This debate will probably go on forever. I'm still partial to the old FN service rifle. It had greater range, more kick, and was in my opinion a "classier" weapon. Granted the C7 holds its own, but I guess one of the reasons the FN was scrapped was due to the cost of maintaining such a weapon (parts and maintenance etc.). How does everyone else feel about this? Which one of the two do you feel is the better weapon?!

Personally, I did my basic with the FN and I couldnt' hit a damn thing with it on the range. I'm 5'5" and it was too much for me. The C7, with a small butt stock, is much easier for me to control and fire accurately. It's also lighter, which I like when I have to march with it.

If I went to war, I would probably not like the plastic parts much, or the stopping power of the bullet, though I could carry more ammo and also feel more confident in my ability to dominate my immediate area with full automatic firepower and a 30 round magazine as opposed to semi-auto with the FN and 20 rounds in the mag.

There is the old question about whether its better to wound or to kill enemy soldiers - for the rifleman, better to kill him dead so he's no threat to you. From a logistical stanpoint, every soldier you wound ties up that many more enemy rear area troops to look after him. It's not an argument I get involved in myself, but it's something some people do consider - and I hear that the 5.56 tumbles more, causing nastier wounds, though the 7.62 is heavier and more likely to kill you than a .223, depending on where it hits you.

There is the question of cost, of interchanability of ammunition with the rest of the section (you could use C1 mags in the C2 LMG, but you can also use C7 mags in the C9).

Another question is whether or not one is inherently more accurate than the other out to certain ranges - and how important is that anyway - how many troops fire their rifles effectively in combat (a question going back to SLA Marshall, who may have gotten many of the answers wrong, but it is a question worth asking even today). If the majority of killing is done with artillery and MG fire (in a conventional war, as WW II was - and as WW II vets found out) then does it really matter? But that raises the question again of how will our infantry be employed in the next 10 years - and who will they be shooting at?

Sorry to drag this out - but there are a lot of other little (good) questions to consider. Personally - from my perspective - I can carry a C7 and shoot it more accurately than I can an FN. I could probably use the rifle butt more effectively too, and the bayonet - the C7 being lighter and smaller - though I'm not sure which would be more resistant to shattering over an enemy helmet or skull - the plastic or the wood butt.

They put a scope on the C7 - makes me wonder what it would have been like to put a scope on the FN ... ? I like the idea of being able to "reach out and touch somebody" at a larger distance ... especially if I'm a better shot than they are!

However, I acknowledge that some people had difficulty with the FN and therefore prefer the smaller, lighter C7 - it's only human nature (similar debate probably ensued when the Lee Enfield was replaced).

Personally, I'd also be happy to have a Mossberg "Intimidator" slung across my back when the s*** hits the fan - my logic has always been that if the battle has deteriorated to the stage whereby I (me personally) am firing my personal weapon, then it's only a matter of minutes or seconds, yards or metres before the bayonet fighting starts (and I'm not interested in "coming in second" at that stage - heck, I'd be packing a 9mm, too!)

Weight of rifle; 4.22 kg, 9# 6 oz;

Weight of rifle, full mag, bayonet; 5.24kg, 11# 10 oz. oz.

I can get similar specs for comparison for C7 avec sight etc from the "Never Pass a Fault" guys at the local Armoury.

I recognize some of the names of the contributors to this forum and I know that at least two of you have never served a day in the Infantry in your lives. There aren't too many clerks out there with real operational experience any more (especially Reserve clerks!)(sorry guys, but gate guard doesn't cut it). So your opinions of how a weapon shoots, or how it carries is somewhat irrelevant in this particular forum. No offense intended; I'm just saying it like it is, as Infanteers do.

When I served in the British Army I had, for a number of years, a beautifully refurbished SLR with a very grainy triangular wooden hand-guard and butt. This was a rarity, since the black plastic SLRs had long since taken the place, generally, of the wooden ones. The rifle also had a heavier barrel than most and was very accurate. I once shot for a morning on an ETR at Hythe Ranges on the south coast of England, shooting at targets at 600m with iron sights. I was scoring 2 out of three hits - which isn't bad considering that the fig. 11 target is half the size of the SLR foresight blade at 600m.

I found the Canadian C1 to be woefully inaccurate compared to the Brit SLRs I had fired. I attributed this to the abuse they took when pooled at the summer recruit trg establishments, and the appalling lack of proper maintenance back at the Units by the gun plumbers (it didn't help, either that the "bolts" were kept in a box and issued randomly with any wpn).

I find the Canadian C7 to be OK at up to 300m. The sight is crap, though, and it's effect on soldiers' peripheral vision is bad news, especially in close country. And I'd really like to meet the winger whose idea it was to put that sight on the C9, too.

Personally, I think the notion of developing a round to wound an enemy is ludicrous. A wounded enemy soldier can still operate a wpn and I can think of numerous situations where you would really want him to go down and stay down. The 7.62 NATO round is not only more than adequate for the task, but is most effective against soft-skinned vehicles. 7.62 AP does a good job on li amd vehs, as well.

As an Infantry soldier, I'd rather suffer under the additional weight of the 7.62 round and benefit from the greater punch, penetration, and range, than have a lighter round to fire. The issue of carrying less 7.62 ammo due to the extra weight is a non-starter.

To set your mind at ease, no offense taken, but it would appear my objective has been reached - ie stimulating discussion by those with more experience than I. It certainly got YOU to pontificate at length - which is what this place is all about.

But I think you want to watch that same, tired old attitude of "if you weren't there, shut up." It's not very condusive to stimulating thoughtful discussion. That's what we're here to do - not to set policy for the Canadian Army.

I was under the impression the bulk of your service in the British Army was as a Territorial in some lesser known County Regiment; please correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, it would be very possible for some Falklands or Vietnam War vet to come along and tell YOU to shut yer gob. Which really wouldn't make any sense at all - we all have the right to express an opinion. That yours is worth more in this discussion than mine is obvious, my feeling is that there is no point in making an ass out of yourself by stating it.

At any rate, welcome to the forum, and its nice to see yet another Calgary Highlander here.

And while I haven't served a day in the infantry, I did serve one (single) night attached to a rifle platoon for the live-fire defensive ex two years ago. And I was complimented on my shooting (with the C7). Hardly operational experience, I realize, but not exactly armchair soldiering either.

The FN is an outdated, heavy, difficult-to-clean weapon
that was very suited for its time and depending on the
mission could be used today.

The C7 has small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight
to be used in closed country. The C2 sight is not crap,
it's very good, and is an excellent tool to use at night.
Your beloved British Army uses a 2X scope, if memory serves me correctly.

The 7.62 NATO round was also designed to wound, hence the
metal jacket. A wounded en uses a lot more en resources
and has a greater negative effect on morale.

I shouldn't think for one minute that anyone out there is interested in my service. Suffice to say that your own speculation about it is quite wrong!

You really spent a whole night with an infantry platoon? Dang Dorosh, I see you in a whole different light now (I think our Ladies' Auxiliary did something similar recently, too. They had a blast)! ;-D

But enough silliness. If you'd like to discuss this offline, feel free.

For Magoo:

You said: In this day and age, I think that it's pretty clear that it's not only infanteers that have experience with the
service rifle, also infanteers don't get that much time
and ammo using their rifles anyway. Our Bisley team has
been from all trades for some time.

I say: But the discussion was about the wpn's application live and in theatre, was it not? It's use in theatre will largely be by Infanteers. We're not talking about target shooting to get trophies here - of the Bisley team, only the Infanteers are likely to engage the service rifle for its intended purpose.

You said: The FN is an outdated, heavy, difficult-to-clean weapon that was very suited for its time and depending on the
mission could be used today.

I say: Outdated compared to what? And what exactly does "outdated" mean in this context? I did say I'd welcome the FN back in a "modified" version, however.

Heavy? Compared to what? I've never heard a fit, properly trained Infanteer complain about the weight of the FN...even one with a Starlight scope on it (though that's dating me a bit).

Difficult to clean? Compared to what? The nooks and crannies in the upper receiver of the C7 are harder to get at and there are other, more awkward-to-clean rifles out there yet.

You said: The C7 has small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight to be used in closed country. The C2 sight is not crap,
it's very good, and is an excellent tool to use at night.

I say: Take a look in any Infantry Unit wpns lock-up and see just how many of those "small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight" are still there. Most of them wear off within a short time of receipt in the unit, making using and training with them a non-starter. Also, use of the C2 optic is extremely limiting to the all-important peripheral vision in close country. "Tunnel vision", even for a moment, is a very bad thing for an Infantry soldier. The C2 sight also has a nasty habit of becoming loose on the wpn right when you need it most. Infanteers tend to put their wpns through much more arduous conditions than simply firing on a range. Simply re-tightening the wing-nuts on the sight mount doesn't cut it, as the wpn zero is lost and subsequent shots fired are inaccurate. BTW, all optic sights have certain inherent light-gathering qualities in poor light conditions. The C2 sight is poorly designed and not nearly robust enough for the Infantry. Like I said...it's crap!

You said: Your beloved British Army uses a 2X scope, if memory serves me correctly.

I say: That would be the sight on the SA80, which was not being discussed. I don't know much about that sight as I only used it a few times close to the end of my British service. I do know that the wpn it's mounted on is absolute crap and a very poor substitute for the FN.

You said: The 7.62 NATO round was also designed to wound, hence the metal jacket. A wounded en uses a lot more en resources
and has a greater negative effect on morale.

I say: That's crap! Any grunt in the thick of it wants the enemy to go down and stay down. He couldn't care less what's happening in the enemy's rear ech! A 7.62 NATO round will go through a brick wall and kill the bastard on the other side. A 5.56 probably won't. See if you can attend a penetration demonstration some time...you'll get the idea.

This is a free thinking discussion group and it does not matter if someone is a wrench bender, cook, admin clerk or grunt. If they have an opinion about a topic they are more then within their right to contribute. In case you forget, the C7 is classified as a service weapon, not an infantry specific rifle. You obviously have alot of experience and could contribute alot to this forum, however, your comments toward other active members are for the most part narrow minded infantry drivel.

I carried the C1 and the C2 and I much prefer the C7 and C9 series we currently have. Is it the optimum solution for a Canadian soldier, no of course not, but what army in the world is kitted out with the best of weapons...? Not many.

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,

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!

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,

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).

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.