W
wanderer
Guest
For having been a soldier for 2 years, and having often used the C-7 riffle, all I can say is that it is a GREAT weapon. it is light, precise, and easy to use and clean! (easy cleaning is a MUST because it‘s a pain in the a**). The sight is O.K.; not the best I have used, but at an adequate distance (at least 100 metres), it‘s a suitable scope; plus it has "combat sights" on top, which resemble the former sight when the C-7 still had a handle... Anyway, from what I‘ve heard, the issue is NOT to replace the C-7, but to improve it; one added item is the grenade launcher (no, I‘m not kidding!).
The C-6 is a very powerful weapon, so if the DND wants to replace it, the new weapon would have to be OUTSTANDING. The C-6 stability is only equalled by its great range and accuracy.
As for the C-9, I must admit the C-79 sight is a bit to precise to be used on the C-9, but it is still a powerful section weapon. indeed, while there is only ONE C-6 per platoon, there are 2 C-9 per Sections, ready to provide cover when it‘s needed!
Of course, it is hard to say "I am for" or "I am against" changing these weapons. To me, they seem still adequate for our needs. I would have to SEE and TRY the hypothetical new weapons to take a clear decision... in any case, I like the C-6, love the C-9 and adore the C-7!
The C-6 is a very powerful weapon, so if the DND wants to replace it, the new weapon would have to be OUTSTANDING. The C-6 stability is only equalled by its great range and accuracy.
As for the C-9, I must admit the C-79 sight is a bit to precise to be used on the C-9, but it is still a powerful section weapon. indeed, while there is only ONE C-6 per platoon, there are 2 C-9 per Sections, ready to provide cover when it‘s needed!
Of course, it is hard to say "I am for" or "I am against" changing these weapons. To me, they seem still adequate for our needs. I would have to SEE and TRY the hypothetical new weapons to take a clear decision... in any case, I like the C-6, love the C-9 and adore the C-7!