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

[drummie1625]

I am retired American military, I read about the destruction of the C-1 and C-2 rifles, my heart goes out to you. As a cadet I qualified with the M-1 Garand, and later with the M-14, M-16 And on exchange with the L1A1.If the M-16/M-4/C7 was the all around best weapon, why is the U.S. forces scrambling to acquire M-14/M-1A rifles for service in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could it be that the  7.62 is better suited to that environment then the poodle shooters(5.56)? Also to the best of my knowledge the  Brit's pulled all They're L-1's from service.

 

[1feral1]

Ya Drummie, our L1A1s too have felt the heat of the smelt. As for our SF community in two ME theatres, we have re-introduced the 7.62mm NATO cartridge in the Springfield Armory M1A Scout. I have no idea how many, nor the UoI per Sqn/Coy either, but I do know we have them, along with Romanian new and 'off the shelf' 7.62 x 39mm AKMS (side folder East German style), AKM, and 5.45 x 39mm AKS74's. Not war trophies/battlefield pickups, but recent purchase for secret squirrel reasons. It is common knowledge that they are out there.

To add to it, you will NOT see any SASR or Commandos with the F88 FOW either. The AUG has proven itself NOT in arid and wet environments, and the SF community refuse to use it period. See a guy in DPDU with an M4 and see the same with an F88 you know who is who ;D

I am NOT alover the the AUG and variants, and why our governemt continues to pump $$$$$ into its upgrade and development continues to baffle me. Its the Edsel of its own kind.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[KevinB]

FWIW - The US Army came up with SASS to replace the M14's that could not fit the bill, for a variety of reasons.

There are lots of reasons to use OPFOR weapons in certain usages - particularily SR/TR Recce missions...

 

[canadianblue]

When I was at BMQ we were issued the C7A2's and even though I have fired weapons previously I had failed the 100m firing test, however passed the 200 m test easily. I would like to shoot with the iron sights just to see if that would make any difference in marksmanship skills. However when I used the C7A2 a major problem we had on our course was the butt plates constantly falling off in the field, and the "improved" cocking handle breaking.

 

[zishka]

Before I got out I used the C7 with the Elcan and I thought it was the cats pajamas. Every year of service I qualified master marksman ( Infantry standard/ PWTL3) and used iron sights as well as c79 and I preffered the scope, could be by that time my near sighted ness was getting worse, but as long as it was maintained it
was a great piece of kit. Initiailly when they first were issued the site post inside flaked and there were other problems but these seemed to be sorted out in the next year or so. The yanks had a pretty neat holo site set up as well as mil-dot but for the iron site enthusiasts I'd say its a dead argument. Its not the optics or sites as it were that makes a better/worse marksman. Optics only help you to see better.

 

[geo]

Z
you got that right - Optics improves vision, it does not improve shooting skills.

 

[Gunnerlove]

A quote from an ERT instructor "It is far faster to put a red dot on a target than it is to line up iron sights, especially in low light conditions or while wearing a resperator" He also made the point of the psychological disconnect that optics provide. You put the dot (green triangle) on the target and squeeze the trigger.

 

[Kal]

A quote from an ERT instructor "It is far faster to put a red dot on a target than it is to line up iron sights, especially in low light conditions or while wearing a resperator" He also made the point of the psychological disconnect that optics provide. You put the dot (green triangle) on the target and squeeze the trigger.

I have heard actually the exact opposite.  I was watching a documentary about the war in Iraq and some of the soldiers thought it would be easier to drop the hammer on someone using an optic.  They went on to say that was not the case.

While using an optic can enhance one's shooting ability, a strong foundation of the fundamentals is needed before advancing into more complex shooting/fighting.

The psychological disconnection comes from proper mindset and training, not from an piece of equipment.

 

[redleafjumper]

I'm with Kal on this one, if you want people to shoot well, they should learn with iron sights.  That will give them the basics.  Save the technology for those who can already shoot well and have the training to take advantage of it.  Are iron sights faster than optics?  Well sometimes yes and sometimes no.  Factors such as light, mirage, and others all play a factor in target acquisition.  I have found that in some conditions iron is far faster for an aimed shot.  The "red dot" is fast as well, but usually not as accurate and is more finicky when faced with obscured shooting conditions such as smoke, fog, mist or ice.  Glass is great for many applications, but again can have problems with weather and is easily damaged by poorly trained users.  The key is good training and not expecting one system to be everything in all environments.  If that's what one is looking for, iron sights look pretty good.

 

[geo]

Optical sights are for all intents and purposes "bells & whistles" BUT if you don't already have a good foundation in the basics of marksmanship then the Optics aren't going to help you direct your fire onto target.

 

[DG-41]

I think there's an argument though that optics make it easier to teach the basics:

1) No need to line up a foresight and rear sight

2) At typical training ranges, the target appears much bigger through the optics, making it much easier to pick a constant point of aim (and making any wobbling around more obvious to the shooter)

3) People seem to understand a dot, crosshair, or "pointy post" better than a blade foresight

I shot competitively before I ever made it to the Army, and I shot over ironsights in the Army long before I shot through optics. I vastly prefer optics.

DG

 

[geo]

DG
once you've MASTERED your shooting skills the Optics make a lot of sense
before that - I'm more of the opinion that you get more bang for your buck by training with Iron sights and concentrating on picture, posture, breathing and firing techniques.
Optics give the inexperienced shooter too much to look at. He gets easily distracted and the learning curve is 10x longer.

 

[DG-41]

I can't say I agree. I've been a unit shooting team coach a few times, and I think that it's easier to teach breathing control etc because the optics give better feedback by making the POA movement more obvious.

That includes the C9 too. We won the machine gun competition with optical-sighted C9s, in part because we developed a technique at the range that maximised the advantages of having the optical sight.

DG

 

[flashman]

Optical sights are for all intents and purposes "bells & whistles"

I disagree - I think optics are a basic necessity now.  Irons don't work with NV, and have no ability to assist in target discrimination, and are slow to use at short ranges (ie, the 90% scenario where individual wepaons are employed).  Basic C7A1 sight should be the Aimpoint / EOTech, with a smattering of ACOGs.  A zero power optic has all the advantages of irons, none of the disadvantages, and several extra benefits as well. 

 

[geo]

I disagree - I think optics are a basic necessity now.  Irons don't work with NV, and have no ability to assist in target discrimination, and are slow to use at short ranges (ie, the 90% scenario where individual wepaons are employed).  well. 

Flashman,
you're not getting my point - I'm not suggesting we do away with the Optical sights I'm just saying that the Iron sights is a better tool to teach basic marksmanship skills.

 

[WogCpl]

Optics!
Two words.
1.Rain
2.Fogging
I see your point with optics, but i think iron sights are more usefull given our "diverse" climates. As such, i think that all should learn to shoot iron.

 

[flashman]

Flashman,
you're not getting my point - I'm not suggesting we do away with the Optical sights I'm just saying that the Iron sights is a better tool to teach basic marksmanship skills.

My misunderstanding then, sorry!  I am not sure basic marksmanship training with irons is necessary though - but barring a through study of shooters trained on irons and then converted to optics vs. optics only, I don't think there is a answer that isn't completely coloured by personal opinion and bias (either for or against optics). 
My personal belief is that it's far easier to train someone to shoot well with optics, and the end result is just as good a rifleman.  I don't see what irons offer as a learning tool that optics don't. 
And for all those that hand wringing that goes on over the state of marksmanship, I am perfectly happy with the ability of 90% of soldiers to shoot accurately enough.  Where our deficiencies lie is in useful shooting skills that will be of any use whatsoever in combat. 


 

 

[flashman]

Optics!
Two words.
1.Rain
2.Fogging
I see your point with optics, but i think iron sights are more usefull given our "diverse" climates. As such, i think that all should learn to shoot iron.

Rain is not an issue nor is fogging.  Both can occur, and both are easily dealt with - fogging only if you are bone headed enough to bring your weapon in and out of doors where there's a large temp variation; as for rain, well, I have yet to be in a storm so bad that a quick wipe with my sleeve or finger didn't solve the problem. 
I think your opinion that irons are more useful needs a bit of a rethink - have you ever tried using irons while clearing rooms?  At night with NVG? At night at all?   
Why on earth do you think a sight that, at present, is useless 16 hours a day is the best choice?  Why on earth are iron sights no longer used as the primary sighting system by any of the major militaries? 
You say you think iron sights are more useful - why?  What specific attributes of irons makes them better than an Aimpoint or ACOG? 

 

[Kal]

I definitely think that optics are required in some situations, ex. long range shooting/sniping.  While shooting with an optic may make teaching the fundamentals easier in the beginning, I am not sure that it is beneficial for the end product.  The major advantage irons have over electronic optics is that irons always work.  If your red dot should take a crapper, the shooter has to go to irons.  Now if the shooter hasn't learned using the irons, then what good are they, more of a liability than anything. 

 

[flashman]

Optics are required in all situations, and especially in CQB shooting. 
We need to design indiv weapons to solve the 90% problem, which is quick encounters at 100m or less.  The C7A1 at present is the solution to 10% of the soldier's problems, ie deliberate shooting at ranges from 200-300m which it is what it is optimized for.
Irons absolutely do not always work, they can get smashed and lose zero as well.  And putting damage aside, they are "broken" for over half the day by virtue of being unusable.  There have been no widespread issues with the failure of optics in OIF and OEF, and we're talking tens of thousands of units in daily use.  Battery life and fragility were long ago shown not to be the boogey man the optic sight detractors said they were going to be.   
Irons start off being useless at least half the time, and have severe employment limitations to boot.  They are obsolete, and not sufficient as a primary sight.

Has anyone here actually made use of an Aimpoint or ACOG in the field or for other shooting?  Can you really form an objective and educated opinion as to their necessity, durability and other advantages without having done so? 

You have an excellent point as to the necessity to use irons in a back up role, one I overlooked in my dogged instance that optics are necessary - I think you're absolutely correct.  What I don't have is much worry about optics going down.  It simply hasn't proven to be the case. 

There's a great paper HERE that pretty much covers all the reasons I can think of why irons alone don't cut it.  There's another great paper on combat marksmanship skills HERE. 
A description of what a Marine Gunner is can be found HERE.  I only wish we had such beasts in the CF - to me Gunner Eby's papers epitomize what a Senior NCO should be doing; namely being incredibly well versed and proficient in the technical aspects of soldiering, and ensuring everyone else is made aware and brought up to date too.  The methodicalness of his thinking is visible - he precisely identifies what capabilities a soldier and his rifle must have, and thus what training and equipment they need.  Quite the logical and refreshing change.