Should the C-6 MMG be upgraded??

[dangerboy]

Why not add rails to the C6?
If there is anyone I would want to be able to see where he is shooting, its usually the man with the most firepower.  and;  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.

I have to disagree, shooting the C6 while wearing a headset and or goggles usually means you are in a vehicle.  Unless you have a stabilization system you will not be able to get a sight picture using optics while the vehicle is on the move. (LAV/Coyote gunners try aiming with the STAB turned off). 

 

[George Wallace]

Why not add rails to the C6?
If there is anyone I would want to be able to see where he is shooting, its usually the man with the most firepower.  and;  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.

And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?

I have to agree with dangerboy.  Your sights are only to put you in the general area for your initial burst.  From then on, it is observe your Trace and BOT.  Night Sights are useless as soon as that first Trace goes down range.

Trace.  BOT.  Gunner's Determination.

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

I have to disagree, shooting the C6 while wearing a headset and or goggles usually means you are in a vehicle.  Unless you have a stabilization system you will not be able to get a sight picture using optics while the vehicle is on the move. (LAV/Coyote gunners try aiming with the STAB turned off).

Very true, but you aren't always only shooting on the move.  Stationary shooting should also be considered.

And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?

Yes, as it "lifts" your head off of the butt, and allows more clearance between your face and the weapon.

Night Sights are useless as soon as that first Trace goes down range.

Not night sights as it tritium, Peq-2 as in I/R as in this thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2

I agree that there are other ways out there to kill people with this weapon. Very Very effectively, Im just opting on the side of versatility and options.

If its such a bad idea, why is the entire U.S Army on board?  I can't think of another organization with more combat experience since the Mongol hoards,


Food for thought.

 

[George Wallace]

Let's go back to this:

  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.

I asked:
"And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?"

Your reply was this:

Yes, as it "lifts" your head off of the butt, and allows more clearance between your face and the weapon.

You also stated this:

Very true, but you aren't always only shooting on the move.  Stationary shooting should also be considered.

I forgot to add something, and you seem to have never fired many MGs on a Ground or Flex mount to know about it, so here is the part I forgot to mention to go along with the Helmet, Headset, and goggles; VIBRATION.  You are firing a MG that is not in a stable mount.  It vibrates.  There is not much more chance of you seeing through optical sights vibrating with the gun, while you are wearing all the afore mentioned kit, than through the iron sights.  If you wanted to clamp it down into a 20 mm Cannon mount like the 50 Cal was on the Lynx, then you would have a sniper weapon, but that is not likely to happen.

I really don't know why you would want optical and laser sights on a MG other than to snipe, and there are a lot better weapons out there designed specifically for sniping.



[EDIT to add:]

Not to mention Flash, Smoke and Dust that may obscure the sight picture.  (It's been a while.....How can you tell?)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

George's favorite gun, circa 1894 I still piss myself when I recall that afternoon on the range ;D

That was the Gatling wasn't it?

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

I forgot to add something, and you seem to have never fired many MGs on a Ground or Flex mount to know about it, so here is the part I forgot to mention to go along with the Helmet, Headset, and goggles; VIBRATION.  You are firing a MG that is not in a stable mount.  It vibrates.  There is not much more chance of you seeing through optical sights vibrating with the gun, while you are wearing all the afore mentioned kit, than through the iron sights.  If you wanted to clamp it down into a 20 mm Cannon mount like the 50 Cal was on the Lynx, then you would have a sniper weapon, but that is not likely to happen.

  I'm going to bow out of the "I've fired more machine guns from more things than you"  contest, I WILL lose that one.

Having said that I have a bit of experience, and I was offering an opinion on versatility.
You're going all black hat on me!!!

I agree, it wouldn't be of use to everyone, but if we take a look at the next generation of GPMG coming out, it would seem like there are options out there worth exploring. After all, that's the beauty of a rail system, parts come right off when not required or suitable.

A mounted and dismounted model might be worth looking at (like the M240B vs M240C).  Although that might require 2 different NSN's and then limit part swapping.

Take a look at the Mk48, there are different barrel lengths, hand guards, butt stocks ect.

I ran into a guy at the mat tech shop in BAF.  We were both there getting ammo racks welded into our trucks, and got to talking.  He had this awful spotlight looking thing on the side of the .50(IR Floodlight), as well as a standard EoTech on a riser mount as the main sight.  He was saying its the best thing since sliced bread for VCP's and he was able to track targets much better at night.  After 2 years in Iraq, and 22 months in eastern Afghanistan, I was ready to take his advice. 

I did on our next gun run at the ranges and found it way easier. 
That's just me though, to others with more experience, it might be more of a hindrance.

You are right about flash, and dust, and vibration.  It's like trying to lag a target while flying down the desert surfing on the back of a 7000lb rhino.

I just think if its a refurbishment we should look at having the most versatility possible, its not like there is a replacement coming anytime soon, and for good reason.  It truly is one of our best weapons, hands down.

As I said earlier "food for thought" not "gospel from the iron fist of the great leader".

http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterM145.phpl

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Up-to-33M-to-Trijicon-for-M240B-Machine-Gun-Optics-05590/

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=753

I'd like to hear from some more of the Infantry on this one. Apparently they know a thing or 10 about the pig.

Cheers,
AB

Edited for grammar and spelling, and links

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Really freaked out the Doctors, Nurses and Med A's.  ;D  But that was a C-9.  You were off to the left with the C-6s.  I still have no idea where that 12" blade went from the screwdriver.

OK. Think really hard here George, I know it was traumatic for you :blotto:. However, I was on the far right with the 9s and the two useless Bobs (Sgt & WO type) were to your left with the 72 & 84mm. You had the C-6 in the middle, on the road, under the flagpole and in front of the amb, which turned out to be in an excellent location

 

[basrah]

Replacing the SF kit with something similar made of Titanium or composite materials. It will cost a fortune, but the reduction in weight will be well worth it.

With artillery, CAS, and every other different type of indirect fire, the SF kit is nearing the end of its days. Replacing it is totally pointless, as it does the job it was intended to do just fine. The powers that be really dont care if something is 5 pounds lighter if it costs triple the amount.

I have touched the SF kit twice in my military career (coming up on 8 years) once as an intro before my last tour, and once on the PSWQ course. If there was a major use for it we would be using it frequently.

 

[George Wallace]

I am positive that I was on a C-9 along with you and Another Recce Guy, and the two Bob's and Steve had C-6.  We weren't running a Mixed Range in the PM, although we had done the AT stuff in the morning.  The little Medic had a stoppage, and she performed the drills correctly.  When we opened the cover, she had a double feed and a round up the spout.  Due to the heavy firing, that round cooked off as I was cleaning the face of the bolt.  That is why I have been in the "C-9 is a piece of crap/feed problems" thread a long time ago.

 

[a_majoor]

Some interesting side discussions coming here.

I will have to disagree with some of them, of course 

1. The best way to sight and engage targets with a C6 is your Number 2, or the gun det commander if you have sited multiple guns. These individuals are not affected by flash, blast, dust or vibration (or at least not as much as the Number 1). Why the Americans put optical sights on their GPMG's is unknown to me; unless the LCF is a high priority, optical sights on a  GPMG provide only limited utility under most circumstances.

2. If you have not been using your SF kit, you are losing about 2/3 of the effectiveness of your GPMG. Greater accuracy, doubling the effective range and the ability to engage targets with indirect fire using a map, compass and the C2 dial sight are capabilities that are well worth fighting to keep. A light weight SF kit might encourage more people to go out and learn these skills.

3. Indirect fire that the commander can bring on his own is a very valuable asset, which is why we have a vitriolic thread on exchanging the 60mm mortar for some form of AGL, and others on taking the 81mm away from the Infantry battalions. Yes, a 155 or 500lb bomb has far more "bang", but these assets don't "belong" to the engaged commander and there are additional time delays involved in getting them on target. If I can sweep a hillside from the reverse slope position or hammer a crossroad from a map grid then I have the drop on the enemy, who will have difficulty responding.

BTW, I am not a black hat, but an Infantryman, and for me there is nothing more dangerous than a well sited enemy MG. I just want to return the favour!

 

[Fusaki]

First off I'll say that I'm far from a C6 SME in the light or SF role.  I'm good to go with the COAX in the LAV turret, but beyond the PSWQ and other flat ranges I havn't been employed as a C6 gunner for any length of time in a real tactical situation.

That said, this is where I'm coming from in my previous comments.

- A good thermal sight would render the SF kit and C2 site obsolete. Why bother to mark and record targets for nighttime when you can just look through the sight and shoot them? It also has the benefit of being lighter then then tripod, more practical on the offensive, and increases effectiveness against targets in places you hadn't anticipated.  Thermal sights are also not washed out by muzzle flash and flares.  Recoil and vibration may still be an issue, but that can be mitigated by upgraded buffer springs and bipod.

- Firing the C6 indirect seems to be to be the answer to the question no one asked.  Like basrah, I've never seen the C6 employed like this and I've never been in a situation where it seemed like it would be useful.  The trajectory is just too flat, and the bullets are just too small to be worth any more than harassing fire.  These are strong arguments against the AGL as an indirect weapon, and I think they're even stronger arguments against the C6 for indirect fire.  What we really want is a light mortar for this sort of thing.

- The big argument I'm seeing against magnified optics is that the C6 GPMG is an area effect weapon.  To that I'd argue that our enemies these days are typically point targets.  My experience has been that the greatest difficulty is not in producing volume of fire, but in locating the bad guys and hitting fleeting targets with first burst hits.  90% of the time, a fleeting target is all we get.  Adjustments from a gun commander or #2 is just not fast enough. This is where a 4x magnified optic or thermal sight would shine.

- I don't want to come off as saying "The Americans have it, so we should too."  I just think that if sights and lasers were a bad idea, then it wouldn't be so common with our allies:

http://tgscom.com/images/sharedimages/GunSourceFrontPage/Images/M240/M240-1.jpg
http://www.worldwide-military.com/Army%20Material/Weapons%20plaatjes/Groot/M240B.jpg
http://www.omnitechpartners.com/images/uns_mounted_colorcorrected_large.jpg
http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/february/images/iraqi_election/23.jpg

 

[vonGarvin]

I will jump back in here, this time as a bonafide SME on GPMG in any role: light, medium, coax and flex.
Any thermal sight can be obscured by "stuff", and yes, they can fail.  You don't need to mark and record targets (SF) so long as the kit has been set up for indirect fire.  That setting up takes mere moments, and when I was a Gun Det Comd, it was set up as such in each and every occassion.  It wasn't always needed, but sometimes it was.  As for "why not just look through the sight and shoot them", the answer is obvious: you cannot always see them: thermal or no thermal.  The advantage of setting up for indirect fire, along with the trajectory (and range) of the gun when employed in the SF role, is that you can shoot over hill and dale.
Recoil and vibration are required to have an effective beaten zone; however, you don't want it too large either.  So, in the light role, we agree that there is more widely dispersed beaten zone.  Now, before going further, there is asight (the name fails me) that  can be fitted to the GPMG (light role).  So, there is scope for a sight (pun fully intended!) ;D
It's a shame that you haven't seen the C6 firing indirect.  And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".  First of all, it has nothing to do with trajectory.  Heck, the mortar can be fired in the direct fire role!  "Indirect Fire" essentially means that the weapon operator does not see the target, but rather aims at an aiming point.  A third-location observer sends data and corrections to the firer because he sees the target.  As an example, suppose you are near Telephone 10 here in Gagetown, dug in, gun arcs facing north.  You are on a bit of a reverse slope, and you cannot see Springbok Biv from your position. You are well within GPMG (SF) range, and you have a traversing target on the woods.  Your SF is set up for indirect fire.  The Gun Controller figures out bearing and distance, checks the firing tables, and tells you "Bearing aaaa, Elevation bbbb".  You apply the data to the C2, you sight in on your Aiming Point, level bubbles, etc, and then report "on".  The gun  controller gives you the application of fire and word of command, and away you start blasting in 20 round bursts, traversing right 5 clicks.  You return to your original point of aim and report "on".  As you look up into the night sky after each burst, (but before checking bubbles, etc), you note that the tracers arc over the horizon.  You fail to see them drop in.  Some other dude in the company does see them, however, and corrections are applied.  In other cases, assume that it's night, and you have your requisite targets all set up.  That is classic employment of the GPMG in the indirect role.  This is a different weapon from the mortar, and they complement each other.  Remember, the GPMG rounds still come in on a low trajectory, whereas the CASW chimera is supposed to lob in high angle much like a mortar (different arguments)
I agree with you that targets are often fleeting and there are indeed cases where a sight would come in handy for any weapon.  I'm just not sure if it's feasible (logistically, etc) to have all GPMGs so equipped.

I would argue for the proper use of the GPMG when it's used in the medium role.

 

[basrah]

And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".  First of all, it has nothing to do with trajectory. 

I will assume you are directing this at me, since I am the one who brought up the lack of use for the indirect fire role. Your assumption is wrong, and I am very well versed with what direct and indirect fire is, and how to properly employ it. The fact of the matter is that in the C6 role it is outdated. How many SF kits are currently in use in Afghanistan? A big fat zero. In fact I have been deployed on three tours, to three different countries, and have never seen any sort of MG set up in an indirect role. Wars are no longer fought the way the used to be with static entrenched positions, where wire obstacles funnel troops through to kill zones, or pre-registered targets are set up so they can be engaged at night. It is thinking like this that is keeping out dated training in our battle schools, and keeping out more useful information.

I still say, the only thing the C6 needs is the old gas regulator, perhaps a stronger bipod, and maybe a more detailed cleaning kit.

 

[vonGarvin]

I will assume you are directing this at me, since I am the one who brought up the lack of use for the indirect fire role. Your assumption is wrong, and I am very well versed with what direct and indirect fire is, and how to properly employ it. The fact of the matter is that in the C6 role it is outdated. How many SF kits are currently in use in Afghanistan? A big fat zero. In fact I have been deployed on three tours, to three different countries, and have never seen any sort of MG set up in an indirect role. Wars are no longer fought the way the used to be with static entrenched positions, where wire obstacles funnel troops through to kill zones, or pre-registered targets are set up so they can be engaged at night. It is thinking like this that is keeping out dated training in our battle schools, and keeping out more useful information.

I still say, the only thing the C6 needs is the old gas regulator, perhaps a stronger bipod, and maybe a more detailed cleaning kit.

Actually, the "indirect fire" comment was meant, quite neutrally, I might add, for Wonderbread.
As for the SF role and it not being used as such is a failure to use the system properly.  Whether or not the SF kit has been used is moot in terms of arguing that it is outdated.  I can think of a thousand and one instances in which the employment of the GPMG as an MMG would serve its purpose much better than as an LMG.  If these were classified means, I could relate to you, in detail, many cases in which a GPMG properly set up would have enabled those dudes behind the gun to fire at the bad guys.  The fact that there was no GPMG set up properly as an MMG really blows me away.
The artillery use pre-registered targets, and on my tour the 60s were set up by legacy Advanced Mortarman qualified WOs and NCOs to great effect, again, with pre-registered targets.  Why take that capability away from the GPMG?
Now, I'll open the floor to you.  Exactly what dated training do we have in our battle schools, and with what would you replace it? 
(NB: I'm not being snot nosed or anything here. I would honestly like to see what people, yourself, others, would rather see taught on DP 1 Infantry as an example.)

 

[Jammer]

What!!!!
No  C-6 SF kits in Afghanistan eh?
I'm sure I saw one at my Strong Point, along with a dismounted .50 AND and 60mm mortar, tripod and all.
I pretty sure my eyes weren't f@#$ed up because...oh yeah I SIGNED FOR IT!!!!
(got to use it a few times too).
What is your tour experience then, cuz it sure as hell ain't where I was, otherwise you would know better than to spout off about situations in which you apparently have had no exposure to.

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

1). Why the Americans put optical sights on their GPMG's is unknown to me; unless the LCF is a high priority, optical sights on a  GPMG provide only limited utility under most circumstances.

These guys were hauling up and down the mountains, daily.  For distances longer than our BFT.
Sometimes in excess of 48 hour patrol ops.  I'm certain if they didn't feel it was useful, it would be left behind. The guys were trying to save weight every way possible, and for damn good reason. LCF was not a factor, I assure you.

- I don't want to come off as saying "The Americans have it, so we should too."  I just think that if sights and lasers were a bad idea, then it wouldn't be so common with our allies:

Ditto, but its just where my experience lies, and is the closest comparison to an " upgraded" C6 that I can think of.  I see it as being a good idea for dismounted, and light vehicle use.

How would this negatively affect it in other roles?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

From my limited use of the C-6 GPMG I would like to see a return to the old gas regulator and for training maybe a better suited BFA, one that does not need to have the falsh eliminator removed.


My  :2c: worth.

 

[basrah]

What!!!!
No  C-6 SF kits in Afghanistan eh?
I'm sure I saw one at my Strong Point, along with a dismounted .50 AND and 60mm mortar, tripod and all.
I pretty sure my eyes weren't f@#$ed up because...oh yeah I SIGNED FOR IT!!!!
(got to use it a few times too).
What is your tour experience then, cuz it sure as hell ain't where I was, otherwise you would know better than to spout off about situations in which you apparently have had no exposure to.

My tour experience? SFOR, OIF and Archer 0108. As for where I was on the last tour, well, every PSS in Panjwai and Zhari, with most of my time spent at Mushan.


I didnt know they had all those weapons set up in KAF, congrats on signing for them.

 

[Jammer]

Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?

 

[Jammer]

Classy PM basrah.