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

The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luchi
  • Start date Start date
Folks, I am enjoying the jousting here, but feel I may have been a bit too caustic. No offense meant...I do tend to take the piss a bit some times (hey, it‘s an infantry thing!). Of course it is a free world and everybody (even non-infantry :-D ) are entitled to their respective opinions.


Gunner: Your points are very fair and I got a real kick out of your Ladies Auxiliary remark!

Ex Coelis: Quite right. In my efforts to get all flustered and unnecessary, I quoted the wrong sight designation. The C2 sight is the good sight (though not the simplest to use); it‘s the C79 sight that‘s the "crap" sight. Got it!

Folks, a final shot (if you‘ll pardon the weak pun) from me on the wpn issue: While the muzzle velocity of the 69 grain 5.56 bullet is about 3000 fps, compared to the 168 grain 7.62‘s 2600 fps, the heavier 7.62 bullet is actually faster beyond 500m. In addition, the energy retention of the 7.62 is far greater than the 5.56 at any given distance (almost three times as much at 500m) and significantly less susceptible to the effects of wind. This results in a harder hitting, more accurate round at greater distances, which is especially important for fire put down as a section or by machine-gunners. Being able to reach out to an enemy at greater distances with greater effect is extremely important to an infantry soldier.

Good Lawd, it it time for tea already?

Cheers,

RussM
 
BTW I think the C9 is a great piece of kit, despite it being 5.56. It‘s essentially a scaled-down FN MAG (C6 GPMG) anyway, and that can‘t be a bad thing! A damned sight better than that LSW crap the Brits are using. That and the SA80 is making the press quite regularly in the UK due to the poor quality (of the gun, not the press - though that‘s suspect, too), so I understand.

One lump or two?
 
russm, good post, I have to admit I was pulling your chain too.

Agree totally with the stopping power of the FN. But, how important is the ability to reach out and touch someone with that stopping power on the modern battlefield?

The majority of engagements are thought to occur around 100 metres and closer. If you are in a defensive position and the enemy is charging towards you (500 metres away), they should probably be shot because they are stupid. Secondly, if you are a Sect Comd or Pl Comd or Coy Comd are you going to let the enemy comd know where you are by opening up that far away?

Finally, my final comment is the rifle is really only for personal protection and security of the crew served weapons anyway so why would you want a rifle capable of "reaching out and touching someone". If you accept this comment, what becomes more important to an infantry soldier... to carry more crew served weapon ammo or their own heavy rifle and heavier ammo.

Cheers!

PS. Do they even have Ladies Auxiliaries any more or has feminism destroyed that aspects of a units wellbeing?
 
Gunner:

No, of course we wouldn‘t want to give our posn away (at least until we had got the en close to where we wanted him).

I should say that I am constantly bemused as to where all this modern doctrine is coming from, given that we haven‘t had a war which would necessitate general-warfare-type tactics in almost 50 years. It bothers me when we somewhat blindly follow U.S. (for instance) doctrine, given that theirs is not battle-proven either. I agree that certain fundamental equipment (and other)changes can significantly demand a change in tactics, but I tink change for change sake is silly. Also, as an infanteer I feel terribly uncomfortable with this modernistsic "we will conduct the war on a computer screen from a great distance, using our personal wpns only for personal protection" approach. Will computers even be effective on the modern battle field, given the corresponding tchnology out there to produce devastating ECM? Who know. It may well be that we are reduced, once again, to a man and his rifle using a hand signal. There‘s still a lot to be said for a good runner!


As for the Ladies‘ Auxiliery: They are still very much alive and kicking (at least in my own Unit). Ours cook baked goods and even entire meals out of the WOs‘ and Sgts‘ Mess kitchen and sell them to the troops for a pittance. They‘re always there when we‘re getting ready to deploy, selling their stuff to the troops. All the money, above operating costs, goes to the ladies‘ Aux. Bursary which is presented at the Regimental birthday celebrations to the most deserving soldier who‘s taking studies. It‘s usually around $700.00, so it‘s worth having for the average troop.

When I worked in Bn HQ, I had quite a bit of contact with them and really learned to appreciate all they do for the troops.

Cheers,

Russ
 
Yep, my keyboarding skills suck!

But then so do flaming hoemmerroids. Thank goodness I only have bad keyboarding skills ;-D
 
Thanks for the reply russ!

There was a very good article on Canadian Doctrine in the Army Training and Doctrine Bulletin (last winter edition?) by Dr Jaromoycz (sp?). We have adopted the doctrine of maneouvre warfare from the americans, who adopted it from the germans. During the Persian Gulf War (after the doctrine of maneouvre warfare had been in place for approx a decade, the US reverted back to the same attritionist style warfare that they had used since the US Civil War (and have for the most part won most battles). Dr Jaromoycz‘s point was if we want to adopt a doctrine that works, why german doctrine as they lost WWII using that doctrine. Better to adopt (then Soviet) doctrine as they really won WWII and by the end had mastered the art of war. Hence, his arguement is Canada will adopt the US doctrine (who got it from the Germans) but when push comes to shove, we will revert back to our long held attritionist ideology because doctrine is based on our own culture and you cannot superimpose your mindset on someone else‘s doctrine.

Anyway, enough of the doctrine. I guess what brouhgt that up was your comments on moving away from the soldier with his rifle advancing against the godless hoards! You hear from our leaders about the "high tech" military the Canadian Army is transforming itself into and I laugh at those comments. True we are getting some good equipment in the form of Coyote, LAV III and dare I say the Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV) but I‘ll use the analogy that we are moving from a black and white TV to a digital television. Sure it looks good now, but when the next generation of plasma tvs come in, we will once again have an inferior product. My point being that it is not as high tech as our leaders say it is as the technology has been available for years, so we‘re buying old "off the shelf" technology and we are wow‘d because we actually have an Infantry Fighting Vehicle worthy of the name...something our allies have had for years (Marder, Warrior and Bradley).

I‘ve bored you enough...cheers!
 
To debate which firearm (or weapon system) is better is to overlook the reason behind the choices. It is battle doctrine that defines the army‘s weapons. Canadian battle doctrine has changed from the post-war European theatre/soviet threat to one that recognises that the Canadian Army must serve in a variety of conflicts (and ‘near-conflicts‘). The long-range capability of the 7.62mm was shown to be overkill for the new doctrine. Once that decision was made it was a no-brainer to adopt the 5.56mm as this was already in use by several allies - either as Standard or Secondary Standard. After the ammunition was selected it remained to adopt a delivery system. Canada made an intelligent choice in selecting the battle-proven M-16 rather than a European model. For several reasons the European manufacturers did not want to licence production in Canada and, at the time of selection, there was no single model which our NATO allies had standardised upon. With the licenced Colt we got not just the manufacturing rights but also the right to market the Canadian-made model to NATO allies. In fact Diemaco has successfully sold large quantities to the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. In fact, a new contract was signed last Thursday with Denmark to supply another large quantity of C-7/8 rifles. The UK has also placed a large order for the SFW (Special Forces Weapon) which is a Diemaco design based on a short barrelled C-8 with sights and M203 built-in.
 
ServicePub,

Doctrine is based on your security environment, however, it is abit of debate whether it is equipment that defines doctrine or doctrine defines what weapon systems you purchase/utilize. You point is moot as the C7 Familiy of weapons were adopted during the height of the Cold War (in the 80s anyway).

The ammunition standard was based on the movement to the 5.56 mm "NATO Standard" that had been adopted by all members of NATO.

Your comments on the export of Canada build C7/C8s was interesting as I didn‘t think there would be that large of a European market for the weapon.
 
where can i get a pic of the C1??I dont even know what it is.7.62 with 20 round mag, is it the FN fal?
 
Mud Crawler,

The FNC1 was in fact the FN FAL. It was more close to the FN FAL than the British L1A1, which had several modifications. If you go to the Fabrique Nationale website (or any of the websites devoted to FN weapons in the US) you should get a good picture of the C1.

By the way, the C2 looked alot like the C1, but it had a heavier barrel and a tripod. It was the section support weapon before the C9.

Cheers

Civitas et Princeps Cura Nostra
 
Actually, the C2 had a bipod (not tripod - i.e. two, vice three legs)

But I‘m not really an expert on this subject.

Dileas Gu Brath
 
For those that are interested. I‘ve come accross a website that has alot of information on the old FN C1. It is listed as The Fal Files - FN FAL under Military Information of User Submitted links. Here‘s a direct link to the site.
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/index.html

-the patriot-
 
Patriot- good to see you ‘re keeping the pressure up! Do you have a link to a website for the Brown Bess or Martini -Henry!!!!? :D
 
Actually JR, I wouldn‘t mind finding some links for the Martini-Henry. Stuff is getting really scarce and I wouldn‘t mind shooting mine again.
 
While you guys are at it, why not dust off your old lance, crossbow or gladius. :D
 
Recce guy/Another--- :D Agreed/understood-- just don‘t say anything about the OPTICAL SIGHTS they used!!!!!(some one might get upset!) :p
 
What would you prefer in the battlefield the FNC7 or the C7? :mg: :sniper: :cam: :skull: :evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NavyShooter
"Bad times" gun selections according to the Internet Experts...
Replies
3
Views
14K
NavyShooter
NavyShooter
Scoobie Newbie
U.S.Military’s gun of choice under fire
Replies
6
Views
10K
MG34
M
A
March of the Porcelain Soldiers
Replies
2
Views
10K
Dog
Dog
Back
Top