C7 sights: Optical & Iron

[MG34]

The C79 Sight is junk pure and simple.It has no place on a rifle much less an LMG.It is prone to breaking,has serious return to zero issues,theglue on the rubber shroud dissolves in CLP/solvents and comes loose,the back up sights are useless nubs that rub off far too easy,I could go on and on but won‘t. As far as the optics themselves go they are quite good but the mount is the problem,Gen3 or what ever still suffer from tyhe same problems.The sight design doesn‘t take into consideration the fact that a firer will be wearing a helmet most of the time,along with the substandard design of the C7A1 rail system means that the helmet will contact the sight and loose it‘s zero. the sight cannot be mounted forward so as not to contact with the helmet brim and still maintain proper eye relief. It is flawed I‘d sooner have the option of another optic that could be mounted forward,on the rails of the rifle.
The C79 has no place at all on an LMG ,who ever though that one up needs a swift kick in the rear!

 

[DJD556]

True enough about the LMG having a sight, your firing for an area affect not an individual [most times] so having a sight you have to zero is rather thoughtless. I must say though the thing I like most about the iron sight on the C9 is the fact it weighs less

 

[Thompson_JM]

Agreed.

Personally I dislike the Optical Sight. for all the reasons discussed above. especially for the Zeroing problem. It would be nice if we had an Iron sight attachment at our unit so we could choose what to shoot with.

 

[AlphaCharlie]

For the iron sights, does the rear sght just bolt on to the same notches as the sight would?

 

[DJD556]

If you have a c7a2 [with the rail] then you can get an emergency iron sight that bolts onto the rails inplace of the optical. The original c7 has an iron sight built into the upper reciver as aposed to the rail ... think of an m16

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

There is an iron sight attachement that does mount on the rail, but the old C7 (as opposed to the current C7A1) had no sight mounting rail, and the iron sights were an integral part of the weapon.

 

[jbeach95]

While I have never used the C7‘s iron sights, I would probably prefer the C79 optical sight anyway. I have done night shoots with no illumination and found the titium reticle in the C79 helpful. And the optical sight increases the effective range.
As for use with the LMG, I have used iron sights and the C79, and I prefer the C79. Maybe it‘s just me, but I find it easier to see the tracers and the splashes through the C79.
How about the Americans using the C79 on their GPMGs?

 

[MG34]

Sights have nothing to do with the effective range of the rifle,that is an issue of balistics not optics.The iron sights allow you to effectively engage out to any range you would reqiure. I shot with irons out to 600m trust me there is no problem in hititng your target.Night shoots,well the tritium reticle on most sights is either too bright an blocks out your target or too dim to be of any help.With the advent of the PVS 14 and PAQ 4 combination you can engage targets much more effectively than the C79 ever could,not too mention Kite sights and Maxi Kite.
the biggest problem with the C79 is the loss of situational awareness caused by the narrow FOV,espescially a problem on the assault as you loose sight of your fireteam partner while your head is buried looking through the scope.A C9 cannot give effective covering fire if the gunner cannot see the assaulting troops and know when to shift fire.In the defense it use of the optical sight limits your vision to the extent that troops approaching from the flank are not picked up until it is often too late. Another sight system such as iron sights or a occluded eyesight scope are much better as they allow the widest possible periferial vision.
As for the US putting C79s on their GPMGs well I am sure tis is a lesson they are currently learning.BTW the sight on the US GPMG is not the same as ours it has a different reticle pattern.

 

[sdimock]

The C79 is one of those things that only works well under good/ideal conditions.

It does help me get a tighter grouping on the range though.

(I‘m older my eyes aren‘t quite what they used to be ).

In the field it‘s performance is lacking.

When clear it‘s nice that every soldier has a scope to check distant objects.

(I know, use your binoculars not your scope )

On winter ex. the sight is almost useless.

 

[Farmboy]

Let‘s see...

It‘s a pain in the #$% to use with a helmet, for proper eye relief my helmet sits against the scope.

We had one fall off this weekend at the range, not in the field in combat (I can imagine how many might though).

We had a bunch fog up at the end of the day.

It is wobbly, so zero can not be maintained, if your off 1-2 inches at 100 yds thats 4-8 inches at 400yds.

Plus all the other problems listed above, yup it‘s useless!

There are much better options out there.

 

[scm77]

What about the ACOG? The US military seems to use them alot in iraq and afghanistan.

 

[MG34]

The ACOG is about the premiere combat oriented optic on the market,but at a cost per unit of over $1000.00 USD ,Iwouldn‘t count on seeing in the CF anytime soon.Remember it is about cost NOT quality when it comes to the CF.

 

[scm77]

I found this pic on combat camera. If you look at the third guy from the left, he‘s got an aimpoint of some sort. Perhaps they‘ve realized that the C79 isn‘t very good?

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/012304/KA2004-A037D.jpg

 

[MG34]

He also has a Knight‘s Armament RAS on his weapon,the scope is an Aimpoint Comp ML2 which is the current issue to the US Army. The 3 R22eR Battlegroup like the 3 RCR BG was issued all sorts of new kit to trial and evalualte during the Roto in Kabul,perhaps someone in NDHQ has finally got the message that better kit is needed.More likely than not the kit was purchased by the unit for the Roto,this is the fastest way to get changes made as the kit purchased by the unit gains the attention of the higher ups and is adopted sometime down the road,the camelback is a prime example.

 

[tabernac]

http://www.combatcamera.forces.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/!2004/050404/IS2004-2050a copy.jpg

The scope for the Corporal's C7 seems to be missing. Any ideas (or explanations) why?

 

[sinblox]

He's using an iron sight.

 

[Smoothbore]

Beutiful uniform and kit. Even the Germans can't compare.
The Corporal seems to be carrying a C8A2.

 

[tabernac]

Ahhh should have come to the conclusion that it was a C8A2. With the green furniture and telescopic butt it looks like a C7A2. Honest mistake.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

Is it not a C7A2?   The Diemaco C8A2 product description does not include green finishing.   You can't see the barrel length, which is the only noticeable difference, isn't it?   I'm pretty sure the main receiver groups are the same size.

 

[1feral1]

Its a QD (Quick Detachable) rear iron sight, and the same kind we use here on our Colt M4s. They are quite common. Remembe,r the Picatinny rail accepts many different types of accessories, not only the C79 ELCAN.


Cheers,

Wes