- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
No problem...Rory said:
Hell Im pretty in the dark with most of this stuff too... I just know the basics.... like, "this end towards enemy" and "Point and Click, repeat until desired outcome is achieved"
Cheers
Hell Im pretty in the dark with most of this stuff too... I just know the basics.... like, "this end towards enemy" and "Point and Click, repeat until desired outcome is achieved"
Cheers
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 437
- Points
- 760
as some who used both weapons on the range. The FN C1A1 was a nice piece of kit, it had the range for long distance shots, it looked like a rifle , the wood and metal parts all oiled it look very nice on parade. it was a better weapon to drill with. nothing wrong with it that way.
C7 family came into service after my second year in the forces, and I was not at all impressed with till i got the chance to fire it. It did seem to feel lighter in training and field use. I shot just as well with it as i did with the FN family.
but the whole thing comes to down the age of the weapons in questions. my FN was made in the 1950s, I am thinking 1953, it was almost 40 years old when i got it. how much longer of a life would the weapon system have. with the use and abuse svc weapons get how long do they last without serious upgrades, replacement parts. Costs and the fact that 5.56 was the NATO ammo standard for small arms.
Ask any old soldier the first weapon he shot or was trained on was the best.
For todays combat and requirements I would take the C7 family over the C1 because I could carry more ammo, have better sights, have more fire power within the section. most of all the resupply of ammo is far easier since most countries in the operational areas use 5.56 , hate to run short and have to wait for it come in from Canada.
just my thoughts, donning flame proof shorts now
C7 family came into service after my second year in the forces, and I was not at all impressed with till i got the chance to fire it. It did seem to feel lighter in training and field use. I shot just as well with it as i did with the FN family.
but the whole thing comes to down the age of the weapons in questions. my FN was made in the 1950s, I am thinking 1953, it was almost 40 years old when i got it. how much longer of a life would the weapon system have. with the use and abuse svc weapons get how long do they last without serious upgrades, replacement parts. Costs and the fact that 5.56 was the NATO ammo standard for small arms.
Ask any old soldier the first weapon he shot or was trained on was the best.
For todays combat and requirements I would take the C7 family over the C1 because I could carry more ammo, have better sights, have more fire power within the section. most of all the resupply of ammo is far easier since most countries in the operational areas use 5.56 , hate to run short and have to wait for it come in from Canada.
just my thoughts, donning flame proof shorts now
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hmmm,
I was trained as a Pte (R) on the FNC1 and C1 SMG back in 1979. And then I was trained all over again (from scratch) as an OCdt on the C7. Now let me tell you about a nifty compromise that I have recently stumbled across in my personal firearms world - my shiny new Armalite AR-10 16" carbine. Can you say "best of both worlds?" I knew you could....
The overall dimensions and the controls are sufficiently similar to the C7/C8 that there is zero operator transition. The felt recoil is slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) more than that of the C8. Nothing remotely close to the FNC1, M-14 or G3. It truly recoils like a C7+....slightly plus. During my first range session I was able to engage a Fig 11 at 50 metres with controlled pairs from the "Gunfighter" position every bit as quickly and accurately (if not moreso with the EOTech) than I can with my crap-tastic issued C7A2. The difference being that every time I pulled the trigger with the AR-10, whatever I hit was going to drop decisively thanks to a 157 grain 7.62mm pill perforating the target.
The only down-side is that the manageable soldier's load is approximately 50% due to weight and bulk. But if the majority of rounds counts (and decisively)? I'd argue that the trade-off is well worth it. At least for selected riflemen.
We can debate the age-old opinion-piece of 7.62x51mm NATO versus 5.56x45mm all day long. The discussion has been done before, and is exceedingly redundant old hat. Excepting the fact that most past arguments were based on the 1950's "Battle Rifle" designs, versus a modern AR variant with a straight-line design, advanced manufacturing, and current recoil management technology. As a reasonably experienced infantry soldier with 25 years of experience, my recent personal revelation suggests that it may just be time to revisit the 7.62 NATO AR-10 Carbine (or variant) as the new "go to rifle" for at least some of our elements.
I'd ask that you personally fire a 16" AR-10 carbine before you deem to chime in on this particular subject. I suspect that if your previous experience is confined to the FN FAL, M-14 or G3, you will be VERY pleasantly surprised WRT recoil and manoeuvreability of the latest AR-10 carbine offering.
FWIW....
I was trained as a Pte (R) on the FNC1 and C1 SMG back in 1979. And then I was trained all over again (from scratch) as an OCdt on the C7. Now let me tell you about a nifty compromise that I have recently stumbled across in my personal firearms world - my shiny new Armalite AR-10 16" carbine. Can you say "best of both worlds?" I knew you could....
The overall dimensions and the controls are sufficiently similar to the C7/C8 that there is zero operator transition. The felt recoil is slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) more than that of the C8. Nothing remotely close to the FNC1, M-14 or G3. It truly recoils like a C7+....slightly plus. During my first range session I was able to engage a Fig 11 at 50 metres with controlled pairs from the "Gunfighter" position every bit as quickly and accurately (if not moreso with the EOTech) than I can with my crap-tastic issued C7A2. The difference being that every time I pulled the trigger with the AR-10, whatever I hit was going to drop decisively thanks to a 157 grain 7.62mm pill perforating the target.
The only down-side is that the manageable soldier's load is approximately 50% due to weight and bulk. But if the majority of rounds counts (and decisively)? I'd argue that the trade-off is well worth it. At least for selected riflemen.
We can debate the age-old opinion-piece of 7.62x51mm NATO versus 5.56x45mm all day long. The discussion has been done before, and is exceedingly redundant old hat. Excepting the fact that most past arguments were based on the 1950's "Battle Rifle" designs, versus a modern AR variant with a straight-line design, advanced manufacturing, and current recoil management technology. As a reasonably experienced infantry soldier with 25 years of experience, my recent personal revelation suggests that it may just be time to revisit the 7.62 NATO AR-10 Carbine (or variant) as the new "go to rifle" for at least some of our elements.
I'd ask that you personally fire a 16" AR-10 carbine before you deem to chime in on this particular subject. I suspect that if your previous experience is confined to the FN FAL, M-14 or G3, you will be VERY pleasantly surprised WRT recoil and manoeuvreability of the latest AR-10 carbine offering.
FWIW....
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
I agree with MarkC's comments - at least in respect to selected riflemen.
I have fired KAC's SR-25 BattleRifle in both 16 and 14.5" barrels suppressed and unsuppressed in both semi and automatic - they are virtually identical to the Armalite (except KAC has better functioning mags). I also have a 16" Armalite Carbine...
I beleive that every section should have a 16" AR10C - along with every other rifleman having a C8FTHB/SFW. At the ranges we wish to engage the 7.62mm Carbine would add an extreme amount of vesatility and barrier penetration in a precision format - not to mention better wind bucking.
However by and large the CF should embrace the 5.56mm Mk262 Mo1 77gr SMK loading from BlackHills (or a Canadian made version thereof) I know that recent the CF JAG system has spazzed on CF troops in Kandahar using that round (for some extremely bullshit reasons). It gives both increased range, accuracy and terminal effects on the target. It is issued for other systems in the CF - not not general issue...
I have fired KAC's SR-25 BattleRifle in both 16 and 14.5" barrels suppressed and unsuppressed in both semi and automatic - they are virtually identical to the Armalite (except KAC has better functioning mags). I also have a 16" Armalite Carbine...
I beleive that every section should have a 16" AR10C - along with every other rifleman having a C8FTHB/SFW. At the ranges we wish to engage the 7.62mm Carbine would add an extreme amount of vesatility and barrier penetration in a precision format - not to mention better wind bucking.
However by and large the CF should embrace the 5.56mm Mk262 Mo1 77gr SMK loading from BlackHills (or a Canadian made version thereof) I know that recent the CF JAG system has spazzed on CF troops in Kandahar using that round (for some extremely bullshit reasons). It gives both increased range, accuracy and terminal effects on the target. It is issued for other systems in the CF - not not general issue...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Kev what about the FN SCAR family?
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Seen.
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
Mark -- in search of a shorter and shorter weapon
I found last time the C8SFW I was issued was too large in the small worthless vehicles we have -- the 10" upper is about ideal for the close in stuff -- I can do a pretty good job out to 400m with the S&B and Mk262 (in fact I'd put money on me beating the typical CF soldier with C7A2 and ELCAN...
)
Of course I am no longer a rifleman...
I found last time the C8SFW I was issued was too large in the small worthless vehicles we have -- the 10" upper is about ideal for the close in stuff -- I can do a pretty good job out to 400m with the S&B and Mk262 (in fact I'd put money on me beating the typical CF soldier with C7A2 and ELCAN...
)Of course I am no longer a rifleman...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well that's not fair. You get more range time.
KevinB said:
+1. Canada needs to phone up Black Hills and strike up a deal to manufacture mk 262 mod 1 or just buy the stuff off the shelf. I'm sure there will be hysteria from JAG claiming its a hollowpoint design. I even know some SF guys who aren't allowed to use it because their chain flinched...
I phased out greentips a while ago except for a tracer mag.
BTW nice concussion...be careful, they fall apart if you get them wet :'(
Oh yeah Kev, stop posting pictures. I can barely go a week without being tormented with pics of a Short Dot I'm still trying to convince myself I don't need.
Similar threads
