A few years ago there was a tragic mishap by where a PPCLI soldier accidentally killed his fire team partner while doing an Advance to Contact on a live fire exercise. What happened is that he was strictly looking through his Elcan sight on the C9 he was using. Therefore he had NO PERIPHERAL VISION!!!!! This seems to be a problem not only with the C9, but also with the C7. Now taking all of this into account, I feel that it is time that we got rid of these rediculous scopes and soldier the old fashioned way with the cast iron sights. This way there would be peripheral vision on the battlefield and one would not accidentally kill their fire team partner. How do YOU feel about this?!

I've never heard a good argument of why there should be sights on a machine gun. It's an area weapon! I could see how sights could have contributed to the incident to mentioned. Also, it's rather hard to look through a sight when you gun is vibrating rapidly. I found the iron sights for the c6 vastly superiror. The use of the optical sight on the c9 is pretty unjustifiable.

On the other hand, I think there are several valid reasons why the c7 sight is usefull and should be kept. One is the light amplification factor. The sights gives you an extra 15 minutes of daylight either way while the iron sights decrease your vision. Also, marksmanship is a very important skill for every soldier to be effective on the battlefield.

--------------------

--------------------

[ 05 May 2001: Message edited by: recceguy ]

--------------------

--------------------

ender -- check with your standards people. I was a QL2 Crse Warrant over a year ago and my instructors used a lesson plan with the Elcan sight. Don't wait for someone to hand it to you, go look for it. If you can't find it, make a lesson plan and have standards approve it. Be proactive, don't complain if you don't have an answer.

--------------------

--------------------

Everyone else- 1. It is obvious to me, that the comments made on Infantry Live fire Atks, Pre trg, and RSO duties during these atks, are based on supposition, and NOT a comprehensive understanding of, or experience doing these Tasks. If you wish to state an opinion , GREAT! ( Just know what you are talking about!)
2. Small Arms Fire- Theres " effective range"(where the average Joe/Josephine can, reasonably, be expected to hit the tgt) and Maximum effective range( where the projectle fired, by a competent shot, can still cause damage/ injury to the tgt) The 556mm
cartridge is lethal ,a lot farther then you think!)
ENDER- you hit the nail on the head! Marksmanship trg is the key!
Fortunecookie5084- The C7 does have the heavy barrel on it( take a look at a M16A1). The AK-47 fires 7.62x39( definitely Not equivalent to 762 NATO!)
Mair/ Recceguy- Your last two posts bring up, very basic,yet,excellent points. It
all boils down to mastery of basic skills, exposure to, and understanding of, the hazards of live fire training .

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

I was using the QL2 thing as an example. When I did my QL2 we were taught with the iron sight lesson plan and that's what they are using in my area today. I'm a Private though, so I'm not teaching anything, and getting the lesson plan changed isn't really by buisness. Also, my father, a MCpl, has been trying for the last two years to get the lesson plan changed to one that he wrote, and they won't let him.

My unit has a pretty good shooting team which I hope to join. Expect that I've only fired the rifle once, on QL2 because I was tasked out and missed the unit firing ex, so I havn't exactly had any practise.

--------------------

fortunecookie - don't think about it, do it!! The worst thing is, they'll ignore you the best thing maybe you'll get the answers your looking for. Email them and don't forget to ask them about the hundreds of improvements they made to the M16 when they got licenced to build the C7. Many of which have since been adopted by our brethren south of the border (chrome barrel linings, etc). It's not even the same weapon. Stop comparing them. Steel, tracks and green paint don't mean it's a tank.

--------------------

--------------------

So that's what we need to do to have you post on the forum. Nice to see that you're still around! Agreed, marksmanship training is key to preventing accidents like this from occurring. That doesn't help the soldier who was killed due to the training accident now does it. And yes, there are people who know how to use the C79 Optical Sight. They've used it so well that they've killed buddy!!!!

I've come accross the official Diemaco website. They are the manufacturer of the C7 family of firearms and the C79 Optical Sight. I added it to the "Canadian Military Related" portion on User Submitted Links. Take a look at it and compare it against what we're already using.
www.diemaco.com

-the patriot-

From where I am, I can't see any way to deal with this through my chain of command. The best way I would think would be to go through the musketry NCO, and the area rifle guy, who is my Dad. This is something I really don't have the qualifications or experience to deal with.

--------------------

I had a beef with some of their marksmanship principles, too, and I mentioned that their trg was completely at odds with what had been taught to me by a qualified reg force Van Doos sniper from one of the recce platoons. It sucked when they pulled out the pam and "showed" me that I was wrong and that I must have not been paying attention that day. But heck, my PWT3 score is still sky-high using Sgt. 22's tips, so...

If you have input, always give it. One day you will be leading the troops and the idiots who laugh you off will be gone. Think of how good the unit will be then, eh?

There is a simple reason why the M16 has an 'extended range' over the C7 and it has not much to do with the rifle itself. The M16 fires a 52 grain projectile (avoirdupois measurement = 7000 grains to a pound of 16 ounces) at 3200 feet per second while the C7 fires a 62 grain projectile at 2950 feet per second. The M16 has a rifle twist of 1:7 (that is one turn of the projectile on it's axis for every 7 inches of forward movement) while the C7 has a 1:9 rate of twist. The heavier projectile has more inertia at a shorter range than the light projectile has a longer range and for that reason the M16 is rated at a greater range than than the C7. THe C77 ball ammunition used by the CF is a metal cored projectile and is more than capable of penetrating hardened targets at greater distances than the projectile fire from the M16. I'm not going to go into a dissertation regarding the flight of projectiles during the 4 phases of ballistics but I will tell you that the C7 is a superior weapon to anything ever turned out by Colt or Armalite.

Regarding the use (or usefulness) of the C79 scope...It makes poor shooters average, average shooters marginal and great shooters piss poor. Not logical but I've seen it with my own eyes at every serious competition. The minute of angle graduations are too gross (1 click = 1 inch at 100 yards) and are fine for a battle sight but not for a precision shooter. Not a precision rifle you say? If the target goes down and stays there and it's the target you pointed at just before it made the loud noise, then it IS a precision piece of equipment without doubt or reason.

I would prefer my battle rifle to have a sighting system that works in all environments (doesn't fog up with moisture, snow or other climatic anomalies) and it precise enough that if I want to display my concealed position at 500 yds I can do so knowing that at least one person (with the potential for more) no longer cares where, why, what, when or how I am.

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath

--------------------

You or your Dad should e-mail the Army Lessons Learned Centre about the lesson plan. I was talking to a major from the Centre while down in Fort Benning in March. They really seem to want to help and are always interested in hearing your concerns.

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

So that's what we need to do to have you post on the forum.

---

--------------------

The C79 on the C9 works, so long as you keep both eyes open to watch the tracer. Also, the sight doesn't rattle that much if you hold the gun good and tight, although, admittedly, that may only be true for us bigger guys. (And hell, we always wind up humping the C9s anyway, right?)

And the C7 lesson plan should be updated, if only for those clowns that don't realize that iron sights and optical sights aren't the same thing. I recall one such case from my QL2:

We had a guy who assumed that the 'line up the rear and front sights with the target' instructions we were given in the classroom meant to line up the aiming post on the C79 with the front iron sight. (It is possible, if you cant the weapon upwards, although the fronts sight is rather blurry)

My position as moderator is to create topics and/or issues to cause thought provoking discussions that deal with the Canadian Infantry. The fact that you're posting is all the indication I need to prove that you are paying attention. And no. I don't have a mouse with me in my pocket.

--------------------

Me thinks you protest a little too much. Maybe the round are moving into the short bracket.

As for the topic. If it is the incident I think it was the young PPCLI soldier was shot in Wainwright (or Suffield) while doing live fire trench clearing. There was a Board of Inquiry and I don't remember the findings but I'm sure peripherial vision was a factor. But I know either (or both) the RSO and Coy Comd were charged. (can't remember the verdict either-age creeping up) but the point is the sight didn't cause the accident, but poor training and range mangement did. I do remenber there was an article or msg that came out warning about peripherial vision and the C79 sight. Training accidents are tragic but when using live ammunition they can happen. And I'm sure if someone looked, you will find the same type of accidents using iron sifghts.

You pull one incident out and condemn the sight. Personnally I prefer iron sights but I'm old fashioned. But unlike you I moved on with the times. My army issued me a C7 with a C79 sight and that is what I will use. And because I am a professional (or like to think I am) I have become damn good with it. A soldiers duty (and the same applies to you if you are one) is to do the job with the tools you are given and not whine about it. At least the sight is a step forward not back. It has sight magnification and a certain light gathering ability.

I remember giving up the "old" C1 for the mattle toy and how many thought it a mistake. That was because we were rooted in the past but deep down we knew the C7 was here to stay so we carry on. I suggest you do the same.

--------------------