- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Ok your right, I'm just gonna go somewhere and smear green paint on my face...
C7 sights: Optical & Iron
- Thread starter Doug VT
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,725
- Points
- 1,260
Not me - it was a Cpl attached to my Mortar det.
The TRIAD on the C7A2 when using the PAC-4C or (in my case) the PEQ-2A and Surefire Lights does make it REALLY muzzle heavy - however it is a capability we did not have before. the muzzle heavy attitude is compounded by the M203A1 and its bizzare low mount.
The C8A2 (SFW barrel) solves some of the problems (shorter) but we still have been pulling our night fighting gear off during daylight do to the weight issues and worries about it being out so far it will take damage easier than on other systems.
Some units have been buying Knights Armaments Company (KAC) www.knightarmco.com Rail Accessory Systems (RAS) for their C8 and C7 rifles.
C7A2 - note PAC on right side
C8A2
C8 with Colt M4 barrel and RAS
C7A1 w/ M5 RAS
and in trials down in Ft Benning
I have been accused (rightfully) of being an enemy of the C7A2 system so take my comments with that in mind.
The TRIAD on the C7A2 when using the PAC-4C or (in my case) the PEQ-2A and Surefire Lights does make it REALLY muzzle heavy - however it is a capability we did not have before. the muzzle heavy attitude is compounded by the M203A1 and its bizzare low mount.
The C8A2 (SFW barrel) solves some of the problems (shorter) but we still have been pulling our night fighting gear off during daylight do to the weight issues and worries about it being out so far it will take damage easier than on other systems.
Some units have been buying Knights Armaments Company (KAC) www.knightarmco.com Rail Accessory Systems (RAS) for their C8 and C7 rifles.
C7A2 - note PAC on right side
C8A2
C8 with Colt M4 barrel and RAS
C7A1 w/ M5 RAS
and in trials down in Ft Benning
I have been accused (rightfully) of being an enemy of the C7A2 system so take my comments with that in mind.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I just got back from a two week small unit exchange my unit did with the Georgia Army National Guard.
It was neat to see in these pictures some of the kit we were playing with while in Florida this past two weeks.
I used the PAQ-4 IR laser, and can see plenty of potential with it (although my own results were horrible on the qual range, since we only had 9 rounds to zero it with, and weren't told how to adjust it). Shooting and using night vision was a learning experience, and something that I haven't yet done on Canadian soil, being a reservist. It's rare to see that sort of kit at my level.
I carried a Colt M4 for the whole exercise. It was brand new, right out of the box, bone dry and only test fired. What a pleasure to play with that kit, and I certainly hope the C8 comes into more use in the 031 trade, it was very good kit for OBUA/MOUT ops. The accuracy wasn't a problem, I scored 36/40 on the US army's rifle qualification, (although my first score of 33 was the one that counted - I earned a Sharpshooter marksmanship badge). Unlike out 1989-1991 era C7's, which are filthy no matter how well you clean them, the M4's we used left our hands as spotless at they were given to us, and the Americans couldn't tell we had fired them. By contrast, the M249's (C9s) they signed out to us were disgusting and rusty, which would have earned a charge up here. We did them the favour of removing the rust and thoroguhly cleaning them before returning them.
Finally, with regards to the C79 Elcan sights. Thank god we didn't bring ours done, I never would have qualified on the rifle range. I used to think this was a great sight, and it certainly does have it's high points. But in Florida, we were issued the M68, a red-dot sight made by Aimpoint, a Swedish firm. This sight was infantry proof! Oncezeroed, it can be removed from the rifle and replaced, and it will retain its zero. It does not rely on eye relief, and when firing beyong 50m, the red dot stays on target, even if it is not centred within the sight or you move your head around. You fire it with both eyes open, and it is accurate even if the front sight cover is closed. One eye sees the dot, the other sees the target. We tested it, and it works. It is also lighter and smaller than the bulky C79. Unfortunately, it is cost prohibitive for the Canadian Forces. Back in April, I met an Aimpoint rep at a police trade show in Markham. He explained the cost of these sights was somewhere around $2,000 per (although I found out the cost to the US Army was probably far less). If you can get your hands on this kit, I recommend it. It takes some getting used to - firing with both eyes open, no magnification, etc, but it's well worth it.
Finally, I saw from the pictures those guys in Afghanistan carrying a handheld GPS. The PLGR, I believe the Americans call it. I got to play with this same kit last week, and thought it was an effective tool to aid map & compass navigation (but not a replacement for it). Wish I had more time to play with it.
Anyway, glad to see we are finally getting the good kit. If only we can get those Aimpoint sights!
It was neat to see in these pictures some of the kit we were playing with while in Florida this past two weeks.
I used the PAQ-4 IR laser, and can see plenty of potential with it (although my own results were horrible on the qual range, since we only had 9 rounds to zero it with, and weren't told how to adjust it). Shooting and using night vision was a learning experience, and something that I haven't yet done on Canadian soil, being a reservist. It's rare to see that sort of kit at my level.
I carried a Colt M4 for the whole exercise. It was brand new, right out of the box, bone dry and only test fired. What a pleasure to play with that kit, and I certainly hope the C8 comes into more use in the 031 trade, it was very good kit for OBUA/MOUT ops. The accuracy wasn't a problem, I scored 36/40 on the US army's rifle qualification, (although my first score of 33 was the one that counted - I earned a Sharpshooter marksmanship badge). Unlike out 1989-1991 era C7's, which are filthy no matter how well you clean them, the M4's we used left our hands as spotless at they were given to us, and the Americans couldn't tell we had fired them. By contrast, the M249's (C9s) they signed out to us were disgusting and rusty, which would have earned a charge up here. We did them the favour of removing the rust and thoroguhly cleaning them before returning them.
Finally, with regards to the C79 Elcan sights. Thank god we didn't bring ours done, I never would have qualified on the rifle range. I used to think this was a great sight, and it certainly does have it's high points. But in Florida, we were issued the M68, a red-dot sight made by Aimpoint, a Swedish firm. This sight was infantry proof! Oncezeroed, it can be removed from the rifle and replaced, and it will retain its zero. It does not rely on eye relief, and when firing beyong 50m, the red dot stays on target, even if it is not centred within the sight or you move your head around. You fire it with both eyes open, and it is accurate even if the front sight cover is closed. One eye sees the dot, the other sees the target. We tested it, and it works. It is also lighter and smaller than the bulky C79. Unfortunately, it is cost prohibitive for the Canadian Forces. Back in April, I met an Aimpoint rep at a police trade show in Markham. He explained the cost of these sights was somewhere around $2,000 per (although I found out the cost to the US Army was probably far less). If you can get your hands on this kit, I recommend it. It takes some getting used to - firing with both eyes open, no magnification, etc, but it's well worth it.
Finally, I saw from the pictures those guys in Afghanistan carrying a handheld GPS. The PLGR, I believe the Americans call it. I got to play with this same kit last week, and thought it was an effective tool to aid map & compass navigation (but not a replacement for it). Wish I had more time to play with it.
Anyway, glad to see we are finally getting the good kit. If only we can get those Aimpoint sights!
- Reaction score
- 21,725
- Points
- 1,260
The M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M) was replaced with the Aimpoint M2 - not sure if they changed the designation though, they are about $400 USD RETAIL Who ever gave you the cost estimate was on crack. The CF is using the EOTECH 552 as its CCO optic.
The problem with CCO's is no magnification therefor target detection and discrimation is lower than magnified optics.
We have had PLGR in the regs for a LONG time as well as the PAQ's/PEQ's for operations.
The problem with CCO's is no magnification therefor target detection and discrimation is lower than magnified optics.
We have had PLGR in the regs for a LONG time as well as the PAQ's/PEQ's for operations.
C
cpl forrester
Guest
as I'm a Brit i say susat? susat sight very effective don't know that much on the elcan , but the sa80 comes with the iron sight as will (carrying handle) it depends on ur preference i presume that many long serving personnel preffer the iron sight as thats what thy came up on?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
The C7 was introduced to the service in the late 80's, 1989 I was when I saw it in West Germany with 3 RCR.
The C7A1 was adopted either in 1995 or 1996.
A good site with the weapons of the CF can be viewed at: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101sm-arm.htm
The C7A1 was adopted either in 1995 or 1996.
A good site with the weapons of the CF can be viewed at: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101sm-arm.htm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
G'Day Mark. I hope things are fine in the 'autumny' province of NB. Nothing new here at all.
The ADF has many thousand of the C79, and we have modified the mount, as there was a hydraulic problem which had to be addressed. The sight has been criticised by many.
The US Army are using a ELCAN variant on their US made M240B 7.62mm GPMGs. I do beleive they call it a M145 if I remember right.
EDIT: M240B with ELCAN pic added below
The standard C79 does not hold up well here with the rubber housing quckkly losing the EY battle sights up top. The notorious red bull dust gets into everything.
However compared to the generic detachable ADI 1.5X optics, many do appreciate the stronger magnification on the C79.
C79s have been used effectively both in A'stan and Iraq by ADF personnel.
Cheers,
Wes,
The ADF has many thousand of the C79, and we have modified the mount, as there was a hydraulic problem which had to be addressed. The sight has been criticised by many.
The US Army are using a ELCAN variant on their US made M240B 7.62mm GPMGs. I do beleive they call it a M145 if I remember right.
EDIT: M240B with ELCAN pic added below
The standard C79 does not hold up well here with the rubber housing quckkly losing the EY battle sights up top. The notorious red bull dust gets into everything.
However compared to the generic detachable ADI 1.5X optics, many do appreciate the stronger magnification on the C79.
C79s have been used effectively both in A'stan and Iraq by ADF personnel.
Cheers,
Wes,
G
GreaseMonkey
Guest
... and made good shooters out of bad shooters, and good shooters out of great shooters. When I joined in 94, C7s were just being modified with weaver rails to accept the C79. I agree about the housing losing the battle sights, and know that they, along with the C7, will be undergoing mid-life mods but I don't know the extent of the changes. The ambient- light gathering characteristics are a big plus, too.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GreaseMonkey,
Done any CQB lately? I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to herald the C79 sight. Notwithstanding the mount (Gen 4 and counting) problems, the biggest issues that most Infantry soldiers have with the C79 are:
1. Magnification - this is a decidedly mixed blessing. At ranges beyond 200 metres, it is a bonus. At anything less, the infantry are far better off with a zero-magnification "reflex" sight offering a single point-of-reference for aiming. Given that the vast majority of infantry engagements occur at less than 100 metres, and given that the Canadian Army is further "optimizing" for complex terrain, the highly questionable long-distance "advantage" of the C-79 sight is entirely moot. Truth be told, it becomes a significant impediment to rapid target acquisition at typical infantry engagement ranges due to eye-relief, constricted field of view, and positioning issues
2. Obstruction -The C79 Optics obscure the natural line of sight down the body of the C7/C8, to the extent that the firer is severely disadvantaged when conducting any form of "instinctive shooting" drills.
3. Weight/Size - The C-79 sight is top-heavy and overly-bulky. It is a "pig", full-stop.
4. Vulnerability - Compared to the various "reflex" sights currently on the market, the C-79 (even with ÃÂt's 4th Generation mount) is a comparatively fragile piece of kit. It is very ill-suited to banging about in the back of an APC. It is even less suited to typical infantry use, as it simply cannot stand the inevitable abuse.
At the end of the day, the ELCAN C79 Optical Sight was recommended for procurement by "target shooters". Although it underwent repeated field trials with varying degrees of success, it was adopted wholesale for the Canadian Army field force in the mistaken expectation that magnified optics would compensate for a lack of marksmanship training and ammunition. To its purchaser's credit, the C79 Sight achieved that aim for a very short period of "peace" time. However, the minute Canadian soldiers actually engaged in combat operations in the Balkans during the early 1990's, the inherent shortcomings of the C79 Optical sight became abundantly evidient.
I am not going to spend a bunch of my time arguing the gross inadequacies of a fundamentally flawed small arms sighting system on this board. This has all been discussed in far greater detail ad-nauseum elsewhere. Anyone who chooses to believe that the C79 Optical sight is well-suited to Infantry use is quite welcome to their opinion. Those folks have the distinct pleasure of joining some very rarified company. I will simply note that the vast majority of soldiers that I have personally served with despise it as an abject piece of crap. Hmmm - I wonder who is right?.......
The C79 may have a place on certain weapons, but I doubt it. Placing it on the C9 LMG (at the expense of the existing iron sights!!) was an utter fool's errand. Quite frankly, whoever came up with the idea of putting an optical sight on an LMG - let alone on the "loosey-goosey" feed mechanism cover, was an abject moron without a clue regarding the sighting and "fall of shot" adjustment principles pertaining to the operation of a bipod-mounted LMG. Full-stop.
I could go on and on about the inherent inadequacies of the Elcan C79 sight - even in its 4th Generation mount. Some (who are lousy shots) may like it, but I am here to tell you that in my professional experience most infantry soldiers do NOT care for the C79. It is a cumbersome, slow and comparativey fragile sighting system. Given a choice, most infantry soldiers will opt for the basic iron-sighted C7/C8 in lieu of a better alternative.
The zero-magnification EO Tech and Mil-spec Aimpoint "Red-Dot/Reflex" sights are the far superior alternative if available. These electronic systems offer a vast improvement over both the iron and magnified optical sights. The "single-point" electronic sights are akin to "iron sights" without the need to squint through a constricted aperture nor line-up multiple points of reference. They do not compromise peripheral vision, they do not require finicky eye-relief, they are not prone to loss of zero due to rough handling, etc, etc, etc.
The Elcan C79 optics were nothing more than a misguided target-shooter's wet dream. How such a procurement decision was ever foisted upon the CF still escapes me to this day. It was an utter travesty, ranking right up there with the failed 6-year experiment concerning the "Thermold magazines". Despite no less than 4 modifications over 6 years, those magazines NEVER worked properly. Yet we REPEATEDLY sent soldiers into harm's way in the Balkans of the early 1990s, equipped with those flawed magazines because the "techie" project manager was bound and determined to get it right. Yeah, whatever. That's why they finally gave up and simply bought proper aluminum teflon-coated mags after 6 years of dicking around and putting soldiers' lives in danger....
There are far more experienced and technically educated minds than mine regarding the issue of service weapons and optics. I will leave any further comments to them. I will only say that from an "end-user" perspective, the C79 sight has been an utter failure for more reasons than I could string together in one sentence. "Abject POS" seems to sum it up quite nicely, from a "tactical user" perspective.....
But of course, those are merely my personal thoughts. I will wait for Kevin B and a few other knowledgeable "users" of the various rifle/carbine sighting systems to weigh in.....
Done any CQB lately? I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to herald the C79 sight. Notwithstanding the mount (Gen 4 and counting) problems, the biggest issues that most Infantry soldiers have with the C79 are:
1. Magnification - this is a decidedly mixed blessing. At ranges beyond 200 metres, it is a bonus. At anything less, the infantry are far better off with a zero-magnification "reflex" sight offering a single point-of-reference for aiming. Given that the vast majority of infantry engagements occur at less than 100 metres, and given that the Canadian Army is further "optimizing" for complex terrain, the highly questionable long-distance "advantage" of the C-79 sight is entirely moot. Truth be told, it becomes a significant impediment to rapid target acquisition at typical infantry engagement ranges due to eye-relief, constricted field of view, and positioning issues
2. Obstruction -The C79 Optics obscure the natural line of sight down the body of the C7/C8, to the extent that the firer is severely disadvantaged when conducting any form of "instinctive shooting" drills.
3. Weight/Size - The C-79 sight is top-heavy and overly-bulky. It is a "pig", full-stop.
4. Vulnerability - Compared to the various "reflex" sights currently on the market, the C-79 (even with ÃÂt's 4th Generation mount) is a comparatively fragile piece of kit. It is very ill-suited to banging about in the back of an APC. It is even less suited to typical infantry use, as it simply cannot stand the inevitable abuse.
At the end of the day, the ELCAN C79 Optical Sight was recommended for procurement by "target shooters". Although it underwent repeated field trials with varying degrees of success, it was adopted wholesale for the Canadian Army field force in the mistaken expectation that magnified optics would compensate for a lack of marksmanship training and ammunition. To its purchaser's credit, the C79 Sight achieved that aim for a very short period of "peace" time. However, the minute Canadian soldiers actually engaged in combat operations in the Balkans during the early 1990's, the inherent shortcomings of the C79 Optical sight became abundantly evidient.
I am not going to spend a bunch of my time arguing the gross inadequacies of a fundamentally flawed small arms sighting system on this board. This has all been discussed in far greater detail ad-nauseum elsewhere. Anyone who chooses to believe that the C79 Optical sight is well-suited to Infantry use is quite welcome to their opinion. Those folks have the distinct pleasure of joining some very rarified company. I will simply note that the vast majority of soldiers that I have personally served with despise it as an abject piece of crap. Hmmm - I wonder who is right?.......
The C79 may have a place on certain weapons, but I doubt it. Placing it on the C9 LMG (at the expense of the existing iron sights!!) was an utter fool's errand. Quite frankly, whoever came up with the idea of putting an optical sight on an LMG - let alone on the "loosey-goosey" feed mechanism cover, was an abject moron without a clue regarding the sighting and "fall of shot" adjustment principles pertaining to the operation of a bipod-mounted LMG. Full-stop.
I could go on and on about the inherent inadequacies of the Elcan C79 sight - even in its 4th Generation mount. Some (who are lousy shots) may like it, but I am here to tell you that in my professional experience most infantry soldiers do NOT care for the C79. It is a cumbersome, slow and comparativey fragile sighting system. Given a choice, most infantry soldiers will opt for the basic iron-sighted C7/C8 in lieu of a better alternative.
The zero-magnification EO Tech and Mil-spec Aimpoint "Red-Dot/Reflex" sights are the far superior alternative if available. These electronic systems offer a vast improvement over both the iron and magnified optical sights. The "single-point" electronic sights are akin to "iron sights" without the need to squint through a constricted aperture nor line-up multiple points of reference. They do not compromise peripheral vision, they do not require finicky eye-relief, they are not prone to loss of zero due to rough handling, etc, etc, etc.
The Elcan C79 optics were nothing more than a misguided target-shooter's wet dream. How such a procurement decision was ever foisted upon the CF still escapes me to this day. It was an utter travesty, ranking right up there with the failed 6-year experiment concerning the "Thermold magazines". Despite no less than 4 modifications over 6 years, those magazines NEVER worked properly. Yet we REPEATEDLY sent soldiers into harm's way in the Balkans of the early 1990s, equipped with those flawed magazines because the "techie" project manager was bound and determined to get it right. Yeah, whatever. That's why they finally gave up and simply bought proper aluminum teflon-coated mags after 6 years of dicking around and putting soldiers' lives in danger....
There are far more experienced and technically educated minds than mine regarding the issue of service weapons and optics. I will leave any further comments to them. I will only say that from an "end-user" perspective, the C79 sight has been an utter failure for more reasons than I could string together in one sentence. "Abject POS" seems to sum it up quite nicely, from a "tactical user" perspective.....
But of course, those are merely my personal thoughts. I will wait for Kevin B and a few other knowledgeable "users" of the various rifle/carbine sighting systems to weigh in.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Good post Mark.
For those of you wondering about the ADI optics -
In comparison to the ELCAN C79, here is a pic of the Australian ADI manufactured (Lithgow, New South Wales) 1.5X optics used on the Austeyr F88SA1 and F88CSA1 individual weapons, and on the F89A1 (P) which is the model of the FN minimi used by the ADF. ADI makes many components to this weapon.
Windage and elevation are easily adjusted with a special tool (ADI unique), and there is some EY/CQB iron sights on the top with 'white dots' on the front and rear sights for low light.
On the Australian version the aiming point is a cross hair with a hollow donut in the centre. There are at least three different configurations currently in use by different nations.
Cheers,
Wes
For those of you wondering about the ADI optics -
In comparison to the ELCAN C79, here is a pic of the Australian ADI manufactured (Lithgow, New South Wales) 1.5X optics used on the Austeyr F88SA1 and F88CSA1 individual weapons, and on the F89A1 (P) which is the model of the FN minimi used by the ADF. ADI makes many components to this weapon.
Windage and elevation are easily adjusted with a special tool (ADI unique), and there is some EY/CQB iron sights on the top with 'white dots' on the front and rear sights for low light.
On the Australian version the aiming point is a cross hair with a hollow donut in the centre. There are at least three different configurations currently in use by different nations.
Cheers,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 21,725
- Points
- 1,260
Sir, you stole my thunder...
I will agree with each and everypoint you made.
Further issues with the C79 are the range stadia - rather than a quick 'point and click' system like the TA11,TA31, TA01 Series of ACOG scopes from Trijicon which have the range stadia bar the width of an avg (19") chest at the differing ranges the C79 makes you move your reticle off tgt and attaempt to arbitraily judge the height of an individual by using the two horizontal range stadia.
The 800m BCD - it never worked for the C77 ball round out of the C7 with any degree of accuracy - rifle teams were flipping the gate up and using it as a 1MOA click scope.
Secondly the idea of adjusting sights on an infantry weapon in combat is foolhardy - troops should know thwe trajectory of the bullet and be able to aim off (as yuo will end up aiming of for wind and rnage anyway as very few of the two way range the enemy is kind enought to put up both ranges leveled off to the 100m point and wind flags.
For those that crow the Elcans glories - I suggest you wait till these sights have a little bit longer field usage in other armies - and then you will realise why the Canadian Infantry want to give it the long walk off a short pier.
The low light aspect is highly over rated in the age of suppressors, MNVG's and PAC/PEQ's anyone using a day sight is prey for those who are not.
As MarkC mentioned the C79/C79A2 is not suited for the type of operatiosn that we conduct. It is neither suited for extended field duty for for CQB, but it thrives on the range.
Currently most of us are using the EOTECH 552 in Afghanistan with several iron sights and a few personal Aimpoint CCO's -- When Mark was over with 3VP they did not have the great luxury of the 552's but most felt much more comfortable with the ironsights.
Given that the troops at the point don't want the C79 - one wonders why we still have it?
I will agree with each and everypoint you made.
Further issues with the C79 are the range stadia - rather than a quick 'point and click' system like the TA11,TA31, TA01 Series of ACOG scopes from Trijicon which have the range stadia bar the width of an avg (19") chest at the differing ranges the C79 makes you move your reticle off tgt and attaempt to arbitraily judge the height of an individual by using the two horizontal range stadia.
The 800m BCD - it never worked for the C77 ball round out of the C7 with any degree of accuracy - rifle teams were flipping the gate up and using it as a 1MOA click scope.
Secondly the idea of adjusting sights on an infantry weapon in combat is foolhardy - troops should know thwe trajectory of the bullet and be able to aim off (as yuo will end up aiming of for wind and rnage anyway as very few of the two way range the enemy is kind enought to put up both ranges leveled off to the 100m point and wind flags.
For those that crow the Elcans glories - I suggest you wait till these sights have a little bit longer field usage in other armies - and then you will realise why the Canadian Infantry want to give it the long walk off a short pier.
The low light aspect is highly over rated in the age of suppressors, MNVG's and PAC/PEQ's anyone using a day sight is prey for those who are not.
As MarkC mentioned the C79/C79A2 is not suited for the type of operatiosn that we conduct. It is neither suited for extended field duty for for CQB, but it thrives on the range.
Currently most of us are using the EOTECH 552 in Afghanistan with several iron sights and a few personal Aimpoint CCO's -- When Mark was over with 3VP they did not have the great luxury of the 552's but most felt much more comfortable with the ironsights.
Given that the troops at the point don't want the C79 - one wonders why we still have it?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Now here is something I think is, well not the greatest, but considereing this type of optics have been around for a long time, and its very similar to the UK's earlier SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry trilux) as used on the 7.62mm L1A1 SLR. The UK's SUSAT pictured below (Sight Unit Small Arms trilux) is used on their L85A2 and L86A2 weapons.
Excuse the blurred sight picture, as I was too close, and one of the internal prisms was rooted. Although I am no FCS Tech, I did try to repair this, but to no avail. This SUSAT was BLR'd, as we did not have any access to parts.
Cheers,
Wes
Excuse the blurred sight picture, as I was too close, and one of the internal prisms was rooted. Although I am no FCS Tech, I did try to repair this, but to no avail. This SUSAT was BLR'd, as we did not have any access to parts.
Cheers,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
A US Army ACOG mounted on an M16A2. These were all NIB, and the 25th ID out of Hawaii was really having problems keeping them zeroed. They were all kind of antsy about is as they were deploying to Iraq only weeks after I took these pics.
Similar threads
