oct 2002)

See, Earl, I don‘t have that problem with my personally owned H&K USP40 pistol.  The mag is a "post-ban" 10-rd mag.  Although the size and spring are capable of holding 13 rds (15 rds 9mm), this is of course, Canada, and the mags are all designed to only go up to 10.

The only time I have ever had a misfire with my USP is when I‘ve fired factory re-loads, when the primer was seated too far into the cartridge casing.  The USP is built to extreme tolerances, and if the primer is seated too far in, the firing pin will not strike it with enough force.

Of course, this is why the owner‘s manual recommends ONLY using factory loads (not factory re-loads, or hand-loads).

Playing with the C7 this past weekend, it seems to be built to less extreme tolerances and I suspect it will eat up and chew out many types of rounds that may not be totally up to standard.  This would seem to be mandatory for any military weapon, since even within the NATO standard, for example, you will always have slight differences as different countries will make slightly different ammunition, even in the same calibre.


----------



## combat_medic (29 Oct 2002)

I can‘t speak for the reg force, but in the reserves we‘ll usually only carry 5 mags at a time, plus extra C9 ammo. They‘re always loaded to 30 rounds: we went through our CQ and altered our magazines slightly to make it a bit easier for them to carry 30 rounds. I‘ve never had a problem with misfeeds. It would make sense to carry 10 mags at a time, but our webbing (currently) just isn‘t designed for it. Now, if they made the load-bearing vests able to carry more mags, that policy might change.

As for the ball/trace ratio, it only really applies to machine guns. A "normal" belt will have 4 ball, 1 trace. Or you can modify the belt to put several tracers right at the front to make it easier for you to get on target right away. I‘m told that occasionally you can have belts that are all tracer, but I have yet to see it.


----------



## Sharpey (29 Oct 2002)

I‘ve seen various lengths of belt that were all tracer. Mind you, they were "field modified"       Puts on a pretty show that‘s all. 

On ex. we usually carry four mags. Thing is they are extremely light, since we never carry ammo!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Oct 2002)

Standard belts are 4 ball, 1 trace. Anti aircraft is 1 and1. The idea behind putting a couple of trace in the bottom of the mag is so that under pressure when you forget to count, you‘ll see the trace and know your only a couple of rds away from empty.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2002)

In addition to the 5 magazines you also carry bandoleers (sp?) of extra ammo. (i think 5 boxes of 30 rounds ea.)
I think that whole "load 29 rounds so the magazine doesnt jam"  was something they used to do a while ago but with the newer magazines their built better and it doesnt really make a difference.

people will load their tracer in the mags according to their unit sop‘s. With me i usually load one tracer as the 2nd last round in the mag (to tell me when im out of ammo) and the 1st round in a mag (incase i have to indicate something by fire)


----------



## sten_sterling (30 Oct 2002)

the 29 rds thing is a holdover from the poorly constructed plastic magazines which used to be EIS for much of the CF who were not on operations.


----------



## Zoomie (30 Oct 2002)

Ah yes, the plastic mags.  A good idea that was b a s t a r d ized by the money grubbers and turned into an operational nightmare.


----------



## Harry (31 Oct 2002)

I will not dignify any of the so called weapons quiries in here, egad.  Aren‘t there other boards to entertain this stuff.

I will submit a site by a friend of mine in Denmark.  he has had to clean it up a bit and remove some of the derogatory comments regarding the C-7, specifically the plastic mags that they seem to have inherited.

www.tactical.dk (says it all)


----------



## sten_sterling (31 Oct 2002)

just curious. . .  but how were the plastic magazines a good idea? they didn‘t meet the standards during trials, they were operationally useless, so how were they a good idea for a modern,fighting force to use?


----------



## Zoomie (31 Oct 2002)

The scoop that I got (Harry and Recce41 don‘t crucify me on this, if I‘m wrong, so be it) was that the plastic mags were supposed to be loaded at the plant and distributed to troops in operational theatres ready to go.  The idea was that once used initially they would be discarded (much like the C9 box).  Obviously this didn‘t sit well with the money Nazis.


----------



## Harry (1 Nov 2002)

Rumours abound:

I was on the mag test.  Cheaper, lighter, less expensive.  And absolutely not throw away.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2002)

I‘m waiting for the government to have a lawsuit filed against them for all the plastic c9 boxes we leave lying around and the troops get ordered to do a garbage sweep of the training area‘s


----------



## Recce41 (1 Nov 2002)

Harry
 Your a lil off, They were to be pre loads. I have been issued with preloads. Zoomie is right, but it was more costly to do that. They came with a red slide over the rolls if they were basic ball, if they were mixed for the C9 they had a red stripe in the middle, to denote ball/trace.


----------



## Harry (1 Nov 2002)

Okay,

When we did the tests, there was a presentation on the throw away concept.  But it was presented as just that due to COSTS.

And perchance are you talking about the C-9 ready loads with the identifiers?

BTW the same people who said it would never happen, then went ahead and purchased the 5 gallon decontam kits w/hand pumps.  Even though we cave it a failing grade as the cans expanded and couldn‘t provide adequate pressure, but I digress.


----------



## Recce41 (1 Nov 2002)

Harry
 I‘m talking about the CRAPPIE plastic mag, we all gave the Americans in Somalia and on SUES for their metal ones. Yes, I said there it was not cost effective. They were trying the old WW2 and Korea way of issueing ammo. And for the C9 the boxes are (should be)marked for ball and blank with a different colour tab. Green for live and blk for blank. But I know they are always mixed.


----------



## Jungle (1 Nov 2002)

The plastic mags were CHEAP !!! Just like our government when it comes to military spending...


----------



## hhour48 (6 Nov 2002)

Speaking of picking up C9 boxes:
On my last field(!) ex we had to sweep the training area for all our (blank, of course) brass, link, pyro and, of course, c9 boxes.


----------

