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

Two Questions: Grenade Launcher and C79

S

Spr Earl

Guest
Why the short barrel? May be weight and bulk being added to the weapon is all I can think of and as a lot of studies state actual fighting occur‘s under two hundred mtr‘s.(man to man) any longer range you have your medium and heavy machine gun‘s along with other fire support weapon‘s.
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
You will find out as soon as you carry the C7/M-203 combo for a while... it adds a fair amount of weight to the rifle. :cdn:
 
C

cagomez

Guest
Just got of an ex. Took a quick look at a c7 mounted with an carrying handle/iron sight on the flat top, belonged to the wpn tech. Felt much lighter and sturdy, more useful and quick to aim at short distance. Would lave to have the oppourtunity to actually shoot with an iron sight.

Diemaco had a display going at our armoury once. One of their display weapon was a C8 with 203 attachment, i think it was called a "special forces weapon" on the website. It did feel like there was a lot of weight on it (mag and launcher unloaded), must be a #itch to hold it up in the shoulder/standing position for long periods of time !
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
FUS
The weapon is indeed the "special forces weapon". It is similar in size to a C8, but with a number of mods, like a heavy barrel. This is the weapon the Brit SAS are buying. :cdn:
 
B

BillP

Guest
A quick question to anyone who knows?
Will the new up-and-coming LBV have specific provisions for carrying the 40mm grenades, or will bandoleers still be req‘d ?
 
C

cagomez

Guest
Was one of my original questions for this thread. I took a look at some pics of the LBVs both on the CTS page on D-Net (the CADPAT one) and also of some pics of LBVs issued to those in Afghanistan. All I could make out was mag and utility pouches(fit C9 boxes ?), no 40mm. I thought I remembered seeing pics of a CADPAT LBV with frag grenade pouches but cant find them any more. I probably doubt they would put 40mm pouches on our new LBVs since only a fraction of the troops wearing them would actually use them, unless they could fit both 40mm and M67 frags :rocket:
 
C

cagomez

Guest
In regards to my earlier post, found a rotating pic of the cadpat LBV. Looks like there are some sort of grenade sized pouch. Hope the link works.

http://www.dnd.ca/dless/wes/Eqpmnt/tv_rotate.gif

It really does suck that the pouches only hold 1 mag each for a total of 5 (4 on vest, 1 one weapon). Bombing up mags under fire really sucks !!! :mg:
 
R

rceme_rat

Guest
The theory of the plastic magazine was that it was to be a disposable iterm. All ammo was to be supplied in the magazine - no need to reload them. Many early problems were attributed to plastic bits being broken off the magazine. The solution was a more robust magazine - which made it too expensive to be a disposable item on exercise. Be interesting to see whether it is treated as disposable or not in locales where it is more important to have ready access to ammo than it is to minimize expenses to such a degree.
 
B

BillP

Guest
A question, I heard that the CF is upgrading their C-8s to the heavy barrel version, identical to the Diemaco SFW.Also modular rail attachments are being added to the handguardsfor various lights/optics/sights.The barrel being stepped, like the US M4, would accomodate the M203. Fact or fiction?? I recall a travelling road-show where several different variants of the C-7/C-8 were on display. Fact or just another way to tease the soldier?
 
T

TOW2B

Guest
Here is my 2 cents,I have been inflicted with the piece of crap ELCAN C-79 ever since it was introduced and simply put IT IS JUNK!!!I personally don‘t use it and never will I have a detachable carring handle on my C-7.Why some twat placed it on a C-9 I will never know but the LMG is the last place where the thing should be.As for the excuse that it aids in observing fire and helps at night BULLS#*T you can see strike of C9 hits out past 500m and at that range the tracer is still burning even out past 600m.The rail should be kept as you can mount something useful such as the KITE Sight or Maxi-Kite but that‘s all that should go up there.
The M-203 PI was chosen because it can also mount on the C-8,it is a good system with a pathetic mount I have lost count as to the amount of time I have seen then fall off because the are mounted to a handguard I hope the new mount will sort this out.The handguard mount works on some rifles such as the Norwegian G-3A4 that the system was intended to fit on but with the slip ring system on the C-7/C-8 it is next to useless.
I just hope that someday they actually put someone with field time and experience in procurement instead of a University educated sock counting WOG who wouldn‘t know the field if he fell in it.
 

portcullisguy

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Originally posted by BillP:
[qb]A question, I heard that the CF is upgrading their C-8s to the heavy barrel version, identical to the Diemaco SFW.Also modular rail attachments are being added to the handguardsfor various lights/optics/sights.The barrel being stepped, like the US M4, would accomodate the M203. Fact or fiction?? I recall a travelling road-show where several different variants of the C-7/C-8 were on display. Fact or just another way to tease the soldier?[/qb]
I have heard that the CF does stock this bit of kit (M203) although speaking to the odd soldier, none have yet seen or used it. With the latest activity in Afghanistan, however, I have now seen images of both CF soldiers using an M203 attachment, as well as in today‘s Toronto Sun, troops in the mountains on Op Harpoon carrying the C-8, distinctively noted by its adjustable stock.

I haven‘t yet seen the C-8 with the M203. This is, I have read, a common U.S. special forces configuration.

I suppose in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the range difference between the longer C-7 and the shorter C-8 are too negligible to worry about.

I have read on this website up to now that the C-8 is only generally issued to vehicle crews -- however, is it something that an infantry soldier can request? For example, in Afghanistan, would the head sheds come around to all the troops and asked, "Hey, would you like a nifty C-8 instead of that long, akward C-7?" Or is it more likely to have been, "Hey, here‘s a C-8, give us back the other rifle now while you go searching for Taliban in them mountains..."
 
B

BillP

Guest
Thanks for the info Portcullisguy,
I found a website that shows the new "versions" of the C-7/C-8, and pertains to my previous post of C-8 modifications:
www.mcaroy/cadpat2.htm
A few interesting pix!
 
B

BillP

Guest
Also heard that steps are being taken to replace the plastic emergency rear sight, with a more sturdier one( a.r.m.s. #40 flip up rear sight!) Could this perhaps be a shift in DND thinking, and spell the end for the C-79
 
Top