Scan BC is reporting that #Vancouver Police are on scene at W 27th Ave & Ash St after a male in a vehicle was shot multiple times. Confirmed homicide. Update: Metro News is reporting that "Police have identified the victim of Monday night’s fatal shooting on the city’s west side as Kennith King-Lok Leung, 23, of Vancouver."
News 1130 is reporting that an Abbotsford man faces dozens of firearms and drug charges after a bust last week. Semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, a sub-machine gun, semi-automatic rifles, a sawed-off shotgun, lots of cocaine, and almost 1,000 Fentanyl-laced pills. were seized. Corey Perkins, 28, faces a total of 66 drug and weapons charges and Caitlin Bransford, 26, also faces drug charges.
That SMG (center right) should prove interesting to the Firearms Unit. Canada used this weapon years ago as the C1, a very slightly modified version of the British Sterling. One of, if not the greatest open bolt SMG ever. The Alaska State Police tested some 8-10 designs years ago, dropped them in the mud, slush etc. and the Sterling beat them all, even the Uzi. This one will be either a C1 that was "lost" years ago (they were withdrawn from active service back in the 80's) or a deactivated Sterling that was reactivated. It may be in fact still deactivated, but if it is I'll not be holding my breath for that fact to be volunteered....
ReplyDeleteI can confirm the SMG is an excellent and fun weapon! When I was in HM Forces they were quite fun to play with.
ReplyDeleteA fun fact is this is what was used as the Star Wars Storm Trooper "blaster" (just fold the stock under and slap in a 10 round mag).
Sorry, Trailrunner, the C1 was/is (designation still valid, I'm sure there have many stored - they would be stupid not to ...) the FN battle rifle.
Wait a minute (checking sources) - it looks like the the Canadian SMG and the FN were designated C1 (?). (http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/smgs/c1smg.htm and http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/rifles.htm). That seems a bit confusing ...
The designation is of course still valid, they aren't going to call it something else just because they were all withdrawn from service and put in war reserve stock in the mid 1980's.
ReplyDeleteRifle C1 vs. SMG C1. I see your point but obviously it wasn't problematic. That IS it's designation. The Canadian version has a cheaper rear sight and uses a conventional follower in it's 30 rd magazine vs rollers in the British 34 rd magazine. Said rollers are low drag compared to a conventional and are a big reason the design is as reliable as it is.
It is a great gun. I owned a Mk5 variant at one point. (integrally suppressed) The problem is it can't compete functional accuracy wise with an MP5 which fires from a closed bolt. You'll be doing some work to get consistent hits at 50m. That 1.5lbs of bolt flying forward when you pull the trigger works against accuracy, whereas a closed bolt MP5SD with optics will make head shots at 50m all day long. Quietly.
Yes, it is a great gun. No it is not that accurate at distance. It would pull up and to the right so we would only use 3 round bursts to stay close to target. It's awesome for house clearing and other close quarters engagements and for using from inside a vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThe MP5 is a beautiful design. It's almost like apples and oranges! Yet, there is a simplicity of design for the SMG. (Stripping one down is always amazing due to the simplistic design.
I suppose if the Colour Sergeant is yelling for one it would be, "Rifleman, get me the SMG" as opposed to, ".. get me the C1". The FN C1 was always just called the "FN" as opposed to C1 (or C1A1 or L1A1 back in the home countries). The C2 was just a C2. A lot of FN's were still in use in the early 90's. Different regiments swapped out at different times.
Then, instead of switching to the L85 and L86 Canada decided to go with the M16 variant ...
People have been saying "it pulls up and to the right" about shoulder fired fully automatic weapons since the Thompson. Matter of fact I once saw a clip of an old British Commando saying exactly that, about the Thompson.
ReplyDeleteThis is a function of stance, not the gun itself. I can use any such weapon and demonstrate very easily that it has nothing to do with the gun itself, but that it is recoil forces finding the weakness in the stance. Done correctly it will not go anywhere, and with a little practice half to full magazine dumps will go nowhere but the target. To further illustrate, why is it that for a left handed shooter they all go "up and to the left"? Again, it is the stance. A stance perfectly suitable for managing semi auto fire, because there is time between shots to recover the starting point of the stance, proves inadequate to the task at cyclic rate full auto, there being no time to recover the stance from the recoil impulse. "Up and to the right" because that is where the stance allows it to go. Or up and to the left.
I am a fan of the bull pup concept, and it's advantages of shorter OAL (overall length) and improved balance and handling inside confined areas are well known. At the point where the C7 series rifles where adopted by the Canadian Forces, the L85/86 series weapons were still quite problematic and where allowed to remain so for years before the Brits finally got the stick out and made the improvements needed. In actual fact there was no excuse for this, the L85 is really nothing more than an Armalite AR18 that has been bullpup'd into a different chassis, while making a few "improvements" that made an already well proven and respected design into a gun that squaddies who had to depend on it for their lives hated for it's unreliability. When those "improvements" were undone, it became the rifle it could have been from the beginning had the designers listened to anyone who actually used it.
If the Canadian Forces had been of a mind to adopt a bullpup at that time, a better choice would have been the Steyr AUG, which I admit to liking quite a bit. The Irish adopted it, and among all the other nations who use it the only ones who ever had any difficulties were the Australians, who insisted on building their own rather than doing the easy thing and just paying the Austrians.
An M16 variant does make sense for Canada for operational and magazine/parts interchangeability with the US, and Canada's choice of the superb ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada) sight as standard issue on all C series weapons was a very wise move. The AUG can be fitted with a "NATO" stock that allows it to use M16 type magazines rather than the superb translucent AUG mags, but again that was not the choice made. Interestingly enough, DIEMACO (now Colt Canada) M16's were sold to Holland for it's military among others and at one point Canada was selling more M16 rifles than the USA. Just not to actual Canadians, although IIRC there is now a domestically produced semi auto civilian variant available.
Yes, I agree with you about stance. I did not mean it would pull so far off target that you would only get one or two rounds into it, but there is a pull that can put subsequent rounds out of any 2 inch grouping, especially at any distance.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the weapon was never designed for distance use with the shorter barrel - that's what a battle rifle is for (especially 5.56 vs 7.62). The M4 barrel length is even a bit too short and would, I would say, classify it as a carbine.
Of course, any working person knows you really need the right tools for each job to get it done properly and efficiently. There is a need for a varied tool chest.
The Steyr is very nice and I can assure you many soldiers wanted that over the M16 platform.
I understand logistics and compatibility, but like you state, simply changing to an M4 mag helps with that.
While it is true you cannot buy much in Canada, you can get M4 variants and kit them out and you can also get the Norinco Type 97. (http://calibremag.ca/the-sub-1k-bullpup-non-restricted-bullpup/)
For those who fondly remember FN's there is always: http://calibremag.ca/famae-sg-542-review/
The best is these are both non-restricted.