• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)


the patriot

Thought this might start an interesting discussion. Is it now time to replace the C7 with a different service rifle as our basic small arms for the individual soldier?!

-the patriot-
WHY? Let‘s master the rifle, before we decide we need a new toy.
You mean the butt of the rifle doesn‘t splinter on impact when smashed over a helment?! So much for close quarters fighting...

-the patriot-
In the thirteen years that this rifle has been in service, I have not yet seen a rifle butt splintered( modern urban myth, perhaps?) The handguards, I admit, are not so robust. So we replace the rifle , instead of a part? I admit I do not believe it to be the finest rifle we could have got. Are we always going to be chasing after the "newest piece of kit"? What, exactly, is wrong with it?
( let us conduct some of our own trials, you wear the helmet of your choice, I‘ll do the swinging!:):) !)
At the risk of sounding American; what tasking did you have in mind? Boarding naval vessels at sea...try an MP5A3 9x19mm Sub gun or a modified 11-87 Remington 12 guage shotgun. For reaching out and touching someone at really long distances try the Barrett .50 for the JTF (scrapped their PSG‘s in .308: couldn‘t deliver and way too heavy for a tactical weapon) or battalion combat snipers. Want a situational tactical weapon for rear area troops, try the 5.7 x 28mm that fires a 31 grain projectile at 2400 feet per second which will penetrate soft body armour at 200 meters like it‘s not even there and still manage to stop within 10 centimeters inside the target mass (that‘s what FN says it will do but I think they may be smoking something ‘special‘ to change the laws of Physics)

The ‘time on weapon‘ has been reduced to once a year for most troops which isn‘t enough time to reliably zero your weapon let alone become intimate with it‘s in‘s and out‘s. Remove the scopes (lighten the load) go back to a decent battle sight (a la Marine corps micrometer sight and the training that goes along with it) with a carrying handle at the point of balance and start teaching marksmenship on a quarterly level. Don‘t have to use the ranges...can use gallery rounds in a gymnasium with the C10 sub cal units. The situational training video stations are rarely up and operational so let‘s either scrap them or fix them to be more reliable. Train the operators to be troubleshooters of the equipment and not wait for the next computer whizbang to come along a few days later (I digress).

Everyone appears to want that special piece of kit that will get them out of any particular jam at the time the shit hits the fan (M203 for example) but not a lot of soldiers want to spend the time on triggers to accomplish the task. Time was when the best way for a unit to show their prowess as an infantry regiment was to demonstrate it on the ranges with all the weapons at the disposal of a battalion. Haven‘t seen that for 20 years...but then the last flogging in the CF was 1964. Time for a change; you tell me!

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath
Funnily enough, the American Army has decided to proceed with implementing the OICW as its primary small arms for the individual soldier by 2009. This information, I just read on Jane‘s Defense Weekly.

-the patriot-
OICW- only 9 years away, huh?( newest piece of kit envy, anyone?) I wonder how all that digital circuitry will stand up to a good helmet? :)
I see your point. You might end up having to call Microsoft Tech Support because your rifle ends up jamming on you. It probably wouldn‘t hold up to well...

-the patriot-
I always tought i knew an awfull lot on weapons so i was shocked when i read on the OICW.What the fuck is that?
The OICW is the "Objective Individual Combat Weapon" that the Americans have been working on for a few years now. It has everything all in one; meaning that you have a grenade launcher, machine gun, bayonet, laser targeting all in one weapons system.
It has a programmable 20 mm shell that would take the place of the M203 grenade launcher. For a better description you might want to check out the "User Submitted Links" section and there is an article all about it under the Military Information area.

-the patriot-
It‘s listed as America‘s Future Service Rifle.

-the patriot-
US Army approves revolutionary infantry weapon

JDW Staff Reporter
Washington DC

The US Army has given approval for the formal acquisition programme of its next generation infantry weapon. The army gave a team headed by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) a $95 million contract for programme definition and risk-reduction (PDRR) of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), fielding of which is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09).

Under a new programme schedule, revised last March, the OICW will not be ready for deployment to the initial units that will receive the service‘s integrated Land Warrior individual combat system. Army officials expect to begin fielding the Land Warrior no later than FY07.

The OICW is intended to be the primary weapon for close combat infantry units, replacing some M16 series 5.56mm assault rifles, M4 5.56mm carbines and M203 40mm grenade launchers. Under existing plans, the army will equip four members of a nine-strong infantry squad with the OICW.

As part of the risk-reduction efforts, ATK will build five full prototypes before the programme enters engineering and manufacturing development in FY04. According to Barbara Moldowney, the army‘s assistant product manager for OICW, the weapon will be redesigned and additional capabilities added during PDRR. These include a laser rangefinder, digital camera, combat identification system, integrated thermal fire control and laser illuminator. Pre-planned production improvements (P3I), including the use of multifunctional lasers are also being considered for the weapon, Moldowney added.

ATK business development manager Tom Bierman said improved battery technology is another area for possible P3I upgrades. Live fire tests of the redesigned weapon are due to be conducted at Aberdeen Proving Grounds at the end of FY03.

The OICW will be capable of firing both standard 5.56mm kinetic-energy ammunition as well as a new 20mm high-explosive airbursting round that the army is describing as a revolutionary advancement because it can attack concealed targets with greater precision at 1,000m. The electronic fire-control system, built by Brashear, will have a laser rangefinder that can transmit data directly to the fuse in the 20mm airbursting round.

The programme has suffered setbacks and criticisms that the weapon is not rugged enough, is too heavy and overly expensive. The largest setback came in September 1999 when a 20mm round detonated in the OICW‘s barrel, injuring two personnel (Jane‘s Defence Weekly 3 Nov 1999). That problem has now been fixed and live-fire tests will be held in October 2001 to prove those solutions, programme officials added.

The officials said that reducing the weapon‘s weight remains the largest technical hurdle to overcome. The weapon‘s weight currently stands at 8.17kg, but is expected to be reduced to 6.81kg by the end of PDRR and to a maximum of 6.36kg before entering production. All of these weights include eight rounds of ammunition in the magazine, ATK said.

The army is expected to buy 20,000-40,000 weapons for an estimated $8,000 to $10,000 per unit. That, critics say, is expensive compared to the M16‘s cost of $586. However, Beirman argues, the OICW offers five times the effectiveness of an M16 mounted with an M203 grenade launcher and requires fewer munitions to be fired while providing greater survivability and reduced life-cycle costs.

The OICW will be capable of firing both standard 5.56mm kinetic-energy ammunition as well as a new 20mm high-explosive airbursting round
(Source: Alliant Techsystems)

-the patriot-
ok thanks for the link and article.

1.Why do you want to change the c7?
2.If we were ever to change, what would you want it to be for?
I heard the H&K g36 k is THE soldiers weapon.It has an integrated 3.5 x sight just like the c7, but also has a normal o-ring/pin sight similar to the m-16‘s.Plus H&K is recodnized across the world for its ruggedness and reliability and it would fix all the complaints I‘ve heard on this forum about the c7.If we were ever to change, i wish it would be the g36 k.
P.S.:If one weapon was to be changed i think it should be the pistol.The browning is overdue for change.New technologies reduce recoil and would ease the use of the pistol for those of us who can‘t seem to be able to handle weapons right.But then, we could argue the pistol is not the weapon you use the most often on the battlefield.
MudCrawler; The HK G36K has a 12.5" barrel and is of limited use as a main battle rifle. The operational round suggested as the primary effective cartridge is the 62 grain, moly-coated tactical load that must generate at least 2600feet per second at the muzzle to penetrate to a depth capable of incapacitation on a human being. The significant barrel length is the factor and would suggest that you look at the G36E format with an 18" barrel instead. A little more weight but acceptable to anyone that has humped (if I may use the word {it hardly weighs anything compared to an FN}) a C7/M16. I disagree about the sight. While it does have the same magnification (3.5) it has a much smaller field of view than the Elcan sight and for close assault purposes it can impair vision to the front (where the Bad Guys are). There is a non-magnifying sealed tube sight available for this weapon that is part of the carrying handle but again it limits the periferal vision and can cause the operator to ‘tunnel‘ his view objectives. I hate to be the regressive, low techer here but I believe that we should return to a heavier projectile, tritium iron sighted, high mag capacity weapon and retrain soldiers to lead targets, stalk and assault with aimed fire. Quit relying on the volume of fire to make up for the shortcomings of accurate fire.
Master Blaster, thx for the info on g-36 k.I think we should specialize some units in CQB, entering buildings and stuff, but still give a general training to every soldier, and arm those with h&k 53, the 5.56mm version of the Oh-So-Popular mp5.and yes, i agree with you, good old tritium sights still do the job and, besides, when you wannna scared baddies, an impressive amount of fire is always preferable to a few sighted shots.Its psychological i guess, but i bet your way better placed than me to discuss this subject since I‘m not even in the army yet.Its been 2 months and tehy still didnt call me back to give em a date for interviews :*(.Is it true that they wanna put a m203 on every C7?and what do you think of the browning hi-power we have in service?
Oh and i forgot, arent you guys allowed to do some free time firing?on the base‘s firing range?
No, the M203 will be carried by two people in each section of eight. Thus the section small arms will now be comprised of two C9s, two C7/M203s, and four C7s.

The G36‘s secondary sight is actually a red dot relex sight, which is designed to be used for close quarter battle.

MP53... I‘ve had no personal experience with this weapon. It was only produced in limited numbers as I recall, and according to US SPECOPS personnel who have tested it, the weapon was prone to stoppages resulting from receiver dents. I suppose that‘s what you get when a weapon is stamped from sheet metal.

I am quite suprised that the Elcan is actually considered to be one of the top combat optics out there. I‘m a fan of iron sights myself though. I think one possibility the CF can look into is the system that the Danish army has. Their troops recently got issued with Elcan equipped C7s, and with each rifle, there also comes a rubber rear sight which can be mounted on the rail should the Elcan fail, or they are moving into FIBUA conditions. The backup rear sight resembles the previous looped upper rear sight on the C7, except that there is no looped carry handle; only the rear sight.

A picture of the sight can be seen here: http://www.tactical.dk/images/c7a102.jpg
Ignore the relex sight mounted in front of the rubber sight. That is not issued kit.
yeah the best option would be to have the elcan scope mounted on a rail system and each C7 would come with a carryhandle with tritium sights that could replace the elcan wich would be able to be taken off the C7.Before i learned the scope was fix, i always tought this was teh case because, well, its the most logical thing.So when you come to CQB, you switch from scope to carry handle.
At first with mp5, you could only put 29 ammo in mag cuz the pin was blocking the 30th bullet.They fixed it.Now the mp5 is one of the most reliable weapon on earth and is used by armies and police forces around the world.I cant think of a reason why they wouldnt have fixed the 53‘s problem as well.Tho i must say i heard that the US navy‘s version with the 3 round burst trigger module isnt that reliable(on mp5 n).I know the Montréal police swat team uses the 53 so they musnt be that bad.
The Elcan isn‘t fixed on the rifle. It IS in fact mounted on the rifle by a rail so that a soldier can move it back and forth to adjust for proper eye relief. To remove the sight, all you need is to turn the two wing nuts to loosen the sight and take it off. As a matter of fact, that‘s where most of the Elcan‘s problems come from... it coming loose and losing zero.

For FIBUA though, the Elcan probably isn‘t so much of a problem because the engagement distance is often so short, and things happen so fast that you simply bring the rifle up and fire, using only the top of the sight as alignment towards the target.

As to the MP5, there is still a mythical quality, but it is quickly being phased out by many military and law enforcement units world wide in favour of the superior ballistic characteristics of the M4 carbine.