• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

An old piece of iron - C1A1

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,921
Points
1,360
The recoil was nasty BUT with the proper hold on the weapon it was controllable. You knew you were firing something glorius.
I loved pushing sandbags around the range with it…something a C7/C8 wouldn’t/couldn’t do.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,412
Points
1,060
We had a shooting contest, came down to 2 guys and shooting an orange on a stick at 100m. One guy nailed their orange and the other grazed it, so we called him "sun kissed" after that. Damm good shooting with iron sights. Now all my iron sights have grown fuzz. My FAL has company with my now AR safe queens.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
Years later I bought an Australian L1A1, I managed to "find" a nice set of Canadian Wood - and the Disk Sight etc, and made a replica C1A1.
It was always amazing that later in life not being a 17-20 something running around with it - that it was much more enjoyable to shoot.

It always bothered me that years ago with the C1A1 with iron sights - we used to shoot out to 500, and that stopped with the C7 (which was much more easily shot accurately).

That said, having shot people with 5.56mm and 7.62mm if I was limited to ball ammo, I will always opt for 5.56mm.
But it is really had to beat a 110gr TSX bullet for anti-personnel usage in 7.62
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,044
Points
1,260
Years later I bought an Australian L1A1, I managed to "find" a nice set of Canadian Wood - and the Disk Sight etc, and made a replica C1A1.
It was always amazing that later in life not being a 17-20 something running around with it - that it was much more enjoyable to shoot.

It always bothered me that years ago with the C1A1 with iron sights - we used to shoot out to 500, and that stopped with the C7 (which was much more easily shot accurately).

That said, having shot people with 5.56mm and 7.62mm if I was limited to ball ammo, I will always opt for 5.56mm.
But it is really had to beat a 110gr TSX bullet for anti-personnel usage in 7.62

We really don't take marksmanship seriously.

Interesting on your opinion on 7.62 v 5.56.

I'd love to hear why ? But I am also cognizant this many not be something you're comfortable with. So I only ask in the deepest respect.

.308 is my number 1 or 2 go to round for deer and bear, .303br being the other. I understand I am using SP and not ball.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
We really don't take marksmanship seriously.
Very few Armies do these days
Interesting on your opinion on 7.62 v 5.56.

I'd love to hear why ? But I am also cognizant this many not be something you're comfortable with. So I only ask in the deepest respect.

.308 is my number 1 or 2 go to round for deer and bear, .303br being the other. I understand I am using SP and not ball.
It is all about the construction of the bullet with regards to the velocity at impact.

In 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) the shape of the bullet, the construction of the bullet and the velocity generally result in a bullet that impacts a target, and after about 18cm starts to yaw on its axis - turns a complete 180 by 36cm and continues.
Actual tissue destruction is minor - unless the bullet hits significant bone or inelastic tissue.

Whereas 5.56mm enters and yaws - then fragments - which creates a nasty wound channel - and a lot more tissue destruction.

This is also why The Hague Convention in respect to Bullet Design is horribly antiquated - because High Velocity bullets do things that where never anticipated when they outlawed expanding bullets. The Swiss argued that the NATO SS109 bullet was illegal under Land Warfare - however the key is that the bullet wasn't designed to create to inflict unnecessary wounding.

Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.
DECLARATION

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868,
Declare as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.
The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.
A ' procès-verbal ' shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.
The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague, 29 July 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and copies of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.


For more info I have attached some links
US Ruling on the use of Sierra Match King Open Tip Match

Col. Hays Parks (USA Retired) is a fantastic resource for ammunition legality, I have met the man several times, and he is truly a great person that wants the most effective legal means of tools available for American and allied Military Personnel.



However some folks are not happy about it -- they only seem to focus on the Israeli usage though - NOT the usages by NATO troops.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
Below are some older Open Source ammunition Gel tests results.


40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg
40053-MilitaryRifleWPcopy.jpg
These date to 2004 - I have newer ones but they are FOUO, and beyond.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,921
Points
1,360
Below are some older Open Source ammunition Gel tests results.


View attachment 68112
View attachment 68113
These date to 2004 - I have newer ones but they are FOUO, and beyond.
I see some of those charts don’t take into account the more recent trends of “increased medial-corporal diametrical mass distributions” of many western forces. 🤔
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
Which is why marksmanship is losing significance. Your target now has a larger centre of mass. :)
Agreed - our enemies aren't getting bigger at all.
In fact a skinny person in baggy close is a terrible target - especially moving as it is easy to misjudge the body and miss - poking holes in the back end of the clothes.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
I'd strongly recommend the second link I posted - it is a history of the small arms ammunition debate from pre Hague up to current realities.
At 156 pages it is a bit of a read, but I think it is important to understand the what any why's that got us to this point.
 
Top