C7 groupings

TimC said:
That is appalling, I think the SLR was 20 rounds in 4 groups of five to produce an overall group not exceeding 100mm. That was the minimum or you went back to training on the marksmanship principles.
You then fired a check group of 5 rounds to score and the group size gave you 15% or similar of your overall APWT score. its changed now as the tupperware devil is capable of much tighter groups much further out and details are fired at 400m, where 300m was the maximum with the SLR!

The SLR was:

"At 100 yards - five test rounds shall be within a rectangle with sides not exceeding three inches horizontal by three inches vertical."

The barrel test was to be done supported with sandbags, bench rest, or fixed mount.

The max test range for the FNC1 was three hundred metres- MILSPEC 7.62 was really a 300 M max round just look at the wind drift and drop tables.

Keep in mind that these are all MAXIMUM values for testing barrels. I know for a fact the vast majority of current CF weapons arrive performing much better than the max - 2-3 MOA, with sub MOA not unheard of.

During the SARP testing PETE tested three C-7s, each with 6000 rounds through the barrel 50% auto fire, at 100m with 30 rd groups and found the average extreme spread to be 8.6 cm.

Blanks use pistol powder which is hotter - and the BFA channels hot gas at the muzzle thorugh the grooves - causing gas erosion at the crown.

Both of these rifles, when in spec, were capable of better groups than the average soldier was capable of producing.

Pure accuracy aside, the C7 has a much higher hit probability than the C1, and more ammo can be carried. I'll dig out the test relults next week if I can. The thinking was something like this:

A 1953 US Army report noted:

"a four round salvo with a predictable 20" spread might provide double the hit probability at 300 yards over a single shot fired from a M1 rifle. A lighter, smaller caliber cartridge would have the side benefit of allowing enough ammunition to be carried for an equivalent number of fired salvos to the individual cartridge capacity of the current rifle"
 
ELavertu said:
Yeah....I did my BMQ last july and they had us chip the carbon out of the crown with the blades from our Gerbers..........

Still shot straight, but I don't think we were the first to have to do this. These C7s were from the mid 90s.


Um, they tell you to scrape the muzzle crown with knife blade?! Really!!!

Wow, we've even got gun-idiots in the army! Whats the country coming too:(

That being said, those of you who are in a position to be told to do this are doing a great job, thanks from those of us who benifit from your sacrifice...:canadaFlag:
 
tekriter MK 1 said:
The SLR was:

"At 100 yards - five test rounds shall be within a rectangle with sides not exceeding three inches horizontal by three inches vertical."

The barrel test was to be done supported with sandbags, bench rest, or fixed mount.

The max test range for the FNC1 was three hundred metres- MILSPEC 7.62 was really a 300 M max round just look at the wind drift and drop tables.

Keep in mind that these are all MAXIMUM values for testing barrels. I know for a fact the vast majority of current CF weapons arrive performing much better than the max - 2-3 MOA, with sub MOA not unheard of.

During the SARP testing PETE tested three C-7s, each with 6000 rounds through the barrel 50% auto fire, at 100m with 30 rd groups and found the average extreme spread to be 8.6 cm.

Blanks use pistol powder which is hotter - and the BFA channels hot gas at the muzzle thorugh the grooves - causing gas erosion at the crown.

Both of these rifles, when in spec, were capable of better groups than the average soldier was capable of producing.

Pure accuracy aside, the C7 has a much higher hit probability than the C1, and more ammo can be carried. I'll dig out the test relults next week if I can. The thinking was something like this:

A 1953 US Army report noted:

"a four round salvo with a predictable 20" spread might provide double the hit probability at 300 yards over a single shot fired from a M1 rifle. A lighter, smaller caliber cartridge would have the side benefit of allowing enough ammunition to be carried for an equivalent number of fired salvos to the individual cartridge capacity of the current rifle"
Agreed this was for acceptance testing, I was quoting the APWT annual personal weapons test shot at least twice a year and that wasthe grouping and zeroing phase. With the L85A1/2 introduction G&Z became easier largely in the infantry due to the 100% issue of the SUSAT which is far better than the old SUIT sight. This is why for the APWT (now called PWT) the furtherst distance shot as individuals has moved from 300m to 400m.
 
With my home platoon rifle (C7a1), used and abused with a suspect C79 I typically shoot around 3 inch group. This is fully supported with mag firmly planted in the ground.

For TF 1-07 I got to take a C7a2 out of the box, clean it, put a new elcan on. Took it to the range and did a 2" or so group(4 of the shots were inside 1" and pulled one to the right by another inch or so, I blame a gust of wind :p ). And this was the prone unsuported with full winter gear on.
 
shazam* said:
not to be a stickler... but weren't they brought into service in '88 with the PPCLI deploying to Cyprus?

They may have been. The priority was to replace all FN's deployed outside of Canada; therefore it could be possible that Cyprus could have received them on or around the same time as we did in West Germany.
 
while i was on my RCR battle school course i saw numerous individuals removing the flash suppressor and scraping the crap out of the muzzle crown with a gerber file. Then the idiots wonder why they can't group for ####.
 
Harv1RCR said:
while i was on my RCR battle school course i saw numerous individuals removing the flash suppressor and scraping the crap out of the muzzle crown with a gerber file. Then the idiots wonder why they can't group for s**t.
We had a phase of lads using the scrub pads to clan the working parts of the L85A1 until they all started to rust and they started charging anyone caught with the green pads!
 
The NATO acceptance and milspec for the M16A2 is 5 MOA, I suspect it is for the C7 as well from the sounds of it. I had a brand new M16A2 barrel once that was still in the Colt wrapper when I got it, that shot around 2 MOA with C77.
 
Billnye said:
just do what they tell you to do, unfortunatly if they tell you to scrape the crown your not going to be the first person who has done it. If you try to correct them lifes gets tough.

Yea I wouldn't lose any sleep over that part of the course. Just remimber the grey man is who you want to be.
 
I remember being on courses in the reserves and being told to scrap the crown shiney. I refused at first and argued the problems it would create. But what would a private know eh! All those experienced NCO's. I remember being told to do similar things to tthe C6 and C9. But I did it because they wanted it done, and my thoughts were "Hey it's not my rifles". The best things I liked was being a private, and told before going on the range that I didn't know #### and could shoot for #### by Sgt's and then shooting better scores then them.
 
shazam* said:
not to be a stickler... but weren't they brought into service in '88 with the PPCLI deploying to Cyprus?
I was there then....I remember them telling us we were getting them early for that purpose, but I really don't know that we were the first.
My rifle was 87AA00640. I seem to recall all of the units rifles being in that series with the low serial numbers. Was there a 1986 production of the C7s?
 
stencollector said:
Was there a 1986 production of the C7s?

Yes, I've seen quite a few 86AA...serial no.'s. 87 are probably the most common. Quite a few weapons from the 90's floating around as well but I forget the years offhand.
 
NavyShooter said:
Some other Navy person must be disrespecting a rifle in that fashion, 'cause it sure ain't no-one I've trained.

NS
Definately not! As far as I know the rifles we were supplied were from CFB Esquimalt.

ELavertu:
I cringe whenever I hear about stuff like that, especially cause if you dared try and correct them they'd kick you in the pants.

-Rohann
 
Back
Top Bottom