Is that an ELCAN?

[Nfld Sapper]

Think we are going to need a bigger peanut gallery CDN Aviator,

btw pull up a chair.

 

[Good2Golf]

I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!

Kilroy, I would submit that you only dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole almost every time you post. 

Infidel-6, on the other hand, is someone I've worked with and traveled through the plateaus of the Hindu Kush with, and in whom I'd unquestioningly trust my life to, so I'll be leaning 100% towards trusting what he has to say.  You should stop now while you're only marginally behind.  With a fifth of a century of service to your country, you'd think you'd know when the time is right to adopt listening silence....

G2G

 

[medaid]

Holly MOOOO, did he come back JUST for that?!  op:

Who wants beer?

 

[1feral1]

I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!

Holy shyte, over!

Putting on my ECBA  :warstory:

Let  the meltdown commence (sorry Tess - stole your fav line )

Taking cover behind a HESCO (oops flashing back).

 

[Big Red]

Ya, and depending on the weather conditions, it might rain and it might not. Since, the C79 is design for our C& weapons, and to some extent the C(, which shoots the NATO STANDARD 5.56, and since the weapon in question was thought to be a C6 which would shoot a NATO STANDARD 7.62, it is easy to understand that the bullet trajectories would not match.

I submit you are pulling straws out of your hat on this one!!!

Since we've already established that it's OBVIOUSLY not a C79 (have you been around US troops in the last several years?!), you are the one pulling straw out of your ass.

 

[KevinB]

Well you got me Kilroy  :
  I have a 7.62mm M118LR cam on my ShortDot -- it is a ballistics match to the 77gr Mk262 Mod1 round at 2750fps from a 16" barrel (out to 450m) and a MOA here and there past...

The weapon in question is clearly a US M240B  and the US Army MGO is the M145 as several of us who work in an around these circles have repeated over and over again.
 

We where running a 552 EOTECH but now for BS asscovering reasons its been determined we need to run a M145.

You may be a great FCS Tech but your lacking in the other fields - and when you comment incorrectly it kills your credibility.

 

[cdn031]

Go 6!
Sweet ride.
Do all the spent casings and link add to the Vehicle's ballistic protection?
Or just no shovel handy? 

Be safe!

 

[herseyjh]

Now that is what I call a loaded SUV.  Did you get power windows also?

 

[Pte.Butt]

One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??

I am out of my lane on this one, but if the sight is zeroed for that weapon, wouldn't the given trajectory caliber not matter?

 

[Pte.Butt]

You're right, it wouldn't matter for the range you zeroed at. But as soon as you started to adjust with a standard sight for range it wouldn't necessarily be on.
The M145 in question though has a bullet drop compensator reticle with markings for various ranges, meaning you just change your point of aim on the reticle from the top for 100m say, down to say the 800m line at 800m, s**t simple. Not like the C79 where you actually dial in the range.

Understood, thanks for clearing that up for me, Silver.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I am out of my lane on this one, but if the sight is zeroed for that weapon, wouldn't the given trajectory caliber not matter?

Yup definitely outside your lane there.

Oh yes,


GAS! GAS!  GAS!


;D

 

[Thorvald]

Just to backup I6's info on the M145 (MGO, NSN 1240-01-411-6350):

Civy Model of the MGO (Machine Gun Optical):
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterM145.php

http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=ELCM145W

The "thingy" is not an optical illusion, it is the rotary switch to adjust the levels of illumination for the reticule (11 levels plus off).

---

There, with that out of the way, we can get back to watching the "mud slinging" ensue  ;D

 

[Kilroy]

ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this a C-79 sight on a US MG?

I then say:

One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??

So, NOWHERE did I dispute what the sight actually was, and no where did i dispute what the weqpon actually was. All I said, was that it COULDN'T be a C79 on the weapon, because the reticle in a C79 would not work with the balistics of the gun the sight is mounted on!!!!


EVERY other claim that I said ANYTHING has been fabricated or misunterpreted by everyone else would couldn't be bothered to actually read the entire post. As for my credibility, it still stands.

To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aesop081]

To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calm down there trigger, lest that verbal turns into a ban...

Milnet.ca staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Take a pill : Most of what has happened, right or wrong, is your condecending and grating attitude. People have gotten used to just skiming what your saying and may be missing something your posting. You'd probably get along alot better if you didn't get up in everyone's face everytime you type on the keyboard.
Just some advice and my $00.02

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[1feral1]

ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I then say:


So, NOWHERE did I dispute what the sight actually was, and no where did i dispute what the weqpon actually was. All I said, was that it COULDN'T be a C79 on the weapon, because the reticle in a C79 would not work with the balistics of the gun the sight is mounted on!!!!


EVERY other claim that I said ANYTHING has been fabricated or misunterpreted by everyone else would couldn't be bothered to actually read the entire post. As for my credibility, it still stands.

To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simply an observation from pretty much all of your posts period. Right from the get-go, you've had a number of issues. Maybe its time to move on if you are not going to contribute in a positve fashion.

Again, not a 'personal' attack, again an observation.

Attitude, attitude, attitude. Do you behave in this manner at work?

If so, I know know why you're a 20+ Corporal.

Anger management issues?

Talk about touchy, and ultra sensitive.

All this holier 'than thou attitude', I've had enough.

Like I said from the beginning, its your integrity on here, not ours, and not that you seem to care anyways.

The saga continues op:

 

[Michael OLeary]

ORIGINAL FREAKIN POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The original post was made on 9 Dec 2006.

By reply #29, on 9 December (the same day), it was confirmed to the participants that it was not a C79, and the identification of the sight was presented.  And who do you think gave us that data:

SMMT -- The SpectreDr has suffered a number of problems -- people in Pet and down the road tested them and found that the switch from 1-4 would typically alter the zero...
USSOC added a Dr Optic min reddot to the top so the shooter could keep it at 4x and use the Doc for CQB...

The scope in the the initial picture is the M145, it has the "picatinny clicker" mount that has a torque knob that the user can tighten to a certain pressure (IIRC 65ft/lbs) and then it willl just stop and start clicking as it will not tighten past [in theory....] the US Army issue M68 CCO (Aimpoint) has the same attachment device.
Talking to friends in USSOC - they have had some zero loss issues but they where for a heavier upgraded version of the mount after learning from our C79 experiences

Yup, one of the recognized small arms SMEs on the forum gave us that.

The thread then ceased receiving posts on 13 Decemeber 2006 ...

... until ...

YOU showed up one year, two months later.

YOU reopened the discussion with an unnecessary statements starting with:

One big disadvantage if it really IS a C79, is that the reticle in a C79 is designed for the trajectory of a 5.56 round. Now, not being a weapons tech or an ammo tech, I would still think that the trajectory of a 5.56, and a 7.62 are actually quite different. Therefore, i surmise that if this is in fact a C79, they either put it up there just fo r the heck of it, or just so they could see 3.4 times farther away??

And then we were off and running with your uncooperative attitude in a discussion that had no reason to occur.  I can only ask if you actually read the thread before you started this mess.

Your last little rant is just so applicable to yourself:

To anyone else, BEFORE you reply, RTFM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, you've had enough private exchanges with Staff and apparently still don't get it.  Suck back, slow down, and think about whether or not you want to be here.  If you do, post with that intent.  If you don't like it here and continue in the same tone, you won't be here long.

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

Mods, may I recommend that we lock this topic, so as to prevent further aggravation.

 

[Good2Golf]

Agreed.  Folks, why don't we let this one cool down for a bit.  Usual caveats apply...valid posts to a mod for inclusion in the thread.  Thanks.

The Army.ca Staff