The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
CADPAT_TW said:
No.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
With the C7A1 being upgraded/modernized to the C7A2, I highly doubt that DND will get rid of the C7 family of weapons in the near future
C7A2 Modernization
C7A2 Modernization
- Reaction score
- 5,003
- Points
- 1,060
Navalsnipr said:
Navalsniper,
Absolutely. Cheap, simple stupid and it's proven. Until there's a change in overall NATO small arms ammo, there's no need to change.
B
BITTER PPLCI CPL
Guest
What's the big deal about replacing the C-7, it's a good rifle. I'd rather have this anyday of the week over the M-4. And the H&K M-8 won't see service soon. Not in the next 5 years or so!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
C7 works. with the C7A2 midlife upgrade; there probably not much of a requirement to increase the distribution of C8/M4s in each section (which is what the US has been doing). Most of the upgrades included in the A2 should make the C7 last a good while more.
Also with Diemaco now in the hands of Colt Mfg (sold by Heroux Devtrek in 2005) any design improvements to the M16 will be available to the C7 and improvements made for the C7 will be available to the M16.
Along with the SAS, there are a number of countries currently using Diemaco produced weapons - so what's the hurry to change to another service rifle?
Also with Diemaco now in the hands of Colt Mfg (sold by Heroux Devtrek in 2005) any design improvements to the M16 will be available to the C7 and improvements made for the C7 will be available to the M16.
Along with the SAS, there are a number of countries currently using Diemaco produced weapons - so what's the hurry to change to another service rifle?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The SAS rifles(L119A1 SFW) don't look much like the stuff we use, I'm afraid
Note the conspicious absense of items like the Diemaco M203, Diemaco TRIAD, Elcan sight, extended c0cking handle,(basically all the new features on the C7A2), the 16" barrel, and the addition of a rail system on the fore end. It's almost exactly like the ideal rifle KevinB presented in his article. Strange, huh?
Note the conspicious absense of items like the Diemaco M203, Diemaco TRIAD, Elcan sight, extended c0cking handle,(basically all the new features on the C7A2), the 16" barrel, and the addition of a rail system on the fore end. It's almost exactly like the ideal rifle KevinB presented in his article. Strange, huh?
B
BITTER PPLCI CPL
Guest
Hey Brittany, where did you get those photos, there pretty cool! I was wondering, if that's the SAS or SBS don't you think they would have covered their faces or were these pictures taken by independent media. Someone in these forums said the M16A2 was made in Canada, it was made by Colt, which now owns Diemaco. And one more thing, if I want to buy my own sling and use it I do, if I buy a RIS because the TRIAD mounts sucks and use the RIS, I will. And finally, if formerhorseguard was in charge of our army we'd still be wearing ODs!
:threat: :threat: :threat:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Militaryphotos.net
Please do, and tell the rest of us how that works out. Post detailed pictures of the whole installation proccess. That way if we ALL show up with rails on our rifles then we can't ALL be wrong, can we?
Well, before Cadpat, we had crap webbing, crap shirts (no pockets on sleeves, useless breast pockets) crap rucks and crap(or at best, outdated) rifles. Now we have even crappier webbing, the same crap shirts (just different, coffee stain resistant colour), the same crap rucks, a crap grenade launcher and (arguably) an even crappier rifle. So I guess we've come a long way?
Even the new bushcaps are crap!New C9 is apparently pretty good though.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Britney Spears said:
I don't know about the breast pockets - they were great for a pack of smokes (regular - not King size).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yeah, but that was before we had this:
Also smoking is bad for you, you should stop doing it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Britney Spears said:Yeah, but that was before we had this:
Also smoking is bad for you, you should stop doing it.
So's meat - I've quit one, but not the other. And with that, I'll stop being a smartass and quit hijacking the thread - interesting reading.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hey Britney....
If everything the CF has and uses is Crap.... why do you bother hanging round here griping about things.
Having gone thru the transition from 54 to 64 to 80something to the webbing / vests we have today - I can tell you that we finally have something that works quite well.
With respect to Cadpat shirts & all..... you`re saying that both the Cdn army AND the USMC have crap field uniforms now; interesting.
If everything the CF has and uses is Crap.... why do you bother hanging round here griping about things.
Having gone thru the transition from 54 to 64 to 80something to the webbing / vests we have today - I can tell you that we finally have something that works quite well.
With respect to Cadpat shirts & all..... you`re saying that both the Cdn army AND the USMC have crap field uniforms now; interesting.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
geo said:
I've had the pleasure of transition from 51 (I think it was 51, not 54 - as if that matters) to 64 (a REAL POS in terms of webbing, ruck was OK though) to 82 (good webbing, fair ruck if you didn't have to hump more than 100m from your track) and now to TV (all but the latter I wore as an infanteer). I think the TV is great. I'm now a REMF. Draw your own conclusions.
As for the C7, I loved it when we first got it. I went from 50/50 1st Class/Marksman with the C1 to 100% Marksman - when the weapon didn't explode, as it seemed to do with alarming frequency in normal field conditions with live ammo. I understand they fixed the exploding bit, avoiding a "Ross Rifle of the 1990s" title.
So, back on the C7 etc topic: this REMF asks the question - is it as accurate and reliable as I remember (from the days of irons sights and a fix to the exploding problem)? From what I saw, once the major problems were resolved (like the explosion thing, and the crappy plastic mags) it was quite accurate and reliable. I have never pepper-potted with the optical sight, or even used it on the range, so I have no comment on that.
And finally, if I am on the two-way firing range squeezing a trigger, things have gone so horribly wrong that I will hope the cooks have enough ammo.
Acorn
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hi Acorn, in an effort to avoid shooting out of my arcs, I will attempt to give a "coal face" viewpoint on the C7 rifle and C79 sight. I'm not a gun nut, I don't shoot regularly in my spare civy time, the C7 is the only rifle that I have any real worthwhile experience with, and with a little ammo and few hours of practice I can be a fairly good shot. I understand KevinB is currently out on the range breaking in his $2300 Schmidt & Bender scope, so if you want a "professional" opinion, I'm sure he'll give you more than you need when he returns. In the mean time, here's what I got.
It seems to me that the C7 is quite reliable, and that most stoppages are due to user error and not any mechanical deficiency. The biggest single issue I've seen is an improperly seated mag, since it is possible for a fully loaded magazine to stay attached to the weapon but not properly seated, causing a FTF(is that the right word?). I understand this is not an issue with either the Kalashnikov or the C1. It's a fairly simple mistake to remedy with training, but the weapon isn't idiot proof. Haven't seen any explosions or other spectacular results. The fit and finish of the rifles, compared to the other weapons I've handled (Both versions of the SA-80, Berretta AR-70, US M16A2, Various Kalashnikov types) is very good.
As far as accuracy goes, it seems to be accurate enough to "outperform" most of its users, including myself at times. Experienced shooters who take the marksmanship principles to heart don't seem to have any trouble with it.
The C79 sight, however, is more problematic. I like to think that a faulty/NS C79 sight is probably the leading cause of troops failing their PWT3. While the optics are good(as far as I can tell), the mount is simply not robust enough. Also, the sight it self is heavy and bulky. A C7 equiped with the C79 sight weighs almost exactly the same as a C1, both loaded (also, a loaded C9 weights quite a bit more than a loaded C2. Ain't progress great?). It seems to be another case of "buy Canadian even if it sucks". At the night the sights are better than nothing. There are far superior optical sights on the market.
Ah hell, you've spent more time standing properly at ease than I've spent time in the army, so I'm probably just making a fool of myself.....
It seems to me that the C7 is quite reliable, and that most stoppages are due to user error and not any mechanical deficiency. The biggest single issue I've seen is an improperly seated mag, since it is possible for a fully loaded magazine to stay attached to the weapon but not properly seated, causing a FTF(is that the right word?). I understand this is not an issue with either the Kalashnikov or the C1. It's a fairly simple mistake to remedy with training, but the weapon isn't idiot proof. Haven't seen any explosions or other spectacular results. The fit and finish of the rifles, compared to the other weapons I've handled (Both versions of the SA-80, Berretta AR-70, US M16A2, Various Kalashnikov types) is very good.
As far as accuracy goes, it seems to be accurate enough to "outperform" most of its users, including myself at times. Experienced shooters who take the marksmanship principles to heart don't seem to have any trouble with it.
The C79 sight, however, is more problematic. I like to think that a faulty/NS C79 sight is probably the leading cause of troops failing their PWT3. While the optics are good(as far as I can tell), the mount is simply not robust enough. Also, the sight it self is heavy and bulky. A C7 equiped with the C79 sight weighs almost exactly the same as a C1, both loaded (also, a loaded C9 weights quite a bit more than a loaded C2. Ain't progress great?). It seems to be another case of "buy Canadian even if it sucks". At the night the sights are better than nothing. There are far superior optical sights on the market.
Ah hell, you've spent more time standing properly at ease than I've spent time in the army, so I'm probably just making a fool of myself.....
Unless your intent is to physically club someone to death with it, the C7/C9 is such a huge advance over the C1/C2 that it's not even funny.
The FN's sight was configured in such a way that if you had the right cheekbone structure, every time you fired the disk would smack you in the orbit. I'd come back from a day on the range looking like a one-eyed racoon. And it's really hard to concentrate on principles of marksmenship when you get punched in the eye every time you pull the trigger.
Not to mention that the SOB was so long that it hung up on everything. Slung on your back, every time you bent over somebody would get poked with the muzzle. The bayonet lug had a particular affinity for cam nets.
It was easier to clean (less crooks and crannies, opened up more, but the gas plug could be a bitch) and it was an awesome drill stick, but living with the FN was a serious pain in the ass.
DG
The FN's sight was configured in such a way that if you had the right cheekbone structure, every time you fired the disk would smack you in the orbit. I'd come back from a day on the range looking like a one-eyed racoon. And it's really hard to concentrate on principles of marksmenship when you get punched in the eye every time you pull the trigger.
Not to mention that the SOB was so long that it hung up on everything. Slung on your back, every time you bent over somebody would get poked with the muzzle. The bayonet lug had a particular affinity for cam nets.
It was easier to clean (less crooks and crannies, opened up more, but the gas plug could be a bitch) and it was an awesome drill stick, but living with the FN was a serious pain in the ass.
DG
- Reaction score
- 17,431
- Points
- 1,260
Realistically in small arms issues we where at one time Dinousars that walked into the light - we however are just walking away again.
Brit hit the nail on the head on some issues the C7 was good is not ideal weapon at the time - no one needs the stupid 800m adjustable sight of the M16A2 at least on a COMBAT weapon.
With the C7A1 the flattop receiver was adopted prior to the US (they where developing it but could not agree on it until US SOC M4's...)
The C79 is a good service rifle match scope - however it is ASS as a combat weapon sight - the mount is too fragile (loss of zero or catostrophic loss of sight) - furthermore with its adoption we started to forget how to shoot - basicla Marksmanship priciples have been forgotten - repeated by holy writ from the Infantry School - but with really no clear idea abotu what this holy writ means.
Cheekweld - how many CF shooter knwo that the weapon was designed to shoot NTCH (nose to charging handle) ? And that by shooting that way you get a easily repeatable shooting position...
I digress.
TRIAD - please - We broke more IR Lasers by usign the pitchfork than woudl have costed to outfit out unti with the newest grab life by the balls freefloat rail system. Unit CO's have bought the Knights Armament M4 RAS (Rail Accessory System) for thier C8's - Guess that gives you their thoughts on TRIAD - plus the data held by USSOC and to an etnet DHTC on bolt breakage rates and how they increase with a load on the barrel...
20" bbl -- maybe if you want to shoot 800m or 1000m US Hi-Power matches - but these days it does not make sense.
Brit hit the nail on the head on some issues the C7 was good is not ideal weapon at the time - no one needs the stupid 800m adjustable sight of the M16A2 at least on a COMBAT weapon.
With the C7A1 the flattop receiver was adopted prior to the US (they where developing it but could not agree on it until US SOC M4's...)
The C79 is a good service rifle match scope - however it is ASS as a combat weapon sight - the mount is too fragile (loss of zero or catostrophic loss of sight) - furthermore with its adoption we started to forget how to shoot - basicla Marksmanship priciples have been forgotten - repeated by holy writ from the Infantry School - but with really no clear idea abotu what this holy writ means.
Cheekweld - how many CF shooter knwo that the weapon was designed to shoot NTCH (nose to charging handle) ? And that by shooting that way you get a easily repeatable shooting position...
I digress.
TRIAD - please - We broke more IR Lasers by usign the pitchfork than woudl have costed to outfit out unti with the newest grab life by the balls freefloat rail system. Unit CO's have bought the Knights Armament M4 RAS (Rail Accessory System) for thier C8's - Guess that gives you their thoughts on TRIAD - plus the data held by USSOC and to an etnet DHTC on bolt breakage rates and how they increase with a load on the barrel...
20" bbl -- maybe if you want to shoot 800m or 1000m US Hi-Power matches - but these days it does not make sense.
"Nose to charging handle."
-Interesting, as that's how I shot the AR-15 SP1 I bought in 1973. Not sure that is how the wpn was designed though, as the AR-15/M-16/C-whatevers are the spawn of Gene Stoner scaling down his 7.62mm AR-10. The AR-10 - at least the Sudanese contract one I briefly owned 27 years ago - had the charging handle below the carrying handle. It didn't recoil all that much more than a C7, either, which makes one wonder...
-As to the C1 eye gouging, news to me. i did get a black eye firing more than 200 rounds a day with a short butt - I take an XL, normally - but normally would only get a bruised shoulder after 80 rounds or so. And that was done as a scrawny 16 year old. Saw a 105 pound blonde 16 or 17 year old SSEP 73 girl group 5 shots in two inches at the hundred, and five shots in three inches at the 200. Her coach was a barely 17 year old Cpl. C1 was maybe as old as we were at the time.
Tom
-Interesting, as that's how I shot the AR-15 SP1 I bought in 1973. Not sure that is how the wpn was designed though, as the AR-15/M-16/C-whatevers are the spawn of Gene Stoner scaling down his 7.62mm AR-10. The AR-10 - at least the Sudanese contract one I briefly owned 27 years ago - had the charging handle below the carrying handle. It didn't recoil all that much more than a C7, either, which makes one wonder...
-As to the C1 eye gouging, news to me. i did get a black eye firing more than 200 rounds a day with a short butt - I take an XL, normally - but normally would only get a bruised shoulder after 80 rounds or so. And that was done as a scrawny 16 year old. Saw a 105 pound blonde 16 or 17 year old SSEP 73 girl group 5 shots in two inches at the hundred, and five shots in three inches at the 200. Her coach was a barely 17 year old Cpl. C1 was maybe as old as we were at the time.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 17,431
- Points
- 1,260
I shoot AR10 NTCH - I just accept a bump
I never had an eye gouge - but I had chipmunk cheeks as a young troop doing my small arms coaching course with it. I need a L butt min for it.
- I shoot a Short butt C7 (without armour) or collapsible out one notch in armour.
I never had an eye gouge - but I had chipmunk cheeks as a young troop doing my small arms coaching course with it. I need a L butt min for it.
- I shoot a Short butt C7 (without armour) or collapsible out one notch in armour.
Similar threads
