Rifle group sizes?

[KevinB]

My best group (paper target - not electronic wizbang wierdness, that I do not fully trust after seing some resuls) with a C7A1 and C79 using IVI ammo was .687" @ 100m.

I think the god of war was smiling on me though as while I feel IVI is good ammo, I don't rate the system much under 1MOA.

I've seen rack grade C7A1's (okay Rifle Team rifles keep out of the field) shoot under 1MOA pretty consitently with a specific lot of IVI with good shooters.

As far as the PWT's go, its set up as crawl, walk, run, and Petamocto and others are working to make it even better.

Generally the CF marksmanship program is one of the best, if not the best in the world for conventional force soldiers.

Which honestly does not say much about the rest of the world  ;D

.

 

[SeanNewman]

RecceGuy,

Not sure about the SQ (now BMQ-L), but sadly there is no requirement to pass the PWT2 at the basic BMQ level.  They shoot the day applications and if they pass they are "rewarded" by getting to shoot the night supp.

When I did my visit there in the spring I just sat there stunned when I heard that, but after my stay I understood why: Too many trades are telling them "we need you to do this", so they have just decided that people who need to ever use the C7 will get that focus later.

 

[vonGarvin]

RecceGuy,

Not sure about the SQ (now BMQ-L), but sadly there is no requirement to pass the PWT2 at the basic BMQ level.  They shoot the day applications and if they pass they are "rewarded" by getting to shoot the night supp.

When I did my visit there in the spring I just sat there stunned when I heard that, but after my stay I understood why: Too many trades are telling them "we need you to do this", so they have just decided that people who need to ever use the C7 will get that focus later.

Just a quick question: when did the SQ qualification change to BMQ-L? 

 

[SeanNewman]

Just a quick question: when did the SQ qualification change to BMQ-L?

Right around the same time CAP became BMOQ-L, Phase 3 became DP1.1 and Phase 4 became DP1.2.

Slightly after QL3 became BIQ and then DP1.

However, it was well after ISCC became JLC became JNCO became PLQ became NCM DP2, and 6B became 3B.

But before 3A became the Leadership and Tactical Command Course (LTCC [ISCC]).

 

[Rogo]

So it's no longer CAP it's BMOQ-LAND?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Right around the same time CAP became BMOQ-L, Phase 3 became DP1.1 and Phase 4 became DP1.2.

Slightly after QL3 became BIQ and then DP1.

However, it was well after ISCC became JLC became JNCO became PLQ became NCM DP2, and 6B became 3B.

But before 3A became the Leadership and Tactical Command Course (LTCC [ISCC]).

Ahhh yes.

"LEADING CHANGE BUBBLE FILLED!"

"CHECK!"

"ROGER. FULL SPEED AHEAD TO THE NEXT CAREER SPEEDBUMP. MOVING NOW, OUT!"

Oops forgot [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

So it's no longer CAP it's BMOQ-LAND?

Afraid so.

Sadly, we hate the name so much because it's a PITA just to say instead of "CAP", we are now calling it "Bamacle" as in rhymes with debacle.

Context: When we walk around and see numpty-looking candidates in the J7 hallway, we always look for the Course O/WO and ask "Are you in charge of this Bamacle?" (BMOQ-L).

 

[vonGarvin]

So it's no longer CAP it's BMOQ-LAND?

[tangent] True story.  June 2009 I go onto our computer database looking for "CAP".  I can't find it.  One of my Warrant Officers tells me a few days later that he just found out that "CAP" had been renamed to "BMOQ-L".  No message, no nothing.


[/tangent]

OK, so as stated on this thread, marksmanship is taught to all CF members.  Some would offer that infantrymen need to be better at it, but in the end, you will be taught initially on BMQ/BMOQ, and from there, you will progress.  Some will learn to shoot better than others, and it comes down to the unit's ability/desire to teach and develop.  But considering that I hadn't fired anything prior to joining (other than an air rifle) and they were able to give me the skill to consistently hit man-sized targets at ranges up to 300m (or more?) with a 7.62mm FNC1, the methods, etc, do work.

 

[KevinB]

We used to shoot C1A1's to 600m Iron Sights.

 

 

[Northalbertan]

My best grouping with the C1A1 at 600m was 20 rounds into 12".  You can call it fluke but I was aiming for it.  Only ever did that once though so maybe it was a fluke.  ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

With the pitiful amount of shooting nowadays, lots of soldiers can't hit a 12" group from the 10m CQB firing line.

 

[vonGarvin]

We used to shoot C1A1's to 600m Iron Sights.

I thought it was farther than the 300 I had said earlier.  I remember thinking "where is the target?"  But, it's been over 20 years for me!!!

Thanks! 

 

[KevinB]

I recall a lot of low scores being indicated from the butts...

The sights on the C1A1 where pretty horrible, frankly can't say I miss that gun.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I haven't been involved for awhile, but we used to (maybe still do) shoot the C7 at 500m, with a substantial number of hits during ORA military matches. Is the round effective at that range? Probably not (I don't know), but I still wouldn't want to be hit with it. Just like any good varmint gun, it'll do it's part if you do, and know, yours.


As an aside, I love the C1 and curse the liebrals for prohibiting them.

 

[Illegio]

GD - OTS claims on their website that C77 ball will penetrate 3.5mm of 50/70 Rb steel at 570m, so it won't exactly bounce off if it hits you. They also claim 20cm max standard deviation at 550m, so theoretically, the round ought to be effective at that range.

GD - OTS C77 Ball Data

Edit: There is also a downloadable .pdf datasheet on that link with some additional information.

 

[SeanNewman]

RG,

As you mentioned, the problem isn't necessarily the range and accuracy part, and a lot of guys in my Cell were actually hitting consistently from 700m (and nobody could hit anything at 800m).  Conditions were perfect with no wind.

The problem I'm worried about isn't necessarily joules on impact, though.  If you take one in the head or chest you're incapacitated, so I'm okay with that.  I can all but guarantee that the round won't fragment at that range nor will rupture a large temporary wound cavity, so wherever it hits is going to make a small 5.56 tunnel and that's it.

My concern with 5.56 at 300+ is that it is so affected by drop and windage that in order to get those hits you basically have to be in a rested prone supported with no wind and the enemy has to be the stereotypical sentry standing at attention.  In other words, a soldier who is bounding around with a lot of weight on his back, with the action of combat putting his pulse around 180, shooting at an enemy who is also moving and shooting back at him, there is basically no chance to hit anything from 500m (some would even argue 100-200m but that's a different matter).

So yes you're right that it will do it's part if you do, it's not really fair to the C7 to push it past 300m in realistic conditions, because it would just require too much training to compensate for elements and distances.

Can a super soldier fight on the battlefield and make immediate corrections to his optics and adjust for windage on the fly?  Probably, but the training that it would take to get a soldier to that level would be a bajillion times more money than just giving some people a 7.62.

 

[vonGarvin]

Can a super soldier fight on the battlefield and make immediate corrections to his optics and adjust for windage on the fly?  Probably, but the training that it would take to get a soldier to that level would be a bajillion times more money than just giving some people a 7.62.

Are you the new "Old Spice" guy?

But I do like the point about ranges: they are all important.  Yes, clinical studies may show that 5.56mm does x at range y; however, just as you state, it means nothing when the practicable range may be much less than advertised.

The C9 LMG has a longer range, but only due to the fact that it's purpose is to hit area targets.  If it misses at those longer ranges, due to its external ballistics, it is still effective for other reasons.

 

[KevinB]

The C9 LMG has a longer range, but only due to the fact that it's purpose is to hit area targets.  If it misses at those longer ranges, due to its external ballistics, it is still effective for other reasons.

Honestly I used to beleive in supression, but I have seen that near misses do shit to supress our current threats, at least with small arms.

 

[SeanNewman]

Honestly I used to beleive in supression, but I have seen that near misses do crap to supress our current threats, at least with small arms.

Maybe that's where the GMG / CASW / C16 / AGLS comes in?  I know that a near miss with a LAV is going to put some heads down (or off), but as mentioned in the other thread (beat to death) maybe that's why we have many overlapping capabilities.

 

[vonGarvin]

Honestly I used to beleive in supression, but I have seen that near misses do shit to supress our current threats, at least with small arms.

Quick question: for our current threat, are those near misses consistent?  (eg: not just the odd shot, but a continual stream).  And if they don't "put their heads down", then that's fine, no?  As in some of the bullets will actually strike flesh?