- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
F*ckin‘ A, bro!
Infantry.....what Do You like About it? And what is your weapon of choice?
Gunnar
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 450
- Points
- 1,030
To live amongst men who would give their last F/\g , their last bit, aye, even their last breath if need be for a pal--that is comradeship, the comradeship of the trenches. The only clean thing borne of this life of cruelty and filth. It grows in purity from the very obscenity of its surroundings.
An English private quoted in John Ellis , Eye Deep In He|| : Trench Warfare in World War I
An English private quoted in John Ellis , Eye Deep In He|| : Trench Warfare in World War I
T
the patriot
Guest
I personally would have to say the FNC1 has my utmost respect and admiration. When firing that weapon, you would be confident that your target would be killed. The 5.56 mm in Diemaco‘s C7 was described as being a "wounding round" in NATO circles as opposed to the 7.62 that caused exit wounds the size of craters on the moon. I like the infantry because you‘re the first one in and the last one out. In order to take and hold ground, there‘s only one way it can be done effectively. That is with the use of the Infantry Corps. Please find listed below websites on both weapons that you can take a look at.
Diemaco: Canada‘s Centre of Small Arms Excellence
The Fal Files - FN FAL
-the patriot-
Diemaco: Canada‘s Centre of Small Arms Excellence
The Fal Files - FN FAL
-the patriot-
M
MG34
Guest
I have used both families of weapons,the current crop is light years ahead of the older FNs.The FNC1A1 was good for it‘s day however the C7 series far surpasses it in terms of accuracy,reliability,and modularity.The sheer amount of equipment that can be mounted on the C7 is staggering such as the M-203,PAQ4,Kite Sight etc and allows the operator to tailor his weapon for the task at hand,the FN did not allow this.
The C7 is much more reliable than the FNC1A1 or the C2 ever were,the C6 is light years ahead of the C5.
As for the whole bull crap line about "if you hit it with a 7.62 it will stay down" a line of crap the 5.56mm bullet has superior wounding capabilities over the FMJ 7.62mm round,as for penetration of hard objects the 7.62 is only marginally better but only at close range.
Finally let‘s not forget the role of the Infantry,the rifleman is only there to provide protection for the GPMG and LMG which do the killing at ranges in excess of 300m.The 5.56mm round is very deadly and an effective man stopper.
The C7 is much more reliable than the FNC1A1 or the C2 ever were,the C6 is light years ahead of the C5.
As for the whole bull crap line about "if you hit it with a 7.62 it will stay down" a line of crap the 5.56mm bullet has superior wounding capabilities over the FMJ 7.62mm round,as for penetration of hard objects the 7.62 is only marginally better but only at close range.
Finally let‘s not forget the role of the Infantry,the rifleman is only there to provide protection for the GPMG and LMG which do the killing at ranges in excess of 300m.The 5.56mm round is very deadly and an effective man stopper.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"The sheer amount of equipment that can be mounted on the C7 is staggering such as the M-203,PAQ4,Kite Sight etc and allows the operator to tailor his weapon for the task at hand,the FN did not allow this."
Granted this true, but only in the age of weapon. When the FN was in glory, it was the weapon that counted not the stuff you could put on it... and apart from the M-203 you can put pretyty much everything else on it. You could even put a M-203 on one with wanted, it would be a beats to carry though.
"The C7 is much more reliable than the FNC1A1 or the C2 "
Can you go into more detail on this... the Fn was designed to be user friendly, and is very easy to clean and maintain. Maybe you were using old wore FN‘s when you were training on them.
It‘s all a matter of personal choice, but I would a take a FN over the C-7 any day; give it was chambered for the round it was designed for .280 cal.
Granted this true, but only in the age of weapon. When the FN was in glory, it was the weapon that counted not the stuff you could put on it... and apart from the M-203 you can put pretyty much everything else on it. You could even put a M-203 on one with wanted, it would be a beats to carry though.
"The C7 is much more reliable than the FNC1A1 or the C2 "
Can you go into more detail on this... the Fn was designed to be user friendly, and is very easy to clean and maintain. Maybe you were using old wore FN‘s when you were training on them.
It‘s all a matter of personal choice, but I would a take a FN over the C-7 any day; give it was chambered for the round it was designed for .280 cal.
M
MG34
Guest
The FNs were never designed to have an M203 or anything else but a Night Sight to be placed on them.The modern versions made by DSA and other companies are simply adapting acessories that were developed for the M16/M4 for use on the FN receiver due to market demand.An FN with all that stuff on it would be too unwieldy to use as a serious battle rifle.
As for the reliability of the C7 over the C1 on simple phrase : "ejection port cover" the open top design of the C1 while it lessened the chance of a stoppage from a poor ejection and allowed the use of a stripper clip,exposed the action to all manner of crap and crud. The FN has a well earned reputation for being very unreliable in a sandy enviroment.As well the FNs at the time of their replacement were worn out from the practice of "over cleaning‘ and the use of abrasives in said cleaning,couple that with the age of the weapon and well it wasn‘t pretty.
The design of the C7 and in fact all M16/M4/AR15 with the before mentioned port cover serves to keep out most of the crap and crud.
Don‘t get me wrong I like the Fns so much so that I own an FNC1A1 and 2 L1A1s,but all the nostalgia in the world doesn‘t change the fact that the day of the battle rifle is over and has been for quite some time.
As for the reliability of the C7 over the C1 on simple phrase : "ejection port cover" the open top design of the C1 while it lessened the chance of a stoppage from a poor ejection and allowed the use of a stripper clip,exposed the action to all manner of crap and crud. The FN has a well earned reputation for being very unreliable in a sandy enviroment.As well the FNs at the time of their replacement were worn out from the practice of "over cleaning‘ and the use of abrasives in said cleaning,couple that with the age of the weapon and well it wasn‘t pretty.
The design of the C7 and in fact all M16/M4/AR15 with the before mentioned port cover serves to keep out most of the crap and crud.
Don‘t get me wrong I like the Fns so much so that I own an FNC1A1 and 2 L1A1s,but all the nostalgia in the world doesn‘t change the fact that the day of the battle rifle is over and has been for quite some time.
R
R_J
Guest
There was quite the debate at the other site some of us post at on the C7 and the new C7A2 project, might be of interest to you:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/viewtopic.php?t=12813
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/viewtopic.php?t=12813
C
COLONEL VON SCHWANTZ
Guest
I personally like playing cards a lot and the infantry lets me do that! JK, I‘d have to say the brotherhood with other members is the one of the coolest things in not just the infantry, but the Army in general. I‘d have to say that the M203 is my fav weapon. Reminds me of shooting potatoe guns back in the day. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
MG34,
The debate regarding 7.62 and 5.56 is one that has raged for a long time. There are pros and cons to each round, as some of the links KevinB posted show. Certainly, after-action reports floating around from Afghanistan and the Gulf have renewed debate about both ammo and weapons.
This thread asked for our weapon of choice - a personal opinion. I‘d appreciate it if you did not refer to quotes from my post as bullcrap. I enjoy a reasoned discussion of different opinions, but save terms like that for the ‘wannabe‘s‘ thread.
Max
The debate regarding 7.62 and 5.56 is one that has raged for a long time. There are pros and cons to each round, as some of the links KevinB posted show. Certainly, after-action reports floating around from Afghanistan and the Gulf have renewed debate about both ammo and weapons.
This thread asked for our weapon of choice - a personal opinion. I‘d appreciate it if you did not refer to quotes from my post as bullcrap. I enjoy a reasoned discussion of different opinions, but save terms like that for the ‘wannabe‘s‘ thread.
Max
M
MG34
Guest
I have no issue with the your weapon of choice the FNC1A1 was a fine rifle for it‘s day.I did have an issue with your incorrect statement about the performance of 7.62mm round,and simply put forth what the research has proven.
I have read almost all of the after action reports from Afghanistan and Op Iraqi Freedom,the fact is that the 5.56mm ammunition and the M4A1 Carbine are performing very well and the vast majority of the troops tend to feel very confident in being equipped with them.The inital reports supposedly coming out of Afghanistan were found to be false in the AAR,the poor performance of the round and weapon was attributted to poor marksmanship with the bullet not making hits in lethal areas of the body.
I have read almost all of the after action reports from Afghanistan and Op Iraqi Freedom,the fact is that the 5.56mm ammunition and the M4A1 Carbine are performing very well and the vast majority of the troops tend to feel very confident in being equipped with them.The inital reports supposedly coming out of Afghanistan were found to be false in the AAR,the poor performance of the round and weapon was attributted to poor marksmanship with the bullet not making hits in lethal areas of the body.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Fair enough. After re-reading my initial post, I think that at the time a few cans of Canadian may have had me writing in some overly dramatic tones ("...no questions asked." Sheesh). I think I‘ll just go back to lurking.
M
MG34
Guest
Fair enough...Cheers
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I should have thought artillery and mortars played a rather significant role at ranges outside 300m, and in casualty causality in general, given a real shooting war...err, high-intensity level of conflict. Is this not the case anymore?
M
MG34
Guest
True enough however I was talking in the context of an rifleman‘s role not the support arms and yes the 60mm mortar,M203 along with the GPMGs and LMGs as well but the fact is that the individual rifleman has no real impact on the battle and his role is to support and protect those integral support weapons.
Read the rise of the Emma Gees,the author explains the concept better than I.
Read the rise of the Emma Gees,the author explains the concept better than I.
- Reaction score
- 18,775
- Points
- 1,260
Ditto to what MG34 stated. The majority of "terminal failures" where is fact traced to faulty marksmanship.
The majority of non SF M4 weapons where equipped with the CCO (Aimpoint Comp M) a very capable red dot type Close Combat Optic - but not ideal for ranges past 250m.
Some SF pers have confirmed 600M kills with AOCG equipped M4A1 carbines, and Mk12 (SPR) armed 18B shooters got kill out past 800m with the 77gr Mk262 ammuntion.
The only terminal failures that I know of where M855 type ball out of the 10.5" CQB ‘Enhanced‘ Carbines whereas the US SOF‘s use the 75gr Hornady BTHP in theirs for that reason that it is like an icepick at velocities under 2500 fps.
The majority of non SF M4 weapons where equipped with the CCO (Aimpoint Comp M) a very capable red dot type Close Combat Optic - but not ideal for ranges past 250m.
Some SF pers have confirmed 600M kills with AOCG equipped M4A1 carbines, and Mk12 (SPR) armed 18B shooters got kill out past 800m with the 77gr Mk262 ammuntion.
The only terminal failures that I know of where M855 type ball out of the 10.5" CQB ‘Enhanced‘ Carbines whereas the US SOF‘s use the 75gr Hornady BTHP in theirs for that reason that it is like an icepick at velocities under 2500 fps.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well lets changes the choice of weapon somewhat. I think the 5.56 ver 7.62 debate is great, but its a done deal for the time being; and I‘m sure the CF will stay with 5.56 until a round is picked by Nato.
I was thinking of GPMP‘s today and wondering what people felt would be the weapon of choice in that department. The C-6 is awesome, but the MG-3 is also awesome and more battle proven in its MG-42 form. So if you had choice which one would you go with?
I was thinking of GPMP‘s today and wondering what people felt would be the weapon of choice in that department. The C-6 is awesome, but the MG-3 is also awesome and more battle proven in its MG-42 form. So if you had choice which one would you go with?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I could make list going the way as well, which would include most of Nato... but that‘s not the point. If the MAG is the standrad why is it the standard? I like both and I think both would proform equally well on any battle field, but lacking experience I have come here to ask people who have tha experience.
