They knew no different, and was definitely one of the best options at the time. I don't know how many soldiers you know of that complain their rifles aren't heavy enough. But if you're a soldier who's carried a C7 all his career, then is handed a C8A3 that feels heavier while not being dramatically shorter in exchange for benefits they will almost certainly never see, I think that there is legitimate cause for complaint.
Colt Canada lightens rifle weight for soldiers and police
- Thread starter Thomas D'Arcy McGee
- Start date
They knew no different, and was definitely one of the best options at the time. I don't know how many soldiers you know of that complain their rifles aren't heavy enough. But if you're a soldier who's carried a C7 all his career, then is handed a C8A3 that feels heavier while not being dramatically shorter in exchange for benefits they will almost certainly never see, I think that there is legitimate cause for complaint.
I think they are as thick as the short C9 barrels? C8A3's are almost exactly the same weight as C7A2's and only a little over four inches shorter than their full-length counterparts. Completely illogical ''carbine'' setup. Those original C8's with their pencil barrels were things of beauty.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The difference is we're expected to mount lights and IR lasers now. All of this adds up to a rifle that will outweigh a FAL. They also didn't wear flak jackets with ballistic plates back then as standard practice. NVG mounted to your Kevlar helmet, etc.. Technology is fantastic but it has increased the soldiers weight load substantially.
It's not that it's heavy. It's that it is heavier than it should/ needs to be.
Every bloody thing that gets issued out now weighs more than it should. Empty ruck sacks that weigh 13-14lbs, compared to the old 64' pattern at 6 ish lbs.
Every piece of electronic crap takes more batteries, and no one will get together and talk, so things can use the same battery. So now you're stuck carrying 2 or 3 different types of spare batteries, so if you need 4 batteries for a 2 day op, you are carrying 6 batteries JIC. It adds up really fast.
Less batteries, less crap, less weight, that's about all anyone I talk to says.
I was one of them, I wanted an M16
I was too and you can keep your M16, I wanted an FNC
Yep, all that high speed kit is great until you gotta hump it around. No one ever seems to complain much about the C6's weight though
The C6 is a heavy pig.
And no ####, when I was doing basic training I was weighting 125 lbs. During ruck sack march I must have had half my weight on my back with all that equipement.
The eternal problem of the soldier's load. The lab rats and generals have one idea, but the troops soon learn to discard the non-essential stuff to keep it manageable. Humans have gotten bigger over the decades, but the load grows accordingly.
Maybe we had it right with the old P37 and P51 web systems. You could discard the small pack and strip down to skeleton web or fighting order with rifle and bayonet, 2 basic pouches, a canteen and a mess tin plus grenades and bandoliers of ammo.
Maybe we had it right with the old P37 and P51 web systems. You could discard the small pack and strip down to skeleton web or fighting order with rifle and bayonet, 2 basic pouches, a canteen and a mess tin plus grenades and bandoliers of ammo.
Never get caught Doing drills with C6.....cause then you get the whole day doing C7 drills and marches with it I am a short guy so was a fun interesting day wrist hurt like hell holding it like a c7 marching around gagetown all damn day
On Topic I prefer heavier firearms tho C7 weight was good enough for me But i still prefer holding a Mauser love the weight go for a 8hr hike with a mauser last october was good
My last job in the Reg F was in Clothe The Soldier (CTS) Program. So I was told, the program was created because nobody thought of the soldier as a system. An LCMM would find this great piece of high speed, low drag water bottle but it "only" weighed an extra ounce or so, hey what's an ounce to a soldier? The problem is the procurement was made more or less in isolation and not taking into account the other pieces of high speed, low drag kit that also weighed an extra ounce. Pretty soon those ounces added up to pounds. I'm not excusing any problems CTS may have had, just that the grown ups realized the solider had to be looked at as one system.
Been out of the program for 16 years so I don't know if that philosophy is still around.
Been out of the program for 16 years so I don't know if that philosophy is still around.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
This...
why they stuck to the 20" barrel when they did the last upgrade I'll never understand.
oh and I did my time with the FN.
It seems that the soldier carries more and more gear that's getting heavier and heavier, yet there also seems to be little being done about making it lighter.
One of the major selling points of the basic M16/M16A1 was its lightness (approx 6 lbs with an empty mag) versus the M14's 9+lbs (depending on the stock). The Gov't profile barrel and Picatinny rail up top add a substantial amount of weight to what was a lightweight rifle. Now add scopes, lasers, lights, grenade launchers, etc, and you have a small arms system that weighs 12 lbs. Hell, the Enfields our grandfathers carried weighed less.
Is it time to go back to basics? By that I mean teaching the soldier to use his/her iron sights instead of a much heavier scope? Teaching fire control so you don't overheat your barrel (of course, if you really need to do mag dumps to save your asz, it's gotta work then too)?
Back in the day when I carried a C1A1 with pattern 82 gear and a M1 steel pot on marches with a full pack (yes, even us field artillery guys had to do it) it was bad enough. I can't imagine doing the same thing now plus wearing body armor, a tac vest, water bladder, and a Kevlar helmet.
One of the major selling points of the basic M16/M16A1 was its lightness (approx 6 lbs with an empty mag) versus the M14's 9+lbs (depending on the stock). The Gov't profile barrel and Picatinny rail up top add a substantial amount of weight to what was a lightweight rifle. Now add scopes, lasers, lights, grenade launchers, etc, and you have a small arms system that weighs 12 lbs. Hell, the Enfields our grandfathers carried weighed less.
Is it time to go back to basics? By that I mean teaching the soldier to use his/her iron sights instead of a much heavier scope? Teaching fire control so you don't overheat your barrel (of course, if you really need to do mag dumps to save your asz, it's gotta work then too)?
Back in the day when I carried a C1A1 with pattern 82 gear and a M1 steel pot on marches with a full pack (yes, even us field artillery guys had to do it) it was bad enough. I can't imagine doing the same thing now plus wearing body armor, a tac vest, water bladder, and a Kevlar helmet.
Personally, I find it's not the weight that's a big deal, regular trips to the gym resolve that, it's the body armor. Your body literally goes deep into fever territory thanks to the body armor not allowing any heat to escape. It's kind of ironic though, because the more muscle you have to deal with the weight, the more heat you produce exercises, the hotter you get in your body armor. How much water did you normally take on ruck marches? If it's hot out I never set off anywhere without 5 litres minimum, and that's on the condition that we'll get resupply in a couple hours.
angrysoldier
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- under your bed
I wish we had more input, but we dont. we build our own tools for working on the lav because we need too, the unjaming tool and the muzle break removal tool all devoloped by weapon techs. GDLS wants nothing to do with what we built because it makes them look bad. will post pics after march break.
