# C7 Rifle...versus the FNC1



## army

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:10:46 -0500*
This is ancient history, but so‘s my serving time....to hence the 
question...
"Is the Canadian Army..the infantry in particular...better off with the 
C7 than the C1?"
I can come up with a number of thoughts pro and con...none of which, 
probably, are the point.
We bought mass of fire power at range of fire power.
Got short range accuracy en masse in exchange for long range accuracy in 
trained hands...
Traded a round that blew through a fifty gallon water drum for a round 
that ricocheted off of a leaf
True that the rounds are smaller, the weight mass is lighter to hump 
from here to there, and admittedly, there‘s  virtually no recoil, so if 
you‘ve got a sight picture, you should have an x-ring...unless you have 
no shooting background, and so can‘t hit the barn door...a major 
consideration of yesterday versus today, political correctness aside 
reality bites, doesn‘t it?  how many of us have taken our sons to the 
shooting gallery?encouraged their joining the rifle 
club...etc...?that the rounds were cheaper...did that mean you got 
trained more? shot more? or paid more? or fed better?  or had a better 
uniform?  Internal economies rule, I guess...
Okay.  I‘ve done the soup sandwich thing and run off at the mouth...
Answer up old guys that know what I speak about...
Must now go and get my Geritol and Immodium....
John
This is ancient history, but so‘s my serving 
time....to hence
the question...
"Is the Canadian Army..the infantry in 
particular...better off
with the C7 than the C1?"
I can come up with a number of thoughts pro and 
con...none of
which, probably, are the point.
We bought mass of fire power at range of fire
power.
Got short range accuracy en masse in exchange for 
long range
accuracy in trained hands...
Traded a round that blew through a fifty gallon 
water drum for
a round that ricocheted off of a leaf
True that the rounds are smaller, the weight mass is 
lighter
to hump from here to there, and admittedly, there‘s virtually no 
recoil,
so if you‘ve got a sight picture, you should have an x-ring...unless you 
have no
shooting background, and so can‘t hit the barn door...a major 
consideration of
yesterday versus today, political correctness aside reality bites, 
doesn‘t
it? how many of us have taken our sons to the shooting
gallery?encouraged their joining the rifle club...etc...?that the 
rounds
were cheaper...did that mean you got trained more? shot more?or 
paid more?
or fed better? or had a better uniform? Internal economies 
rule, I
guess...
Okay. I‘ve done the soup sandwich thing and 
run off at
the mouth...
Answer up old guys that know what I speak
about...
Must now go and get my Geritol and 
Immodium....
John
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *CoastDanny@aol.com* on *Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:42:09 EST*
John:
I was "fortunate" enught to join and do recruit with the FN but after that 
the Bn got the C7.  I would rather shoot the FN anyday.  I know if I can see 
it I can kill it. The C7 is a fun little rifle, but then so is my semi auto 
.22.  
One piece of advice, don‘t learn the "Shoulder Arms" on the FN and then join 
the Bn and first time you do it on a C7 toss it 6 feet in the air. Bad form! 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Todd Harris" <harris@nortelnetworks.com>* on *Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:31:59 -0500*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
In my humble opinion I‘d rather the C1 in the defence or ambush.  For it‘s
stopping/penetration power/range, and the C7 on patrol or while otherwise
carrying it around for its weight and rate of fire.

My 2.5 cents worth.

Todd Harris 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gow [mailto:jgow@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 10:11
To: army-list
Subject: C7 Rifle...versus the FNC1
This is ancient history, but so‘s my serving time....to hence the
question...

"Is the Canadian Army..the infantry in particular...better off with the C7
than the C1?"

I can come up with a number of thoughts pro and con...none of which,
probably, are the point.

We bought mass of fire power at range of fire power.

Got short range accuracy en masse in exchange for long range accuracy in
trained hands...

Traded a round that blew through a fifty gallon water drum for a round that
ricocheted off of a leaf

True that the rounds are smaller, the weight mass is lighter to hump from
here to there, and admittedly, there‘s  virtually no recoil, so if you‘ve
got a sight picture, you should have an x-ring...unless you have no shooting
background, and so can‘t hit the barn door...a major consideration of
yesterday versus today, political correctness aside reality bites, doesn‘t
it?  how many of us have taken our sons to the shooting gallery?encouraged
their joining the rifle club...etc...?that the rounds were cheaper...did
that mean you got trained more? shot more? or paid more? or fed better?  or
had a better uniform?  Internal economies rule, I guess...

Okay.  I‘ve done the soup sandwich thing and run off at the mouth...

Answer up old guys that know what I speak about...



Must now go and get my Geritol and Immodium....

John
In my humble opinion I‘d rather the C1 in the defence 
or ambush. For it‘s stopping/penetration power/range, and the C7 on patrol 
or while otherwise carrying it around for its weight and rate of 
fire.
My 2.5 cents worth.
Todd Harris 
  -----Original Message-----From: Gow 
  [mailto:jgow@home.com]Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 
  10:11To: army-listSubject: C7 Rifle...versus the 
  FNC1
  This is ancient history, but so‘s my serving time....to 
  hence the question...

  "Is the Canadian Army..the infantry in particular...better 
  off with the C7 than the C1?"

  I can come up with a number of thoughts pro and con...none 
  of which, probably, are the point.

  We bought mass of fire power at range of fire 
  power.

  Got short range accuracy en masse in exchange for long range 
  accuracy in trained hands...

  Traded a round that blew through a fifty gallon water drum 
  for a round that ricocheted off of a leaf

  True that the rounds are smaller, the weight mass is lighter 
  to hump from here to there, and admittedly, there‘s virtually no recoil, 
  so if you‘ve got a sight picture, you should have an x-ring...unless you have 
  no shooting background, and so can‘t hit the barn door...a major consideration 
  of yesterday versus today, political correctness aside reality bites, doesn‘t 
  it? how many of us have taken our sons to the shooting 
  gallery?encouraged their joining the rifle club...etc...?that the rounds 
  were cheaper...did that mean you got trained more? shot more?or paid 
  more? or fed better? or had a better uniform? Internal economies 
  rule, I guess...

  Okay. I‘ve done the soup sandwich thing and run off at 
  the mouth...

  Answer up old guys that know what I speak 
  about...



  Must now go and get my Geritol and Immodium....

  John
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:40:35 -0800*
The issue must be considered in context.  Consider the 8-man dismounted section:
I/C
2I/C
C-9
C-9
Eryx gunner
Eryx 2
Rifle/grenade launcher
Rifle/grenade launcher
In battle, I suspect everyone except the C-9 and Eryx gunners is doing one or
more of command/control, target indication, and ammo resupply for the
aforementioned.  No one is solely a rifleman.  I don‘t think it matters whether
the fire groups are balanced or the C-9s are concentrated in a LMG group under
the 2I/C.
Even if we remove the anti-armour threat and then add 2 more rifles by going to
a 10-man light infantry section hence remove Eryx and add 4 riflemen, the
section firepower chiefly resides in the C-9s.  I think we want to maintain
commonality of ammo between the rifles and the guns.  Is it more worthwhile to
carry more ammo for the "bullet hoses" or have 7.62 hitting power in the rifles?
This is not a rhetorical question, although I admit to leaning on the side of
the "bullet hose".  An option would be to go to 7.62 overall at some penalty in
weight, with the Eryx - already very heavy - and rifle/grenade users possibly
becoming too encumbered.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

