The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)

[JimmyPeeOn]

Ive been hearing a lot of chatter about a 16" heavy barrell coming out for the A2.  I was just wondering if anyone has seen it and if they have more info/pictures it would be appreciated.

 

[Navalsnpr]

I've not seen the one on the A2 personally, but I have seen civilian versions of it.

The winner of DRCA's NSCC (National Service Conditions Championship), who also is a QM7, competed with a AR-15 with a 16" heavy barrel.

Stage one score of 559.46 and a combined stage one and two score of 737.53

Here is a pic of the rifle:

 

[Freddy Chef]

http://www.diemaco.com/

Products -> Small Arms Systems

The SFW has a 16â ? barrel.

 

[KevinB]

That is a misnomer

What we have is C7A2 lowers with the C8SFW upper.

My gun when I was in Afghan

 

[Infanteer]

Gee, that sure don't look like the boom-stick I had on the Militia armoury floor.... :blotto:

 

[pdr379]

I've spent almost the last half hour reading this whole thread and when does improper training and experience with a weapon mean that it's a bad weapon? mostly after this whole time i've come to quite a few conclusions about the people and knowledge of most who have been posting to this thread

1. most are reservists who haven't done any real training with the weapon or equipment that the infantry uses on a regular basis. as this is not there fault they should also not make poor comments on things like which weapon is best for CQB. after doing many hours of MOUT training length of the weapon plays a very small part in the ability to clear a room. take the marines and us army in Iraq for instance. how many of there soldiers do you see carrying around m-4 carbines? as these may look cool and have some very limited plus's to the longer m16 or C7 they don't have the versitilaty that the longer assault rifles have. yes a shorter rifle may be nice when clearing corners but what will you do when you have to go back to the open turrain where you need longer range weapons, will you always be carrying around multiple weapons?

2. yes the C7 is a extremely reliable weapon and yes almost all of the ones that you use when doing your basic and battle school training are in bad shape the ones in the units are not as much. i've never had a major stopage or even a minor one that wasn't caused because of my lazyness at one point or another. if you properly maintain your rifle and keep it lubed while firing over a period of time it will never jam unless it's a defect with the weapon.

sorry about the long post, i could have commented on twice as much. i appologize to those who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to our survice rifle.

thanks

 

[KevinB]

I've spent almost the last half hour reading this whole thread and when does improper training and experience with a weapon mean that it's a bad weapon? mostly after this whole time i've come to quite a few conclusions about the people and knowledge of most who have been posting to this thread

I came to a conclusion after about 15 seconds that you can't read - or failed to read half of this thread...

Let me make this really fricking clear

1) Short Barrels are no more or less accuracy than longer ones - other than they are stiffer given the same diamter and thus potential more accurate.

2) Velocity Loss from 20" to 16" is minimal

C77 has a MV of 3150fps out of the C7A1, and it drop below 2700 fps around 130m, and 2500fps @ 185m.
From the 14.5" C8 it has a MV of 2925 fps, dropping below 2500fps @ 130m and 2700fps @ 60m.
With the 16" C8SFW MV is 3013, and it drops below 2700fps @ 90m and 2500fps @ 160m

*This data was assembled off an Oehler Chronograph for MV's and G1 drag co-eff w/ .304BC for
the C77rd using the MCTRAJ4 program. 30rd Avg's

At 550m, that translates into 10" more drop and an extra 3" of wind drift (5mph wind perpendicular to target) compared to the 20".

So we shot down the accuracy, the terminal effects - anything else?

 

[SteveB]

To add further weight to the accuracy argument, many members of the US Army and Australian Army shooting teams were using short uppers on their M16s and short barrels on their F88s in competition at ranges up to 300m.  This was in the mid-90s and might no longer be the case.  The Americans I spoke to seemed to think that the relatively stiffer barrel on the M4 upper gave better groupings.  They would swap uppers for the 500m and 600yard matches.  Why I can't say for sure, perhaps they thought the decreased velocity and increased wind drift would negate the better grouping.  Certainly the increased bullet drop wouldn't be a factor on a KD range.

Now I'm not advocating the constant swapping of upper receivers, but how often will/should a soldier on operations take a shot at 500m?  Even if you hit your target, will the terminal ballistics stop him? Don't we have better options to engage targets at 500m?

Although I was in the reserves, I did a fair amount of FIBUA/MOUT training in 7 years and sent more than a few rounds downrange. 

 

[KevinB]

BTW the top scores on the 300m and 500m deliberate at this years service rifle where 16" guns...

  And the aggregate winner was a 16"

 

[SteveB]

More than any barrel length, practice is what will allow our troops to hit the enemy at any given range.  More benefit would be derived from allocating a few 1000 rounds a year for training each troop.  We used to shoot 100 to 200 rds a day in Canada and maybe double that over in England training for Bisley.  They have computerized mechanical ranges over there, which cut out the time spent in the butts. 

We may not have all the advanced bells and whistles, but a good initial grounding on conventional ranges will translate in a minimum of time to excellent field firing skills on MOUT ranges, Jungle lanes, moving target engagements and hopefully real life.  I know from some of his prior posts that Kevin doesn't have much time for shooting team old boys, and I can identify with that.  But it can be a tremendous resource if the right people are given the opportunity.  Not often do we have virtually unlimited range time and ammo to develop skills, try weapon mods and test equipment in a controlled environment like a brigade or national shooting team offers.

If we changed the CFSAC matches to something more like Bisley, that put a premium on physical fitness, firing in improvised positions, unknown range firing, wearing gas masks, etc. we would make for a better environment to develop these skills and give a better supply of  designated marksmen for ops.

Steve

Basically more  :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: makes better :warstory:

 

[1feral1]

To add further weight to the accuracy argument, many members of the US Army and Australian Army shooting teams were using short uppers on their M16s and short barrels on their F88s in competition at ranges up to 300m.   This was in the mid-90s and might no longer be the case.  

Quite true about the short bbls here in Australia. All Cdo and SASR use the M4A1, and F88SA1C's are also common, with the new V3/G3/A3 has the option of the short bbl. However the standard issue rifle, still has the 508mm bbl, but the overall length of the F88 is still very short. Personally, I think thats it's only true advantage, as I am NOT a lover of this rifle overall.

At CENTSAM UK, not too long ago, we had 10" bbls on our M16 carbines, but this was done strictly for SMG competition shoots, as it only takes 10 mins or less to do a bbl change anyways. That and a quick use of  HSG, and "Bob's your Uncle".

As for long BBls, here is a pic of the F88 LMG bbl, and these are (just the only 6 in the system), again used to compete in past CENTSAMs in the catagory of the L86A2. They are Austrian AUG originals, purchased in Alabama, and are so marked with the USA importer.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Satelliteslayer]

C7A2 - I would prefer to see a 16" barrel on the stnd lower as opposed to the collapsible lower on the stnd upper, personal choice.

I have seen some terrific scores w/ 16" barrels, I believe that the standard 5.56mm rnd develops its optimum internal ballistics in a 20" barrel. So there should be minimal loss from a 16" barrel.

The 5.56mm has surprisingly good ballistics at 1000M.... on paper.... many shooters in the US are switching to 5.56mm for 1K match shooting.

As for the C7/M16 design itself, considering that Eugene Stoner considered the 5.56 version to be nothing more than a survival rifle for the US Air Force it has evolved very well. Highly accurate, dependable, very adaptable w/ a whole hockey sock of cool after market toys available for it.

In my pers opinion, any other rifle is just a different colour rose.

RJ

 

[TCBF]

"As for the C7/M16 design itself, considering that Eugene Stoner considered the 5.56 version to be nothing more than a survival rifle for the US Air Force it has evolved very well."

I thought Stoner, Sullivan and Fremont (sp?) were scaling down Stoner's AR-10 to meet a DARPA RFP specification?  Seems like a lot of work to go through - including developing a new cartridge - for a survival rifle.


Tom

 

[Jordan]

Hey guys
I just finished watching a show on the M16 vs the AK-47. Regarding to the reliability problems towards the M16 in harsh conditions or lack of cleaning, I was wondering if the C7 has the same problem  or if they are more problems regarding the C7 or some of those problems have been taken into consideration at Diemaco and been fixed.

 

[1feral1]

Jordan, the generic C7 is an M16A2 made under licence in Canada.

 

[Hunter911]

Jordan... if you want a ton of information, go the diemaco site and send them an e-mail asking for a presentation package. They'll send one free of charge and you'll have all the information you can handle concerning all of their weapons.

 

[TCBF]

When we got the C7/8/9 in the fall of 1987 in Lahr, the whole of 4CMBG had to change all at once - on a Friday night at 1600 hours - because we were all on two hours notice to move, and the ammo outload packs on the 548s had to change as well.

The next while we had some problems.  the magazines, which I won't go into on this post, and the ejector springs.

We got some bizarre  stoppages. some 'Bolt over Base' which are common mag probs, but a lot of 'disco' stopages, where a cartridge and an empty casing were dancing around in the receiver together.  Often, the empty case would be trapped with it's mouth over the gas tube orifice.  since the front of the cocking handle rests around the gas tube, this meant that attempting to cock the wpn meant trying to crush the casing between the front of the cocking handle and the boltface - not doable.

I had our Boeselager shooting team put a section of cleaning rod in the loops of their 1982 pattern yoke so they could use it to pull the bolt to the rear without using the cocking handle, allow the casing to fall fre, and carry on.  Bad mags were culled and crushed during training shoots.

Turns out, half the stock of ejector springs was improperly heat treated and thus too powerful. There is a balancing act between the two springs in the bolt.  The ectracter spring has to be strong enought to allow extraction, but weak enough to allow the ejector spring to overpower it and pivot the casing past the extractor once the casing is no longer in contact with the wall of the chamber.  If the ejector spring is too weak, it won't overpower the extractor spring at this point.  If it is too strong, it will overpower the ejector spring before  the casing is fully  clear of the chamber, and push the casing forward past - rather than pivot around - the extractor.  Hence, the casing may not leave the receiver, and may in fact try to snuggle the gas tube, while the next cartridge is being stripped from the mag and attempts to chamber.

Talk about a frustrating year  THAT was.

The SARP Newsletter at the time I think said the C7 was capable of 1,000 RBTF (rounds between failure).

We should be at that now, all things being equal.

Cleaning: at the time - 1987 - the bolts and bolt carriers were not serial numbered to the wpn.  Since the 'dirty parts' of the gas system were now on the bolt carrier assy, and since no one ever got the same bolt, no one bothered to do a real good job cleaning them.  After the first two shoots, I got some baggage tags from the AMU and - much to the initial consternation of the SQMS shop (who then saw the method to my madness) - tagged each guys bolt carrier.  "What you clean is what you get" I said.  Worked.. spotless carriers, spaced gas rings, cut stoppages by 90%.

Tom

 

[SteveB]

True that.  I saw inumerable stopages due to those strong ejector springs.  Many weapons wouldn't do through a mag without a stoppage.  Once fixed, the same wpn & bolt would beat that 1000 MRBF all to hell.  You could tell if the ejector spring was too strong by where the empty casings would pile up.  If they are anywhere aft of 3 o'clock, the spring is probably too strong.  About 2 feet away at 2 o'clock is ideal.

Steve

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

i have never heard of customizing your svc weapon. beyond sighting it in, putt the sling on it and adjusting it to your comfort level

The old fn had a few more personal adustments, stock size, and depended how well you oiled the wood.

SVC weapons are just that, one is inter changable with another.

cannot have every  soldier putting their own scopes on,  sites, or adjust firecontrol, or bring own bullets.
you learn to use what  you are given, it is your fav hunting rifle , that  was sused b 3 generation before you

 

[KevinB]

and adjusting it to your comfort level

Key....