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

[Kal]

You may be misunderstanding me, flashman.  I suggest, that shooting fundamentals should be taught first with irons and then lead into optics.  I believe that a variety of optics should be made available.  Fight with any sight you can fight best with, whether it be Aimpoint, ACOG, Eotech, S&B, etc or irons.  I see the need for learning to effectively use iron sights as a need to know yourself, your weapon and how to fight with it. 

I agree that optics have a very low failure rate, but if it should fail I don't want to be SOL.  In all situations, I may not have an optic.  I don't have much experience with red-dot optics, but regards to to irons being useless at night, I don't agree.  Tritium inserts for irons effectively give your rifle night sights.  In no way are iron sights obsolete.  I am just stating that irons do have a place and shouldn't be ignored.  I agree with you though, proper optics can improve one's shooting and allow them to fight more effectively and should be made available, but learn to use your irons, too.

 

[WogCpl]

Flashman, just one question, wich combo would you rather have:
1. C-7w/ holo-sight
2. C-7 w/a vis & IR laser system of some kind & Iron sights.
I'll take the second combo every time.
i never said that optics dont have their place, but doing a section attack in winter can fog the old C-79 really bad,( i tend to breathe a little heavier conducting one in mucklucks) and having worn glasses all my life, no type of anti-fog ever works.
If you had optics on a weapon in winter and went into clear a heated building, what then?  Wearing glasses I live that one every day, (not the clearing a building part of course ) but i can always wear contacts!
So i guess you don't think that anyone should learn to shoot iron? Is room clearing done eaiser with a 3X or 4X(which is mentioned in one of the papers you highlighted) optic sight?
Just my reg force wog point of view. (thought i'd point it out before you did)

 

[flashman]

Kal, perhaps I am - I took "I definitely think that optics are required in some situations, ex. long range shooting/sniping." this to mean that you didn't think they were required in other (all) circumstances as well.  I don't regard tritium inserts on long arm sights as being effective at night - I have used them and found them lacking, totally ineffective.  The only place I see irons being necessary is as a BUIS - you are right they shouldn't be ignored, but using them as a primary sight is just kneecapping yourself unnecessarily IMHO.

FatwogCpl,
I am not sure what point you are trying to draw out with your forced choice - but the way it's structured now, you're really making a comparison between LADs and optical sights.  In this case, my answer is the same - I'd rather have a holosight or aimpoint. 

Have you ever actually used a vis or IR laser?  Vis laser is ineffective in bright daylight, and even in better daylight circumstances it won't be visible at much more than 25m.  It also does not address the other many shortcomings of irons.  Your choice at present doesn't only give an effective daytime sight in the second option.  If doing dismounted section attacks in the winter fogs your optic... Well, to be honest, if that's the experience your forming your opinion on, I'd ask you to really examine how relevant that is to the current requirements of the CF, and if that very narrow circumstance really justifies forming an opinion that irons are more useful.   

I certainly didn't say that you shouldn't learn to shoot iron - not sure how you're getting that.  I did question the point that teaching someone to shoot on optics alone produces a worse marksman; two very different points. 
And of course no one would suggest using a 4x ACOG is the best tool for CQB - and it isn't supposed to be.  Although I would note that ACOG does not always mean a 4x  - they are made in 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 5.5 x variants.  The 1.5x and 2x compact ACOGs may well indeed be the best all around combat optics at present. 

I really couldn't care less if you view yourself as a wog or not - it's impossible to tell here what sorts of experience people have had in civilian life, or what trades they may have been in the past.  For all anyone knows, you could have just done 15 years as an 031 and be on the receiving end of a med re-cat.  What does count is opinion formed on experience, and not conjecture.
If you believe that irons are more useful as a primary sight, fill your boots.  I think however, upon exposure to other options, and the chance to try them out in varied circumstances, your opinion may be revised. 




 

 

[axeman]

i remember the days when on the snipers course for the first 2 weeks of rangework you did not get the scope . this is to teach the student that in order to hit the target you must know about trigger and breathing control. errors are magnified  at range so you must have the basics down before you start making the leap to longer ranges and optics...  scopes are nice  but there are situtaions when they are a detriment ... newer shooters tend to get tunnel vision . i have dead friend because of this [C-9 scoped with other errors compunded but tunnel vision was a contibuting factor  in his death ]  but the shooting with scope is a learned trait , in battle type situations  this is what the cf trains for though. in order to have the best results useing the c79 scope on the c7 family of weapons you must put a lot of rounds downrange  but with the reduced bugets and decreased range time i dont think the members who need it the most are learning what they should be on the ranges.. more time must be spent on the ranges with the weapons in believable scenarios..  i dont thing the 1 a yr pwt cuts it ...

 

[Kal]

Flashman, what I simply mean is, for some situations optics are required, (example given).  For all situations though, optics are not required, but they are warmly welcomed.  If some shooters prefer and shoot better with irons, then they should use irons, in this situation optics are not required.  If the shooter prefers an optic and shoots better with an optic, then by all means they should use one and it is required.  The option to use an optic is certainly required.  I believe that shooting fundamentals should be learnt using irons first, then progress into optics, and let the shooter decide what they prefer to fight with.   

 

[darmil]

Both ironsights and c79's have positive and negative sides.I think each soldier should carry a scope and a iron sight, change when you need too.I agree axeman the CF needs more range time 1 PWT a yr is not enough. :bullet:

 

[WogCpl]

I agree with Kal.
Flashman, you talk like you are the only one who has used this stuff before. As far as daylight shooting in my limited choices go, the iron sights would be for daylight engagments, vis laser for perhaps house clearing, and ir laser for night work. having friends on both the weapons and FCS side, we discuss these things often and one of the guys is a bit of a gun fanatic and owns a civi EO-Tech for deer hunting, says he likes it better than a scope,  i thought it was pretty cool also. i was most impressed with the IR/VIS LAD, what an awesome piece of kit. Slap on a pair of NVG's and away you go.
How about Tac lights, now that is something that is a little cheaper than a holo sight and a laser and makes a huge difference out to 25M.

 

[KevinB]

I think the majority of posters here have a very limited experience in working with optical sight in dynamic environments.

A RED DOT CCO (Close Combat Optic - EOTECH or AIMPOINT) allowes the shooter to look at the target and place the dot on it - aligning the system in one plane.

The C79 is a POS

Using a Visible Laser is a BAD idea for primary sighting - it is fine as a tool when using a gas mask etc - but they are not reliable enough in lighting conditions - Irons are a dynamic BACKUP not a primary method.

Perfect Practice makes perfect and outside of DHTC that does not happen in the CF - the CF marksmanship and weapon skills are abomnitable.


Personally my favourite choice for an optic system is the Schmitt and Bender Short Dot 1-4x, PEQ-2B (not in CF service) or failing that the Insight 7500 (vis/IR combo of the PEQ-2A) , Surefire M952MU as a light.  Troy BIS.

 

 

[flashman]

I agree with Kal.
Flashman, you talk like you are the only one who has used this stuff before. As far as daylight shooting in my limited choices go, the iron sights would be for daylight engagments, vis laser for perhaps house clearing, and ir laser for night work. having friends on both the weapons and FCS side, we discuss these things often and one of the guys is a bit of a gun fanatic and owns a civi EO-Tech for deer hunting, says he likes it better than a scope,  i thought it was pretty cool also. i was most impressed with the IR/VIS LAD, what an awesome piece of kit. Slap on a pair of NVG's and away you go.
How about Tac lights, now that is something that is a little cheaper than a holo sight and a laser and makes a huge difference out to 25M.

FWC,
Not at all - but I do believe I have a good deal of perspective and experience with the options I am talking about; my opinions weren't formed through discussion or looking at a friend's deer rifle, but through actual use in static and dynamic shooting.  I presently run an Aimpoint M2, IOR M2, Leupold Mk 4 MR/T 3-9x and an ACOG TAO1NSN on various weapons, and have put a few hundred rounds through some and a few thousand rounds through others this past year.  I have also played with various kinds of iron BUIS, Trijicon Reflex (POS, ditched it quick), Holosight (excellent, but personal pref leads me to the Aimpoint) and other long rifle optics.  I do not pretend to be an expert - my level of training and continuing use pales in comparison to most others, however I feel that I have enough experience to form an opinion as to what is effective and what isn't. 

I'm not clear on what weapons lights have to do with optical sights/irons/lasers;  they are simply an aid to target detection and identification... not an aiming tool, nor a substitute for optics or LAD... different tool for a different task.  All three should be on the weapon, complimenting each other.

 

[1feral1]

I think the majority of posters here have a very limited experience in working with optical sight in dynamic environments.

A RED DOT CCO (Close Combat Optic - EOTECH or AIMPOINT) allowes the shooter to look at the target and place the dot on it - aligning the system in one plane.

The C79 is a POS

Very well put Kevin. I was trialing an Aimpoint M68 as used by the SF on the Colt M4s when I was posted to the SOI's SAW. Zero magnification with the red dot, and very nice to use. We had it on a Minimi (sneaking single shots or 2rd bursts the accuracy with the Aimpoint was exceptional), and it performed very well out to 300m. I had forgot my camera that day 

The C79 is in wide use here with the Gen 4 mount, and its used on a vast varierty of in service ADF weapons. There is mixed feelings about it, and I fully understand your POS feelings.

Being brought up on the FN C1 and the 1st Gen C7, I am a lover of iron sights, and I fully agree that soldiers should learn iron sights first, to get a grasp on the true principles and meanings of the word marksmanship.

Hang in there,

Wes

 

[redleafjumper]

The real key is a good solid base of marksmanship training, followed up with regular practice.  In my opinion the basics are best taught with iron.  The elements of good marksmanship are better learned by learning about basic sight alignment, proper holding aiming and firing.  Good breathing technique and focusing skills are all part of that.  Iron sights force a prospective shooter to nail the basics.  There are other skills required to use the variety of optical devices that are now in use, whether OEG, Aimpoint, just plain good glass with mil dot and other fancy recticles, or some of the other wonders that are now in use.  The basics always serve; and starting out on glass glosses over some of the basics.  Whenever I want to shoot well with glass, I always find it helpful to get out a .22 or centre-fire rifle with iron sights to put the world back into perspective before working the optics for long range work.  I use both and I like glass, especially as my eyes are ageing, but iron is still the best place to start.

 

[DG-41]

The elements of good marksmanship are better learned by learning about basic sight alignment, proper holding aiming and firing.

Agreed 100%. But I don't think that iron sights are any better at teaching this than glass, and I'll make the argument that a low-mag scope with a basic reticule (like the C79) is *better* at teaching this than iron sights are. In particular, because of the increased magnification, clarity, and visual resolution of the optical, I think it is easier to teach consistant point of aim, elimination of cant, breathing control, and trigger control than it is with irons.

The only exception I would make (off the top of my head) would be for competitive match rifle iron sights... but then you have a case of a specialized sight for a specialized target that isn't applicable to the sorts of targets we expect to engage.

DG

 

[KevinB]

I fully agreee with redleaf on teaching irons first.

  With an optic the novice soldier has the tendency to chase his wobble zone - which onyl served to open up the group.  With irons the wobble zone is less obvious (no magnification) and the soldier learns the baseline of marksmanship principles - plus he/she will never have a N/S scope (a huge issue with C79's).

KD range practice and lots of it are the only way to learn marksmanship (add in lots of dry fire and lessons) irons are the simplest way to do that.  Secondly the back up to optic is irons and so it makes much more sence for the shooter to be familar with that system prior to moving on to other sighting systems.

 

[Kal]

I fully agreee with redleaf on teaching irons first.

   KD range practice and lots of it are the only way to learn marksmanship (add in lots of dry fire and lessons) irons are the simplest way to do that.  Secondly the back up to optic is irons and so it makes much more sence for the shooter to be familar with that system prior to moving on to other sighting systems.

  Didn't I say this like two pages ago?  ;D

 

[KevinB]

Dont Hate  ;D

However I do firmly believe it is criminal to deploy or train beyond the basic with irons.
Our M4A1's have det irons (carry handle) and it does not look like US DoS will fork out for optics
  (Morpheus32 incoming PM to ship my Short Dot and EOTECH 552...)

 

[NavyShooter]

I've kept my toes out of this discussion for a while...mostly 'cause I'm a sailor, and what does a sailor know about rifles and shooting anyhow, eh? 

But, I do strongly agree that learning to shoot with iron sights initially is a very good thing.  That's how I learned with the C-7, so my transition to the C-7A1 has been relatively simple.  Using optics as opposed to iron is a good thing, once you have the basics down.

Starting out with optics does not teach the basics of marksmanship as well IMO.

I won't wade into the combat optics debate, but will deffer to KevinB's wisdom on that.  He's there, doing that, and has the experience with a wide variety of optics to know what works best.  He's tested and proved what works for him.

The reality of the CF though, is that we're going to end up with equipment that, while good, is never going to be the BEST on the market, because we cannot afford it.

The C-79 Gen IV isn't the best.  But, it's still a bunch better than the Elcan was when it first came out, and when they work, they provide much better results than plain Iron sights. 

Canada was the first country to investigate attaching an optical sight to the M-16/C-7 type rifle.  Our A1 upper receivers have a different rail than the standard STANAG 1913 rail because they were developped and adopted 2 years before the 1913 standard EXISTED.

The CF has been working to get optical sights onto our rifles since the early-mid 1950s when the EX2 version of the FN was equipped with an optical sight for trials.  Then the Elcan Unisight was developped, a non-magnifying dot sight....the same sort of thing that companies are spending big $$$ on developing today, producing the EOTech and such. 

Anyhow, that's my .02 worth.  I'll defer to the experts, and carry on.

NavyShooter

 

[KevinB]

Navy - glad you chirped up. Even with your bluewater background you could teach the Army a thing or two about shooting...

I wil offer one comment though -- the CF arrived with the flatop via liason officers in the US who say what the USA where experiementing with it - we adopted the original Dick Swan (A.R.M.S.) flatop rail - the US refined it and now the M1913 Picatinny rail is a NATO standard.  99% of M1913 accessories will fit to Diemaco railed uppers and IIRC all 2000 year + production uppers are 1913.

The first C7A1's I saw where at ARMEX 89 in Ottawa - Diemaco had milled the carry handles off and bonded a rail to the upper...

I do hope that DLR does continue to learn from operations, and more and more of the C8FTHB upper and EOTECH 552 "holosight" continue to be procured for operational forces.

 

[geo]

While it should not be the case, I figure that we will continue to get a lot of the kit we need for as long as we have "green" CDS' at the Puzzle Palace ... and said CDS is a field type of general.
No offince to the flyboys but - things just didn't appear to be moving very fast when a blue suit was at the controls.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

While it should not be the case, I figure that we will continue to get a lot of the kit we need for as long as we have "green" CDS' at the Puzzle Palace ... and said CDS is a field type of general.
No offince to the flyboys but - things just didn't appear to be moving very fast when a blue suit was at the controls.

Remember things did not move fast for the Air Force with an Air Force CDS either.

 

[geo]

yeah..... but I figure that the fella just wasn't "pushy" enough and the Gov't chose not to listen to him IMHO

Now we have this fine General who hails from "the rock".... who can say no to a fella from the Rock?