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

C7 sights: Optical & Iron

For the C7, which would you prefer: Elcan C79 or Iron Sight attachment?

  • Doesn't matter

    Votes: 20 37.0%
  • C79

    Votes: 30 55.6%
  • Doesn't matter

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • Total voters
    54

Doug VT

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
The iron sights are in the system(reg force only possibly), although they're plastic, not rubber.  I've already broken two.  I prefer it over the elcan anyday.  I used to leave my elcan in my locker but now they want us to carry both, elcan as primary, iron as secondary.
 

Doug VT

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Oops, I meant to make that as a reply in "Is it time for a change?! - The C7"
 
T

the patriot

Guest
Just a point for discussion. Does anyone find that a whole generation of soldiers have missed out on marksmanship on the classic iron cast sights? Meaning, if the ELCAN sights were to be blown of one‘s weapon in the heat of battle, would they then become sitting ducks....? It seems that today‘s infanteer may be at a disadvantage in the name of technological progress.

-the patriot-
 
G

GPMG

Guest
Perhaps, but speaking from my limited experience with iron sights, I found it easy enough to adapt to the C6‘s sights. Would you consider them equal to rifle iron sights?
I find myself able to shoot better with these than Elcans.

In any case, marksmanship principles are still the same in the end are they not? The only changes being the magnification and the sight picture.
 
E

ender

Guest
actually, on our QL2, the entire lesson plan is still based on the iron sights. The use of the scope is somewhat of an addendum on the lesson.
I also didn‘t find the transition to the iron C6 sights difficult. One thing: what idiot decided to put a scope on the C9?
 
M

Mud Crawler

Guest
Oh an hord of enemy, lets snipe em with my full auto C9.I see sky, i see land, i see sky... :D
 
T

the patriot

Guest
Hello,

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?!

-the patriot-
 
E

ender

Guest
I think the issue of sights on the C9 and the C7 are very different.

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.

I also can‘t see how the c7 sight could lead to you shooting your fire team partner. You shouldn‘t be aiming that close to him anyways. I think we should keep c7 optical sight for the c7.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
I find this kind of strange. If the weapon was properly sighted, as it should have been from the initial range practice, the team leader must have been in the sight picture to be shot. Unless he was hit with a ricochet or flyer. It sounds like theremay have been a lack of control on the RSO‘s part, which becomes even more critical on live fire and movement ex‘s. Also as far as peripheral vision, it is possible with practice to shoot just as effectively with both eyes open, scoped or iron sights. As long as the prominent eye is used for sighting, you can disregard the "close the disengaged eye rule. As ender says, the idea of a scope on an mg makes little sense, except for identifying the target. Once it is aquired, an initial ranging burst with the iron sight is all that should be needed, then by retaining a picture of the fall of shot, burst on target technique takes over and sights aren‘t even required for killing bursts. This is much more effective than trying to walk rounds to the target through a vibrating gun sight, scoped or open.
 
D

Disturbance

Guest
I was gonna say that it is possible to shoot with both eyes open in fact that way should be better as you can see the sight and where the rounds are goin but at the same time see what the hell is goin outside that zoomed area in case another enemy pops up outta no where.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Maybe the sights should be removable and/or have the option of zooming in or out. That would eliminate the problem with not being able to see out side of the zoomed area.
 
F

fortuncookie5084

Guest
...Maybe the RSO should get a grip on his range. Maybe the soldier should un-glue his eye from his scope. I dunno, I‘ve never done any kind of fire-and-movement with either the C7 or C9(especially) with the scope up to my eye the whole time. I don‘t shoot at anything farther than ten or so feet away from me without first taking aim. I do not take aim when I am on the movement stage of my pepper potting advance. Buddy is covering me. Both eyes are open and the sight is off my face (methinks it would hurt when it would bump on and off my face as I did my pepper potting). In any case, I was not there, so I do not know the particulars of this case....I do know I don‘t like the scope one bit. I‘ve fired iron sights and I can affirm that they are much much more reliable. I shot the iron sight accurately from 400M. If you are engaging an enemy at ranges greater than, say, 500M with nothing but rifles, it is time to call in some fire support. Either you are in big trouble or you are also out of the enemy‘s small arms range.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
Out of small arms range at 500 meters? Not in my world.Suppresive fire can come from a lot further than that! :confused:
 
F

fortuncookie5084

Guest
That is only likely if the enemy is in greater numbers and has lots of ammo. Once out of the effective range, you end doing the spray-and-pray thing. Ammo is heavy and takes up lots of space. If the enemy is a platoon or stronger, the above-mentioned spt wpns come into play. If you‘re on the receiving end of GPMG fire you are in big trouble.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
Not everyone uses the 5.56, any half decent shooter with anything in the .30 cal ( 7.62 NATO) range will put you in the hurtlocker. Don‘t need a platoon. As far as ammo loads, not everyone walks.
 
E

ender

Guest
I think this entire debate underscores the lack of support for marksmanship in the CF. The rifle (and the machine gun) is an infantryman‘s primary weapon. He should be able to use it. If you arn‘t hitting anything it doesn‘t really matter how many rounds go down range. We have infantry units in our brigade that didn‘t have a shooting team last year. (the medics not having a shooting team I can understand: but infantry? I thought shooting guns was the reason a lot of us joined?) The C7 lesson plan for QL2 is still designed for the iron sights. Now, weither or not you agree with thier use, it‘s what we have. Shouldn‘t the lesson plan have been redesined by now, not just amended? Marksmanhip is even more important in a peackeeping situation where you can‘t just indiscriminantly fire. And, as someone above said, ammunition is heavy. So we should make every shot count.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
My point exactly, you should be able to shoot 500 mtrs.on any given day. One shot, one target. Granted with ammo allotments not a lot of practice is feasible. However, any body interested in shooting will find a way to improve. There‘s lots of clubs around. Or what about your unit SAT trainer, not ideal but better than nothing. ORA shoot is the 18th of this month, in Borden. See y‘all there.

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.
 
F

fortuncookie5084

Guest
The official reason, as I‘ve been told, for Canadian soldiers not shooting past the 400M line is that we have the standard barrel on our rifle. When most soldiers have to learn the fundamentals, it is pointless to try and teach them how to arc the rounds so they lob into the target from distances "out of range."

The heavy barrel (the one on the M16 A2 and A3) increases effective range to 550M. Besides, I know I spend most of my time on the range wishing that damn Elcan scope were thrown in the butt can and a carry handle & rear aperture magically appear...
 
F

fortuncookie5084

Guest
Oh yes... recceguy is correct. While MOST foot soldiers carry either 5.56 MM or 5.45 MM rounds, armies like the Chinese still use old AK47‘s with the 7.62‘s.
 
R

RBruceMair

Guest
Some observations about the sight. 1st, why not have it on the C9? Yes it‘s an area weapon and now I can see that area 600m away!!! Could you see that distance without the scope? 2nd, regarding peripheral vision. I have received advanced psychology of combat training through the Ontario Police College and I‘m here to tell you tunnel vision is the result of heightened adrenaline levels, heart rate and concentration on the task at hand. No doubt the sight also cuts down on this vision but getting rid of the sights will not get rid of fraticide by C7/C9. In addition to tunnel vision soldiers experience "audio exclusion". You‘ve seen it, your yelling at a guy to move, he‘s looking at you and not moving. He‘s got audio exclusion and tunnel vision due to the adrnaline and his high heart rate (yes, that‘s what I said). What we have to do with these sights is train the guys effectivly and that means putting rounds down range, lots of them and under different, stressful conditions.
 
Top