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

[Redeye]

About the M16A2, the US Army long had a deeply entrenched and historical view which argued that carefully aimed, long-range rifle fire is superior to the high-volume but largely unaimed bursts of automatic weapons. Those who argued for aimed fire believed that good marksmanship and judicious control win battles and conserve ammunition.

The M16A1 was actually a full auto rifle, but the US Army made a few improvements and decided to go with the 3 round burst and remove full auto for the reasons mentioned above.

The C7, or C7A1 (scoped) is made by Diemaco (www.diemaco.com) and is a modified M16A2.

Actually, I'm not sure of your source, but everything I've ever read suggests that the addition of three-round burst to the M16 was a reaction to the sheer volume of ammunition consumed by US soldiers in Vietnam not exercising sound fire discipline and dumping whole magazines of unaimed fire.  Refer to the pics of guys holding their M16s over top of fire trenches and spraying haphazard for an example.

The C7 family is based not on the A2, but actually on the A1.  That's why they have A1 sights on the iron model.  IIRC the actual design it's taken from is Colt Model 735 (or maybe it's 715), also known as the M16A1E3.

 

[Goober]

It is quite possible the only reason they removed the full auto was to save ammo, perhaps only after the fact did they say that good marksmanship was a factor aswell.

I believe the c7 was based on the Colt 715, the reason I thought it was based on the M16A2 is because while it has the rear sight of the M16A1 it has the barrel of the M16A2. Of course I could be wrong, I have some old books on automatic rifles, I did a quick google search and

Here is a quote from this web page http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-3.html that states the C7 "is to become a variant of the Colt M16A2" which leads me to believe they took the M16A1 as the base and made some improvements similar to the M16A2.

February: After trials pitting the FN FNC versus the M16A1E1, the Canadian government decides for the latter. Diemaco in Ontario is granted $1.7 million for the Small Arms Replacement Program. 79,935 rifles and 1,565 carbines are ordered. The C7 rifle is to become a variant of the Colt M16A2, albeit retaining the full-auto mode, rear sight, and shorter buttstock pattern of the M16A1. (Diemaco claims to have eventually made 150 changes to the TDP.) The C8 carbine is closer to the profile of the old Model 653 carbine, updated to the 1-in-7" twist and other 'M16A2' improvements (except for the M16A1-style rear sight). The C8 is to retain 86% parts commonality with the C7. Colt designates these Canadian variants, the Model 715 and 725 respectively. In addition, 470,570 Thermold magazines are ordered, along with 6,500 FN Minimi built to Canadian specs as the C9.

 

[Danjanou]

Count me as one of those who thinks the Aussie peelback is/was the best thing since sliced bread. To go off on a slight tangent about it to demonstrate that sometimes rock and roll in a nice thing to have.

I first learned the peelback down in the states on an exchange ex. (I don't think the Yanks were the ones who taught it to us, probably the other way around, but that was where it was shown to me).We were using borrowed M-16s and it worked just great.

Back home when we tried in with the old SMG, FNC1, FNC2, combo in a patrol, not quite as effective. I still taught it as Gospel to every section/platoon I ever had. Later when SARP came in and we had the C7/C9 while I was reminded just why I kept drumming it into poor troopies heads.

It works and it works well, but only due to the amount of fire put down range quickly. think about your BDs and Reaction to effective enemy fir: it's "double tap dash down crawl observe fire" right. (land someone please tell this tired old grunt that this hasn't been replaced by some SHARP concept  of "yoohoo please don't shoot at me"). Those couple of rounds automatically coming down range are the last thing the yahoo who opened up on you is expecting and it may give you the seconds to get down and into a fire position where you can reagin the initiative, win the fire fight and get up and smoke his worthless arse.

Now multiple that a hundred fold a nd you have a peel back down properly with full auto wpns. Again the last thing the munt behind that LMG covering the trip flare or whatever is expecting you to do is put a full mag at him and run away. He fully expects you to stand there frozen like some deer in a headlight and die. Same deal with the anti ambush drill right. Ambush right/left CHARGE and fight through the ambush with max firepower and violence is your only chance of getting out of it alive.
(and if he's a sneaky bugger like me and laid it out right then you're still going to die).

Full auto or rock and roll does have it's uses on the battlefield as does well aimed effective shots. The former is used more often, at least by trained well lead and discipline troops (which everyone on this board in uniform should either be or aspire to be). However look at full auto as an insurance policy, there for those rare times when you need it. It don't cost much ( hey it's built into the wpn). You don't buy fire insurance hoping your house will burn down, or travel insurance hoping you'll break your leg getting off the plane in Jamaica, but you still do buy it right? At least you do if you're smart.

 

[D-n-A]

Some stats you may find interesting.

"Studies of frontline combat during WW2 reveal that US troops expended 25, 000 small arms rounds for every enemy soldier they killed. In the Korean Warthe number doubled to 50, 000 rounds per enemy death. By the time the United States went to war in South East Asia, technological advances in weapons had made it possible to place a fully automatic rifle in the hands of every American infantryman, and the firepower of fully automatic "rock and roll" resulted in the expenditure of 200,000 rounds of ammunition for every enemy body."

Taken from
Inside the Crosshairs: Snipers in Vietnam
Michae lee Lanning

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good book.

One thing you have to remember about the war in Vietnam was that it was all about the body count.  Commanders wanted to report to their commanders a high kill count. This led to a lot of kill counts being larger then they were which makes me wonder how accurate some of the statistics that came out of Vietnam were.

I've actually read that if you totaled all the recorded "kills" of enemy soldiers in Vietnam it's actually 2 or 3 times the amount of the entire population of the country.

 

[portcullisguy]

Does anyone here have any experience with the M16A4?  My unit is going to the US this month, and apparently I will be the #3 M16A4 rifleman for my "squad" (section).

I have found only conflicting info on the web about it (it's in service, it's not in service debates mainly).

I suppose I will be an expert on them in a couple of weeks, but I'd like to find out more before I get hands on.  Is it supposed to have the same 3-rd burst feature as the M16A2?  Does it have the C7-style casing deflector, etc?

 

[D-n-A]

http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp

 

[Smoothbore]

M16A4...still cannot compete with the 7,62 mm M14.

I had the chance to fire my friends M1A rifle (a commercial version of the M14 produced by Springfield Armory). That weapon can sure pack a punch, we used a thick oak tree as a target which was placed directly behind a small lake. I sent a couple rounds downrange and was disappointed to see that the shots missed the tree, as I could see the bullets splashing into the reservoir. Upon closer inspection I was amazed to find out that the rounds went through the tree leaving gaping exit holes on the other end. That thing can drop a man dead at 600 m unlike the 5,56 mm M16 series that supposedly overpenetrates unnarmed personell without significant damage.

 

[kyleg]

Although I understand that the larger the wound the more likely a person is to be stopped, doesnt the fact that he/she actually has a hole in his/her torso usually mean that death is quite possibly imminent? I may be wrong, as I am only 2 weeks into my BMQ, but it has always been my understanding that a sucking chest wound will collapse your lung, then drown you in your own blood, and an abdominal wound will allow various digestive fluids to get into places they aren't supposed to be, eventually killing the victim, if not treated asap. At the very least I would expect a hole through my belly button to slow me down enough to be finished off by other fire or artillery.

- ptegremlin

 

[Yard Ape]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/1799.0

 

[Goober]

M16A4...still cannot compete with the 7,62 mm M14.

I had the chance to fire my friends M1A rifle (a commercial version of the M14 produced by Springfield Armory). That weapon can sure pack a punch, we used a thick oak tree as a target which was placed directly behind a small lake. I sent a couple rounds downrange and was disappointed to see that the shots missed the tree, as I could see the bullets splashing into the reservoir. Upon closer inspection I was amazed to find out that the rounds went through the tree leaving gaping exit holes on the other end. That thing can drop a man dead at 600 m unlike the 5,56 mm M16 series that supposedly overpenetrates unnarmed personell without significant damage.

I agree somewhat, but the M14 7.62 NATO round rifle was too light for its fire power, and recoiled too much, anything more than a single shot or short burst was wildly un-accurate. While having a long range, and good penetration power, the rifle itself was too long and cumbersome for the troops. The M16 was slightly more compact but still offered great distance and good stopping power with selective fire as well.

 

[Goober]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/1799.0

Wow great thread!

 

[Farmboy]

I agree somewhat, but the M14 7.62 NATO round rifle was too light for its fire power, and recoiled too much, anything more than a single shot or short burst was wildly un-accurate. While having a long range, and good penetration power, the rifle itself was too long and cumbersome for the troops.

The M14  and M1A are IMO better "battle rifles" than any of the M4, M16, C7 ect. rifles, and definately not to long or cumbersome. On full auto though, it was difficult to control as you say.  The only advantage the C7 style rifle has is it smaller for CQB/FIBUA and you can carry more ammo. However it goes back to the certian rifles for certain missions debate.

Winning a firefight in most theaters requires steady aimed fire, not rapid fire.  :sniper:                                      :fifty:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think the M14 is a more sturdy rifle.  I've shot the M1A and it had a great feel to it. Longer range, more hitting power, no plastic parts.  If someone is really bothered by the recoil, well i dint know what to say about that.  Don't join the infantry.

I agree with the comment about CQB/FIBUA/MOUNT/FISH. I think the M4/C8 is more effective in a close environment and we seem to be finding ourselves in those situations more than say a rice paddy or in the mountains. 

While the US are still doing operations in the mountains of Afghanistan I've read they rely on mortars, platoon support weapons and sniper assets so the shorter range of the 5.56 isn't much of a problem.

I'm not sure why people worry so much about automatic fire. When when you are using automatic fire it's called "burst" fire and your only shooting 3 -5  rounds at a time. It's practically the same as  a 3 round burst.

 

[Farmboy]

If only we could take our own eh?

 

[Jarnhamar]

What kind of rifles are those farmboy?
One looks like a remmington m700 police sniper?

 

[Farmboy]

Both are Savages, mine on the left is the new one with McMillan stock and the accu-trigger. My buddies is an older model with a Robertson stock.

 

[Enzo]

Smoothbore - What did that tree ever do to you eh?   :

The larger 7.62 will most definitely affect your day, but accuracy is paramount. So if a lethal shot is inflicted with a 5.56/7.62/5.45/.22LR; dead is dead. Weight of the rifle, amount of ammunition carried, etc... are all factors. As for carrying what we'd all like, as nice at that would be and we all have our personal preferences (I'm sure the navy won't mind if I bring a Para Ordinance "Stealth" P14-45/H&K .45ACP UMP instead of the issue Sig P225/H&K 9mm MP5 on future boarding ops) it doesn't take long to see the inherent logistical issues eh.

Beyond that, the discussions become academic. There have been reports of merc's (sorry uh... private consultant, protection specialists?? What are we calling these guys now?) in Iraq using some 5.56mm ammunition that has apparently caused massive damage upon contact with flesh. This isn't exactly well documented, so I'm referring to this hesitantly. The point is, that while the bigger bullets may be appealing, you still have to carry them and fire them accurately. The little stuff does the trick also. I'm in the, "practice with what you've got" camp. For practice does make perfect.

Then again, I'd probably prefer to have a pulse laser rifle in the 40 watt range eh ;D

 

[Moltar]

That thing can drop a man dead at 600 m unlike the 5,56 mm M16 series that supposedly overpenetrates unnarmed personell without significant damage.



It's actually the heavier bullets that have a problem of overpenetration.   The whole premise behind the light weight/ high velocity rounds like the 5.56mm, is that that mass and velocity are balanced in such a way as to keep the projectile just barely stable in flight.   It is very susceptible to external forces acting on it's trajectory, i.e. contact with flesh, which causes it to tumble and fragment in the body, creating massive internal wounds, rather than gaping exit holes.   Unfortunately, it also falls victim to things like wind, and contact with foliage more easily than a heavier round like the 7.62mm.

 

[Farmboy]

The bullet itself determines penetration depth, not caliber or wieght, although that plays a small part.

As for the 5.56s effects on the human body  :-\